Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Help Dealing with AI Slop

Hey y'all,

I have recently come across two editors, @StoryWritter1 and @HistoryRiderIndia, who have contributed nothing but AI-generated slop over the past year across a variety of articles. I first discovered this on the article for Rajarajeshwara Temple which I stumbled across while cleaning reference tags, and after 30 minutes attempting to see if I could salvage anything, I made the choice to revert. I have now come to realize that this LLM-generated content, complete with fake citations and accidentally included ChatGPT headers, is not just limited to the earlier article but also to articles such as Madayi Kavu and Kottiyoor Vysakha Mahotsavam. Before I reverted those, I thought it might be best to ask for help from somebody more experienced than I am. What are the next steps towards cleaning up these articles?

3602kiva (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, 3602kiva! I would start by reading the main page of and putting a notice on the talk page of the AI Cleanup Wikiproject, where other editors who have worked on cleaning up LLM issues can give more advice or lend a hand. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! new editor here. Actually had a question about this. I've been writing in a notepad and then copy and pasting into the editor. Wikipedia then like auto adds extra HTML slop -- that seems wrong. It's not AI, but Is there a way to get Wikipedia to stop doing that? GenSmark (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi GenSmark. What kinds of HTML is it giving? For example, bold/italic formatting, font/color variations, a-href of links, "nowiki" or ampersand for special characters, etc.? One possible trick is to first paste into a new notepad document and remove all formatting...that should paste into Wikipedia as without formatting rather than with incorect formatting, and then you can use proper WP formatting directly in the WP editor. DMacks (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All of it? It like inserts auto html for some reason. a lot of it says nowiki. I'll try the notepad idea. Thank you! GenSmark (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It appears from their talk pages that neither editor has been advised that this is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

In the talk page of one of the articles, one of the editors has written an AI-generated essay contesting the quality of their AI-generated work. It's all a bunch of BS - some stuff about double standards.

In any case, I'll drop in those toothless AI warning messages to the two of them.

3602kiva (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If you think our current AI warning message templates are "toothless ", you are free to write your own bespoke messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Promotional Tune

Hi, Everytime I posted about this company and It got rejected that Its promotional while other same like companies have used same tune. Rollno007 (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:General Petroleum GmbH

Hi @Rollno007: firstly, your draft has been declined, not rejected; decline means you're allowed to resubmit after addressing the decline reasons, whereas rejection would mean the end of the road.

Secondly, my decline was not for "promotional tune" (or even tone), it was for complete lack of evidence that this subject is in any way notable per WP:NCORP.

The earlier decline was because the reviewer felt that the draft had been composed using AI. It is true that one of the hallmarks of AI-generated text is 'promotional tone', but there are many others (as explained in the decline notice), and this draft wasn't specifically declined for promotional tone.

As for any other articles that may be out there, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. A common, and perhaps even understandable one, but a fallacy all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! New editor here -- in the samples that Wikipedia is suggesting for copy edit, many of them seem promotional, like they were written by the subject of the article. Am I supposed to edit them so they seem neutral, flag them, or? GenSmark (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Collapsing Comments Claiming LLM

Just wondering if anyone has any advice on what to do if people are collapsing comments claiming LLM in an active RFC? Sombodystolemyname (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Collapsing them is per the WP:AITALK guideline. What (conceptually) do you want to do? For example, do you object to their collapsing it? Do you wish to make a comment in the discussion that is a response to part of the collapsed comment? Do you think the comment should be deleted altogether? DMacks (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that they are LLM and that they are collapsing them to effectively remove things they don't like from the discussion. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

They are obviously AI, do you think people can’t tell?

Part of collapsing them is to get you all to stop using the hallucination machine to misquote policies, and read them for yourselves. That will help stop wasting everyone’s time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the relevant policy. Perhaps it would be worth reading?

Comments that are obviously generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed with {{Collapse AI top}}.Please see Wikipedia:Large language models for why we do this. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks I guess to better answer your question of what I want to do, I would like to object to their collapsing it during the active RFC. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a "Discussion" section in the RFC? Or look at who collapsed it and ask on their user talk page. I can fairly assure you won't get the response you want, but it's up to you how long you feel like objecting and whether it's worth being seen as increasingly disruptive rather than constructively contributing substance to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks See Talk:Zak_Smith#Please_stop_collapsing_comments_you_disagree_with. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware. DMacks (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I was the editor who collapsed the AI comments (and not even the first to do so). Immediately after, I left a comment in the RfC discussion section with a bit more detail than my edit summary. I explained that "comments are retained in full with this template so if someone wants context for the discussion underneath, they can review". If they had a concerns, they could have responded there. In terms of AI indicators, one of the most obvious ones on the page has been the use of HTML markup instead of Wiki markup (ex. <b>HTML for bold</b> vs '''wiki for bold'''). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sombodystolemyname You have already objected to that. Polygnotus (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend ignoring it. People obviously don't want to spend their time and energy debating an LLM. Polygnotus (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a good way to oppose that collapsing is there, I really do think they are doing it to suppress comments. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sombodystolemyname No, they are not doing it to suppress comments, Wikipedians are very used to people disagreeing with them and develop a thicker skin than most (and canvassed opinions will be ignored anyway when gauging consensus). They are doing it because they are sick and tired of dealing with AI slop. Polygnotus (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, you could only think that if you’ve ignore literally everything everyone said in response to the LLM comments.

That doesn’t help persuade anyone, it just makes it clear you can’t think of a response MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

When can you start creating taxonomy templates?

I am currently creating an article about the galeaspid fish Sanchaspis, and I'm using an automic taxobox. To create it, I need to create a template with this animal's taxonomy, but it says i have to wait until I'm no longer a new user to be able to create the template. How long does this take? Is there any other way do create a functioning taxobox without it?

Thanks in advance,

Nasikabatrachus Nasikabatrachus (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• autonomic taxobox Nasikabatrachus (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Why can't you use an existing taxobox that is used for all the other fish articles on Wikipedia? You don't have to create a whole new template, instead you use an existing template and just fill in the fields. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I'm creating the automatic taxobox, a "missing taxonomy template: fix" message appears, and when you click fix, it redirects you to the creation page of the template. Put I don't have permission to create it because "Due to the high impact of editing taxonomy templates, it has been decided to disallow new users to edit them. If this template needs to be fixed, feel free to leave a notice at this template's talk page, using a {{edit semi-protected}} tag to attract the attention of editors." I have done a little bit of investigation and turns out every species has a taxonomy template with its name, so I have to create mine. Nasikabatrachus (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you using the WISYWYG editor or the source editor?

I have no idea what you mean by "automatic taxobox". If that isn't working for you, then, as I said, go to any fish article. You'll see it uses {{Speciesbox}}. Go read the page Template:Speciesbox. The template has many fields to fill in. Put the empty template in your article and fill in the fields. It's best if you do this with the source editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've used the manual taxobox and my article is now pending for review! Nasikabatrachus (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I found a picture on Commons and added it to the taxobox. Are there any additional sources you can cite? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think not but I'll see! Nasikabatrachus (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft of article about Professor Perry Samson

Hello, I have drafted an article about Professor Perry Samson, an American meteorologist, educator, and entrepreneur. I am disclosing a conflict of interest since I am the subject of the article (see Talk page disclosure).

The draft includes reliable secondary sources such as coverage in *The Michigan Daily*, *Ann Arbor News*, University at Albany publications, and recognition by the American Meteorological Society. I would greatly appreciate if independent editors could review the draft for neutrality, style, and notability before it is submitted to mainspace.

Draft link: Draft:Perry Samson

Thank you very much for your time and guidance! Perry Samson (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Somebody move the draft to Perry's sandbox. I don't have the skillz. - Roxy the dog 16:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pjsamson, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid you are probably on a hiding to nothing. Autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because almost nobody has ever managed to do it successfully.

As far as I can see, almost all your sources are not independent of you (they are published by your institutions, or are based on interviews) and the one that might be (the Ann Arbor News) is not about you but about the company.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. Once you have found several publications that each meet all the criteria in WP:42, you will need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say. Do you see why most people cannot do this?

In addition there is the procedural question that you have started the article in the wrong place: your user page is for sharing information about you as a Wikipedia article: while a limited amount of more general information about yourself is acceptable, it is not a place to write an article. However, that can be moved.

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. And that is even without the Conflict of Interest. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I heartily endorse what Colin says above. - Roxy the dog 17:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Pjsamson, The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper and many editors are skeptical that coverage in such newspapers helps establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Article not accepted

Could you please clarify why a genuine article is not being accepted at all?”

 Courtesy link: Draft:Lizy K Fernandez

I recently submitted an article for Lizy K Fernandez, which was unfortunately rejected. I would like to kindly request a review of this decision.

The entry was prepared with genuine information, supported by verifiable citations from reliable sources, and structured in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and formal requirements. Despite this, the article did not get accepted, and I am seeking clarification on the specific reasons for its rejection.

Could you please provide guidance on what additional improvements or references are required for the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards? I am more than willing to make the necessary revisions to ensure compliance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Abhilash2006 19:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there Abhilash2006. @Afstromen is the last reviewer to decline the draft, perhaps they might like to weigh in. I'm seeing the potential for notability here, but I'm struggling to help because I am entirely unfamiliar with Indian film. What I can say is that the "Personal life" section either needs citations added, or to be removed. There remains uncited statements under "Film career" and "Media ventures". I would start there - and attempt to introduce more sources from a wider variety of publications - and then resubmit to see what the next reviewer says. You're aiming to meet WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO at least. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It's entirely possible this WP:BLP subject is not well covered in reliable sources. In my opinion, the sourcing is very weak. Sure, the subject has done this, that, and the other thing, but not a single source you provided actually directly details the subject herself. Just because you might verify her single produced and acted script doesn't mean she's more notable than tens of thousands of other film and musical artists in Kerala. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists. You're looking for independent and reliable sources which discuss Fernandez's career and its impact. My reasonable WP:BEFORE search doesn't find anything helpful. But I'm looking in English-translated sources. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to have at least three sources that meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Filmmaker article rejected

Hi! I'm trying to submit an article about a filmmaker who has made two globally recognized indie films. She is not a major celebrity, but there are plenty of folks of her stature in the industry who are on here. It keeps getting rejected, even after I add more footnotes. They are rejected always as "passing mentions." I'm a bit at a loss here - should I take away her short films from her filmography? Add puff pieces centered on her from less respected publications, which I didn't really want to do?

The problem is not the language, since it's the exact same language used on other current articles on Wikipedia about other indie filmmakers of a similar career stage. Nsandgw (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry - the link is Draft:Nicola Rose. Nsandgw (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nsandgw At the top of the draft there is a note saying: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of web content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Add puff pieces centered on her from less respected publications No, we need WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE in WP:RELIABLE sources. Polygnotus (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok - sounds like I should wait on her, but maybe put up her film, since her 1st one is already up there. This is sort of odd but no matter! Nsandgw (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nsandgw Please look at the links on the WP:TALKPAGE, Draft talk:Nicola Rose. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Nsandgw. Also worth noting is that the draft was declined, which means that you are welcome to resubmit after making substantive improvements. If it was rejected, that would be the end of the line. Notability is all about the quality and the depth of the coverage of this person in multiple reliable, independent sources. There is nothing "sort of odd" about following the policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a top ten website worldwide for decades. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have two questions for anyone who can answer. I have read through the articles, but not sure:

1) Would it make sense to remove any of the articles already there?

2) Would it make sense to add articles on the subject that aren't from big publications? Nsandgw (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes. Puff pieces or other things that don't meet the criteria described in WP:Golden Rule can be removed. The only reason to keep any would be for verification of something the subject says, if the draft needs to quote it or use it (like a birth date).

2. Yes, if the publication are considered independent of the subject and reliable; meaning they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Typically if the publication has a staff of reporters along with an editorial team, and their articles have bylines, that's a good sign. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it may take more time, even though I see plenty of similar stature who’ve gotten past. That’s the part that’s odd - not anything else. Appreciate your clarifications. 2603:7080:E505:372E:9CA:5BB8:713D:51C3 (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nsandgw Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Turner Street (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

About create/edit articles

Hi I want to create/edit articles which :

• Are in the draft process/ or are not only created
• Are outside the contentious topics (if in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal)

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Sarim Wani (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sarim Wani, by "articles which [a]re in the draft process", I think you mean drafts. But what do you mean by "articles which are not only created"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sarim Wani Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been given plenty of advice on your talk page; what other help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

UK government website

I corrected a wikipedia page, because it was out of date. I included a link to a UK government website as proof. Somebody 'corrected' it so that it is now out of date and wrong.

How can I stop sonmeone, who is clearly badly informed, from correcting a simple update on a matter of fact, verified by a UK government website? Olde Danny Boy (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Olde Danny Boy Your edit history shows only this edit at the Teahouse. Please can you link the article in question so we can comment? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Remove a page from a category

Hello, how do you remove the page on smile direct club from the mass shootings in Tennessee category page? There were 2 people outside of the shooter shot and only the shooter died. If someone else can do it, that works too. Thanks! Category:Mass shootings in Tennessee SnowyTulips (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SnowyTulips. Categories are not added or removed in the category page. They are added and removed in the articles within those categories. So, you would need to edit the "smile directly club" article to remove the category, which is at the very end of the wikicode. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the category was added to a redirect page, and I have removed it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! SnowyTulips (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Image of Polyspora multinervis

i was clicking random articles and i saw this page Polyspora multinervis, but there is no image. so my idea is to add this image https://www.flickr.com/photos/ys_yeoh/7050140603/in/photostream/ i did not take that photo btw. i just searched that plant up and that was the first image that showed up N51 DELTA TALK 19:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done we can't add that image User:N51 Delta, as it clearly states "© all rights reserved." we can only use copyright-free images - Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have left a message on the Flickr page, asking the photographer to kindly release the image under a compatible licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Help!

How do I get autoconfirmed? OfficiaILido (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

By making constructive edits, following careful thought and, where relevant, the reading and digestion of reliable sources. If you're in a rush to get autoconfirmed, why is this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not in a big rush I am instead just trying to edit more pages. Just wondering the requirements? OfficiaILido (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@OfficiaILido the autoconfirmed people need to have their account at least 4 days old and have 10 constructive edits. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@OfficiaILido Your account is autoconfirmed, you have already met the requirements at WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

“Several actions on the English Wikipedia (such as article creation) are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits.” - WP:AUTOCONFIRM

You might also find the following information useful:

“A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically one edit after the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. ” - WP:XCON 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Previous abandoned account

I had a previous account here at @UnitedFixing but I forgot the password and made my current account. I am worried about it being used against me for accusation of sockpuppetry despite me basically abandoning it because I forgot the password. Should I try to get it deleted in some kind of way, leave it alone, or make a note about on my current account. Zaptain United (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Zaptain United if you want to, you can leave a note on your user page about your old account. It would be invalid to bring sockpuppetry accusations against someone where the edits are non-overlapping, due to the possibility of cases such as yours where someone has lost an account and made a second one instead, so you don't need to worry. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zaptain United: You can also redirect your old user page and talk page to your new user page and talk page. That's what I did; my old username was User:Amatulic but it redirects to my new username if you click on it. Also on my new user page I disclose my old username. If you don't have overlapping edits in the same topics, nobody would accuse you of sockpuppetry.

In my case, I can still access my old account, and I've considered using it as my "normal editor" account and my current one as my "administrator only" account, but it gets too complicated, so I just use this one. I guess I'd log in as my old username if I had to log in from a public computer like in a library, but it hasn't come up. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Randomly throttled

When trying to save an edit to the page Happily Ever After (Magic Kingdom), I was met with the following message:

However, at the time this message showed up, it had been approximately 3 hours since my last edit at the time I got that message! Luckily, the second time I clicked the Publish changes button, then the edit saved with no problem. Just a minor, unfair annoyance that happens to me occasionally. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You might get this if you're accessing Wikipedia through a VPN that several other people are also using to access Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't using a VPN, but I was on a dynamic IP address. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the guy who had the IP address just before you was using to make rapid edits to Wikipedia. Some people try to run unauthorized bots, for example. We normally block those when found, but if we did, then you would have found yourself blocked too instead of just throttled, when the IP address was assigned to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait, what? Are you saying that the IP address would've been hard blocked? If it was soft blocked, I would not find myself blocked while logged in! RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

If we see rapid-fire abuse coming from an account, it is hard blocked, which means the IP address is also blocked, effectively blocking anyone who logs in from that IP address. A hard block of a rampantly-disruptive account prevents the creation of sockpuppet accounts. Clearly, that didn't happen to you.

Honestly, I have never seen this throttling message, it's the first I ever heard of it. I was just speculating on reasons why it could have happened. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it will stop happening when I become autoconfirmed, which will occur if I wait a few more days. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize you're new here. You have enough edits under your belt, but your account has 3 days to go. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So, I think I know what to do. Looks like all I need to do now is... wait, I guess? RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You can wait, or stay busy improving things that need improving. You don't really need autoconfirmed for much except for editing semi-protected articles and creating new articles in main space (which I don't recommend; use the WP:Article Wizard instead). Even if you run into a semi-protected article that needs a correction, you can always request an edit on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and 1st article

Hi, I published my first article and it's got my first review. I was able to fix the errors they stated, so I'm still waiting on new feedback. In the meantime, I'd like to know what you think so far and if there are new suggestions to avoid getting my article deleted and/or my account blocked? Draft:Joe Polish

Thank you! Luichi luichi (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been deleted in accordance with WP:G15, because even your "fix" consisted of AI slop that contained hallucinated sources as well as ridiculous sources like "buy it here" Amazon links. Start over. Find good sources first before you write a single word, and write it in your own words. The AI can help you with sources, but you should write the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Translation publication

Hi,

I wanted to ask for help or guidelines for the publication of my translations. I recently translated User:Niekshas/Joseph Ehret This is an article about one of the most famous Lithuanian journalist/publicist and the founder of ELTA. I translated it from Lithuanian https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juozas_Eretas, but I don't have the publication rights. Perhaps someone could simply approve it and publish (or provide me with guidelines for corrections, if necessary)? Niekshas (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I moved your draft to draft space at Draft:Joseph Ehret and added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Niekshas (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Niekshas Your draft looks promising but needs many more inline citations, which is typical when translating articles since some other Wikipedia's are less stringent about the verification policy than we are here. For example you say he never forgot his second homeland: according to whom is that true? There are some minor matters like sticking to the guidance at MOS:SURNAME (so just "Ehret", not "J. Ehret" in most of the text) but these are easily fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC -- Question

Hi! An editor rejected this draft for lack of notability. However, I included multiple reputed independent secondary sources that cover the subject, so I am unsure why the submission was rejected (especially instead of declined, given that the previous evaluator confirmed that there was at least one source that qualified but that there were more needed, to which I added 2-3 more applicable ones -- even then, that would also mean that there is enough matter on the subject that it *could* warrant a draft). My evaluator provided no justification to the rejection so I was willing to understand if their rejection was fair.

Thank you!

Draft:Rao Mulpuri. Asf132 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

We would need multiple, reliable independent sources with significant coverage of Mulpuri to have an article on him. It is not a question of simply having "enough matter". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood, I also found an additional source on the matter that covers the subject in depth that could be used as a replacement for one of the Business Insider articles to count as an additional reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject. By the most pessimistic assumption, I believe there were already at least two that would qualify

https://www.aol.com/view-ceo-rao-mulpuri-saw-154707937.html?guccounter=1

However, I am unable to edit the article due to the status of the draft, so I am wondering where to go from here given that the subject has the capability to have a draft written about them, just not from me/in its current state. So I am wondering if either I would be allowed to rewrite a draft or have someone else clean up a potential draft for the subject that is publish-able since it seems that the subject in totality is notable, just not the way the draft was written. Asf132 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The draft was rejected by me because it had been resubmitted several times without really addressing the main issue of notability. The new sources you added still don’t provide the kind of in-depth, independent coverage about the person that Wikipedia requires under the general notability guideline—they mostly discuss company matters rather than the individual. When a draft keeps coming back without resolving that core concern, and the subject still doesn’t seem to meet notability, a rejection is used instead of a decline to prevent repeated cycles without progress. If you still believe the subject is notable, you can move it to mainspace. Thanks and regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Crowd-based source?

Hi Wikipedians, recently I've been trying to edit an article about an airline fleet but I haven't been available to find a non crowd based source like a publication, all I can find is crowd-based information which I know is correct but I'm wondering whether that would be an acceptable source as per the reliable source guidelines since things like airline fleets are very fluid and can change from day to day. StrayaRules (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, StrayaRules. Use of crowd sourced content as references is not permitted on Wikipedia. All sources used as references must comply with the Reliable source guideline. The specific quote is Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources.Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Submitting an article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Donald A. Barclay

Hi,

I submitted an article that was rejected by "rangerruss" on the following grounds:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The article I submitted cites 12 "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which is more than most articles I read on Wikipedia. I tried to push back on this decision, I got the following response:

Comment: Please do not submit multiple copies of drafts. It does not increase the likelihood that one of them will be accepted into article space, and annoys the reviewers. It is likely to be seen as an effort to game the system, and may result in the drafts being nominated for deletion. If you did not intend to create multiple copies of a draft, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse about submitting drafts for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to submit a multiple copy of my draft, though I might have done so unintentionally.

My article, which is admittedly autobiographical, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am the author or co-author of over a dozen books published by completely legitimate scholarly or commercial publishers. What do I do next?

Thanks for any advice you can provide.

Donald A. Barclay (aka Dog-519) Dog-519 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Dog-519. Vast swathes of your draft autobiography are entirely unreferenced, which is a violation of policy. Sources written by you are by definition not independent sources. As explained in WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Over 99% of editors who try autobiographies end up failing. The few who succeed have an outstanding understanding of Wikipedia’s Policies and guidelines which you currently lack. As for being a published author, most published authors are not eligible for Wikipedia biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There are countless book authors published by legitimate publishers. This doesn't make them notable. It is also possible for a book to be notable but the author is not, because the book has received independent reviews and might even be a best-seller, but the author has received no coverage. Such was the case for a draft I wrote about an author once, who wrote a best seller but isn't notable himself. The reviewer suggested I recast the draft to be about his Gameknight999 books, which were actually notable, so I did, and it turned out to be a better article, which got approved. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above, reviews of your books may prove the notability of the books you've written, but not necessarily you as the author. Profiles of you from Google Scholar or organizations you were or are affiliated with may not be considered substantial or independent. -- Reconrabbit 20:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I don't know much about wikipedia. An IP has removed some sourced content with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1302324758 apart from removing more text in the previous 2 edits. Can someone restore the same please (reverting all 3 edits)?-49.205.132.45 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. The reason given in that edit was "None of the sources quoted are authentic". If you disagree with this, please follow our Dispute resolution process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft deletions

Draft:Kundi Village.

So this draft doesn't have any actual sources, and is probably not wp:notable, but does notability apply to places? Can this draft be WP:CSDed? Should I take it to WP:MfD? Or should I just like it sit for 6 months? The creator/only editor is blocked. --pro-anti-air (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pro-anti-air. Other editors can improve the draft whether or not the author is blocked, so it shouldn't be deleted until the 6 month mark passes. Notability doesn't apply because drafts are there for improvement. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: Notability does indeed apply to all topics published in mainspace. Including places. It doesn't apply to a draft that hasn't been approved, however, because it's possible that it could be improved to the point of being acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air The established notability requirements for settlements is in my opinion very liberal and is given at WP:GEOLAND. There is a recent essay on this topic which suggests a slightly more stringent requirement: WP:SETTLETHRESH. However, that draft seems to exceed what is required according to these criteria, so I'm not sure why User:Tarlby declined it. Obviously, it would benefit from more sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Liberal indeed! In my view, Wikipedia's notability requirements for biographies are far too lax, leaving us with articles about truly notable individuals who have had a huge impact on history, culture, science, etc. right next to COI-authored articles about obscure artists and youtube influencers just because they happened to get some regional press. I often find myself wishing that we had adopted the print encyclopedia guideline of having articles about people only after they're dead. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because the source doesn't match the article at all. --pro-anti-air (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air That's weird. The URL was wrong and I have updated it [1]. The information from the new URL needs to be incorporated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done --pro-anti-air (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Should I resubmit it or just directly move it to mainspace? --pro-anti-air (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If you moved it to mainspace, it would likely be speedy deleted because notability hasn't been established, seeing that only one source is cited. There are several assertions in the article that don't cite anything at all. It would be best to find more sources and submit for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Curious about moving my first two articles from draft to main!

I'm really enjoying editing Wikipedia and I'm learning a lot as I go! I'm interested in the new music part of the classical music world, which means I'm used to reading pretty rattily formatted stubs on the part of Wikipedia that I use, so I keep on learning more and more as I read more style guides. I tried editing both with the wizard and also just in the sandbox as well as with the visual editor and the source editor--and I had a very different experience moving the draft article I created in wizard and the draft article I created in my sandbox!

My questions:

1. I'm not sure if I successfully moved this one for review: Draft:Allison Loggins-Hull is the name! I don't even know if that is the right way to link it here, but I'm so excited!
2. My other question is about using Allmusic. I read that it is considered a "reputable" source for album-related information--but I am curious about using it for anything outside a list of albums; do you respect their biographical information or reject it? Individual third-party biographers do take named credit for the classical music bios on that site.
3. I kept these first two articles really short and tried to stick to information backed up in a reputable journalistic source instead of personal websites or websites of the myriad orchestras where they worked or that premiered their pieces--I'm afraid it presents an unbalanced and impoverished biography of the people I chose and I wouldn't want to affect their notability by only using random information that made it into concert reviews. The more complete articles of other people in new music are largely not cited and have usually been flagged for years, but I hate that. For reference, the second article I drafted is Draft:David Bloom (conductor). Do you think this is presenting a person who is quite famous in the field as relatively inexperienced?
4. I'm a Sorabji nerd and I love that the man who runs the Sorabji Archive created such a beautiful and detailed Wikipedia page that it got recognition (Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji)! I can assure you that no Sorabji nerd wants this page shorter and I aspire to write articles like this! But how will I know if I've written an article about a future topic that is too in-depth?

OperaNewMusicFan (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OperaNewMusicFan, welcome to the teahouse! Glad you're excited about Wikipedia!

I've gone ahead and slapped a draft template on the Loggins-Hall page. You can press the little "submit for review" link and the page will be put in a queue of pages ready for review through the Articles for Creation process.

I unfortunately don't have the time to answer your other questions super in-depth, but other editors will undoubtedly come along and answer them shortly. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, AllMusic is generally a reliable source for reviews with in-text attribution, though take caution with biographical details; see WP:ALLMUSIC for more. Waning Star (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Exporting formerly fair use file to Commons

File:Elisa Lam elevator video.webm was originally marked as fair use, but given that it is a security camera which does not move during the duration of the video, I've changed the licensing to PD-automated (Wikipedia apparently just has it as a redirect to Template:PD-algorithm). However, I've been unable to export the video to Commons due to its former fair use status. Should I move it over manually, or is there something else I have to change for exporting? Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Do it manually, I’d say. HQIQ (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

When you changed the licence, you left the file in Category:Non-free video samples. Try removing that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Two wikipedia drafts

Hello! I recently edited 2 Wikipedia drafts, and they were flagged for "promotional/ad". I have done some reading online and have attempted to bring them into conformity with Wikipedia standards by removing awards, peacock, and weasel words. I am interested in writing more articles in the future about classical musicians at Wikipedia. I would appreciate any advice you could give me regarding these 2 drafts (before I submit them) as well as in general for my future editing. The 2 drafts are:

Draft:Slapin-Solomon Viola Duo

Draft:Tanya Solomon

I am using Visual Editor.

Thank you in advance for any advice you could give me.

Sincerely,

Violet Violetsmith5346 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Violetsmith5346, (i) the duo, we read, "has expanded the repertoire for two violas through premieres, commissions, transcriptions, and multiple albums". With six references. Does this one sentence really need all six? Even if one of the six confirms the premieres and nothing else, and a second confirms the commissions and nothing else, et cetera, it's not clear why you'd need more than four. (ii) If a source is a web page, don't just name the web page, name the website too. (And the name of a website is not normally its domain name -- although yes, sometimes it is.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hoary and thank you for your advice. I named the articles and put dates etc., and I tried to minimise the number of references per sentence, though in some cases I could only reduce them by so much. Thanks again, and please let me know if there's anything else I should do before submission. Sincerely, Violet Violetsmith5346 (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that either of your drafts was promotional.

That said, make sure your drafts or articles have sources that show that the subjects meet the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Although we need at least two, preferably three, such sources for each, it's more about depth of coverage (WP:SIGCOV) than quantity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andy, Thank you for responding! Both articles contain several references (sources) that have in-depth coverage of the subjects, for example the Fanfare, the American Viola Society Fall of 2023, and the Interlude reviews. (I did also include some less in-depth references just to establish certain facts contained in the article.) Thanks again, and please let me know if you think there should be more changes before I attempt to submit this draft to become a Wikipedia article! Sincerely, Violet Violetsmith5346 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

To take one example, "Slapin-Solomon Viola Duo, Colin Clarke: Fanfare Magazine" is a review of an MP3, it tells us very little about Tanya Solomon.

There is only one sentence that mentions her by name in the body of the piece, and it says simply "That fundamental equivalence between Slapin and Solomon really comes out in force here." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Yes, you are correct that the Fanfare article only mentions Solomon by name once. I suppose that one has more mentions for the duo article (mentioning "the two players", "both players", and "the Slapin-Solomon duo"). These seem to mention Tanya Solomon a few times: JAVS Fall 2023, AllMusic Review of their Sketches album, and the Music Academy Online link. I am still researching a couple more sources. Sincerely, Violet Violetsmith5346 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I just found a review online for Tanya Solomon's Solo Bach recording, so I've added that. Hopefully that helps! Violetsmith5346 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with deleting redirect.

Articles for deletion/Biblical consistencies

I've alwasy found difficulties deleting redirects - today, with "Biblical consistencies". FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be a statement, not a question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Biblical consistencies is a redirect. If you suspect that policy dictates that it shouldn't exist, then visit Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to check if your suspicions are correct; and, if they are, then read that page further, on how you should proceed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Not able to move the page from sandbox to mainspace

when clicked on move "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page "User:KUMARBAIDNATH/sandbox" cannot be moved to "KUMAR BAIDNATH" because the title "KUMAR BAIDNATH" matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you believe that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first." this message is coming , i have reviewed my page multiple times and seem to be proper , not understanding what went wrong , please help me solve the issue KUMARBAIDNATH (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Quite possibly because you used an UPPERCASE title.

I have moved the draft to Draft:Baidnath Kumar. It cannot currently be published as an article, because serval statements are not cited to any source.

When that is addressed, please submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice.

If the article is about you, or someone you represent, you must abide by WP:COI (and [{WP:PAID]] if applicable); and please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@KUMARBAIDNATH You have submitted the draft for review but it will be rapidly declined as large parts are completely unsourced, so readers cannot verify what is written. This is against Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy for biographies of living people. As many new editors here discover, plunging straight into an autobiography without learning how Wikipedia works almost always fails, even if you are notable in the way that this website requires. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Submission declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit Vauxhall Vectra

Can someone edit the article linked above to comply to Wikipedia's guidelines, please? 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I created this article, but it has been recommended for deletion. Can someone edit this so it won't get deleted, please? 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You're not likely to find others to do your work for you here. Perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you represent Vauxhall? 331dot (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Only the “Receptions” section has 4 citations, so that’s the reason why someone recommended for deletion. You should add more citations, at least 2 citations a section (1 citation a section is possible, but very not recommended). Versions111 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

An AfD nomination

Hello Teahouse,

I had nominated an article for deletion a few days ago, however, I no longer remember which one. I know that it was one of an Indian school's which did not cite many sources, but I fail to remember its name and my edit history is too dense for me to be able to comb through it. Is there a repository where such information is stored? Or any other way to identify it? Thanks for all your help. Kvinnen (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If you nominated the article for a deletion discussion, narrowing down the search of your edit history to the Wikipedia namespace(the namespace deletion discussions are in) should help you. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! Kvinnen (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kvinnen You seem to have nominated several recently but can probably work out which one from the list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kvinnen: Perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Matriculation Higher Secondary School? Deor (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Deor!!!! Perfect! Oh thank you so much! :) Kvinnen (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are nominations, I think I only have contributed to deletion discussions. All the pages I have nominated may have been at most to the count of 3. Kvinnen (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikilink

Hello, can I wikilink inside of citations? Thanks User4926 (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@User4926 Yes, that's often done for the names of newspapers or notable authors. There is a special |author-link= parameter in some templates: see {{cite journal}} for an example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

speedy deletion

im in the middle of making my wiki page for my minecraft server and had a speedy deletion notificaiton, not sure what ive done that breaks the rules? TheWonderProject (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@TheWonderProject: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your Minecraft server. (Userspace is also NOINDEXed specifically to limit spam of this nature.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Creating an acceptable Wikipedia page

Hi there, I tried to create my own Wikipedia page as suggested by our business advisor and the page was rejected by Wikipedia, reading more like advertising, indicating the content and style. I am looking for help to draft an acceptable Wikipedia page, I look forward for your help. Thank you in advance. Apalaguine (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. First, you will need to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page, as you are editing about your employer at the direction of your advisor. You should also review conflict of interest, as well as WP:BOSS(I would show that to your advisor as well).

With language like "With a visionary mindset, André embodies a results-driven leadership style that exudes dynamism and influence" it's no wonder that the draft was deleted as promotional. Wikipedia articles are written matter of factly, in a dry, neutral point of view without any embellishment or talking up the subject.

You(and your advisor) have a common, but fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a place to just tell about someone and their accomplishments. That's what social media is for. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You need to forget everything you know about them, everything they say and their associates say about them, limiting yourself to summarizing what independent sources choose on their own to say about them.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. We usually recommend that new users not dive right into it, as doing so usually ends in frustration and anger as things happen to your work you spend hours on that you don't understand. You should first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial before attempting this difficult task. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Difference between enforcements on Wikipedia

What is the difference between an Arbitration Enforcement, and a community sanctions Enforcement? 174.91.6.13 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement is effectively privileged and cannot be unilaterally overturned, requiring a consensus to do so at either Enforcement or a successful appeal to ArbCom itself. Community sanctions can be unilaterally overturned by any one admin (even if doing so would pretty much put their tools in jeopardy). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

New Page Approval Issues

Hi All! I am trying to get a new page (Draft:Governor General's Curling Club) approved but have had it declined twice due to published sources not being adequate. The issue is the organization was founded in 1874 and any links to its original creation are books or documents at Archive Canada. It's a fairly niche organization but notable in the Canadian Curling world. Many members are past Olympians. With not being in main stream media, how can I get our sources approved? Or what would my next steps be? Thanks! Csober12 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Csober12, three samples (after markup-stripping):

• The Governor General’s Curling Club is a prestigious society in Canada that recognizes individuals who have made a significant contribution to the sport of curling.
• The Governor General’s Curling Club is one of Canada’s oldest and most prestigious curling institutions, established in 1874.
• Along with the Governor General’s Curling Club, in 1874 Lord Dufferin also established the Governor General's Trophy event, a prestigious double-rink curling competition.

and, as a stunning bonus:

• all members of the Governor General's Curling Club have made an exemplary contribution to curling in Canada

To put it mildly, this doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. As for the sources, much is attributed to GGCC itself, books are cited with no indication of where within those books, an ISBN is provided for an edition that we're told was published decades before ISBNs existed, no OCLC number or ISBN is provided for other books, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

First time doing a GA review

Hello,
I really hope you don't see me as dumb for this. I've decided to pass an article in my first-ever GA review. I've written several articles (often single-handedly) that obtained GA status really quickly. I know how to write good articles; I guess it's just doing the review myself that I have yet to learn. I gave this article a Pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cup_of_Joe_(band)
Everything seems in order, but the bot didn't add a GA badge to the page nor did it automatically inform the nominator. How may I fix this? Bloomagiliw (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the bot did [2] so [3] while you were posting this question. Sometimes bots can take a minute, or a day. According to its task description, the Good Article bot runs every 20 minutes. Blepbob (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

ChinaDonalds

ChinaDonalds is a Chinese restaurant in China. ChinaDonalds stands for CD. ChinaDonalds is located all around the world. The logo of ChinaDonalds has a Maroon sign of CHINA. Donalds with a yellow sign with a doodle flag of China, ChinaDonalds sells 6 kinds of hot pots like Spicy salad hot pot, seafood hot pot, soy sauce hot pot, Coconut chicken hot pot, Milk veggie hot pot & BBQ chip veggie hot pot. ChinaDonalds sells 6 kinds of rice like White rice, Fried rice, Yellow rice, Spicy rice ando Salad rice, ChinaDonalds sells 6 kinds of dumplings like, Vegetable dumplings, Chicken dumplings, Fried dumplings, Boa bun dumplings, Original dumplings and Rainbow dumplings. ChinaDonalds sells 6 kinds of ramen like Lo main, Ramen broth, Shrimp ramen, Thai coconut ramen,Sesame garlic ramen and Original ramen, ChinaDonalds sells 6 kinds of tanghulu like Strawberry tanghulu, Tangerines tanghulu, Grape tanghulu, Blueberry tanghulu, Grape & Strawberry tanghulu and Rainbow tanghulu. ChinaDonalds also sells combos. There is a ChinaDonalds app in the App store and Google play, A lot of people can order ChinaDonalds on Grubhub, Doordash and Uber eats CanaanLouallenNironi (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CanaanLouallenNironi. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That is the purpose of the Teahouse. Why are you posting a menu here? Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This was an attempt to write an article. Unfortunately, ChinaDonalds does not meet WP:GNG. But it did make me hungry. Polygnotus (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it vode that im seeing in my ads or am i losing my mind

I only see it when im looking for it but its prob in my head 216.16.8.253 (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What is "vode"? Which ads are you talking about? Ads are ubiquitous (except on Wikipedia). Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 code, not vode. @216.16.8.253 Please visit a doctor. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, your decoding of vode shows your superior skills. Can I visit a doctor too? Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure that I made that same typo once or twice because of my giant fingers and tiny keyboard. We should all visit doctors because doctors are cool. Polygnotus (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Mine is a wonderful man from India who has been in the US for many years. He has a old fashioned private practice and treats all his employees and patients like family. He cannot retire because he has two children in medical school. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Having children is already very expensive, but having smart children is insanely expensive. This is why one should send their children into the mines at age 5 or so. That is the only way to get a decent return on investment. Polygnotus (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Leow Fong Peng

My submission was declined just now. I would like to request help to edit the content so it can meet the requirement. Dalatboy (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dalatboy Do you (expect to) get paid for the article about Leow Fong Peng? Polygnotus (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)