Wikipedia:Teahouse#Pol Pot images

Does anyone know how to contact and hire a Wikipedia Editor? My distant cousin in Czech Rep. is trying to hire an American Wikipedia Editor to write about his career as a writer. Zstuch55 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest and most sincere answer to this question I know is: do not.

For more info please see Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and then Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Also, all guidelines and policies linked there. --CiaPan (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zstuch55, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Tell your cousin not to do this.

There are many people who will take your money and promise you an article on Wikipedia. They are scammers - see WP:SCAM.

There may be a few who will honestly tell you that they will try to create an article for you, but they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will say what you want it to say. (I doubt that there are many, because that doesn't seem like good business, but I don't know).

Unless your cousin meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - either the special set for a writer or the general set - then no article is possible, and any time - and money - spent on it will be wasted.

If your cousin does meet the criteria, then somebody could write an article about him. If the person writing it is paid to do so, they will be required to declare their status as a paid editor. Furthermore, if an article about him is published, it will not belong to him, or be controlled by him, or necessarily say what he wants it to say. See WP:PROUD.

In short, it sounds very much as if your cousin's purpose is promotion - that is, telling the world about himself. Promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zstuch55 we are all editors here, and most of us are volunteers. Hiring someone to write your cousin's biography is strongly discouraged – see our policies on Conflict of interest and paid editing as well as a scam warning. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh should we report these websites? StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To whom? And what do you expect them to do about it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to cite a web page from a website that uses the same url for several different pages so that readers will be able to easily tell where you got the information from? Of particular concern are pages which are not linked from the page which the url directs to. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this fixed by including an archive url in the citation? GMG^talk 14:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't advise you properly without seeing the page(s) concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue shared by thousands of websites, perhaps even by a majority of sites on the web, so I was hoping to learn how to fish rather than be given a fish. Archive urls don't solve it because they always use the archived website's urls as their reference point. Some sort of navigation instructions need to be included in the citation, but I don't know what's easiest for readers to understand or how to format it into a standard citation. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those thousands of websites—a tiny minority, not majority, of the whole web—use a variety of different methods. My point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to link to a specific section within a page, you could potentially use [URL text fragments (like I've done here)] – it will navigate to, and highlight, whatever specific portion of text you require (some browsers also have addons to make it possible to generate these URLs directly from the context-menu of whatever text you highlight). The downside of these is that if you have anchored it based on surrounding text (with the prefix- and -suffix format) and that text changes, the anchor will break. However, for archived versions of a page, that shouldn't be an issue. McCovican » log • shhh 20:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the original revision was compressed because of the restrictions of Wikipedia's non-free image policy. However, I wanted to use the original version of the image for another platform that does not have those same restrictions. But I can't seem to find the original version of the image anywhere. Not even here. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. But even the original is pretty low-res. DS (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia old version is slightly bigger, but still the text is illegible. We could have it back with {{non-free no reduce}} if you think it is worthwhile. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well? The only reason I want access to the original is so that I can copy it. So it wouldn't necessarily have to be accessible for very long. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Any idea when it could be restored? I only need it restored briefly so I can copy it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for help submitting a company article that has been rewritten in full encyclopedic tone with multiple reliable, independent sources. I am affiliated with the company (disclosed on my user page) and would prefer if an uninvolved editor could review or submit it via AfC to avoid any COI issues.

The draft text is available and follows all tone and sourcing policies. Can someone help submit it in userspace or via AfC? Carltur (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Carltur, and welcome to the Teahouse

If you imagine it in housebuilding terms, you are saying "Hello, I've been asked to build a house, and though I'm quite handy, I don't know much about building houses, especially in your area. Would a volunteer be willing to do the bits of the task that I don't know how to do, like surveying the site and building the foundations?" (It's possible that I'm being unfair to you here, since you haven't shown us your draft, as far as I can tell. But years of experience with inexperienced editors have shown me that they almost always write their drafts WP:BACKWARDS, which is like building the house without thinking about surveying or foundations).

It's possible, but do you think it's likely?

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.

Note that if somebody writes and submits it for you, they will have the same conflict of interest that you have. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine, I have been through many iterations and spent maybe not weeks but a good amount of time on reviewing the requirements. I also tried to focus on comparables e.g. other articles on similar topics. After all the research and many re-edits and adding a notability section, COI on my profile, etc. - it seems my entire draft was delete based on a "speed delete" that I contested of my very first version. So I did consult AI and it suggested I ask here if someone independent could look at my draft, if they find it to be solid post it for me. Like asking a indepeding accountant firm to do the audit of the financials and submit the results to the SEC ... there shouldn't be a conflict of interest in that?

Let me know if you have any thoughts. I can also create a new draft and submit again but I read that my profile could be flagged so no matter what I submit odds are it will be not approved (objective or not). Carltur (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was flagged by by one independent reviewer and deleted by a second independent reviewer, as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". What does that tell you about its adherence to our standards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'profile' (i.e. Account) will not be "flagged", and any new draft submissions will, I am quite sure, be considered only on their own merits.

That said, every edit you make on Wikipedia is tied to your account and easily checkable, and if your account were to build up a history of submitting mostly, and/or repeatedly, clearly substandard drafts without showing incremental improvements, thus wasting the limited time of volunteer assessors and other editors, you might in that case find yourself Blocked on one of the grounds described on that linked Project page.

Provided, however, you work sincerely within our Policies and Guidelines, and assume our good faith (as we will of you), this should not arise. We do appreciate that the disciplines of an encyclopaedia (which forbids Promotion as a matter of fundamental policy) may seem strange to people from entirely different contexts, and take some getting used to. I hope this clarifies matters. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine] thanks for the clarification. Yes I have been doing that. Not sure where you see the history, and the last decline was "just" for notability not anymore anything related to promotional, so I have been making improvements. Carltur (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, Carltur. You have written about what you refer to as "SWIPEBY". Is there a reason why you refer to it as "SWIPEBY" and not "Swipeby"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary It's the name of the company like IKEA, NASA, LEGO, IBM. I see that these brands are also all caps on wikipedia. Is that issue or against any guidelines? Carltur (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary @ColinFine

I submitted a new draft. If you have any pointers or feedback please let me know. That is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swipeby Carltur (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carltur, your response surprised me. I'd never have guessed that we had articles on "IKEA" or "LEGO". It turns out: Not quite. We have one on IKEA (a surprising choice) and one on Lego (which seems right). I suppose that the (to my mind, inadequate) reasoning for us to call the former "IKEA" rather than "Ikea" is that (like "Fiat", "Saab", and others) it started as an abbreviation (of a sort). By contrast, I really doubt that anyone ever talked of "Ess double-you eye pea ee bee why" or similar. Even if your use of "SWIPEBY" was/is innocent, it looked promotional. Switching from it was a good move; well done. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Shafayeat Hossain. I tried to replace an image in "Infobox" but could not upload it in the right way. Please show me the way; here is the link to the page. I tried editing: Bangladesh Rowing Federation.

Shafayeat Shafayeathossain (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new image needs to be uploaded, before you can add it to the page. See Help:Pictures. Is this the image you want to use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, this is the actual logo of this federation; the existing is not the right one. Shafayeathossain (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shafayeathossain: May be you do not need to replace the image, but rather add another one, similarly to the Croatian Rowing Federation article...? --CiaPan (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember it being here, but I can't find it anywhere. There was a list of pages with issues, and I want to start editing by starting with smaller things, instead of jumping right into making pages or making giant changes. I'm not sure if I'm remembering properly, but is there a list of pages with issues? AtTheTownHouse (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:Task Center? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AtTheTownHouse: It could also be Wikipedia:Community portal or Special:Homepage. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Ninjas!

I'm trying to work on a suggested edit as a newcomer on this article: Mark Talamini.

I've noticed that there are citations at the the bottom that are not included in the list of references. The references all appear to be external links, which is the problem I think the maintenance tag is referring to. Should I rename the "References" to something else, like maybe "Bibliography", or is there another suggestion to making this a little more tidy? JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JesseL0vesT0ast, this article is atrocious. A look in its history shows that over the years a number of editors have made well-intended tweaks to it, making very minor reductions to its atrociousness. ("Lipstick on a pig", one might say.) Me, I'd be inclined to look elsewhere: my life's too short to expend what's left of it on such terrible articles. OTOH this is an actual doctor, rather than a reality show contestant, call-in radio host, quack, etc ... so I might decide to dig in after all. I'd then start by removing every "reference" that isn't actually referred to. I'd then embark on one of Wikipedia's more grueling tasks: attempting to find a reference for every assertion for which previous editors haven't deigned to provide a reference. I'd then remove the remaining, unreferenced assertions. Each edit involved would require an informative edit summary. In these summaries I'd try not to insult the editor(s) responsible for earlier failures; I might not always succeed. -- Hoary (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent!

I did some tweaking. Moved the unassigned list of "references" to the talk page for safe keeping in case they can verify whats in the article and be used as future citations, made the actual citations the new reference list, updated the maintenance tag. I think I covered everything you mentioned for now. Would you mind taking a look? This is most definitely the most complicated change I've made and had to look at all my notes so please feel free to slap me around if I messed anything up. JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the easy part done! (And done well. I'm not complaining.) The article now consists of four short paragraphs. Two aren't sourced at all. Here's a third Through his professional career, Talamini has published over 200 research papers and edited Advanced Therapy in Minimally Invasive Surgery (Decker, 2006), a compilation of studies on surgical advancements. In 2013, he was appointed chairman of the Department of Surgery and founding director of the Stony Brook Medical Innovation Institute at the Stony Brook University School of Medicine, alongside being appointed chief of surgical services in 2015. There's a single reference at the end of that. "Through his professional career" seems superfluous. That's a strange sense of alongsideness; I'd change "alongside being" to "and was". Now roll your sleeves up. Just how much of that paragraph is backed up by the cited source? Maybe all of it. But if less than all of it, attach "citation needed" templates to the remainder. And then go source-hunting. Incidentally, publication of a book doesn't need a source: instead, look for the book at WorldCat, check the details and adjust as appropriate (e.g. was he [sole] editor, or a coeditor?), get its ISBN, add this, and assume that anyone doubting what's written will then know how to click on the ISBN and check for themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting log out and having to log back in again sometimes i have to get a email sent this has probably been happening for a month or two

is there a reason for this?

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fanoflionking3. When you log in, there's a "Keep me logged in (for up to one year)" checkbox right after the Password field. Checking it should keep you logged in. If you do that but are then logged out within a few weeks, feel free to ask for help. —Sophocrat (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...but don't do that on a shared device! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to know, how can I find articles that need to be edited faster? Is there a menu to find them? Or should I find them manually? PandaCreator (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PandaCreator, tens of thousands need to be edited. But here's a tip: When an age is described as "tender", it's likely that the whole article is more or less promotional/sycophantic junk. And therefore: this. When you find a poor article, be sure to edit it slowly. (NB You must carefully distinguish between direct, attributed quotations on the one hand and what's written "in Wikipedia's voice" on the other.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance categories such as this one are a good place to find some articles to improve. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for the Task Center. -- Avocado (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can my work as scholar and educator be recorded? Dussinge (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are notable, then scholars unrelated to you will know of your scholarly/pedagogic work, and they will describe and comment on it in multiple reliable sources. And then one or more unpaid Wikipedia drudges unrelated to you will, eventually, create an article about you, an article based on those sources. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions and comments would include these people's reviews of (and not merely blurbs for) your books. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dussinge If you are John A. Dussinger, Prof Emeritus, Univ of Illinois, as I assume from another post from your account, then you need to check which of our criteria at this page about the notability of academics you meet. Assuming you can clearly demonstrate that using reliable published sources, then you are allowed to create a draft article about yourself using the WP:Articles for creation process. Beware, however, that autobiography has many pitfalls, as described at that link. Also, now your intentions are known, someone may attempt to scam you by suggesting they can produce an article for payment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... Sources like these, provided written by a third party, are the sort of sources you could consider using, as well as some described at WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do not (yet) meet the requirements to have a Wikipedia article about you, you can have your work recorded in our sibling project Wikidata, so long as you are the (co-)author of at least one peer-reviewed academic paper; see d:User:Pigsonthewing/About you.

To facilitate this, make you you have an ORCID iD, and that your profile there is populated and public. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.... used here? This is a anti smoking site. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the domain truth.com has been usurped by some hardware company. I assume you refer to https://truthinitiative.org/ and https://www.thetruth.com/. Sophocrat (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose? Sesquilinear (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Raniya Raanaa

I’ve been working on a draft article about Raniya Raanaa, a Bharatanatyam dancer and actress who recently starred opposite Dileep in the 2025 Malayalam film Prince and Family, which was a commercial success. The article includes reliable secondary sources from outlets like Manorama Online, Times of India, Zoom TV, and ETV Bharat, which discuss her acting career, dance background, and critical reception.

Despite following the notability guidelines for entertainers and including references with significant coverage (not just passing mentions), the draft keeps getting declined with the reason: "does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I’ve done my best to explain all relevant details about her career, verified with independent sources. I’m not sure what else is missing or needs improvement to meet the required standard.

Here is the draft: Draft:Raniya Raanaa

Could someone kindly help me understand:

• Are the sources I used considered insufficient or not independent enough?
• Is there a better way to demonstrate notability under WP:ENT or WP:GNG?
• What specific improvements should I make before resubmitting?

Thanks in advance for your guidance! Irajeevwiki (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irajeevwiki, your draft was declined because the cited sources "This submission's references ... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Above, you say little about the part that I've highlighted. You cite nine sources. Try this: here, in this thread, please point to just three among these nine that both show significant coverage of the subject and appear in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to -- Hoary

Thank you again for the earlier feedback.

I have now revised the draft article for Raniya Raanaa, addressing the notability concerns by including multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.

The draft uses citations from:

• Fox Story India (detailed biographical profile)
• Mathrubhumi (national daily, on her preparation and debut performance)
• MSN India and Filmibeat (on public reception and industry recognition)
• IndiaTimes (for film release and career milestone)

I’ve also ensured that the article adheres to style guidelines, with an infobox, appropriate categories, and properly formatted references.

Here is the updated draft: Draft:Raniya Raanaa

Would someone be kind enough to have a look and let me know if it now meets Wikipedia’s inclusion standards, especially under WP:GNG and WP:ENT? Irajeevwiki (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A typical sample from the anonymously written Fox Story India piece: Enrolling in the special school of art and Culture at Kerala Kalamandalam, Raniya’s life underwent a transformative change. Despite facing rejection for her unique dance style, she emerged with heightened confidence, ready to face the challenges that lay ahead. No, this is not a "detailed biographical profile"; it's vague, cliché-ridden promotional flatus. The Mathrubhumi page is also anonymously written; it caused my browser to freeze (I suspect because of all the advertising that it carries). The MSN India page is again unsigned; it starts Actress Raniya Raanaa who made her film debut in actor Dileep's Prince And Family has become a sensation. Pretty lightweight stuff. The Filmibeat page tells us Raniya Raanaa plays Chinju Rani. OK; what else does it tell us about her? -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeking some clarification about a draft I’ve been working on: Draft:Raniya Raanaa.

It’s been declined again with the note that the references “do not show significant coverage,” even though I’ve added multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources including:

• MSN India
• Mathrubhumi
• Story India
• Filmibeat

These articles provide detailed coverage of her background, debut, awards, and public reception. I’ve also cleaned up the formatting and followed WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines closely. Could someone please explain what exactly is still missing in terms of notability or source quality? I’d really appreciate any specific suggestions before I try resubmitting again. Irajeevwiki (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was declined by @User:RangersRus so it would be best to ask them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irajeevwiki, your draft cites three sources. The first and third are based on what Raanaa said, and so are not independent of her. The second has no discussion of her. So none of them helps to establish that she is wikinotable. Maproom (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Could someone please explain...?" I could, Irajeevwiki, and I did -- above, under the title "Help understanding repeated draft rejections Raniya Raanaa (Malayalam actress)". Please do not ask a third time. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody resolve this issue Talk:Henry de Hinuber#KCB, KCH Should Be Removed Because It's A Duplicate? NKM1974 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rarest standard grade an article can receive? 2600:1700:6180:6290:4526:9A10:C29C:2F7A (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, interesting question. A section below the one you linked should provide a satisfying answer. While Featured Articles (FA) are the highest an article can get, articles that get an "A" grade are more rare. Justiyaya 04:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get it. StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StopLookingAtMe1:: If article assessments were made for every article, you would expect Featured Articles (the highest grade) to be the rarest. However, article assessments are really a tool for 1) recognizing our quality articles (and the editors who wrote them) and 2) categorize our articles by quality. The assessment is not the goal in itself, so not all articles get assessed. In addition, only Good and Featured Articles are assessed through specialized processes (as opposed to any editor making a judgement call) and so their assessments receive more attention. This results in A-class articles (the highest non-formal grade) being overall the rarest grade, and that's why the IP's question was interesting. I deduced this from looking at the statistics table and knowing how article assessments work. Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles that would be eligible for an A Grade are pretty close to Good Article standards, so editors working on them have a tendency to pursue Good Article status (and the associated prestige) than leave them at A Grade. -- Avocado (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why?? Paulybi (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Paulybi, Draft:Traffic Racer (video game) wasn't rejected. It was declined, because "[its] references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are --" followed by four criteria that the sources must satisfy. Each of the four is linked to an explanation. Did you read and digest the four explanations? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh Paulybi (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  idk why they'd reject my work?

  Wasn't detailed Paulybi (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As Hoary said above, the draft was declined, not rejected. This means that the draft could be appropriate for a Wikipedia article but not in its current state which - as of checking it a moment ago - has only one source. I would not suggest resubmitting it until you have around three quality sources. If you're unable to find them, then work on something else.

  I would also note, that not just on Wikipedia, but when interacting with people in general - if you didn't follow what someone said, replying with "eh" isn't usually very helpful. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it wasn't detailed? Paulybi (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What? You've been given a comprehensive reason for the draft being declined, at least four times now. Is there a particular part of the explanation that you're not understanding? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure why my draft was declined. I tried to include enough detail. Can someone please clarify what I missed? Paulybi (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you read the reasons for the draft being declined you'll notice that no-one mentioned a level of detail.

  I think what you've missed is the text in they box immediately following "The reason left by [the reviewer] was:".

  Could you clarify if you've read that or not? It's now on your talk page three times and summarised twice in this thread? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm new here, because I'm trying to improve my skills. Paulybi (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I'd suggest reading the info and advice that's already been given to you. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about saying that is not appropriate about that what I am talking about. Paulybi (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paulybi

Because so many people come to Wikipedia for information there are rules put in place for articles, to make sure people aren’t just giving their opinions about something, or thinking about what they once heard or read, but might not be remembering correctly, so everything written in the article must show a reference to where the information came from.

I don’t play video games, so I don’t know what are good sources for Traffic Racers info. I glanced at your references 1 & 3 (reference 2 had a warning that the site might not be safe, so I didn’t go past the warning) and reference 3 seems to have some information on who developed the game, and the basics of how to play it, so that might be a source for adding references to some of your unreferenced sections (Gameplay, Development, and Legacy)). You can use the same reference in more than one place. Make sure you don’t just copy and paste info, you need to use your own words so you don’t violate any copyright rule.

Your draft article seems to be adequately written – if you provide references for everything.You might want to take a break for a day or two and think about where you can get some a couple more good references. You keep resubmitting the article without making any changes, and that could lead to an actual rejection just because you’re not following instructions. Perhaps you’re getting frustrated or upset, so maybe do something else for awhile and come back later. Writing a good Wikipedia article is hard work, so don’t think it needs to be done right away.

It may help to read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Best wishes on getting your improved article accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something about the numerous spoliers in the articles of various TV shows.YashTheBosss (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YashTheBosss Welcome to the Teahouse. It is not clear what you want someone to do. Articles may contain spoilers. Please read Wikipedia:Spoiler. If you don't want to know the plot of a TV show, don't read that part of the article about it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I identify which offline sources have caused my article to be rejected? Thirston House Feltonian (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Draft:Thirston House, it 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.

Most of the sources you used seem to be very old; did you access them in a library? 331dot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this historic structure? Your username suggests one. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I sourced the books in the Local Hisotry Section of my local library and the library at the Northumberland Archives. I don't have a connection to the building but I do live within nearby. Feltonian (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe, could you explain your decision to decline the submission in more detail? You wrote "Draft with unverifiable offline sources. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES", but per that linked page, offline sources are perfectly acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feltonian One of the problems with your draft is that it veers off-topic with many interesting but hardly relevant items such as The fourth Thomas and Margaret had seven children over the next ten years. All were boys. One of the boys courted a labourer's illegitimate daughter named Mary Wallace who lived at East Thirston. He wrote a song about her entitled "The Lassie" which was set to the tune of "Roy's Wife" [with the full words of the song]. I think you would get a much better draft by trimming it down to focus just on the house, which as a grade II listed building, should easily pass our notabilty requirements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feltonian (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Here's a sample: THIRSTON HOUSE, FELTON, SALE OF HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, MESSRS. DONKIN & SON Instructed by the Representatives of the late R. E. Smith, Esq., will sell by auction on Thursday and Friday, March 26th and 27th, the whole of the HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE within the Mansion of Thirston House, viz. : Followed by a long list of, yes, the household furniture within the mansion of the house. Now, what's trivia to me may fascinate you (and indeed vice versa); but I venture to guess that this would seem trivia to most people. I suggest that this and material like it should be cut. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was trying to show how the house was being lived in by giving details of the furniture but I can see how that seems like trivia. Feltonian (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought it was ok to include offline sources which is why I don't know which sources caused the article to be declined. Feltonian (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources have a minimum amount of information required to successfully cite them. For books, we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC #. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the language is not encyclopedic ("closer examination shows..." etc). If some of the people mentioned are notable in their own right, they could have their own article. 219.89.24.171 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feltonian You have re-submitted your draft but I predict that it will be declined again. Among other problems, what you cite does not verify the full content, and that's because I suspect much of your text is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. To take one example I happened to look at, you say After his marriage in 1719, Thomas Smith of West Thirston built a large house on the site of the present Thirston House, which appears to have been built onto an existing, possibly bastle, house. This earlier house may have been the medieval manor house, or hall, of the manor of Thirston. Into the new house Thomas had a stone inserted which bore the initials 'T' for Thomas and 'D' for his wife, Dorothy, and the date '1728' which is thought to be the date of the completion of the build. The stone still exists and has been reused as a lintel in an outbuilding. etc. The only citation for that paragraph is Hodgson (1899), p.305 which when checked on archive.org says absolutely none of that! It merely confirms a later bit about Robert Widdrington. Frankly, you would be better to delete all but your lead paragraphs, which currently don't serve as a summary of the main article, as they are supposed to do, but in fact tell us almost all we need to know to confirm that Thirston House itself is notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must check my references as it looks as if I have mixed them up during revisions and editing. And thank you for your rapid response and input. This is very helpful as it is the first time that I have tried to submit anything to Wikepedia. Feltonian (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Feltonian, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several independent reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else (see WP:42). What you know (or what I know, or what any other random person on the internet knows) about the subject is irrelevant, except where it is verified by a reliable published source.

So, to write an article successfully, first find appropriate sources, then write a summary of them, then stop. (Actually, if you have a reasonable article, you can then add a limited amount of information from non-independent sources, but absolutely nothing which comes only from unpublished documents or from your personal knowledge.)

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) 21:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I hired a company called WikiNinja to help me create a WikiPedia page and feel I was scammed. They created a page and sent me a link Draft:Bradford Blazar (my name is Bradford Blazar) but the page was never published. They tried to get to pay even more money to them for "page protection" claiming my page would be at risk of being deleted if I didn't pay. I searched and it appears page protection is free -Bottom line can anyone help me with this??? Can someone search to see if there is indeed a draft page??? 2600:1700:2280:1EB0:48D8:332B:9F9A:EACD (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft did exist and was deleted by BusterD two days ago as unambiguous promotion. This is irrelevant to the direct issue, which is that yes, you have probably been scammed. This page provides a useful outline of how these scams are committed, and also provides an address you can contact to report this. Apologies that there's not more to say, but these companies are not affiliated with Wikipedia and unfortunately this is quite common. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account responsible. Mr. Blazar, please spread the word that WikiNinja is bad (read as amateurish) at their scam and that we will make their efforts unprofitable for them. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question. Why can some articles be edited, and some can't? Who decides? Thanks. 68.197.141.128 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Articles are protected from editing for many reasons, usually to prevent some sort of disruption. This can be done by request at WP:RFPP, among other ways. If there is a specific article that prompted your question, we can give a more specific answer.

Usually edits can still be requested on the article talk page, in the form of an edit request. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Djmadpeeoficial.

I’ve created a draft article about DJ Mad Pee, a pioneer of Hip Hop in Venezuela.

The draft is here: User:Djmadpeeoficial/Taller

I would love some feedback or advice on how to proceed to get it reviewed and published.

Thank you very much! Djmadpeeofficial (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in Spanish, this is the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry if this is a bad question or if this is the wrong place to put this. I created an account today and I wanted to help work on Swiss articles. So I looked at Switzerland to see if I could fix anything and saw there was a lock on the pencil to edit and that I couldn't edit the page? Why is that? Thanks in advance! Herisau (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that get vandalised often are "protected". You can read about this at WP:Protection.

You might also be interested in WP:WikiProject Switzerland. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herisau You could take a look at the articles within Category:Switzerland, especially the articles listed as "stubs" which could do with expansion. Few of the articles in this category will be protected. Thanks for wanting to improve coverage of Swiss-related topics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old photo that I want to insert from a site called Automotivetribune.com. The photo was originally used in a 1981 press release. How can I do that? There are a couple of these pics that I'd like to insert in my article. I work for the man in the photo and he has given his permission to use them but they originally were shown on that website and in a press release. Annellacarol34 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annellacarol34. A photo first published in 1981 is almost certainly still protected by copyright. You cannot use it unless you have convincing written evidence that it is in the public domain or has been freely licensed in an acceptable way. The subject of the photo is rarely the copyright holder. Most commonly, the photographer or their estate holds the copyright. Sometimes, in a written "work for hire" scenario, the party who hired the photographer holds the copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annellacarol34 If you work for the person you're writing about, you are considered a paid editor and are required to make a paid-contribution disclosure regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit. You should also read Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

If you are talking about Draft:Solar thermal automobile, pictures are less important than demonstrating that the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You need to add independent, reliable sources that directly discuss the solar thermal automobile with some amount of detail. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who took the picture (and thus likely owns the copyright)? You say the subject "has given his permission"; he can only do so if he is the copyright holder. If he is, or you are in contact with the copyright holder, and they are willing, see c:COM:THIRD for terms and guidance.

Otherwise, you might be able to use the picture under fair use criteria, but only in a published article, not a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just joined wiki and cannot find instructions on creating a new article. Please advise. Thanks! Littlesinner2 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Your first article. You will greatly increase your chances of success if you first learn the ropes by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Littlesinner2, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

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) 21:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin, will do, much appreciated!

How long have you been aboard 2600:6C88:DB40:2D:ACF1:9AF2:EAEF:57CC (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tell me more about new MADRID FAULT PJW72365 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Did you mean the New Madrid fault line? You can check out our article on that, and if you still have questions you may ask at the science section of our reference desk (the Teahouse is for asking questions about contributing to Wikipedia). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PJW72365. Please read New Madrid seismic zone, and especially the references at the end of that article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My article draft keeps getting declined. I'd really appreciate any help or advice.

Hi everyone,

I'm reaching out to ask for some advice on how to improve my Wiki page so that it has a better chance of being approved. This is my first time helping a friend create a professional Wikipedia profile. I've tried multiple times, but the page keeps getting rejected.

I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions from those with experience. Thank you so much!

Draft:Tony Tolovae AlexHuang8FG (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexHuang8FG: It's been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. And if it's your friend, then you have a conflict of interest which you should have declared (not that that will make a difference to the outcome).

(Teahouse helpers, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk § 04:25, 20 July 2025 review of submission by AlexHuang8FG ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations lead to 404s, I've flagged as a likely hoax and it reads to me like the entire thing is fabricated. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below (which predates my reading of this subsection); citations seem real. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit semi-conflict; note it was the previous deleted version of the draft that had fake refs) @Pigsonthewing: Note that AlexHuang8FG's previous attempt at this draft was rejected at AfC and since deleted (and he was asking about it at § My article draft keeps getting declined. I'd really appreciate any help or advice. just a few threads earlier, before the draft was deleted). Contrary to some of the others who looked at it, I don't think this is a hoax – a cursory web search does turn up a basketball player with this name. However, Alex, even if you think your friend meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, submitting a draft with LLM-hallucinated references, without disclosing your conflict of interest, and continuing to push this draft after it has been rejected, is not doing your friend any favours. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m creating a page for Australian basketball player Tony Tolovae. Appreciate any feedback to help get it approved. Thanks!

I’m creating a Wikipedia article for Tony Tolovae to help raise the profile of Australian basketball players. I’d be truly grateful for any suggestions. Thank you! AlexHuang8FG (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the proposed article content that you posted here, to Draft:Tony Tolovae. The main thing that needs to be fixed is you have no inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners. These are required for articles about living people. When that is done, you can submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My book qualifies for a wikipedia article but i dont want conflict of interest; can someone write it and submit it for me?

Hi! I’m the author of a novel titled Eclipsar. It has received independent, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, including a feature article on FOX 5 Atlanta and another in the LaGrange Daily News. The book is also listed on Goodreads, Google Books, and Amazon, and it has a dedicated Wikidata entry.

Since I’m the author, I understand that creating the article myself would be considered a conflict of interest. I’d really appreciate if an experienced, neutral editor could take a look at the sources and consider writing and submitting a page for Eclipsar on my behalf. I’m happy to provide links or citations if needed.

Thank you so much in advance! BlakeVarnadoeAuthor (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spending more time on this is only going to upset you. Please, for your own sake, go do something else. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't qualify. Two small local interest pieces aren't enough for notability. The other things like Goodreads are useless for this purpose. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlakeVarnadoeAuthor You soliciting an editor would only transfer the conflict of interest to that editor. I too advise you to abandon attempting to edit about your book; if it is truly notable as a book, an article will organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor wholly unconnected with you sees significant coverage of your book in independent reliable sources and chooses on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also advice you to be aware of potential scammers who may see your post and try to get your money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs and Madams, the Lower Greensand page could be improved by pointing out to readers that the group is more strongly developed on the Isle of Wight than elsewhere and it achieves a thickness of about 850feet there. It is very fossiliferous with corals e.g. Holocystis elegans, Branchiopoda eg Sellithyris sella and bivalves eg Panopaea gurgitis. Crustacea e.g Meyeria can also occur. yours faithfully Paul Stevenson 2A02:C7C:73D1:1800:FD94:D97D:BB44:4176 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please make suggestions on the talk page for the article in this case Talk:Lower Greensand Group (I presume). When you do, you should include citations to reliable sources that support the claims, or they will not be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to makeYouAreAnIdiot trojan page draft, but it appears that “youareanidiot.org” is blacklisted, disabling me from crediting it. How may I bypass this? InterstellarInterloper (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need to link to the site? I don't remember this particular site and have no opinion on whether or not it's notable, but I'm not sure I understand the issue here. --Onorem (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the fact that I cannot publish the draft without having to remove “youareanidiot.org.” It’s an essential part of the information in the draft. InterstellarInterloper (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can as for an exception to be made, at WT:WHITELIST. Otherwise, you can include URL as youareanidiot.org, without "https://", as you did here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InterstellarInterloper It is pointless trying to whitelist that domain until your article can demonstrate that the topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. At present, your Draft:YouAreAnIdiot has been declined for lack of reliable sources meeting all of the necessary conditions. For example, a wiki, like Wikipedia itself, is not considered reliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have just made an article for Dingo Pictures (studio), but there is this redirect link in place of the original article for Dingo Pictures without the "(studio)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingo_Pictures&redirect=no), and even after reading the history merging and request move pages, I am not sure how to combine the new and old articles properly, since in 2024 Finngall added a redirect template saying, "Please do not create an article from this redirect (unless unless moving a ready draft here)." Please can you help? Bladerunner09 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bladerunner09, Dingo Pictures (studio) will very soon be deleted, unless somebody contests the deletion. It's unlikely that anybody other than you will contest it. You're free to contest it, but NB unless you do so according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, your appeal will be certain to fail. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just contested the deletion, which should never have been speedied on the basis suggested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Teleforo Montes is my great, great grandfather. I wrote his life story and posted it on my website, www.montes-family.com. Telesforo Montes was honored by the El Paso Historical Society a few years ago.

Please let me know what I can do to post Telesforo Montes on wikipedia. Thanks 2600:6C4E:18F0:1BB0:644A:A7A8:C787:9388 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. I'm glad your ancestor was honored by the historical society but I strongly doubt he qualifies for an article. Subjects must be notable to have an article on Wikipedia. Here, notability basically means that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. For example, 3 such sources talking in-depth of the subject would normally be sufficient. Looking online I can't find enough such coverage.

Feel free to ask any other questions. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enlarging on Sophocrat's answer above (and I assume you have read the material and further links at the Project page they linked to), sources for an article do not have to be online; those in published printed material (books, print newspapers and journals, etc.) are equally valid (though harder to check) so long as the References to them that you create and cite give full bibliographic details, enabling an interested reader to, for example, find them in some library somewhere.

Since your great, great grandfather obviously flourished pre-internet, it may be that there are printed sources like these about him that have never been digitised. If so, you can use them as long as they meet the requirements. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently attempted to update the biographical page of E. Sally Ward. I have a working relationship with her and since several aspects of the page appeared to be out-of-date, I had made several edits to the page. However, the edits were rolled back. I have created a page in my user-space (User:Anishvabraham/E. Sally Ward - Wikipedia) with my edits to facilitate any discussion on my proposed changes.

Please let me know what I can do to have the edits published.

Thanks! Anishvabraham (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anishvabraham: Discuss them at Talk:E. Sally Ward. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anishvabraham Since you have a conflict of interest with the subject you should not edit the article directly. Instead, you can propose edits for review by a neutral editor using the edit request wizard. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted Draft:Han-Oh Park, but it was declined with feedback suggesting that the draft may have been written using a large language model like ChatGPT, and that it contains issues such as promotional tone, vague statements, and essay-like writing.

I’ve gone through the draft again, corrected the reference links, and ensured that the sources used are reliable and independent to the best of my knowledge. However, I understand there may still be areas that need improvement.

Could an experienced editor please review my draft Draft:Han-Oh Park and let me know how I can improve it to meet Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you! SYParkOfBioneer (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback you are requesting can be obtained by re-submitting your draft for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot move my article from the sandbox to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jcarcione/sandbox?oldid=1301562498 Jcarcione (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at Draft:Babinet's principle in elastodynamics, Jcarcione. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it to "mainspace". If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcarcione I've added the template that will allow you to submit the draft for review. The draft appears very technical and I was struck, for example by the last line As expected, lateral (refracted) and interface waves, such as the Rayleigh wave, do not fulfill the principle. As expected by whom and what is the source that verifies that statement? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... I note that there is already an article on Babinet's principle, as you know since you wikilinked it in your draft. Would your contribution be better as an addition there? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is this line in the draft : Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created.

What, exactly, is "created". Dœs that mean "it exists as a draft" ? "it has been published" ? Something else ?

Thanks in advance,

Baudouin BaudouinVH (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BaudouinVH, in this context "created" means the draft has been moved to the mainspace. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 10:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having challenges on how to create categories and to link them appropriately between sister projects. i.e. from Wikidata to Wikipedia etc. I will be glad if I can get some help on this. Thank you. Friday musa (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia:Categorization help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify what sources are considered reliable for citations. CimonaSebastian (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CimonaSebastian There's advice at a special page at the link WP:RSPS. Note that it has archives you can search for other specific sources you are thinking of using. You can also ask about new ones at WP:RS/N. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends very much on context. Some guidance at WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified a article and then add some source. Somehow a moderator (Thanks him) identified this as a promotional info and refuse this. So I want to learn how to avoid this and properly edit the content and add source. Any video will be helpful. Thanks all. Engineer.Johirul (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Engineer.Johirul I recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's neutral POV policy and reading this guide to learn the proper way to add references to articles. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 15:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Engineer.Johirul, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia, and please don't be disheartened: there is a lot to understand about how Wikipedia works, and everybody makes mistakes at the beginning.

Every piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. (It's not strictly required to cite the source in all cases, but since you must have a source in order to add the information, why not cite it?)

Conversely, as far as I know, the only purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to provide verification for one or more pieces of information in the article.

You added a load of uncited information to Walton Group, and then in a separate edit added a load of citations at the end, giving no indication of which citation supports which information. Please study referencing for beginners

The information you added all looks as if it is what Walton Group wants people to know about its products - that's why @Theroadislong said it was "promotional". 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.

By the way, Theroadislong is not a "moderator": we don't have moderators. They are simply a very experienced editor. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teahouse helpers. (Thanks for what you folks do first of all)

I had a question about Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs. First of all is this citing or self-published blogs even still valid and if not can it be reopened? I am a bit new to reopening old discussions of this category.

Also I am working on a article in which a prominent newspaper wrote about the subject, and then the author for that subject later blogged about it for that article on blogspoit.com with extra details with primary sources of the subject.

I agree that normally blogs should not be included as references, but in this case it seems to me it would be both viable and constructive. That being said, that is just my opinion. What does the teahouse jury say to this I can give more specific details.

Thanks a lot. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyguy1138: I think you may be into WP:ABOUTSELF territory, assuming I read you correctly. If someone writes an news piece about me, and I write a post about that piece, then presumably this is related to my experience as me being the subject of the newspaper piece. GMG^talk 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi . GMG^talk. Thanks for your speedy reply (: and I am sorry I don't think I explained as clearly as I would have liked.

It's more like if I write a newspaper piece about you as the subject of the newspaper, and then later I blog about some other things I talked about with you on my blog and link that original newspaper article to my blog.

(: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're aiming to use it for third party information on a living person, you're probably out of luck. Trying to think of cases where that would be appropriate...So like if the subject is Charles III and the blogger is also a biographer of British royalty. But in that case, there would already be an ungodly amount of better sourcing available and no reason to use a blog.

Here, we might wonder whether these details were left out of the newspaper for some kind of reason. Maybe length or time constraints. Maybe there was a disagreement about the substance or amount of vetting. Possibly the newspaper simply figured the content was just unimportant. GMG^talk 16:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Honestly still not sure. It's about the actual pink ladies that the ones in Grease were based on. The problem is that very few people have interviewed them, and there are only a few of them left. I intend to make the article a Wikipedia:Stub unless I can find more information. The information is good, but I agree with you I wish the author did not put it part of it on a blog. Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can always cheat. Contact subject matter experts (or the author themselves) IRL and ask them to write about it. There's usually contact info somewhere online. Alternatively, write about it yourself, get it published, and cite that. I've seen that one done before. It makes some WP editors fussy, but it's not really against the rules if it's not promotional. GMG^talk 17:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. Perhaps I can, but it might just be the same information that others have already gone over. Unless maybe I did a you tube video or podcast or something which I have never done. But would not be against for the sake of preserving history. But yeah I would prefer to think deeply on that and if implemented use as an extreme last resort.

As I understand it maybe I can "revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." I think this is a very niche and perhaps grey area that could arise from other users.

But I have never done village pump before. Any suggestions?

Thanks for helping me again by the way. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is going to depend on the specifics, like: How controversial is what is being said? How important a part is it, of the article you are writing/ updating? What proportion of the article does it comprise? How likely is it to be challenged?

I wouldn't necessarily use the VP; you may be better on the talk page of the (or a related) article or a relevant WikiProject.

You certainly can't use it as part of demonstrating notability, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not controversial I think. Actually it seems most of it is corroborated by the text of the original article and is a semi extension of the original article.

I would say it adds some key context to the group.

"You certainly can't use it as part of demonstrating notability, though." I agree, but I think the play and film grease does that way more.

Hmm I will message him thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a good idea about the wiki project I will check there first before I do the VP. By the way, aren't you a wikimedian or something. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are all Wikimedians; perhaps you mean Wikimedian in Residence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian in Residence. Yes. Aren't you a liaison for the wiki foundation and some type of media library that gets us access to more books, articles, etc? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a WiR, but the rest is not me. You're thinking of The Wikipedia Library; you may have seen me recommending the latter to others, on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How best to add/update information about Sen. Schumer's personal connections to the tech industry

Sen. Chuck Schumer's daughters both work (or recently worked) for large corporations that are subject to policy/legislative actions. As of 2022, Jessica was reported to be a lobbyist for Amazon; Alison a manager at Meta. I haven't found more recent secondary sources but Jessica's LinkedIn profile indicates she is still at Amazon. I can't find a LinkedIn profile for Alison. In any case, I assume that LinkedIn is not an acceptable source but is helpful in guiding a search for other sources.

Chuck Schumer's entry currently notes Alison's position in a section about Schumer's connections to Facebook -- which seems like a good place for it. I'd like to update that. There is nothing in the article about Jessica's position at Amazon. There is a note in Personal Life about a previous notable position she held. I think the information about Amazon belongs in the policy sections, possibly within the existing Technology and the Internet or possibly a (new) section on antitrust. Chuck Schumer

I'd appreciate advice as to how best to add this information. Jreiss17 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The best place to discuss this would be Talk:Chuck Schumer. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jreiss17 Note that WP:BLPNAME applies: information on these non-notable individuals is only useful if relevant to understanding Schumer himself and is very reliably sourced. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331.dot (for both the comment here and message) and Michael D. Turnbull for feedback. 331: I've tried using talk pages (though not often) but have been frustrated with lack of response. But this is a more prominent article so I will try again. (Also, have to note that looking back on my past talk posts, one has gotten a useful reply I will try to follow up on.

Mike: I agree. As I noted, I think this is notable information as possible influence on Sen. Schumer's policy positions. In any event, I'll post this inquiry on the appropriate talk page for further discussion. Jreiss17 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jreiss17 Yes, the prominence of an article helps- most of the 100 US Senators' articles are pretty visible- especially the senators in leadership. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are, apparently, 354 watchers for that article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would appreciate help from an experienced editor to review and potentially create a page for a notable Indian student spokesperson named Ahnaf Ishaq. He has been featured in several major Indian national news outlets (NDTV, India Today, Aaj Tak, The Print, EdexLive, etc.) during the 2025 Israel–Iran conflict for representing and speaking on behalf of Indian international students in Tehran. The coverage includes multiple video interviews and written profiles.

I have a properly formatted, neutrally written draft with all sources cited (both YouTube interviews and written articles). I’m not affiliated with the subject and just want to make sure the article is neutrally handled and reviewed.

If needed for clarification, i can be reached out at @ahnafishaq on instagram and twitter.

[ misplaced draft text moved to Draft:Ahnaf Ishaq ]

27.63.16.73 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you're not connected with the subject, yet you use his Twitter id as a method of contacting you too. I don't think you're being honest with use here. That aside, I don't think you meet the notability threshold, you're one of several people interviewed in each case, that doesn't make you a "key spokesperson". It makes you a witness to what's happening and to talk about your personal experiences but none of the interviews are really about you. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your text to Draft:Ahnaf Ishaq.

Please feel free to continue to work on it there, and if and when you feel the issues identified are adequately addressed, and only then, you may use The AFC process to submit it for review by a neutral editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blairgowrie in scottish 2A00:23C5:615A:6401:B1CA:B984:EB16:F333 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at our article Blairgowrie and Rattray, you'll find the answer. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to request publish a page but I am a newbee in editing wiki page so i made some mistakes. I have the content ready. Can anyone look into it and help me publish the page. Please guide me thanks. Pupps Roy 111.223.26.89 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, I will give you some advice, though it may be not what you wanted. 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.

Unless you have gone about creating your draft in the following way, it is probably useless:

1. Find several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently published significant coverage of the subject in reliable publications: see WP:42
2. If you can't find at least three such sources, do not continue: you will be wasting your time.
3. Put aside everything that you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say even if you think they are wrong.

ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I previously tried creating a page, however I am a newbee so I made some mistakes and I dont want to do any mistakes anymore to disturn the pages. Can anyone guide me or help me publish a page? I have the content ready and its verified with the the required Links. Thanks Pupps Roy Puppsroy (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You submitted a blank sandbox as a draft. We suggest that the Article Wizard be used to create a draft.

We also recommend that new users not dive right in to creating articles- it can lead to frustration and anger as things happen to your work that you don't understand. We highly recommend that new users first gain experience by first editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial.

It's not enough to have "verified content", you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. See your first article. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Puppsroy. See my answer to you in the section just above. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the Hosts of the Wikipedia Teahouse:

We would like to create a Wikipedia article about a notable person with whom we have a personal acquaintance, and about whom our Founder/Creator has written a published article in the past. Would such be frowned upon under the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines?

Likewise, we would like to create a Wikipedia article about museum created by a person to whom our Founder/Creator is related. Would such be frowned upon under the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines?

Many thanks in advance for your time.

ArtHistoryHistoiredelart (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, with both of which you are required to comply. We also do not allow shared or organisational accounts, so please register one for each individual, separately, who will be editing.

You may also find WP:BOSS and WP:About you useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hellpo, @ArtHistoryHistoiredelart. It is very unlikely that an article written for another purpose will be suitable for a Wikipedia article, because it is unlikely to be a neutral summary of independent reliable sources, with essentially no content coming from either the subject or their associates, or from the writer's knowledge: that is what a Wikipedia article should be.

Please see WP:42 for the kinds of sources which you should base essentially the whole of any article upon. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors,

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and recently submitted a draft article for my company, which currently doesn’t have a formal Wikipedia page. I tried my best to follow the correct process through Articles for Creation and disclosed my affiliation with the company.

However, I’m having trouble understanding the current status of the submission and how to move it into the main article space. The article also displays the following tag at the top:

"This article may incorporate text from a large language model. Such text potentially includes hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification must be removed. Please see the associated project page for additional guidance. (June 2025)"

I’ve reviewed the article carefully to ensure all content is accurate, neutrally written, and supported by reliable, independent sources. I also left a note on the Talk page suggesting improvements, but I’m still unsure where I stand in the process or what steps to take next.

Could someone please review the page and let me know if the tag can be removed, or if there’s anything else I should address to help move the article forward? I’d really appreciate any guidance!

Here’s the page: Corix

Thank you. WikiMe220 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WikiMe220. I'm not sure what is going on with Corix. Looking through the history, I couldn't understand why @Qcne accepted a draft with so few satisfactory citations. But looking in the history, at that point it had 23 citations; but then @Laura240406 and @Theroadislong removed a lot of material including citations, so in my view it now has hardly any suitable sources.

I'm not sure what should be done with it, but I've pinged all those editors, so perhaps they can suggest what is done. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColinFine,

Thank you for this. I really appreciate your prompt response and your time spent reviewing. I will stay tuned. WikiMe220 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be very blunt: is there any LLM-generated content in the page you included? Yes or no?

If not: was there ever? Yes or no? DS (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DragonflySixtyseven,

Thanks for your response. No, there is not and was never any LLM generated content on the page. WikiMe220 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Ford Ranchero 1957-1979 Photo History By James C. Mays, chapter 2 pg.25. Its stated that before the down sized Rancheros were finally available for market, a good-sized order for Rancheros was received from a large power company in the Pacific Northwest. Rather than loose out to Chevrolet. Foord reached into the 1959 parts bin and cobbled together a number of full sized 1960 Rancheros based on the 1960 Galaxie body. I am looking for any photos of said Ranchero and or what power company purchased the ranchero order. 2601:58C:4302:9560:345D:BFAC:113:6744 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to a page for people asking for help with using Wikipedia. Your request seems to belong to a Ford enthusiasts' forum, or Facebook group, or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]