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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You too lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is 25 years old! Although I’ve only started editing I’ve been using Wikipedia since I was 12 2021. It’s not perfect but it’s GOOD ANOUGH! Thank you to everyone who keeps it great. Thank you! Ajron Bach (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They get a lot of pushback from people because the people that try to use it for good purposes aren't the kind of people with enough wikipedia experience to have proper judgement. It's kinda like machine translation, iirc we limit that to extended confirmed users because it can be really useful if used with proper oversight mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Kiosk2, and welcome to the Teahosue.

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

Although you should heed the advice of the other replies, to answer your primary question, it should show up instantaneously, but other people may need to refresh their page to see it. Thx56 | Talk to me! 23:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @BoxOfThings123.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here's my opinion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @WhiteFactLoom, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I recommend you also read WP:CORPTRIV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @NewAccount7295, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhutia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, you did it right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @TheSaturnLover, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: Leon Angel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a question about WP:DO.

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

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

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

Yes, I meant links coming in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the draft: User:Willetling/sandbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Willetling, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Write in a factual, third-person tone

• Avoid praise, marketing language, or claims of importance

• Base every key statement on independent reliable sources

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

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

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

File:De facto.wav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this file meet the "non-replaceable" (no-free-equivalent) criterion of NFCC? The IPA and respelling are there, so anyone could record themself reading the word and release that recording with free license. DMacks (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it is self-published. Also, this is the only file this user has uploaded to Wikipedia and under the the CC-BY-SA license. Otherwise, all of this user's files are uploaded to Commons under the CC0 license. Pinging the uploader @Eshaan011. I concur with Andy. Also, compare the voice of this audio sample to this Commons file for example. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 03:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're replying to Andy (indentation/threading of this discussion is getting confusing). You (plural) are raising good points about its licensing. My point is that if it does not have a valid free license, then per NFCC/fair-use policy it should not be retained even on enwiki. So either it can (and possibly should) go to commons or else should be deleted altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nils Molin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made a reference on discography. You can look. That website shows that there are many music labels where Nils Molin made the records. Why don't you think that it's a significant proof? Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't looking for proof that he did it. We're looking for proof that reliable publishers noticed it for themselves and decided to write about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Evgeniia Kaplan, please read through WP:42, which will tell you what you're looking for in a source. It's not enough for something or someone to merely exist. We need to see that other people have independently thought that this subject was interesting and important enough to write about, at length and in depth, and that those people and the source that publishes their thoughts are experienced and credible. WP:BLP would also be a good thing to read, as well as WP:REFB to cite your sources properly.

You also need to know that if you keep resubmitting this draft without making any effort to improve it, sooner or later a reviewer will decide that it's not possible to improve it and that reviewing it again is a waste of everyone's time. When that happens the draft will be rejected, and you will not be able to submit it again unless you can find a whole new set of sources and write the entire draft again starting with a blank page. Meadowlark (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All that shows is albums by bands of which Molin is a member; none in his own name.

Discogs is not a reliable source, as anyone can add to it. We are looking for things like articles about Molin himself in magazines like Kerrang!, NME, Q or the Swedish equivalent; or in national newspapers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this user has a habit of asking the same question here and at AFCHD, and also on their talk page. Respondents (myself included!) may want to check if the question has already been answered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the tip. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No - you can't choose when drafts are reviewed, so if one or more reviewers happen to accept them quickly that's not something to worry about! For the sake of the reviewers it would be great if you worked on and submitted one draft at a time though, that way we don't get flooded :) Pay attention to any feedback given to you and always try to edit the draft to fix up whatever was mentioned before resubmitting. If someone is genuinely trying to improve their drafts we'll keep reviewing them, but if drafts get resubmitted with no changes they'll sooner or later get rejected - and that's much harder to overcome. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I uploaded it! Thanks Andy! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 04:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Link to the licence (the exact one linked by AntWeb)
• AntWeb's "about" page covering their policies regarding re-use of material

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is on the page Mihail Chemiakin

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because of the way the automatic numbering is implemented, you can't see the true and correct updated numbers until your edit has already become final. But because it's automatic, then unless you've done something non-standard to confuse the system, it will come out right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, there isn't a single mention of it in the japanese wikipedia, not to mention the fact that i coundl't find a single japanese news article and japanese youtube videos about it, only chinese news articles and youtube videos about it, when typing his kanji name on youtube and google or bing, i don't know which one of the two search engines i used or maybe i used both, maybe it's possible that the kanji name is wrong because japanese has multiple different kanji for same sounding words/sounds, but still the fact that i coundl't find information about it in japanese is unusual. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad they fixed it. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try purging the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now the logo still doesn't display, just the WP 25 years thing. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new article (Systematic phonics) in my sandbox and want to move it to the main space. When I open the MOVE page there is no place to put the title. What am I doing wrong?John NH (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnhmunro It was moved by another editor to Draft:Systematic phonics. You should be able to move it on from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John NH. Special:MovePage/User:Jnhmunro/sandbox#movepage should say "New title:" which applies to two fields. The left is for the namespace and the right for the pagename within that namespace. Both default to the current name and can be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I am being blocked by a redirect to "Systematic phonics" on the Phonics page that I likely set up. But I don't know how to delete the redirect. Can you help?John NH (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a technical move at WP:RM. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns among some people in the talk page of "List of pedophile advocacy organizations" that there is "misinformation" and "disinformation" and some people are wanting to "correct" the information in the article, that it needs to be resolved by top administrators and needs to be talked about it, i'm not gonna write here what exactly everything i wrote because originally what i wroted got flagged as "potentially unconstructive", because my grammar and my style of writing sucked, so my message didn't got sended because of it, and i'm not going to write a long text about it because it would take me a lot of energy, time and effort, so i'm gonna leave it up to the administrators, including top administrators and other people in the Teahouse about it, like there were many cases of people editing to "correct" the information in the article (whatever or not they actually corrected the information, is of course heavily debatable and heavily controversial), honestly the whole thing is more complicated than it seems based on the research about this topic i done myself, also considering the heavily controversial and heavy subject matter, this discussion would/will be and feel heated up, heavily controversial and heavily debatable, so i guess be prepared or something?, i don't know what to say. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-43053-85 If you look at the dates associated with the threads on that Talk Page, you'll see that all the concerns are more than a year old (except your contribution today). Hence they have all already been dealt with. Admins have no more rights to determine content than any other editor, although they may be more aware of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is more than me in the talk page, and also the dates don't really matter that much because there isn't much activity in the talk page and also they haven't been already fully resolved or something?, i don't know how to properly describe it, i guess instead of looking at the talk page, it is in the editing history of this article and the talk page. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-43053-85 You wrote: "... based on the research about this topic i done myself ..."

That's called original research, and it's something that Wikipedia always rejects. All of the research you mention in Wikipedia talk pages or articles has to be research that was already published by reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But i think that there are information that can be used as reliable sources. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How would one update or change the colors on a map image, for example this one? DominikTuazon (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DominikTuazon. It varies so thanks a lot for posting a link. Click "More details" to reach commons:File:Visa policy of the USA.svg. There may be a link "Upload a new version of this file" at the end of the "File history" section. Othwerwise you cannot update it on your own. I don't know a Commons process to overwrite files. Maybe Wikipedia:Files for upload would accept a request. You have to create a new version of the file with a tool outside Commons or Wikipedia. See commons:Help:SVG#Editors. You could also try posting a request to a user who has uploaded versions in the file history. The two most recent were uploaded by Heitordp after your post. Did they by any chance include the change you wanted? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! Yes, the file page does have a link to upload a new version of the file towards the bottom of the page. What I was wondering was how to edit the map directly, can it be done on Wikipedia, or do you need some kind of third-party software for that? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party software. That's where Commons:help with SVG editors comes in. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the most recent update was the change I was going to make. But how would I do this in the future? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused by user @Arjayay of vandalizing the List of Universities in Nigeria page, but he failed to point out how I am vandalizing it, and from the article WP:Vandalism, I have not violated anything that could be counted as vandalism. Because I wouldn't want trouble, I would like further clarification on how I've "vandalized" the page so I won't make the same mistake later. Thank you. NetReader75 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem is adding universities that do not have Wikipedia articles. I agree that it's not vandalism, because it seems like it's in good faith. But as a general rule, if you notice your changes are getting reverted, please ask about it on the talk page (either for the article or the user talk for the person who is reverting you) before reinstating the changes. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Please note WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to write an article on the current Verizon outage, assuming it passes the relevant notability guideline? Seems a little bit boring and clear cut but it’s very widespread and it seems like a lot of reliable sources are talking about it. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's happening for a unique and extremely interesting reason, it's not a worthwhile topic at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloblinTheGoblin You could summarise your best sources at Talk:Verizon in case it is worth a mention in the main article. I don't know the details of this outage and whether its inclusion would be WP:DUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this point. If it turns out that the outage has long-term significance for the company, then adding it there would make sense. But most outages have initial anger and blame, followed by return to normal and quick forgetting.

It might be hard to say if it has long-term significance yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I doubt it does. But if it does, I will. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make edits to an article? Thanks! Ilovebread7271 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an "edit" button on the top right. I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page, also. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like you have been able to edit articles. Can you be more specific about what you need help with, actually? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean make proposed deletions. Ilovebread7271 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use WP:Twinkle. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needing some help, but could you check the picture in my draft and tell me if you can see it?

Thanks! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 04:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Machine rendering of data etc"? I see that, looks good. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

But for some reason, the picture is broken on a mobile/tablet view. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix that? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Android phone here, and it still looks OK to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding something ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue, the image is in the infobox incorrectly, so the user has put the full code of the image when uploading it, creating a double image box thing. (Can’t explain it well). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. regarding comments at the head of the draft: Other Wikipedias (Italian, etc) have their own separate standards for what to include, so the argument that if this isn't accepted the Italian one should be deleted too, is not true at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I find a picture I would like to add to wikipedia article, but it is under a CC 4.0 license, not totally open, how do I go about adding it? Do I add it into wikimedia first with proper accreditation and then search it through wikimedia in the article? Or do I simply add it straight to the article?

And just to confirm, proper accreditation for something is to link the CC 4.0 license and then to credit the original photographer/owner? Is there anything I'm missing?

I just want to make sure I go about this properly. Random Dyke (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Random Dyke,

Could you clarify if the image is already uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons and you are just asking about using it in an article, or instead if the image is somewhere else on the internet? DMacks (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is from elsewhere on the internet. In this specific case iNaturalist, but I'm also just generally interested in best practices Random Dyke (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Random Dyke, my understanding is that CC 4.0 does not refer to a specific license but rather to a group or "suite" of licenses released in 2013. It would be necessary to know the specific license for this image to determine whether or not it is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. CC-BY-4.0 is acceptable, and the -SA variant is also, but the -NC or -ND variants are usually not. Creative Commons license#Types of licenses discusses the variants. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I understand much less than I thought I did then. But uploading through the wikimedia wizard is the right process then? Sorry for the confusion. Random Dyke (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the easiest for most cases. Just be sure you are exact in the information you enter, such as the license exactly as it's specified on the source where you got it. After you upload, feel free to ask for second eyes to check that everything is in order. No harm in making a good-faith effort that needs tweaks or winds up overlooking some major aspect you didn't even know was relevant. DMacks (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Random Dyke (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the wikimedia software, an image is actually its own page. It has the image itself and also a regular text space like any other article. In that text is where the uploader states among other things the source wher the uploader got it, the author and other details of the original image, and license. If it's a standard license, such as CC-BY-4.0, there's a standard way to link to those terms. The Wikipedia:File upload wizard walks you through the process, including entering the required details. Once the image is uploaded, it can be used in any article. The exact way to use it depends if you're using the Visual Editor vs wiki-source vs some other editor tool. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Random Dyke If you are uploading an image from iNaturalist, there are tools to make that easy. I prefer inat2wiki or its old version - just copy the ID of the observation and paste it into the "parse observation" page and it will give you several options. For example, if you wanted the pictures from this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/28146420 you would type in "28146420". -- Reconrabbit 15:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, I and the other user decided to invite other users' opinions at determining some sources' reliablity. Could you guys share the opinions about it? Thanks! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask would be the reliable sources noticeboard which is specifically for discussion about whether a particular source is reliable. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well the discussion I asked for particiate is actually in the reliable sources noticeboard :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hope this is the right place to ask a question about an article draft that´s been declined.

Trying to create a page for an artist, got very good feedback for changes, then not much happening. Should I post link to the draft here?

Any assistance in getting the submission right would be greatly appreciated! ComputerSaysYAY (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you're talking about Draft:Pekka Stokke?

Have you read the comments left on your draft by the reviewers? I'm not talking about the rejection reason (the big red box at the top), but the comments that are right below them. The give a pretty good explanation for the rejection of your draft: the article currently doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. 🍅 fx (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i would to know why I was rejected by @[[User:Bobby cohn Lw2311 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because we already have an an article on Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rejection notice at User:Lw2311/sandbox/la las angeles: "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Los Angeles instead.". Bazza 7 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you Lw2311 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day Wikipediaaaaaaa...
Happy birth-day to you!
--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DollarStoreBaal44. Thanks! I congratulate you on Wikipedia's 25th birthday too! We wish you success in your work on Wikipedia! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

@Infinitywiki2 The same for you! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never new I would see knock-off Ba’al celebrating Wikipedia but here we are, the Phoenicians would be confused 😂 Have a great Wikipedia 25th anniversary! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOO I MISSED THE LIVESTREAM BECAUSE I HAD TO PAY ATTENTION IN SCIENCE CLASS :( --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you have the powers to just destroy the building, you are Ba’al after all Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recording of the stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rPmv27YzY. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stream's already happened, so there really isn't any point. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, today is the 25th birthday of the English Wikipedia - we know that everyone has been waiting for this day! We have been developing Wikipedia for 25 years! I would like to express my deep gratitude to all of you for your every effort on Wikipedia! And at this point, we would like to congratulate all Wikipedians on Wikipedia's 25th birthday! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

🎉🎉🎉 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

🥳 Happy Birthday to the greatest human project of the Internet age imo! User:KeyolTranslater it was cool to see your name in the chat on the livestream just now, as someone who has been lurking Teahouse to learn and has seen you around. This is my first attempt to indent-reply on a Talk page, fingers crossed this works! 😀

Sophiatries (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn’t think some would recognise me 😂 thought my muttering were drowned out by everyone else. It was amazing to hear about that WW2 Veteran who still edits Wikipedia now at the age of 100, genuinely amazing. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for the benefit of any other Talk Page newbs, looks like if you add your four tildes on a new line you need to indent that manually as well, adding this to try to fix 😭 Sophiatries (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday Wikipedia! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Wikipedia - oh, this beautiful website - stays up for another century. Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

Lemurik the Historian - president of Alternia and brand-new user of the Wiki Lemurik the Historian (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Significant historical earthquakes include the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake in China, with over 100,000 fatalities, and the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile, the largest ever recorded at 9.5 magnitude." should be changed to "Significant historical earthquakes include the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in China, with 242,469-779,000 fatalities, and the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile, the largest ever recorded at 9.5 magnitude.", because it obviously has a higher death toll than the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, there were also indirect deaths in the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, but they don't count there. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-43053-85. You have suggested this on the article's talk page: that is the right place for it. Please wait several days to give people a chance to respond: if nobody has answered in say a week, feel free to make an edit request.

I note that the text says "Significant", not "The most significant"; so your proposal is a question of editorial discretion, not accuracy. You feel it "should" be changed: others may disagree for some reason. Or they may all agree with you. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the most significant, because it used to say 830,000 deaths but was fixed to 100,000 because it included indirect deaths which was incorrect so they fixed it, however the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake had more deaths than 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake, therefore it should include the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake instead of 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake because of it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already have lists of largest or most destructive events; ranking things by the largest should not be the only way we discuss them in all the other articles too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it was supposed to mean the largest if you've seen the previous edit of the Earthquake article before it got changed to remove indirect deaths, however the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake is larger than 1556 Shaanxi EWarthquake in terms of direct deaths. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's useless to argue "this other one is bigger" when being bigger was never the point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And when the article is not called "List of largest earthquakes", then being bigger is not the point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, "Actually it is supposed to be the most significant". ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-43053-85 I'm only guessing about what they were thinking, but the way I read it, they wanted to emphasize the fact that there's a very long history all over the world, and that it happens more often than readers might have realized. In my opinion, it would be a disservice to readers if we always stuck to only mentioning the most extreme and most famous cases, because it skews their view of reality if they think the top few are the only ones that ever happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one last thing.

In the “Orbital elements” section of my draft, should I add the extra elements which don't have a checkbox-thingy for them in the template?

Thanks! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already think that the article is good enough for publishing.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When unsure which details to add, ask yourself if this detail is important enough or interesting enough that the article is honestly improved by putting it in - that it's not just bloat and not just a distraction. In this case, I say "You know the topic better than I do, so you decide". Either way, it's a minor detail that won't affect acceptance of the article.

The general guide to that whole topic (no need to read it right now, you should judge for yourself about these elements) is at WP:DUE. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply responding to Malikindahood07 and Mandruss removed my message, the message said "Well... Half of americans are Trump supporters, and Wikipedia follows others (reliable sources and other stuff) rather than having its own opinion about it, therefore as Mandruss said, establish a consensus.", I didn't said anything bad, yet Mandruss removed it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for additional context, i responded to Malikindahood07's message "It is time to qualify trump as a far-right politician, calls human immigrants animals, said why won't we get some people from Denmark or Norway, banned 75 non-European countries from applying for an immigrant visa. Trumpism is far-right. Not to mention his other policies or comments.", and i responded with "Well... Half of americans are Trump supporters, and Wikipedia follows others (reliable sources and other stuff) rather than having its own opinion about it, therefore as Mandruss said, establish a consensus.", Mandruss had also responded to Malikindahood07's message, saying "Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. -- Response per consensus 74. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow.". ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered talking to Mandruss first? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not exactly a new user, but I would like to have some opinions about creating a certain article. I am planning to make an article on a certain family. Three of the family members have their own Wikipedia pages and two have redirect pages and six others are mentioned. The family on the whole is extremely influential. Also, some members are kind of notable but not that notable, so I was thinking to include them in the family page.

• Hasan M. Elahi
• K. Maudood Elahi
• K. Mukhtar Elahi

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueMoriarty The challenging part is demonstrating that the family is notable. You need to have sources that discuss the family as a whole in some detail; notability is not inherited from the notability of individual family members. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only emphasizing something Helpful Raccoon already said: Wikipedia will only publish a whole-family article if reliable independent sources have already published whole-family articles that are significant. Wikipedia won't accept something that's put together from sources where they're discussed individually. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I currently have a draft page in process that was originally rejected so I made changes to it. I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved or not. Here is the link to the page: Draft:Pamela Drucker Mann. Mdwyer89 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A message will be left on your talk page. You can use your "preferences" to get email notifications, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Mdwyer89 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...but first you need to use the big button to resubmit it for review! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Platform: Netflix (international, likely removed)

Era watched: Unknown (possibly 2010s)
Status: Possibly lost / delisted media

Description:

I’m trying to find a kids animation that I remember watching on Netflix, but it no longer seems to exist anywhere.

Animation style was very simple, humanoid figures (almost stick-figure / line / clay-like) Characters were often pink and blue The setting was a dark city / nighttime urban environment Episodes sometimes showed the characters driving cars Music was synth / electronic, very atmospheric Felt retro / 80s-inspired, but I don’t think it was actually from the 80s Made for kids, not adult Not La Linea, not Angry Kid, not Abney & Teal, not Charlie’s Colorforms City It may have been: A short-form series An international show Something Netflix licensed briefly and later removed I can’t find any screenshots, clips, or listings online, so I believe it may be lost or undocumented media. Any help identifying this would be appreciated. Pooiey135 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pooiey135. This is the help desk for editing on Wikipedia, nothing else. Your best bet it to ask on one of the many Reddit.com subreddits about trying to identify media or try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. qcne (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is charged for fraud, regardless of whether it necessarily reflects in the quality of the source's information itself, should that source be considered unreliable?

For example, I saw someone cite this source before this charge: SEC.gov | SEC Charges App Annie and its Founder with Securities Fraud

Intuitively, I would avoid such a source, but I wanted to make sure. Ash.tahno (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While asking them "Did you commit fraud?" wouldn't get a reliable answer, and older publications of theirs that relate to something in the fraud case shouldn't be counted on, I don't think their older publications about something else are changed by this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind that a charge is not a conviction. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the readable prose size for a page for things like WP:DYK? I didn't see it in the tools. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i changed a photo so what leave me alone don’t ban me ~2026-32458-7 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a photo would not make you banned. If there is someone that wants to ban you, tell me details about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits so far have been only junk. If you switch to doing good edits, then it will be OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The message reads "Somehow this utter nonsense has been inserted into the article: "In the 1990s, gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists adopted the initialism LGB. Terminology eventually shifted to LGBT, as transgender people gained recognition." You'll note the lack of citations, because it is of course completely made up. There was an acronym **GLB** but that is not "LGB". GLBT was used very, very briefly, but LGBT came during the AIDS crisis, as lesbians were switched to the front in recognition of how much lesbian women had done caring for gay men dying of AIDS. How this falsehood entered a prominant wikipedia article uncited is completely unknown. You will find NO photos of "LGB" from the 70s because it was "Gay," "gay and lesbian" or occasionally "GLB". Never LGB, as ordering the Lesbians first ONLY happened during the AIDS crisis, and happened after Transgender was added to the acronym.", they also added that "Edit: A creep has tried to remove this. This is a factual inaccuracy, heavily pushed by the hate group "LGB drop the T". Given this comment was removed within hours of being posted on a talk page, I think it's obvious how this inaccuracy got added, and who is keeping it around.", reading this made me decide to write it on the Teahouse for answers about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2025-43053-85. What do you want answers on? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it dosen't have to be articles about it, but like for Radqueer and TransID to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Radqueer is a niche non-mainstream movement, it is not to be confused with queer radicalism, it is a community that consists of transidentities (also called/shortened as TransID) and paraphilias. Some people inside the community consider them as part of LGBT+ community, while others don't consider them part of the LGBT+ community, and TransID are transidentities outside of transgender identities, honestly, i don't know if i described it properly, maybe these websites will explain it better, please be aware that some, if not many of them are biased, if not heavily biased, and/or include incorrect information, if not outright disinformation, the TransID website (named after TransID, not the inventor of TransID) might be the best website in terms of information and accuracy, about Radqueer and TransID, anyways here are websites that most, if not all of them, most likely, if not definitely, coundl't be used as reliable sources i found: https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Radqueer https://lgballt.miraheze.org/wiki/Radqueer https://radqueer-terms.carrd.co/ https://transid.org/books/stances/page/radqueer https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/ https://radq.neocities.org/ https://map-wiki.com/index.php/Radqueer https://www.beyondtheplus.org/ https://transid.org/ https://lgballt.miraheze.org/wiki/TransID https://transid.org/books/stances/page/radqueer https://transid.org/books/transid/page/transid Also, i found this https://ee.virginia.edu/tag/radqueer-community but this web page dosen't work now and it isn't archived on Wayback Machine when i tried it, not sure if it can be found on Wayback Machine by other means, such as a different link, it could be archived on other web archiving sites, but i haven't tried it, anyways, find web pages about this that can be used as reliable sources, i'm not good at digging deep on the web, so someone here must find it themselfs, okay? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-43053-85, what do you want us to do with this information? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 22:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]