wp:teahouse

After reading Wikipedia:BADSOCK, what I found interesting is “Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: 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.”

But can you please all explain why can’t you create multiple accounts just to pretend to be multiple people or mislead that they are different people? Why these multiple accounts should never be used to edit the same article, unless linked and disclosed each other? Why is this considered sockpuppetry? And why is this forbidden to use more than one account to pose as multiple editors? And why it is considered a policy? However, why it couldn’t be used to look like more than one editor contributing to Wikipedia? Thanks. 2600:387:F:4B16:0:0:0:9 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Same reason why voting fraud is illegal in elections. There is no legitimate reason to lie to other editors by making them believe your socks are multiple people. It gives an unfair advantage to the sockmaster if they are not caught. It sets an atmosphere where we cannot trust each other. Why do you think this should be allowed? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I’m only talking about using multiple accounts to edit the same article or page. 2600:387:F:4B16:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no real reason for a constructive editor to want to edit a page using multiple accounts. GoldRomean (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's still lying and can be used to pretend there is a consensus. like user:tarlby said, there isn't any reason to do so unless you had malicious intent mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Tarlby @Mgjertson Yeah right? I don’t think that this should be allowed. Can this be the same with help desks, when voting or consensus is not involved? 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a new editor and have a declared conflict of interest (I’m the subject of the article). I’ve drafted a biography at User:Shafiur2020/sandbox and would be grateful if an uninvolved editor could take a look, advise on notability, and let me know if it’s ready for mainspace. Many thanks! Shafiur2020 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Editor here, see these wikipedia essays

:WP:N

:WP:COI

:WP:BLP

:WP:NPOV

:WP:SELFCITE 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:B554:36:682:91B2 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:The best way to solicit a review is to use the Article Wizard to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I will add that writing about yourself- while not absolutely forbidden- is inadvisable, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can add the {{template link|User Sandbox}} template to submit it from there. Please, of course read the articles that are posted above. Please also know that autobiographies are inadvisable as said by 331dot. Happy Editing! Cooldudeseven7 _{talk/contribs} 14:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::An IP added those, not me. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I read that wrong! Cooldudeseven7 _{talk/contribs} 15:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ooops sorry. I pasted the wrong reply to you. Apologies.

::::Thank you for your thoughtful reply and advice. I’ve read all the linked guidelines and am working carefully to follow them, including full COI disclosure and independent sourcing. I understand the risks and difficulties involved in drafting about oneself, which is why I’m seeking only independent review — not publication — and want to ensure the material is accurate and policy-compliant before any submission. Again, I really appreciate the guidance. Shafiur2020 (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks again for cleaning up the draft — that was really helpful.

::To better address the notability issue: I'm working on clarifying in the text how the sources show significance beyond just documenting my work.

::- The **CNN investigation** shows that my footage and survivor interviews were *central* to how they reconstructed the Tula Toli massacre; the piece is built around that material.

::- The **Spanish Ministry of Culture** PDF documents that the short film I produced (Tres tristes tigres) won awards and screened widely at festivals.

::- The **BBC World Service Newshour** interview presents the first documentary evidence suggesting pre-planning of the Rohingya massacre, based on testimonies I gathered.

::- **CPJ**  reported that I faced threats due to my journalism, highlighting both the sensitivity and impact of the work.

::- The **PEN Americal listing**  shows that I am recognised as a writer at risk, effectively exiled because of my reporting. This provides additional context for the press freedom dimensions of my work.

::I’ll revise the draft to make these connections more explicit and would welcome any further suggestions on how best to frame them. Shafiur2020 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Shafiur2020 I have edited your draft, which required extensive clean-up to make it a bit closer to our manual of style. The main issue remains to show how you are notable as defined by Wikipedia. For that you need as many fully independent sources as possible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks again for cleaning up the draft — that was really helpful.

::To better address the notability issue: I'm working on clarifying in the text how the sources show significance beyond just documenting my work.

::- The **CNN investigation** shows that my footage and survivor interviews were *central* to how they reconstructed the Tula Toli massacre; the piece is built around that material.

::- The **Spanish Ministry of Culture** PDF documents that the short film I produced (Tres tristes tigres) won awards and screened widely at festivals.

::- The **BBC World Service Newshour** interview presents the first documentary evidence suggesting pre-planning of the Rohingya massacre, based on testimonies I gathered.

::- **CPJ**  reported that I faced threats due to my journalism, highlighting both the sensitivity and impact of the work.

::- The **PEN Americal listing**  shows that I am recognised as a writer at risk, effectively exiled because of my reporting. This provides additional context for the press freedom dimensions of my work.

::I’ll revise the draft to make these connections more explicit and would welcome any further suggestions on how best to frame them. Shafiur2020 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

is it possible to crop a photo once it is posted?

thank you Guckercoalco (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Download the photo, crop it and upload under a different name. Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::can the original photo be deleted? how? Guckercoalco (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Guckercoalco}} If you uploaded the original photo, you can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{tl|db-g7}} to the original upload page. If you didn't, you probably shouldn't delete it at all, unless it's a non-free photo, in which case if you swap the photo in the article you are working on with the cropped version you can add {{tl|Orfud}} to the original photo and it will be deleted after 7 days. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I did upload the pictures. I had someone comment that it looked like I was not the owner of a picture but I am due to photo included the address where i have my pics. the pc needs cropped. I just want to abide by the requirements on this page but being a beginner at this... I'm learning slowly. many thanks Guckercoalco (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Rather than uploading a screenshot please download ("save") the original image to your computer and then upload that image to Wikimedia Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is a Crop tool in Commons, which I believe can be activated for other projects too: see :C:COM:CropTool. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::thank you! Guckercoalco (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Guckercoalco, are you referring to the image you uploaded of a computer monitor which is showing a page on Flickr which is showing a photo that someone else took which is showing a flag on a flagpole, bearing the logo to which you own the copyright as heir? DS (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Domenico Veneziano entry contains a link to an external video [http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/venezianos-st.-lucy-altarpiece.html]. This site does exist, but is at the current time a paid site, and the link does not lead one to information about this artist. This could be mentioned on the article's Talk Page, but is there a better way to handle the problem? Oldsilenus (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{a note}} I do not believe this site is paywalled, but after dismissing the donation screen it said it could not find the page. Worgisbor (congregate) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, this does appear to be a donation screen, not a paywall.

:This link might've been deleted, as per the message saying it cannot find the page.

:Are you sure that is the correct link? Cooldudeseven7 _{talk/contribs} 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Actually after asking the question I noticed that if one searches with the term "venezianos-st.-lucy-altarpiece" on the site one comes to the video. This is the way the link is given in the entry, but certainly NOT the best English grammar (one would expect "St Lucy Altarpiece" or "Veneziano's St Lucy Altarpiece" to work but they do not. Oldsilenus (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Then, after searching, it looks like the link is actually this. [https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/renaissance-reformation/early-renaissance1/painting-in-florence/v/veneziano-saint-lucy-altarpiece-1445-47] Cooldudeseven7 _{talk/contribs} 16:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I made a stats page for the women's rugby world cup statistics, basically mirroring what the men's version had, but unlike the men's none of this information was in a central location, so I went through world rugby game databases, ESPN match reports, and a lovely dutch website I found saved on internet archive to get a full list of scorers over the 9 prior editions of the tournament. To create the following article:

Records and statistics of the Women's Rugby World Cup

However since this is new research (as far as I know) there's nowhere for me to reference out for it. I've sent it on to the RFU and some other sites like https://womensrugbydata.com/womens-rugby-world-cup-1991/ but they haven't formally uploaded all the data yet.

What would you recommend I do in this instance? Is there a temporary repository I could use to source out the work I've done for this project? HitchikersPie (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

: Compiling statistics in this manner does not contravene the relevant guideline (WP:OR). So long as you cite the various sources that you have used, which you can do at the end of the table rather than at each individual point, that will be fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

What year? Swcr.kmook (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:What link, please? Cremastra (u — c) 03:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what would be the right place to ask about notability concerns prior to nominating for deletion? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

: You can ask on the talk page of any of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk pages. Be aware that some projects are more active than others and you may not get an answer very quickly on the inactive ones. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I’m a new editor working on creating a Wikipedia article about Samer Habbas, a personal injury attorney based in California. I have drafted the article with multiple third-party reliable sources, including legal rankings and local news coverage, and tried to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

Could someone please review my draft and provide any feedback or suggestions on how to improve it? I want to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for notability and style before I submit it for formal review.

Here is the link to my sandbox draft: User:SamerHabbas/sandbox

Thank you very much for your time and help! Sandhya16Jan (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Sandhya16Jan}}: to establish that Habbas is notable enough (in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense) to warrant an article about him, you'll need to find and cite several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him. I see no such source in your draft. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the feedback—I really appreciate your time and guidance.

::I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. I've cited some legal directories (like Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, and Super Lawyers), as well as press coverage such as the Los Angeles Times Business Visionaries feature. I’ve also included settlement reports and recognitions listed on third-party legal ranking sites.

::That said, I’d really appreciate your suggestions:

::Are there specific types of sources you recommend I look for (e.g., newspaper features, legal news outlets)?

::Would a profile in Law360 or a news article about one of his major cases be more appropriate?

::If I find two or three such articles, would that likely establish notability?

::I'm happy to revise the draft and do more research. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction! Sandhya16Jan (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::These things are largely not reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. Simple database entries and basic profiles written by unknown parties are not useful and these are not editorial (and at least one is for hiring Habbas). The Los Angeles Times link is also inappropriate as "LA Times Studio" explicitly "does not involve the Los Angeles Times editorial staff," and is developed "from press releases, announcements and contributor content."

:::You seem to be concentrating on "finding" articles, but that's not how Wikipedia articles work and is an example of WP:BACKWARDS. The proper way to go about things is to start with the sources, and then write the article base on the sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, how can I vote in ArbCom elections? But, how could I vote if the voting is not visible on wiki and from a different site? Why are these votes often scrutinized and checked? How does it work though? What is the reason on why it is not seen visibly unlike other voting processes? 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please read Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections, which explains a lot. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello. In order to vote in ArbCom elections, you must register an account and make at least 150 edits with that account. IP editors cannot participate in ArbCom elections. The voting process is scrutinized and checked to ensure fairness and accuracy. If you register an account and make over 150 edits on a timely basis, the next election will be visible to you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Cullen328 @Hoary But would voting be on wiki or off wiki? I don’t see where voting takes place, since I don’t see them. 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::IP editor. Didn't you read the page that Hoary linked? The voting procedure is explained at Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections#Voting process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I did. Is it like AfDs? 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, ArbCom elections are an entirely different process than AfDs. Arbcom elections are conducted using a special software tool called [https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll SecurePoll]. Cullen328 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You haven't seen how voting for ArbCom is done because you don't have a registered account. Voting for ArbCom is a very visible process for registered editors. Do something useful rather than wasting your time asking questions to which the answer is registering an account. Oh. I almost forgot. You probably do have a registered blocked account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I am VS Balajee.

I would like my Profile to be updated in Wikipedia as I am mentoring a lot of Software Firms at free of cost.

Can any one guide me in the procedss VS Balajee (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @VS Balajee, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:If Wikipedia has an article about you (which is not a "profile", as it does not belong to you and is not controlled by you) then you should not edit it, and instead you should submit edit requests for changes - noting that unless any information you wish to add is supported by reliable published sources wholly independent of you, it is unlikely to be added.

:I don't find an article with "Balajee" in the title, so I'm guessing that we do not have an article about you at present, and you mean that you want your "profile" to appear in Wikipedia. If that is the case, please understand that promotion of any kind is not permitted in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia can have an article about you only if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which most of us do not.

:Your mention of "as I am mentoring a lot of Software Firms at free of cost" strongly implies that your purpose is to promote your services (Wikipedia uses "promotion" to mean "telling the world about something" and does not distinguish commercial from non-commercial purposes). Please find other outlets to tell the world about your services. ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Why isn’t social media a reliable source, and what happens if you cite them as a source? Why it needs to be from both academic and independent sources instead of just social network platforms? Examples of social media not being a reliable source. 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello IP user. Social media is not generally a reliable source, because anybody can say anything about anything on social media. There are certain limited cases where social media can be used - see WP:SPS ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, what about Wikipedia and other library books? 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Books may or may not be reliable; it all depends on the book in question. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Writ Keeper Are physical books easy to cite, compared to online? Do Wikipedians and users read them for learning something new? I see a point in citing them for articles. 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:For examples, see Fake news and The Disinformation Project, for starters. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve created a draft article titled (Draft:Information Security Education and Awareness Project) It’s about a public initiative focused on promoting information security awareness and education. I would appreciate it if someone could review the draft and provide feedback or suggestions on how I can improve it to meet Wikipedia’s notability and style guidelines. Thank you! Yoursfriend (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Yoursfriend}}, your draft cites many sources, but the ones I've checked don't qualify as independent of the subject. Which three of the sources do most, in your opinion, to establish that the subject is wikinotable?   Maproom (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your feedback. I agree that many sources about ISEA are official or affiliated. However, the following three sources do the most to independently establish the project's notability:

::# The Times of India

::#* [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/government-has-a-cybersecurity-tip-of-the-day-for-citizens/articleshow/113986268.cms “Government has a cybersecurity tip of the day for citizens”]

::#* This national newspaper article discusses ISEA’s public cyber awareness campaigns and their impact, demonstrating mainstream media recognition and public relevance.

::# ECB Bikaner (Engineering College Bikaner)

::#* [https://ecb.ac.in/isea/index.html ISEA at ECB]

::#* As an independent academic institution, ECB Bikaner references ISEA’s objectives and best practices, showing the project’s adoption and influence outside its own consortium.

::# ERNET India (with International Collaboration)

::#* [https://ernet.in/projects/isea.html Information Security Education & Awareness (ISEA)]

::#* This source documents ISEA’s collaborative training programs with international partners (such as ITU and Malaysia University of Science and Technology), and lists participation from a broad range of Indian public sector organizations, demonstrating institutional and international recognition.

::These sources are independent of ISEA’s core team and directly support the project’s national impact, adoption by outside institutions, and recognition in the media and international community. Yoursfriend (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi, are you using an LLM such as ChatGPT in any way? If so, I strongly encourage that you don't and explain why those sources are notable in your own words. In addition, if you are using AI to write your draft as well, it is unlikely to ever be accepted. Currently, it has a very promotional tone that needs to be fixed. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your feedback. I have revised the draft to remove promotional language and ensure a neutral, fact-based tone throughout. I have also prioritized independent, secondary sources to support the article’s statements, and I have addressed challenges and limitations for balance. Please let me know if any further adjustments are needed. Yoursfriend (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please address the LLM concerns. You should not be communicating using AI, and LLMs are known to hallucinate and create poor quality articles with information not supported by sources. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How do i publish a biography on wikipedia for a person? Silvanussa (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:See Help:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created a page for an artist and clicked publish, is that it uploaded or is there checks? It hasn't come up on other devices Smith29127 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Referring to Draft:Holly_Nicholson? Make sure you click publish, looks you since then have. Cwater1 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Smith29127. You "published" the edit to the page, but it has not actually been created as an article. Please submit the draft (with the template at the top of the page) so an experienced editor can evaluate it and choose to publish or not. They will give feedback. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, @Smith29127, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

::A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable sources, and very little else. None of your citations is to anything resembling that description, and so, in Wikipedia's terms, your draft is unsupported by citations, and will not be accepted.

::{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a draft -- it won't show up in main article space. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you need to search a draft from the search bar, Just search in the following formatting:

:Draft: (draft name)

:So in your case, you would need to search Draft:Holly_Nicholson.

:Articles do not show up in the mainspace until not in the Draft space. Cooldudeseven7 _{talk/contribs} 16:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Template:AI-generated/doc is used on both Template:AI-generated and Template:AI-generated inline. Some of its text seems to be made to change depending on which template it's being used on, but a lot of it isn't, even where it only applies to one of the templates.

For example, the {{tqqi|"Template:ChatGPT" redirects here}} text appears on both templates, Template:AI-generated inline#How to use has incorrect instructions (saying to place it at the top of the article, rather than after the suspicious sentence), and the example in that section uses {{tl|AI-generated}} even though it's on Template:AI-generated inline.

I'm not sure what to do about it, but could someone please fix that? Thanks! 2A00:807:D3:B2CD:7445:39E3:B45E:3EE3 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fixed. Feel free to populate Template:AI-generated inline/doc.

:Thank you for flagging this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

In the Career section of the article on Anne Applebaum, two boxes titled "Video Links" duplicate a standard external link (to C-Span) at the end of the article. Should these video boxes be retained? Pac Veten (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pac Veten, I suppose that the idea of the editor(s) who provided the boxes was that the boxes should appear close to the description/mention in the body text of the books/issues/whatever that Applebaum discusses in the total of three videos that are linked to in those boxes. This arrangement is unusual in Wikipedia (usually taken as a minus), though I suppose it's helpful (a plus). The three videos presumably -- I confess that I didn't check -- can be found linked to from that C-Span page (or its continuation) that's one of the external links at the foot of the article. However, that C-Span page (with its continuation) links to a lot more than three of Applebaum's videos. I can understand how you'd think that something about this isn't entirely satisfactory; however, nothing about it strikes me as worrisome. So I'm disinclined to make any change (but open-minded about changes made by others). Uh ... if you'd like to improve this article (which already is pretty good), then I suggest attending to the references currently described simply as "Blob". (Did an editor perhaps intend these descriptions as temporary placeholders but then get distracted by other matters and forget about them?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I suppose that the essence of the question is whether these two video boxes are promotional or not? Pac Veten (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I get rid of the pop-ups when navigating over a link. I don't have an account and don't really want to create one just to get the page to display properly. 207.68.112.138 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:This feature is called Page Previews. Does mw:Page_Previews#Logged-Out_Users help? If it doesn't work, you can also try using CSS to set display: none. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to add a Pakistani news broadcast channel, GTV News (Pakistan), to Wikipedia. Kumailabbasseo (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Kumailabbasseo, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

:In most cases, the only way to "add something to Wikipedia" is to write a well-sourced and neutral encyclopaedia article about the subject.

:This is an exciting and rewarding thing to do; but it is challenging, especially for new editors, and is probably very different from anything you've ever done before.

:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Bee6680213 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Bee6680213. It looks like you've copied and pasted your question from someone else's question. There should be answers there. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:The content is sourced with secondary sources. Sources make that we can verify. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Quite recently, I encountered two extremely serious errors. One error that had been added very recently provided misinformation about medication that could potentially result in death. I fixed that one. The other error gave misinformation about the law, which potentially could result in a 15-year prison sentence for someone who relied on that. An IP editor added that piece of misinformation over 10 years ago. BTW, chatgpt will provide the same misinformation if you ask it the right way. I've left that error in place. You might think they would have some process to ensure such edits get checked, but as you now know, that's not the case. Fabrickator (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Who is "they"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Bee6680213}}. How do you know anything is true? This is not merely a question about Wikipedia. If you ask Wikipedia users, we will readily agree that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, for several reasons. First, anyone can edit and you may catch an article at a time when someone with an axe to grind or simply vandalize has changed the reading to something untrue and unverified. Second, the verifiability policy means that we try to refer readers to sources that are considered reliable but often those sources fail to provide truth. This reliance on external reporting means that biases in that reporting will also show up as bias in Wikipedia articles.

::: The collective action of thousands of editors will tend to drive the content towards something resembling truth, but a reader wanting to know the real truth about a subject will still have to look at the references and make up their own mind. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think Wikipedia is worthless. That is the nicest way I can put it. There's a huge amount of information, there's a lot less "hype" than you might get from a straight web search. And (for better or worse) there's a certain "level" of plausibility (though this is perhaps the most dangerous aspect. ... If a random website says something is true, you might be skeptical, but if Wikipedia says it, then you're likely to accept that it's probably true.)

::::The ability to check citations is of somewhat questionable usefulness. Sources are not required to be online, and if they are online, they're not required to be free. Now if it's something that has no practical effect if it's right or wrong, then these objections are not especially valid. I identified a couple of very serious errors (in terms of potential for harm) within about a week, and I'm not going around searching for errors or even looking at more than just a handful or articles. One error had just been inserted a couple of days before I discovered it, and I fixed it. The other has been there for ten years, but I chose just to note the error on the article talk page. I would suggest that the notion that all these editors have the effect of "driving content towards the truth" is perhaps a dangerous one. Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not a single source is perfect with 100% true You can click on a random guy's blog and get the same false information as you may find on Wikipedia. Obvious vandalism and disruptive editing on popular articles are almost instantly reverted, but on more niche articles, having the skills to spot misinformation can be useful DankPedia (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The whole point is that this is not some random guy's blog ... Wikipedia is supposed to be better, because it supposedly cites reliable sources and there are other editors looking over these edits made by other members of the Wikipedia community, all in an effort to maintain its accuracy. What I'm saying is that this can be delusional. Erroneous content gets added, whether done maliciously or not, and the reality is that nobody takes responsibility for the result. Fabrickator (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please see WP:TRUTH. We don't claim that anything presented is the truth. We're only as good as the people who choose to help and have the time to invest in poring over the millions of articles to make sure they accurately summarize the sources provided. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This effectively misrepresents the issue and the situation. For one thing, the Wikipedia general disclaimer (footnoted at the bottom of every article) states {{blockquote|The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.}} This rather strongly suggests that the problem is limited to content which has recently been changed, which leads us to weasel wording, described as: {{blockquote|vague, misleading, or ambiguous language intended to give the impression of meaning, truth, or authority without actually making a clear or verifiable statement}} which really challenges the legal validity of WP:TRUTH. And oh, by the way, the same policy also states (tongue in cheek):{{blockquote|Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.}} This being a reference to the apparent claim that everything has been checked against reliable sources, yet this is not true even if you allow for the fact that not everything will be immediately verified. Fabrickator (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:NOTRIGHT: we can try to make it as good as possible, but can't guarantee anything.

:::::::::The purpose of the Teahouse is to get help with actually editing Wikipedia, not a general forum for discussion. DankPedia (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: "Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?"

hi Jirapatch Pruksanusak (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Jirapatch Pruksanusak}} This same question was asked and answered a few topics above. Please check out those answers and ask again if you have more questions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Chanarat.TRI (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

While I have donated to WIKI before I am having trouble finding the "Donate" button again :-( :-( :-( ----MountVic127 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, it's here - https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:@MountVic127 You might be interested to first read up on Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are some edits crossed out? Is it a copyright thing?

--pro-anti-air (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Pro-anti-air}}. STRIKEOUT markup is used on talk and discussion pages when a user needs to change what they said, but enough time has elapsed that it would be a problem to simply remove or edit over the relevant text. You would, for instance, use it when someone has already responded, so as to keep the context of what they were responding to. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I mean in the View history tab, some edits are crossed out and cannot be viewed.

::--pro-anti-air (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, those ones are edits/revisions that have been deleted or suppressed, generally for legal or safety reasons. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Yes, {{u|Pro-anti-air}} copyright violations are just one reason certain edits will have been made unavailable to view. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Edits can be hidden (they are still there and can be seen by admins; or in severe cases only oversighters) for a number of reasons. In addition to the above-stated copyright violation, these can include:

• Defamation
• People posting others' personal information
• Individuals accidentally posting their own personal information
• Spam
• Illegal content (chiefly CSAM)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Modifications have been made to this article. I feel it is written in NPOV, but since I wrote it, I would like to get other opinions from others. DankPedia (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's already at AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Speedily kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that this has most likely been brought up before, but why do only 3 roblox games have Wikipedia articles? So many of these games should be notable for setting records or having controversy.

Lets give an example for the setting records part, Grow a Garden just hit 6.5 million players playing the game at once. The update is only an hour away. That has to be the most CCU of any video game of all time. Why does Grow a Garden not have a Wikipedia article yet?

For the controversy part of this argument, Pet Simulator has been known for being basically child gambling, NFT scandals, creating brand new marketing strategies used in other games, and having some of the most addictive gameplay ever. (and to top it off, a McDonalds promotion.)

The fact that Galarian Corsola has an article but Roblox games that have done some insane stuff (for better or for worse) don’t have articles is kinda crazy to me. Toketaa^talk 13:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Toketaa. Notability on Wikipedia can be a strange concept. Factors like player counts don't contribute to notability. What does matter are secondary sources providing in-depth information on the subject. Without these sources, no such article can be published, because there would be no verifiable information to create an encyclopedic article.

:You can try finding these sources yourself if you wish. There's always a chance the article hasn't been created because simply no one wanted to create it yet. Good luck. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I just created the article for Grow a Garden as there was sufficient coverage of the game in reliable sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:To give an example of what the other users have said, The Henry Stickmin Collection has no (English) Wikipedia article despite being very popular. If it receives enough coverage one day I might create the article as I quite like the series, but I don't think that's the case yet. Popularity does not confer notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Have a nice day :) –The Sophocrat (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Add ROBLOX Frosaken GinoFCHq (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sources? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse. FORSAKEN has to meet WP:NVIDEOGAME to have an article on Wikipedia. ^EF⁵ 16:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying DisamagBot but not showing on tool option. Cwater1 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is not apparent which tool you mean. Please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

In my first task as an editor, Wikipedia gave me the challenge to find a citation in an article about Katyusha rocket launchers. (Katyusha rocket launcher)

While looking for the information, I came across two other sites and nearly cited them until I realized the text of the articles were 100% identical to the Wikipedia entry: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33152# and https://handwiki.org/wiki/Engineering:Katyusha_rocket_launcher

What is Wikipedia's policy on authors publishing an identical article on other online encyclopedias? Inquisit345 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: See WP:REUSE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Saw a new state highway sign in my town and wanted to write an article on it (it is a newly resigned highway. There are no articles or sources of any kind on it. Any good ways to find sources for such a situation. Thanks! JeepLibertyIsBestCar (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Subjects must meet WP:N to warrant an article here. It sounds as though the highway does not - but it might in future, so keep looking for sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No matter which Wikipedia I go on, I can't seem to find a page for general discussion about the Wikipedia. Are there any pages like that, since I know the Teahouse is for help. AtTheTownHouse (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are a lot of possible venues for discussion "about Wikipedia" – is there a specific question/issue you have in mind? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::suggestions, i guess AtTheTownHouse (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::AtTheTownHouse: Suggestions about what? Can you be more specific? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::nevermind, I'm not really sure. if possible, could you end this discussion in some way or another? AtTheTownHouse (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::AtTheTownHouse: Not a problem. It just occurred to me that the community portal might have some pointers if you have a general idea what you're looking for. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|AtTheTownHouse}}, there are six different Village pump pages for open discussion. They are Policy, Technical, Proposals, Idea Lab, WMF and Miscellaneous. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! :D

Do the Smithsonian magazine and New Scientist websites count as reliable sources?

Thank you! NectarLupine (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: Hello {{u|NectarLupine}}, and welcome to the Teahouse. Questions about specific publications, as a whole, asking if they can be considered reliable are misguided. Yes, some of the articles published by those magazines or websites might be considered reliable sources for some purposes. But you always have to evaluate a source in context and that depends on more considerations than where it was published. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:In general, yes, though some caveats apply, such as self-publication, if the author is also the subject of the article where you wish to cite the work.

:As always, we can only comment generally, unless you provide specific example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Trying to setup a page, (andy.tookey) but rejected due to a lack of links/citations?

Have tried going through the site but its too overwhelming!

Can I just change wording to go to a hyperlink or something?

Must be hundreds of verifiable articles on line about the topic i'm adding.

Also want to add more info with the links to make it verifiable but honestly this is all new to me and i don't know where to start! Andy.tookey (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Andy.tookey Hello. User:Andy.tookey is your WP:USERPAGE, it's meant to write a little of who you are and what you do/want to do on Wikipedia.

:Making an acceptable WP-article without knowing how to edit WP is hard. A common advice is to "just" edit for a while first, to try to get a hang of this place.

:That said, your first hurdle is "Can a WP-article about your chosen subject be written at all?" Start with reading WP:BACKWARD. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to WP:YFA. If your choice of topic fails WP:N, the article will not be accepted. If you decide to go ahead, you need to learn how to add references correctly, WP:TUTORIAL can help with that. This is crucial, and I can't stress that enough. Really. If you intend to write about a living person, read WP:BLP. If you intend to write about yourself (WP:COI), the short advice is "don't."

:Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to add outlined maps from open street map like This and This one to some of the national parks and protected areas like Sariska Tiger Reserve but the outline is not showing on wikipedia. These articles have outlined maps on openstreet [https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9466769#map=9/27.378/76.389 maps]. Wikiwizardinho (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve created a draft article on Neeraj Jangra at User:MediaScope2025 but I’m not autoconfirmed yet. Can someone please help move it to the Draft namespace as Draft:Neeraj Jangra for submission? Thanks MediaScope2025 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@MediaScope2025, it's now at Draft:Neeraj Jangra. I would note two things: first, you have not cited any sources. For an article to be accepted, the topic should be notable. That is generally achieved by having at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here. Second, the draft has external sources linked from the text body, which is generally not permitted (see WP:EL). You should move them to the External links section. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the feedback, @SunloungerFrog. I appreciate the clarification. I’m currently in the process of gathering reliable, independent sources with significant coverage and will update the draft accordingly. I’ll also make sure to move all external links from the body to the “External links” section as per WP:EL guidelines. Your guidance is very helpful as I work on improving the draft. Cheers! MediaScope2025 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If that's what you're doing, then you're doing it backwards. You should first gather the sources, then draft the article based on those sources. I suggest you try that next time. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

If Wikipedia isnt a reliable source since a page might be vandalized, can we use a revision of a page to cite sources?Iwillpeeonadime (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, Wikipedia is never considered a reliable source. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

As the title suggests, I’m here to find out what actually happens to a discussion initiated by a blocked user on Wikipedia. Is the discussion closed indefinitely, or does it remain open for other users to continue participating? Find the related discussion here on Talk:List of chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh#Requested move 19 May 2025 456legendtalk 07:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because others have already participated, the discussion will run its course. The status of the person who initiated it is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’m Muhammad Aman Ullah.

I am the subject of a draft Wikipedia article based entirely on reliable, independent sources such as Amnesty International, The News on Sunday, Associated Press, and others. I’ve already disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) on my user page.

Because I’m directly involved in the topic, I’m requesting assistance from a neutral editor who could either review or help create the article to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia standards.

If someone is willing to help, I can provide a complete draft and list of references.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Though it is inadvisable for you to write about yourself(see the autobiography policy), you may submit a draft for review using the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@M.A.U-Mr.Human Welcome to the Teahouse. Please would you provide a link to the draft article to which you are referring. There is no Draft:Muhammad Aman Ullah, and the subject of Mohammed Amanullah is deceased. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! I’ve created the draft here: Draft:Muhammad Aman Ullah (activist). I welcome any feedback or improvements. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Your draft is lacking independent, reliable soruces for many of its statements. It will not be published without them.

:::See WP:FIRST for guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Andy. I’ve now revised the draft with inline citations for each key statement, referencing reliable third-party sources including Amnesty International, AP, The News on Sunday, and Free Inquiry. I appreciate any further feedback. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{courtesy link|Kumaoni Rajput#Clans}}

I want help to add waldia caste in kumaoni rajput clans list SATENDERA72 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: Please be bold, and do so. You will need to cite a reliable source.

Hey Everyone!

I feel a little helpless as I have done an edit on Josh Cahill page as new and very reliable sources have been published regarding his nationality and birthplace. I have added the changes according to wikipedia guidelines and it was also backed up by other experienced editors but one particular editor always tries to undo those without reasoning other than them not fitting his narrative, he doesn't provide any sources but just argues that the claims are wrong. I don't want to lose faith in the truth and wondering why his opinion is supposed to trump reliable sources? Thanks for your guidance. MilesMogul87 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. You need to discuss your concerns with the other editor involved to reach a consensus. The user has provided reasons in the edit summary. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I was reading WK user page guidelines and I saw something strange, "Wikipedia is not your personal homepages" and you cannot promote your social medias. But, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZKevinTheCat this user correct me if i am not sure, does uses the promotion. I do not know this person but I just came upon his account and noticed the disorder. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)