Hey @Whpq. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. 🙂 –❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 05:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Whpq (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Technical news
- Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
- Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958
Miscellaneous
It is learned that Wikipedia admins made this difficult decision to delete the files which I uploaded at UTC time 03:46, and that my arguments to keep them were eventually not accepted, which I gracefully accept as a user. I also admit that since the article consists of mainly primary source, I will now redirect them back to the Kluang town article itself to reflect the town’s importance to readers both in and out of the town. I wish the admins well in upholding the values of Wikipedia and undertaking their responsibility. Hongqilim (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
تغيير اسم تروكلور —الاسد الأسد الاسد (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- You will need to communicate in English. — Whpq (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi. My name is Virginia but I go by Leanne. I would like to add an explanation to Wikipedia about what the circumstances were for the early Mormons taking multiple wives? Can you direct me to the section in Wikipedia where this subject is discussed? —Pumpkin0222 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with that subject area. Perhaps somebody who is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity can give you better guidance. Whatever change you are planning to make, you must provide a reliable source to source the information. — Whpq (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps a year ago I suggested a change to a very basic mistake on Woody Allen’s page. The edit was implemented. Now, the mistake, the mis-information, has been included in the page again. I informed Wiki of the mis-information, but was told I had to provide a source. Wikipedia got Woody Allen’s name wrong, he has NEVER been known as Heywood Allen. But how can I have a source for a negative, for something that does not exist? Nowhere in any of Woody Allen’s many biographies, nowhere in his autobiography, is the name Heywood Allen even mentioned. Heywood Allen is a joke he used in one of his stand-up routines. It is not now and never has been his real (or changed) name. I even message Robert B. Weide, one of Woody’s close friends and the director of the extensive Woody Allen: A Documentary, and he confirmed that Woody never changed his name to Heywood Allen. If Wikipedia can’t even get this simplest of facts right, how can I believe anything I read anywhere in their pages? I feel I can no longer make financial contributions to an organisation that can make such a simple, basic, fundamental mistake. But what can be done about such a mistake? —Mort Rifkin (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest you initiate a discussion of this issue at talk:Woody Allen. The legal name change is sourced to a NY Times obituary on Mickey Rose where the fact is just a parenthetical comment. What other sources make the claim for this name change? Proving a negative is obviously a challenge, but preponderance of evidence can help. What does Allen’s autobiogrpahy say about his name? What about biographies written about Allen? Getting other editors to review and decide on whether the NY Times obit is enough to support the name change claim will help determine what is in the article.
- Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay that you may find interesting. The reality is that Wikipedia editors need to rely on what reliable sources state, and sometimes, these reliable sources can get it wrong. — Whpq (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Yo gng —Lukehendo67 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a question? — Whpq (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Was just saying hi but do you know what to do if you feel a mod is picking on you Lukehendo67 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I am having trouble ascertaining when an article contains what is deemed subjective opinion. For example, in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Barcia-Colombo
…the only thing that I think could be “opinion” is “The project was honored by the non-profit organization Americans for the Arts.[13]”. This seems legit, being honored by a legit organization – but is this actually an instance that should be deleted/edited? If yes, I understand. If no, I don’t know what else on that page qualifies. I have had this similar problem on every page presented to me – they seem legit, but maybe i am being overly generous (actually, overly restrictive) in my definition of subjective. Thanks for your help! —Matt61schulte (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that the best way to find out what is wrong with the article is to ask user:Mean as custard has that editor is the person who added the {{peacock}} tag. — Whpq (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- thank you, I will! Matt61schulte (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, nice to meet you. I am trying to get familiar with contributing to Wikipedia, with one of my goals to publish on a notable musical artist from Mauritius. Are you able to take a look at a draft for feedback? Thank you and have a great day —Arthelme (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Creating a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest you edit existing articles to get more familiar with editing Wikipedia before tackling a new article. When you do, you should have a look at Help:Your first article. The topic needs to be covered in some depth by multiple independent reliable sources in order to qualify for an article. One thing that has been happening a lot is that new editors are using AI/large language models/ChatGPT to write the article for them. Although that may be tempting idea, don’t do it. AI has a very bad tendency to just make stuff up, put in false or non-existent references, and generally make a complete hash of things.
- With respect to reviewing a draft, I suggest that you make use of Articles for creation. The reviewing editors at that project have a particular interest in new articles and can provide you feedback on any issues that the draft may have. — Whpq (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Milford High School (Ohio), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Abishe (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The following accounts don’t have the word “bot” in the usernames, but were blocked for this incorrect reason. As far as I can tell, each of these was a misclick in Twinkle:
For some of them – e.g. Biogreen perfect skin (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Drskjainsburlingtonclinic (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and Findaindia (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – you’d noticed the mistake and corrected it later. —andrybak (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I have amended the block reason. Cheers. — Whpq (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
| January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |
 |
|
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
|
|
| You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
I am wanting to post an article about my mother-in-law, Harriette Slack Richardson, who was an organist and composer. I would start with a fairly extensive obituary.
can you point me to how I go about this?
Thanks —Tosii2 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict of interest, so you must be aware of the rules and policies related to that. Your mother-in-law would need to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for having an article, usually referred to as notability. The article would need to be supported with coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See Help:Your first article for more information about writing an article. Any article you create would need to be done as a draft submitted through the Articles for creation process. — Whpq (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Tosii2 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
What would you say is the key to being a good editor on Wikipedia? —Commendable1 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Being able to cooperate with other editors. — Whpq (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The article you deleted was intended as fiction. I’ll make that more obvious next time since you apparently couldn’t understand that.
Thanks. Zip817251 (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a web host for your fiction. There should not be a “next time”. — Whpq (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Hi Whpq,
How are you?
You left a message to me regarding Wikipedia and copyright. The entire text was rewritten, compared to the previous posted months ago. This text is based on Biosynthesis scope and certainly can’t differ too much once it is a specific subject (technical). Related to the 4 images posted in Wikimedia I received a permission for a Diagram (and soon after the image was removed by Wikimedia without extra information) and the others I’m giving the necessary information like rights holders, to allow their usage.
So if possible, I would like to know exactly what else I should complement or change to be publish eligible.
Thank you,
Waiting for a reply,
Wikison Es Wiki son es (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Your issues with images on Wikimedia Commons will need to be dealt with on Commons. I cannot help you with that. If you have rewritten the text in your own words, that should be fine. I suggest you make use of the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. You would submit your draft for review by an experienced editor who can provide feedback on whether it is ready to be published. — Whpq (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you Whpq
- I’m going to do it tomorrow.
- I have the original text and the one I wrote, so I’m going to send both as a way to compare and check the changes. Would suggest someone to review it?
- I’m going to deal with them (Commons).
- Thank you once more,
- Cheers, Wikison Es Wiki son es (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Your original text was a copyright violation. Do not repost it here on Wikipedia. Doing so is contrary to Wikipedia copyright policy and can result in you being blocked from editing. There are no assigned reviewers. When submitted to AFC, an AFC reviewer who decides they want to review it will do so. There is no queue or priority sequence so it could happen quickly or take some time. — Whpq (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I marked this file for deletion on January 2nd. On the day when files in the corresponding category were supposed to be deleted, the tag I added was removed and the file wasn’t deleted. Can you delete it or do I need to bring it to FFD? — Ирука13 13:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- You tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:F11. It was challenged by another editor in good faith who is not the uploader of the image by removing the tag. That is fine. It means the deletion is not uncontroversial, and if you feel it must be deleted, you will need to make the case by nominating at FFD. Honestly, I would not bother. It looks like a photo where the uploader asked somebody else to take the photo using the uploader’s camera. You can argue about who the author is but I am sure a case could be made that m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership applies. — Whpq (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Hello and of course Thank you for being my mentor! Anyways I’ve got a question. If edit or revertion wars start and I’m not in the wrong how should I report it? Thanks. —Galdorius (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- You should not be edit-warring regardless of whether you are right. — Whpq (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
How do I report users who harass others by going after their every contribution or engaging in edit wars? thank you. —Galdorius (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Before jumping to reporting other editors, have you tried civilly discussing the issue with the other editor? Have you taken any steps with dispute resolution? — Whpq (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes I did, the editor removed my responses on talk page & ignored my warnings to stop after confronting the editor and the editor keeps abusing without any further discussion by nominating more of the articles I contributed in or made for deletion and reverting. Galdorius (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I see no edits by you that correspond to talk pages that correspond to what you have described. Where are these conversations? — Whpq (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have had come into an misunderstandings with the user (and also an admin) voorts. Voorts went after my contributions and then the same day went after my article on the totally different articles. When confronting Voorts (I did not know at the time that he was admin and just by searching his user on google I could see people constantly complain about his admin abuse, which I mentioned in the Odintsovo school attack deletion discussion which he nominated for no apparent reason). After all the words of confrontations i’ve sent to Voorts via notes on edits. Voorts simply said nothing but reverted me again and nominated another article I put a hard work on for deletion. Most without explanation, nor anything but just goes after my stuff without explanation or even a basic note on why (I checked Voorts’ deletion nominations on articles where I put hard work on and it still says nothing). I am not the only one Voorts is harassing on here there are dozen people outside of wikipedia also stating it but they can’t say it here because Voorts Permabanned them. A simple search would show Voorts rep. Voorts also simply tried debating onto one with my articles by stating its a routine coverage which makes no sense, Voorts just tries to find an excuse to go after my stuff especially now after confronting Voorts. Galdorius (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- My first interaction with you I blanked and redirected a single article you wrote, and then nominated it for deletion after you reverted me with uncivil remarks. I then nominated the article for deletion, as is standard practice when someone contests redirecting. I also nominated a second article you wrote for deletion. Both of those nominations were as part of WP:NPP. Contrary to what you said above, you did not attempt to have a civil conversation with me. Your first comments to me were a threat to get me banned. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologize for that I got heated up, and saw all the rumors going around about you. It really wasn’t okay on my side and I get that. But I thought you were going after my contributions trying to wipe them off for whatever reason (this didn’t happen the first time and It’s not my first time getting people permabanned on here) so i’m extremely cautious but I guess I was in the wrong and blew up threatening with ban. Galdorius (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am also just seeing your reply as of now. I thought you were straight up ignoring me. I was wrong, I apologize. From now on I will be civil towards you and others but it did seem at first as targetting and all the rumors ive seen from the forums and other places so I guess they are mad because you permabanned them and I don’t know the full story behind it so sorry for the accusations too. Also, no hard feelings! — Galdorius (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. As of this moment, I have made 300 blocks. Some of the editors I’ve blocked are bound to be upset. You should not believe random things you read on the internet or allow it to color your perception of other editors. I think the healthiest way to approach Wikipedia is to avoid those forums and focus on editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are correct and I appreciate your message. Galdorius (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. As of this moment, I have made 300 blocks. Some of the editors I’ve blocked are bound to be upset. You should not believe random things you read on the internet or allow it to color your perception of other editors. I think the healthiest way to approach Wikipedia is to avoid those forums and focus on editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Galdorius: I see now that you have not used any talk page. Notes on edit summaries does not constitute a conversation with another editor. You need to use the talk page. That can be the other user’s talk page, or the talk page of the article that is the subject of the disagreement. You are also claiming that the nominations of articles for deletion have no explanation. Looking at the nominations, each has a policy-based reason provided. Although it is disappointing to have an article you created nominated for deletion, none of the deletion nominations look to be out of line or some form of harassment. — Whpq (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- My first interaction with you I blanked and redirected a single article you wrote, and then nominated it for deletion after you reverted me with uncivil remarks. I then nominated the article for deletion, as is standard practice when someone contests redirecting. I also nominated a second article you wrote for deletion. Both of those nominations were as part of WP:NPP. Contrary to what you said above, you did not attempt to have a civil conversation with me. Your first comments to me were a threat to get me banned. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have had come into an misunderstandings with the user (and also an admin) voorts. Voorts went after my contributions and then the same day went after my article on the totally different articles. When confronting Voorts (I did not know at the time that he was admin and just by searching his user on google I could see people constantly complain about his admin abuse, which I mentioned in the Odintsovo school attack deletion discussion which he nominated for no apparent reason). After all the words of confrontations i’ve sent to Voorts via notes on edits. Voorts simply said nothing but reverted me again and nominated another article I put a hard work on for deletion. Most without explanation, nor anything but just goes after my stuff without explanation or even a basic note on why (I checked Voorts’ deletion nominations on articles where I put hard work on and it still says nothing). I am not the only one Voorts is harassing on here there are dozen people outside of wikipedia also stating it but they can’t say it here because Voorts Permabanned them. A simple search would show Voorts rep. Voorts also simply tried debating onto one with my articles by stating its a routine coverage which makes no sense, Voorts just tries to find an excuse to go after my stuff especially now after confronting Voorts. Galdorius (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I see no edits by you that correspond to talk pages that correspond to what you have described. Where are these conversations? — Whpq (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes I did, the editor removed my responses on talk page & ignored my warnings to stop after confronting the editor and the editor keeps abusing without any further discussion by nominating more of the articles I contributed in or made for deletion and reverting. Galdorius (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi Whpq. Would you mind taking a peek at File:Ruzena Levy Seven Portraits Queens Gallery.jpg? What’s you take on this? Would you considered this to be a case of de minimis for the photographed painting or should it be treated as a derivative work? In the later case, this means most likely a non-free license and rationale is needed for the painting per c:COM:FOP UK, but there’s no way to justify the file’s current use per WP:NFCC#9; so, technically, I think that might make this eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F9. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- It does not appear de minimis to me. The entire point of the photo seems to be to include the portrait. The portrait represents a significant portion of the composition of the photo and is not incidental. — Whpq (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Any suggestions on how to proceed here?
{{dw-nsd}}doesn’t seem quite applicable but there’s no such thing as{{dw-npd}}. Moreover, FFD kind of seems like a waste of time unless userspace draft the file is being used in ends up in the mainspace fairly soon. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)- PROD can be used for images. — Whpq (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I posted about this on the uploader’s user talk page. Perhaps they’ll respond favorably. If not, then I’ll try PROD or FFD. Thanks again for taking a look. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- The uploader responded and stated that his mother is the subject of the painting. I misinterpreted what he posted and thought he meant she was the artist who painted it. I’ve corrected what I posted on their user talk page, and hopefully the uploader will respond again tomorrow. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- PROD can be used for images. — Whpq (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Any suggestions on how to proceed here?
Hello,
Just wondering if you could tell me how to get my information on Wiki, I noticed you deleted it.
Any help would be great. Plasticbad (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- The material deleted was copyrighted. Material on Wikipedia must be under a free license. I suspecdt you may be the owner of the website from which the material was copied. If so, you should also know that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. — Whpq (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
<copyright violation redacted>
@Plasticbad: Do not add copyrighted material. — Whpq (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
i have stress issues because of you and my heart start beating fast Pcartoon678 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I nominated the files you uploaded because they aren’t compliant with Wikipedia’s non-free content guidelines. Wikipedia is free content encyclopedia, and any non-free content is an exception that must meet all of the non-free content criteria. If you have questions about non-free content, you can ask at Media Copyright Questions. If Wikipedia is stressing you out, take a break. Editing Wikipedia is far less important than your personal health. — Whpq (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Also i have OCD because i washed my hands a lot Pcartoon678 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- i was suicidal at some point. i currently seeking professional helps Pcartoon678 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Also i have OCD because i washed my hands a lot Pcartoon678 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Hello,
How to I enter text information in table form, where the table is already present? For example: In the episodes of a tv series?
Thanks and regards,
koibookie. —Koibookie (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. There are two different ways to edit Wikipedia articles. There is the older original source editor in which you enter both wikimarkup and your text together directly. There is the newer visual editor which is more of a WYSIWYG editor. As a new editor, using the visual editor is going to be easier, especially if you are modifying episode information. Most episode lists use a standard episode list template. When you invoke the visual editor using the “edit” tab, you can click on the table you want to edit. You should see a dialog box allowing you to choose to edit the template contents. This will then allow you to fill in or modify the various fields in the table. I don’t use the visual editor much so I am not that familiar with all of its operation. If this explanation is inadequate, I suggest you ask for help at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place where new editors can get assistance with editing Wikipedia. I am sure one of the Teahouse hosts would be more familiar with the visual editor and provide further guidance if this doesn’t answer your questions. Cheers and happy editing. — Whpq (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Koibookie (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: AWSeekerOfKnowledge‘s mentor Phoenix is away.
Hello Phoenix,
I’ve been reading about the editing tools and and getting to understand how pages work. I’m better versed in HTML, but have edited other Wikis before I retired.
What I’m trying to create is a page of all political candidates for the local elections in Oakland County, Michigan. Now the Oakland County page has several of the elements such as the communities that I would like to include in my page.
As an old programmer reusing code was always a tech shortcut especially, when trying to maintain some order. Could I copy the source code into my sandbox to experiment with design or is that frowned upon?
Thank you,
Al —AWSeekerOfKnowledge (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, you can copy material from other pages to experiment in your sandbox. Due to the way licensing works on Wikipedia, any time you copy from one page to another within Wikipedia, you need to attribute the source. You can do this with the edit summary when you copy the material. Place “copied content from the Wikipedia page at Exact name of page copied from; see its history for attribution” with the source page name inserted in the appropriate spot in your edit summary. — Whpq (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi Whpq. I’ve got a question about File:Julie-adenuga-a5715283-3100-4b9a-92a1-52242cdbd9d-resize-750.png. This seems to clearly be a case of replaceable non-free use per F7, but it looks like the file self-tagged itself as such when it was uploaded since there no record in the page’s history of it being tagged for speedy deletion. Is the upload software/wizard capable of tagging replaceable non-free use files for speedy deletion? FWIW, this also probably also fails WP:NFCC#2 per WP:GETTY, but software didn’t tag the file as such. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Reading the upload comment, my guess is this upload was AI assisted, and the LLM made the upload look like others it had seen in its training data. — Whpq (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I would’ve never thought about that possibility. The file seems to have been tagged a replaceable non-free use and then had that tagging contested in the same edit by the same user. We’re living in strange times indeed. Do you know whether there’s something like WP:LLM for the file namespace? Do you think this kind of thing is now common enough that such a thing should be discussed if it already hasn’t? — Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
