Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Topic: ShareChat. Isn't it notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

I've been trying to publish Wiki page for ShareChat but it's getting rejected. Need some tips: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShareChat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurshva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ankurshva: - there are quite a lot of tips provided in the notices at the top of the draft. Do you feel you have addressed all of these, or is there some aspect of them that you don't understand? Hug^syrup 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have tripled the length of the draft since the last decline. However, much of what has been added - including entire sections - have no references. Either provide citations or deleted unreferenced content before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You disclosed a paid relationship on your Talk page: "I work for ShareChat (company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd), and, as part of my job responsibilities, I am editing this Wikipedia article about ShareChat on behalf of company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd." This information belongs on your User page. Also, you must comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's an app available only in India, and supports several Indian languages, but not English. It might be appropriate for one of those Indian language wikis. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, that makes no sense. Either it's notable or it's not. What has the demographic it services got anything to do with anything? It's borderline inappropriate to suggest such a thing, in my opinion. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 17:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My concern was the bolded part – it is intentionally not useful to the English-speaking world, for whom it is not developed or targeted, with which I have no problem whatsoever. Is it of interest (notable) to enwiki readers? Doesn't notability have at least some attention to audience? Has it been covered significantly by English-language sources? I understand this is not a requirement, but it is an impediment to verifiability. I apologize if you or anyone else is offended by what I wrote; that is certainly not my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to expand a little, I can understand that mention of things not of interest to English-speakers can be useful from the standpoint of complete knowledge. They should certainly find a place in lists, etc. But if English-language sources don't find them notable enough, that seems a good indicator that a separate article may not be appropriate.

Having said all that, unless there is another ShareChat, I believe it is notable based on a quick Google search (the above was based on comments by other reviewers in the existing draft when I wrote the above). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Personally i think it's notable enough. And notablity has been increased since Twitter has invested 100mn on ShareChat recently 12345 -- CptViraj (📧) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If we are making an encyclopaedia of ALL KNOWLEDGE then it doesn’t make sense to drop an article because of it’s irrelevance in English (?). However, it is lacking sources and I think this discussion is getting off-topic. I think if someone better than me at finding sources did a search then it would be that point addressed. My opinion. BEANS X2 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It is a bit off to say that notability should be determined by the existence of English sources. Regarding the question, a quick Google search reveals coverage and it includes non-Indian/English sources. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

automatic invites

As far as I can tell, your own documentation sets this criteria for sending an automatic invite thru hostbot:

New editors are eligible to receive automatic invitations to the Teahouse from Hostbot if...

• they created their account within the past 36 hours and have since made at least 10 edits.

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites#Automatic invites

However, here's an invite [1] to a new user with five (5) edits, as far as I can tell.

What's up? CapnZapp (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... no deleted edits either. (Though I note they've been blocked on it.wiki as a username violation and likely have an undisclosed COI.) @Jtmorgan:? GMG^talk 19:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Looking at a quick sample of today's invite's, several users invited have less than 10 edits. One of them only had one edit. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, it counts global edits? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: thanks for the ping! @CapnZapp: the default threshold has actually been 5 edits for the past 4 years or so (I'll update the docs). That said, as RudolfRed and @Usedtobecool: point out there still appears to be a sampling/screening issue occurring (it should never invite someone after one local edit}}. So I'm looking into this and will update the thread with my findings. Thanks all, J-Mo 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: can you point me to the example of someone with one edit being invited? Can't see any traces of that in my logging table. J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: See User_talk:Basheed_Shaik. RudolfRed (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Can I ask for a bit more context of how the bot's parameters have progressed since it was approved? When was the edit threshold lowered? What was the reason? Who was in on the decision? Just changing the "10" to a "5" in the documentation does not really answer anything. If this is better discussed elsewhere (than here in Teahouse Q&A), I would appreciate a pointer where I can learn more. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: it looks like I made that change about 5 years ago... July 21 2014 according to my logging table. I make small changes to sampling criteria all the time, in order to maintain a steady level of traffic to the Teahouse (the number of good-faith newly registered editors who make at least N edits in their first 24 hours has trended downward over time), and in response to editors reporting problematic false positives. I also run experiments to learn what works best, as you can see from my many BAG approvals. If you want to learn more about HostBot invites, the best place to start is probably this academic paper. Cheers, J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, my interest wasn't academic - just wanting to make sure some old approval didn't creep into bot spamming, that's all. If your bot approval was based on the number of invites sent out, rather than the specific criteria, then that's good enough for me (especially seeing your prompt documentation upgrades). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about user Undoing my article edits

Hello Wikipedia!

I'm kinda new here so I just wanted to ask whether the user that undoes my edits is right or not (as I don't want to be involved in some edit-war):

Edit that is in question (removed my added content by user Retimuko): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Coinbase&oldid=911950715

User 'Retimuko' says 'what independent reliable sources noticed this?' are following media considered a reliable source? - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-foiled-sophisticated-hacking-090118574.html - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614094/an-attempted-heist-at-coinbase-was-scary-good-even-though-it-failed/ - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/20/coinbase_firefox_zero_day/ - https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-vulnerability-coinbase-ransomware-border-hack/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit appears to me constructive and well-sourced. But I recommend omitting the word "fortunately", as it indicates a point of view (albeit one that most of us share). Maproom (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted! Is there anything I can do to get it published? I don't want to get involved in some flame war with this user. I've left him a message on his talk page but no response yet. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs)

@Henrypentest: When you need to discuss issues with a particular article, it's generally best to do so by adding a new section to the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Coinbase), using {{Ping}} within it (as I've done here) to notify the user(s) that are involved (see the edit history of the article to see the usernames and read the edit summaries for info on what the problem is). I've restored your content and edited it to add the cites you provided and for the other issues the users mentioned – it should be OK now as far as those things are concerned. However, it may still be considered by some to be too trivial to mention (WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTDIARY/WP:INDISCRIMINATE) – I don't know how common this sort of thing is with them, other crypto exchanges, or the net in general. Please sign any posts to talk pages (not articles) with four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This lets people easily see who wrote it and is necessary for the ping template to work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right trolls have hijacked my organisation's page

Hi all,

I work for International Crisis Group, an international NGO dedicated to resolving deadly conflicts around the world. We are widely respected NGO as we have analysts in conflict zones with the aim to understand what is driving these conflicts and how they can be resolved.

Recently, a New York Times article by one of our analysts caught the attention of some trolls who started an online campaign against us. Among the things they did was to change our Wikipedia page, which resulted in a back-and-forth editing war. This led Wikipedia to bar any edits to the page, so the current version is one with edits by these trolls. Now the page has been opened again for editing, but I worry that as soon as we change it, the trolls will appear. I understand that not everyone has the same view as we do of our organisation, and e.g. in our edits we have left the Controversies section as they have edited it - although preferably it would not be right at the top where they moved it to. Wikipedia is not and should not be a promotional page, so I would like to find a balanced way to solve this.

Any advice on how we can stop these trolls from repeatedly changing our organisation's Wikipedia page?

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group

Here is a link to our website: https://www.crisisgroup.org/

I appreciate learning from your expertise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. As you work for ICG, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article yourself. As a matter of tact, I recommend you not to describe people as "trolls" just because they disagree with you. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sidsa. A couple of general things about Wikipedia.

1. A Wikipedia article written about your organization is not the property of your organization as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; so, in other words, it's not your organization's page and nobody connected to your organization has any final editorial control over article content. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
2. Since you state you're a member of your organization and editing on it's behalf, you most certainly would be considered to have a conflict of interest about anything written about your organization on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn about ways you can let other editors know about problems you might find in the article. You should also review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to make sure neither you nor any other members of your organization are also required to comply with it.
3. Please try to remember to be civil when discussing others on Wikipedia. If you notice other editors are editing pages in an inappropriate way, then try and focus on how their edits are not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In some cases, the edits made might actually have been OK and even necessary per relevant policies and guidelines; so, instead of immediately labeling others as this or that, try to discuss the reasons why you feel the edit was incorrect on the relevant article's talk page and see what others think. Most content disputes can be resolved through discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but administrator assistance can be sought out when things go beyond a simple dispute over content and start becoming disruptive. Just from looking at the page history of International Crisis Group, I don't really see any of the disruption you're describing (at least not at the moment) and also can see that the page is no longer protected; so, it can currently be edited by anyone. As long as their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, there should be no problem.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maproom and Marchjuly,

Thank you for your insightful guidance. I completely agree that the Wikipedia page is not our ownership which is why I highlighted my desire to keep the page balanced and sought out the expertise of this community. Better phrasing on my part would have been that the page for our organisation has been changed to be factually incorrect and sow doubt about our work. I also agree that I am not the best person to edit the page, and I myself have never done so. The page was not created by our Communications department nor have we maintained it specifically, and only started editing the page this summer after we were alerted that the page seemed to have been edited in a non-neutral way at the exact same time as we faced online bombardment following the dispute I mentioned above. As I also stated in my original description, I completely understand and respect that not everyone sees the organisation the same way as I do, and during our edits we have for example left the Controversy section with their edits.

However, as you will see the page currently has negative qualifiers such as: that Crisis Group "advertises itself as carrying out field research", "says it provides detailed analysis" which is not the norm for Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, some of the text under Regional Programs data has been edited in a way that makes it outdated. I don't know why anyone would want to do so but it is unfortunate that the page has been changed so it no longer reflects the latest information.

Thank you again for pointing me to helpful resources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sidsa. Perhaps I could chip in here? You're right that articles saying "it advertises itself as" or "it says it does xyz" is unusual for Wikipedia but, if the only source of information is a reference to the organisation's own website, that seems to be a very fair way to phrase things. However, if the page cited independent reliable reference about your organisation, then that form of wording would't be necessary. Pehaps you could find some better sources to use and suggest them on the talk page? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes ,

Thank you for the explanation. I really appreciate how responsive everyone is and willing to help me find and use the existing avenues to solve this dispute. I have never edited a Wikipedia page before and worry I will do something wrong. On the bright side, I am getting insight into the fascinating world of Wikipedia. Following your recommendation, I will find some external sources that help substantiate the phrasing and see if that helps solve it. Could I get in touch with you again if I find myself lost in this new world?

@Sidsa: Yes, either ask here where anyone can quickly reply to you, or on my own talk page (just follow the link in my signature), though you might not get such a speedy reply as here. Either way, it really hekps if you remember to add your signature at the end on every talk page post. Just type four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Meanwhile, why not look at some related pages that interest you which need improving. It's a good way to gain editing practice without having any WP:COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And don't worry about "doing something wrong". Everyone here has messed up on here at some point. Everything is fixable. Actually breaking things we leave to the developers ;-) - X201 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some material from the controversies section of the article. One paragraph was about a special issue of a scholarly journal critically examining the role of the ICG, which didn't seem to me to be the source of controversy, and the other was about Gareth Evans, but the sources made no mention of his ICG role, so it's not clear that they are criticising ICG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement Nick Moyes! This feels a bit like learning a new language and while everyone is having elaborate adult conversations I am stuck in the baby-talk stage. Great point on editing other pages, I see that some of our peer organisations do not have elaborate pages so I can help there!

Cordless Larry Thank you for those edits. The comment from Gareth Evans was indeed made when he was Foreign Minister of Australia, not during his time at ICG. It is also interesting that the ones making these edits have highlighted the funding from Qatar (first falsely stated as 23% of Crisis Group's budget as seen in the Edits history) by creating a new paragraph highlighting only this particular funding and separating it from the main paragraph on funding, which explains that 68% of all Crisis Group funding comes from Governments and Foundations. I question what purpose it serves to single out this one government but I am choosing my battles here.

One question, for some reason the text has been changed so the Program Directors mentioned for both Asia and Europe are former staff. However, the only source I have for the new Program Directors is Crisis Group's website. What can I do if this information keeps getting changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cite an organisation's own website for uncontroversial information such as staff lists, Sidsa. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sidsa: I suggest that further discussion specific to that article should be on it's "talk page" – Talk:International Crisis Group. Also, I don't know if you've seen it, but your own talk page (User talk:Sidsa) has a nice welcome message with links to many articles that are useful to newcomers. Thanks again for your attention to all this. It's encouraging when we see newcomers that have your level of concern for what we're trying to do here, and I look forward to your future contributions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I move the page?

Hi everyone, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing Richard Wayne Lewis I put in a page move request 7 days ago which can be found on the article's talk page. There have been no objections to the move and one user has supported the move. The request has now been live for 7 days, is it ok if I go ahead and move the page myself as I am having difficulty finding someone to move it for me. Essayist1 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: After the previous discussion at the Teahouse, I think it is safe to say you can. I will take full responsibility in the case that others disagree. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The 7 days doesn't expire until later this afternoon. Leave it until then. Why the hurry? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a very pro-active person. I must say I find it a little confusing when I keep getting mixed responses from different editors like this. Essayist1 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: That's the nature of a volunteer project like this without a specific central authority. I would agree with David, though. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (moved) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

HELP - Terribly confused

First, Wikipedia has always been one of my most important sites...and helped this old man who is simply not that tech savvy! For that I thank all of you who strive to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the website. Second, I believe I clicked the wrong thing one too many times and somehow got myself engaged in a chat that is simply over my head. My intention was to ask if my credentials qualified me to be added to the Wikipedia page which lists notable people from the State of West Virginia. After reviewing the requirements and realizing that I more than adequate validation from reliable news agencies and mainstream network media, I then attempted to copy and paste some of the links to major press releases, network television coverage, local and national network news and local, regional and national media publications specific to my achievements. I must have done something really wrong because the responses I received appeared to be of a disciplinary nature and actually hurt this old man’s feelings - which I’m sure none of you meant to do intentionally. Lastly, if any of you folks with Wikipedia can give me some advice on the proper way to make my inquiry with the right department, on the right forum and not take up any more of your time by having to address my technical shortcomings, please do so when, and only when, responding to me doesn’t interfere and you have a few minutes for me. Thank you so much and again, please forgive me. Sincerely, T. Osborne Inventor & Entrepreneur - ABC’s Hit Reality Show SHARK TANK. President & Chief Operations Officer - BioWALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CCIBBInventor Your account's edit history indicates that you haven't edited any pages other than the Teahouse and Help Desk. There also hasn't been any recent edits to List of people from West Virginia so I'm wondering if you were editing a different article while logged out? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, T.Osborne. If you want your name to be enshrined in the list of notable people you mention, you have to have an article about yourself on Wikipedia. That would be a WP:Autobiography (read the article). You also need to read and understand the articles listed o your Talk page. The distinction of being mentioned in Wikipedia is, in my opinion, vastly overrated.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for trying to help me. Also, to Quisqualis...I appreciate your advice and personally agree with you about the list being overrated. I am losing a parent soon due to tragic illness. I simply wanted and intended to make my name visible on the list, something that we viewed together on many instances, prior to having to say goodbye. At this point, It would seem that divine intervention would be needed for that to be possible...even if it were to be uploaded and made visible for just a few days, just long enough for Mama to see it once...and then, I would ask that it be taken down anyway for the very reasons you describe. Thanks for attempting to help folks...I appreciate you and again, I’m sorry I just don’t have the skills to see this through. It’s just not the sort of thing I want to instruct my executive assistant or my IT team to do for me. You may feel free delete me from the site. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CCIBBInventor: I am sorry to hear of your difficult time. I have seen other requests similar to this before, children stating they have a terminal illness who want to be a Wikipedia administrator before they pass away(for example)- and it's hard to say this, but we have to discount such reasoning in the course of operating this encyclopedia. Just as the Boston Red Sox will not allow someone with a terminal illness to be a starting pitcher for them, we can't consider illness or difficult situations in what edits or content is permitted. Content must meet the relevant notability criteria and other guidelines. Wikipedia really isn't that big a deal, anyway. This is just an encyclopedia.

If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, you may simply abandon your account; it is not possible to delete an account. Again, I am sorry to hear about your situation at this difficult time. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

While I completely understand and appreciate your response, I must say it was very inconsiderate and certainly changes the way I feel about Wikipedia. I understand you have to convey the business rules, but using the Baseball story was completely uncalled for. I only hope the the rest of your colleagues who interface with others seeking help are a little more compassionate than you and able to communicate effectively. Shame on you. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CCIBBInventor: It was not my intention to give offense, simply trying to be clear. I unconditionally apologize. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• CCIBBInventor, yes, you are terribly confused! To call out an editor here who was trying to help you here like that. You are the one who should be ashamed imho. --Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

331dot - even with my limited internet skills and preference of face-to-face human interaction much more so than though cyberspace, I believe your apology is sincere, that your comments we not intended to be disrespectful, therefore your apology is accepted and I too am sorry for my harsh response. But I think its best that we sever ties at this point and say farewell. Good luck, God bless and Goodbye. ×××× — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Help fixing category page

On the ‘Category:Military–industrial_complex’ page, what needs to be done to put the 3 links preceding the ‘A’ set into their proper place? Thx Humanengr (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Humanengr, hope you're well. Those pages are sorted to the top because they've been given a blank sort key. That's what the pipe is doing in e.g. [[Category:Military–industrial complex| ]] on the main Military–industrial complex article. Because that one's the main article for the category, it's right that it goes there. The other two could be sorted in amongst the other categories by deleting the pipes. Sometimes a general but not main article is best sorted between that and the others, which is done with an asterisk after the pipe. Best, › Mortee _talk 18:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

thx @Mortee, thx for instructions on those intricacies. Regards, Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: The convention for special sort keys is at WP:SORTKEY. This is certainly one of those areas that could be more user-friendly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Two topics: two user names, and; writing my first article.

Hello,

For reasons I do not remember, I have two user names, DriverSafety, and Pierrot2007. I have made at least 10 combined edits under both names.

Q1. Can I combine my editing history under DriverSafety and then delate Pierrot2007.

Q2. I would like to create my first article that describes the company I work for. I am confident the brief article has Notability (with 15 outside references).

Thanks,--Pierrot2007 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pierrot2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not possible to combine the edit histories of two accounts, nor is it possible to delete accounts. You can identify your current account as a successor to your other account and abandon the account you don't want to use anymore.

Regarding your other question, creating an article about your employer is highly discouraged as a conflict of interest. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing regarding some required disclosures you need to make and information about contributing in an area where you have a conflict of interest(COI). 331dot (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating An Article

Hello. I would like to know if there is a simpler way to create an article for Wikipedia, as I find the sandbox confusing.

Also, how do you get templates into the sandbox?

Thanks, The Raging Bull 180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Raging Bull 180 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey The Raging Bull 180. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Wikipedia can have a bit of a learning curve, especially if you're not familiar with certain types of common markup used on the internet, but these should help you get a bit more acquainted with the way things work. GMG^talk 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I can help with an article without publishing it?

Can an experienced editor see my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SL2Connect/sandbox

If you can Phase II has only been added and not edited. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL2Connect (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Major problem is that most of the references are to the OUR website. What an organization says about itself is not considered a reliable source. What is required are references to content written about OUR Ecovillage by people with no connection to the organization. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading photos

How can I upload photos please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.51.26 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 185.5.51.26. Welcome to the Teahouse! I think that this information page might be what you're looking for. If you have any more questions, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help expanding political articles

I fancy myself quite good at political sciences do you have any articles you need expanded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIndia (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IIndia, welcome to the Teahouse. I've split your question into a section of its own because it seems separate from the photo question above. Thanks for wanting to help Wikipedia! I've added a template with some general links to your talk page that you might find useful. For politics in particular, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. They have a to do list and an automated list of politics-related articles that have been tagged for cleanup. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Does wikipedia host any contest on editing materials?

Does wikipedia host any contest on editing materials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suklav (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Suklav, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there are innumerable editing events held around the world each year, both in real life and/or online. Some are just meetups, others are 'editathons' and a few are target focussed, occasionally with prizes. However, I really think Wikipedians are rubbish at gathering all these events details into one place so as to promote them properly. I would first take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar and the (sadly rarely updated) programme at the bottom of this page: WP:EDITATHON. Our Women in Red project runs monthly themed events to improve articles on women (women are very poorly represented on Wikipedia, both in terms of content and makeup of editors). Anyone can join up to these events, and add their contributions to the event page. Usually 'prizes' are nominal to non-existent - it's the taking part and doing well that counts here. Sometimes you may find more regional information if you visit a relevant wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject India where events may be promoted. I hope this helps. I'll send you a welcome message to your talk page which includes information on Women in Red. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Template

I've spent a while looking at how to edit properly and use tools, etc, but I cannot figure out how to put a language template on my userpage. Could anybody help? MayodKOR (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR: Do you mean a userbox saying what languages you speak and to what level? You seem to have successfully placed a couple on your userpage, so I'm not sure what else you're after. Can you give a bit more info, or point me to an example of someone else's page that has the template you want? Hug^syrup 08:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: My question was already answered at the help desk, sorry. Should have blanked or removed this section. What I haven't had answered is how to make a collapsible holding box for userboxes in general. Thanks, -MayodKOR (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, this is one reason why we ask people not to post the same question in multiple places at once. You can use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} but that seems only to work across the full width of the page, not the tidy little userbox container that I use, and that you are using right now. There may not be an easy way to achieve what you're after, and I can't remember seeing anyone else who has done this, but if you can point me to any examples it should be fairly easy to work out how it's done. Hug^syrup 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR:, And again, you had asked the follow-up at both places, and had already got an answer there. This is why it's a bad idea to ask the same question at different venues concurrently, it wastes volunteer effort needlessly. The helpdesk answer is more specific but to add to the general answer provided here, you can find a list of related templates at Template:Collapsible templates. The easiest way still is to copy code from a userpage that implements what you want and adapt it for your own. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I'll try to refrain from doing it again. MayodKOR (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When does a new page get accepted for publication?

I have created two pages about two new books which have been published. The pages have been uploaded as drafts. Since I joined Wikipedia community 4 days ago, the pages require approval before they are online. I would like to know how and when does that happen?

The two pages are "Tata Vs Mistry" and "Mind Without Fear" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonononononoon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Nonononononoon! Typically, it does not take more than 8-12 weeks for an article to be reviewed by an Articles for Creation reviewer, though some articles get reviewed more quickly. Assuming the article is free of any issues, it will then be published. Otherwise it will be declined and you'll be given feedback on areas for improvement and invited to resubmit it. Note that the preceding are all generalities and individual timelines may vary. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonononononoon, a draft needs to be submitted for review before it can be reviewed by volunteers at Articles for Creation. You can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft here User:Nonononononoon/sandbox has no sources, please add reliable sources first or it will be declined immediately. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies I see you have a draft here Draft:Mind Without Fear also. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019

In MWF, large portions of text, including people being quoted, are without references. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NOT in category?

Is it technically possible to have a template or link that gives you a random page that is NOT in a category? BEANS X2 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I believe not, but there might be workarounds to whatever it is you actually want to achieve. What is it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@BEANS X2: You can go to Category:Wikipedia backlog then find the categories on the left titled ‘Articles needing additional categories from (date)’. These categories have articles in that have no/very few categories in them. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, try going to Category:Uncategorized pages then click the bold, blue sentence after the second paragraph. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I want a link that gives me a random page that has not got a short description (Not in Category:Pages with short description) to get numbers up. Thinking about it, if that was possible, it would probably have already been done. BEANS X2 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@BEANS X2: Thanks for revealing what you actually want so we can give proper answers for it. Category:Pages with short description only contains 30 pages. I guess you mean one of the subcategories. The search -incategory:"Articles with short description" gives mainspace pages not in Category:Articles with short description. -incategory:"Articles with short description" -incategory:"Disambiguation pages with short description" also avoids pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with short description. Searches produce a non-random list of search results. You could add some random words to the search to make the results more random. -hastemplate:"Short description" also works since both categories are added by Template:Short description. This will probably use less server resources. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for your help! The teahouse has been very useful. --BEANS X2 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing semi protected pages

How can I edit semi protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinaJ (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlbinaJ: Click on the page you want to edit. Then click on "Submit an edit request" then type what changes you want to make, then click on publish changes. After your request, an editor will shortly review your request.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating company's wikipedia page

How many references or external links are needed to create a new Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendrasalvi (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mahendrasalvi: There is no set number. References are really needed for two reasons (and these overlap). Firstly, you need enough to show the overall notability of the subject. In some cases, a single really good source could be enough for that, for example one source that says someone has won an Oscar will be sufficient because we generally accept that anyone who has won an Oscar is notable. Equally, for a company, notability might be established with just a couple of really good, in-depth articles in well-respected publications like the New York Times or The Guardian. For other companies, it might be a case of lots of articles that reference the company but where it isn't the main topic, so it might take ten to establish notability. Hence why it is impossible to give a fixed number.

And then there is the second reason for sources, which is that every major claim in the article must be backed up with a source. That probably means at least one per paragraph, but sometimes a lot more. Therefore, longer articles will inevitably need lots of references, while shorter ones might need fewer. Hug^syrup 09:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mahendrasalvi I would note that if you are associated with the company you want to write about, you will need to read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID, two important policies. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Need constructive critique, not copy paste dismissal

Hi there,

I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/draft/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andrew_Evans_(travel_writer)

The reason provided is a copy and paste reads like an advert with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I personally know. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I havn't spoken to him, about what I'm doing, but I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to get this past the gate keepers here, so I don't have to waste a bunch more time on this.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologyfishman (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Biologyfishman: - it's not really the place of the reviewers to give lots of advice on how to improve the article, but you will find that the notes they have left include links to a number of policies, which include lots of advice. Have you read all of these? They leave copy-paste replies because they are volunteers giving up their time to review the huge number of articles that people submit. I am sure they find it frustrating and disrespectful when they leave a note giving lots of links to policies and information pages, and then an article is re-submitted that looks as if the author has not read the information given.

One of the points that the reviewer makes is that there is a lack of reliable sources. I agree with that assessment. There are currently a lot that are either: non-reliable blogs, the subject's own work, author bio pages on publications he writes for, etc. I think there is a good chance that the subject is notable, but you need to demonstrate this. Trying to pack the article with as many references as possible, when many are poor quality, actually makes it more likely to be rejected. Instead, read WP:RS and strip out everything that is not a really top-quality reliable source. Everything that is by Evans and not about him, everything that is a blog/website and not a reliable publication, and everything that is a biography or summary and not a journalistic article or book. Then see what you have left, and if it doesn't seem like enough, go and hunt down a couple more sources.

Finally, if you are getting frustrated with the process or feel like you are wasting time then you are, of course, free to simply stop or take a break. No one needs a Wikipedia article, and there is no rush to create one for Evans or anyone else. Hug^syrup 10:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly you have what we call a conflict of interest if you know him. Also there is a problem with the tone, content like "Evans works with destinations to weave a larger epic travel narrative" 'Evans also shares his love of travel" "an avid following on social media through instagram, twitter and Facebook" "landed his first book deal" "establish 'digital travel influencer' as a career path" " built an audience of thousands of twitter fans" " developed a taste for international travel at the age of 16" is not neutral, we just need the dry facts with no embellishment. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I left a more detailed draft-specific answer at AfC Help Desk (before I noticed the double discussion). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing / Vandalism ?

I was working on the page for Jearld Moldenhauer which has been identified as a stub. I added some new biographical content and two new sources and did some basic copy-editing. I was flagged first for unconstructive edits and then disruptive editing, but I don't understand why - I didn't remove anything, but the warning was as follows:

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jearld Moldenhauer, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the notes you've been given - you are repeatedly replacing good, reliable citations with low quality, unreliable sources. Please at least acknowledge reading this before continuing as it's disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove or replace any citations. The two sources I did add were from a scholarly source. I responded to the user that flagged the edits but got no response. So I don't understand the warning or how to proceed. Michneri (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: GMG^talk 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if in one of your edits you copy-pasted a load of content in from a draft, which isn't ideal as it makes it very hard to identify what, exactly, you changed. And you also seem to have pasted in a {{user sandbox}} template along with it which I appreciate was probably accidental, but is also not helpful and would probably have led me to revert your edit as well. However I agree that, as far as I can tell, you didn't remove any citations you only added them. If you give Praxidicae a bit more time, they may reply to your message at their talk page or chip in here to explain further.Hug^syrup 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several issues here that I found disruptive, the first was that you were replacing books with a website which you are affiliated with and second, you added content which was basically the equivalent of a trip itinerary while placing inappropriate templates, numerous times in both articles. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the sandbox template was a mistake which I did notice and fixed immediately, and I will refrain from copy-pasting in a load of content from drafts in the future. However, I did not replace any books, at most I moved a citation for clarity when I added a sentence. We can disagree over the value of the content I added, though I would argue it was historically significant, however that wasn't what was flagged as a problem. The website, regardless of affiliation, is a digitized and publicly accessible version of a book that's already cited on the page and that I did not write.Michneri (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref #2 is Moldenhaur's website and ref #4 is dead. Ref #2 is used for some simple factual text, so not a big problem. Ref #4 should be rescued or replaced. As I entered on Talk, surprised that there is no content post-1972. Did JM retreat from activism? David notMD (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref#4 should be replaced with this new link (the archive has redone their website and the page was moved). He continued to be active past 1972, I had added content from 1974 and was working to add more, but that was when it was reverted. Michneri (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to review drafts?

Hi I am wondering if I could be of any help with draft review? I have been on Wikipedia several years and although my account is recently created I would like to help. could anyone tell me how to review them perhaps? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:10 23 August 2019 (GMT)

Just FYI, you typed a username in, but the edit history indicates that a IP made this edit. Please remember to log in before posting so your edits are properly attributed to you. Regarding your question, you can find more information about reviewing drafts at the WikiProject for Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the draft review and sorry about the username I will remember to sign in next time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:DE6:88C4:8FFB:9810 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, you will need to place a request here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants, but given how new your account is I suspect they may be unlikely to approve you as it will be very difficult for them to assess your previous edits and whether you have a solid understanding of the necessary policies. You might find you need to edit under your new account for a couple of months first, and they will probably want to see some participation in WP:AFD and maybe WP:CSD as a way to show that you understand what makes an article suitable for approval. Hug^syrup 15:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Does interview content disqualify an article as a source?

I've drafted this page, but it's not been approved because of a lack of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Otis_Mensah

The editor says it does not quite satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:AUTHOR.

In WP:MUSICBIO it says 'publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves' may not be suitable. The editor seems to suggest that if a source has interview material in it, it might not be appropriate.

I'm not experienced with Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem quite right.

Can anyone please advise? I don't want to resubmit and have the article rejected!

Many thanks

Mikeysandford (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeysandford: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. An interview is considered a primary source, as it comes from the subject themselves, and as such is not acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject. If a source is entirely an interview, it would not be acceptable. If a source only contains snippets of an interview, it would depend on what the source says and how much of its content depends on that interview. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What people say about themselves in an interview is not considered a reliable source. Because people might lie. Or inadvertently err. Ditto subject's own website, Facebook, other social media and IMBd. Did you include https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/nov/23/sheffields-first-hip-hop-poet-laureate-gone-are-the-days-of-tradition ? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm...not to muddy the waters here, but the waters are a bit muddy here. Yes, interviews are considered a primary source for the informational content of what someone says about themselves. Whether an interview counts toward notability has been the subject of a great deal of debate with fairly strong feelings on both sides. These are generally secondary publications, despite the fact that the content of the interview itself is primary in nature. These may also include a good deal of contextual content written by the source itself that is not simply a reprinting of the transcript of the interview, and this content would generally be considered secondary. GMG^talk 15:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mikeysandford: That particular line in WP:MUSICBIO is a little questionable in my view. The point it is making is that an interview is not really independent, and using what an individual has said about themselves as a source for an encyclopedia is not ideal. So far, fair enough. However, my view is that the fact that a reliable source like the Guardian chooses to profile an artist is a good indicator of notability, and simply the fact that that profile is based on an interview should not lessen that.

However, I think the reviewer's comment that the article is currently borderline and would benefit from one more source is perfectly fair. If you can find that source it seems like you will have no issues with it being rejected again. Other than that, I'm not sure that anyone here can help much - if you disagree, you'd be better of talking to the reviewer directly at their talk page. Hug^syrup 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to improve my edits?

There are many common methods to improve an edit like use of proper citations, and correct facts. But is there any way we can write about something which is traditional but yet not revealed on the internet but people have the relevant knowledge of that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhidutyfrees (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Delhidutyfrees: You need to cite published sources, but the sources do not need to be online. See WP:REFB for help on that. If there are no published sources, then don't include it. RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhidutyfrees (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your Talk page has content about needing to change your User name, and to declare paid editing. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to correct a page when I am not allowed to edit?

I discovered an error on a page and tried to edit it. However, this particular page requires an editor to have made 500 past edits. How can I contact someone to get this page corrected? Solid365 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit extended-protected. (And please note that your signature goes at the end of a message, not the beginning.) --David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help editing page?

I'm not sure how to edit pages on Wikipedia but would like to add an additional, worthy, tourist attraction to Moose Jaws wiki page. The city is Moose Jaw and the attraction I would love to add is the grant hall hotel. Its a very unique boutique hotel with a rich history here in moose jaw. The experience in the hotel is outstanding with a 1930's feel an absolute must see if visiting the city. Any help would be much appreciated thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klautamu (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Many pages on Wikipedia can be edited by clicking the “edit” button on the top of the page. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

... but any changes you make need to be supported by references to published independent reliable sources. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Klautamu and welcome to Wikipedia. I actually know the place you've described, and was even inside it a short time ago. But as David Biddulph noted, Wikipedia only cares about what reliable sources have said about a topic. Only if several reliable sources have given the place extensive coverage would it be considered notable enough to mention. Wikipedia has no interest in unpubished personal knowledge, experience or opinions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding COI editing

My organization has noted a few incorrect items and some flags on our page. We would like to avoid any conflict of interesting editing, but would also like to ensure the most accurate information is reflected. Based on researching various Wikipedia best practice pages, it seems like the best approach is for the organization to recommend the corrections, updates, resolutions to flags, etc. on the talk page while noting the recommendations are coming from the organization. Can you confirm that my understanding is correct and, if so, are there any other tips or recommendations you can provide?

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatRodeoClown (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• GoatRodeoClown (talk · contribs) - given your conflict of interest, in accordance with the policy, it is probably best that you refrain from editing the page at all. As you have suggested, leaving notes on the talk page would be helpful, provided you must disclose your conflict on your user page, and the talk page with the template, but it also merits mentioning that any edits must be accompanied by citations from reliable sources. Finding such (unbiased) sources and supplying them on the talk page would also be an aid. If such third party sources do not exist, then the material, updated or otherwise, cannot be added while remaining within Wikipedia's encyclopedic ambitions. Hope this helps, do not hesitate to ask any further questions, and kudos for compliance with WP:COI. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

On uploading images for draft articles not yet approved or submitted

Would I be allowed to upload an image to use on a draft article I'm creating? I'm confident that when I submit it for review that it can't be turned down because of lack of notability, because I have at least 10 pertinent sources, including articles from Deadline and Fox News. —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi J.S. Clingman. If the file you'd like to upload is released under a free license (see also c:Commons:Licensing) that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts, or is otherwise considered to be within the public domain, then yes you could possibly use it in a draft. If, however, the file is not released under such a free license or is not considered to be within the public domain and therefore needs to be uploaded under a non-free license, then no you cannot use the file in a draft per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9. You should wait until the draft has been approved before uploading the file as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Marchjuly! —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, J.S. Clingman. To simplify things a bit, that depends on the copyright status of the image. If you took that photo yourself and are willing to license it for free use by anyone under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, and it can then be used for any purpose. If the image is not protected by copyright because it was published before 1924 or was the paid work of an employee of the U.S. government, then it is also OK for upload to Wikimedia Commons. However, if you are planning to use the image under Wikipedia's strict guideline on use of non free images, then you must wait until your draft article is accepted into Wikipedia's main space. That is the only acceptable use of such images, and their use will be scrutinized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and clarification, Cullen328!—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

RT audience scores

Can I add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to film articles? —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, the opinions of professional film critics are more encylopedic that the opinions of random ticket buyers, J.S. Clingman. Please read Wikipedia:Review aggregators. Stick with the standards established in Featured articles and Good articles about films. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do! Merci beaucoup, Cullen328!—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

First-hand sources

Can I use information from first-hand sources as a reference in an article? Say an email from a company representative in answer to a direct inquiry?—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be an unpublished primary source, and not independent. Wikipedia is based on information in independent published sources, so you can't use your e-mail as a reference, but if the information is not controversial and not challenged, then it might be OK to include it. A company's own website would be preferable for basic facts about the company because at least it is published information, though not independent. Dbfirs 06:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, J.S. Clingman. I am going to be a bit more firm than Dbfirs on this matter. Using an unpublished email from a corporate representative for any purpose whatsoever on Wikipedia is a serious violation of our policy against Original research and any such content would also fail our core content policy of Verifiability. If the email helps guide you to finding an actual independent reliable source, then it is fine to use for your own off-Wikipedia research efforts. But that email itself has no place whatsover on Wikipedia itself. This is a matter of policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @J.S. Clingman: Absolutely not! Welcome to the Teahouse, and please appreciate that this encyclopaedia would soon degenerate into a place full of spin, bias and personal opinion if one of our key principles were not that of VERIFIABILITY. We need every other user to be able to fact-check content here, and to do that all sources of information used in articles must be publicly available and presented via reliable sources. This includes news outlets, properly published books or periodicals. Single pieces of paper, emails etc simply aren't accessible enough to everyone else, and can be easily faked. Thus, we have blanket ruling against the use of such unpublished sources. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's safer advice. I've struck my over-generous comment above. Why not ask your company correspondent to put the answer on the website, then at least it is published? Dbfirs 06:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Dbfirs:, @Cullen328:, and @Nick Moyes:. I figured the answer was probably no, but I wanted to be certain. I might have to request that they put the information on their site, like you suggested @Dbfirs:. Thanks!—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How to add Twitter picture (Shared) with correct copy right

I wish to add a photo from a Twitter page (Personal account) which is shared all followers. So, i wish add that image to a Wiki page..though the image publicly available, how to ask user to change the license of the image to Creative Commons Licenses (for example CC BY). Am i missing any things? I am new to Creative commons /Wiki Copyright. Please advise. Many thanks. Twitter image url: https://twitter.com/GarethM/status/1151512197044023299/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekar brother (talk • contribs) 06:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shekar brother. You can use Twitter or any other social media platform to approach the copyright holder of any given photo, asking that person to voluntarily release rights under an acceptable Creative Commons license. But the decision is entirely in the hands of the copyright holder. Most of them will want to retain more controlled rights to their photo, but a few may accept your request, and follow through with the proper licensing. Be very careful to avoid any hint that you are harassing people. Be kind and gentle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

lazy ed's way to type "template:"

When I want to talk about a template or search for a template is there a shorter way add a link to the template namespace or call up the template documentation other than typing out the entire "t-e-m-p-l-a-t-e-(colon)" portion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. There is no Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases for Template. For wikilinks in discussions it's common to write {{tl|Example}} to produce {{Example}} instead of Template:Example, but it's mainly because it looks better and be copy-pasted for uses, not to save a few characters. You can choose namespace at Special:Search but it ends up taking longer if you have a normal type versus click ratio. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I knew I'd seen something like t1 but couldn't remember. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy Just in case... it's tl (L for Llama), not t1. The font in code format makes them look very similar. There are lots of related templates in the documentation for {{tl}}, of which the ones I use most often are {{tlp}} and {{tlx}} for adding parameters to the example, and (mostly in my cheatsheet) {{tbullet}} to demonstrate what a template does › Mortee _talk 23:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Mortee! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Transferring material between Wiki articles

There are many cases where one section of a Wiki page is bulking-up too long, distending the article, and needs to be lifted-out into its own separate page, leaving only a short summary of it on the main page.

I can’t see how this counts as using copyright material to start a new page, as ruled inadmissable by Wiki guidelines. Valetude (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Valetude. Copying text from one article to another is allowed, but you need to provide attribution when doing so by linking to the source article in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for a full explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size for thoughts on length. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Not Created But Article Created Message Appears!

I recently created my new draft Aay's Village. After completing all information I added to queue of article acception on WikiPedia. Some author visited my page and marked it approved. A green message appears showing that my article is approved but still the article is not shifted to mainspace. The article is still mentioned as a Draft at WikiPedia. Could anyone help me?

Aay's Village Draft At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aays_Village

Please check it out, I will be thnakful to the community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilbert Ryan (talk • contribs) 11:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hilbert Ryan. I’m not going to address the current issue, my apologies. But I would like to address the fact that your draft has no sources thus violating Verifiability, one of Wikipedia’s core policies. This will need to be changed in order for your draft to be kept on Wikipedia. If you need assisstance, see Help:Citing or please ask again at the Teahouse for help and an editor should be able to help. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Hilbert Ryan, welcome to the Teahouse. The history for that draft shows four edits, all by you. The edit where you replaced an {{AfC submission}} template with an "accepted" message is this one. The article hasn't been reviewed, but it would be rejected because it doesn't have any references. There's some useful info at Help:Referencing for beginners. You'll want to delete the message at the top of the article, add enough sources to make the article verifiable and show that Aay's Village is notable, then submit it again when it's ready. After that, wait for a reviewer to look at it. If you need any more help, you're always welcome to ask here.

Also, don't try to review other people's drafts until you have more experience and have been approved as a reviewer, and don't vandalise them either. This edit where you tried to approve another editor's draft at the same time as describing the article's subject as a "stupid" instead of a coach, is not acceptable. Neither are the next few edits where you marked his education as "WebZed" (your article about which was speedy-deleted), changed the acceptance message to read "You are more than welcome to continue fucking quality contributions", added a picture of a donkey etc etc. You'll get blocked if you continue to do things like that. › Mortee _talk 12:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Need help in publishing the article from Sandbox page to wiki article

Team

I Need help in publishing the article from Sandbox page to wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenkatChinnapureddy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

VenkatChinnapureddy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. Click the blue "submit your draft for review" button. It may need further work before it is ready, I would suggest you read Your First Article before submitting it. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody please help me in my discussion with User:Justlettersandnumbers

Hi everyone, I am new to Wikipedia and have done extensive research about a top 20 highly competitive and selective FDS-accredited drama school in the UK (Drama Studio London) and Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has literally removed everything based on one-sided accusations without giving me a chance to explain myself (which I have done with Ganbaruby (talk · contribs) who kindly helped me and made me feel welcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has refused to discuss anything with me and automatically deleted everything from the article without giving me a chance to edit it and has labelled everything automatically as an "inappropriate edit" or a copyright violation, when everything I have done so far was in good faith and had references. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) himself added red links back to the article (which I have since had to remove yet again before he blanked the entire article) and highly inaccurate information to the article while claiming ownership of this article (such as saying that it is a "distance learning school" when in reality it is a top 20 FDS accredited drama school in the UK which is highly selective and you can only audition for and attend in person, but user:Justlettersandnumbers refuses to acknowledge any of this), which I understand is against Wikipedia policy in itself. I would very much appreciate it if an experienced editor could kindly join in this discussion to allow me to edit the article again without everything automatically being removed by user:Justlettersandnumbers who seems unwilling to discuss anything with me. User:Justlettersandnumbers even listed one of my edits on the article of Middlesex University as an "inappropriate edit" when all I did was refer one word to its own Wikipedia article........User:Justlettersandnumbers has not made me feel very welcome so far on Wikipedia and has not given me any chance to explain myself or to even edit my edits in the article, when he himself has violated Wikipedia policy by adding red links and inaccurate information to the article of Drama Studio London (which I have subsequently removed), but everything I have edited has been deleted yet again by User:Justlettersandnumbers, which I find very sneaky of him to do so, when in all honesty I do not want any arguments and just want to fairly have a discussion in order to edit this article, but I have received no response so far to my invitation to discuss all of this with user:Justlettersandnumbers--Coreyar (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I also find it very strange that User:Justlettersandnumbers first deleted everything by saying that everything I have added is an "inappropriate edit" and when I tried to edit it again and explained that he added inaccurate information and red links back to the article, he suddenly said that everything is a "copyright violation", which is also untrue, and he has not given me any chance to edit or explain anything, but just automatically deleted everything that I have edited again. I find that very strange and unwelcoming of him and it seems like he is claiming ownership of the article without giving me the chance to edit it.--Coreyar (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I also did not copy/paste anything, I directly referred back to the article that contained the information, but User:Justlettersandnumbers could have just discussed this with me and I could have edited it, but now I am not even allowed to edit anything anymore from him since he has blanked everything and does not allow me to edit the article again. Isn't Wikipedia a free encyclopedia for all to edit? He was not even willing to discuss this with me first before deleting everything, which I did with User:Ganbaruby who kindly discussed everything with me and we came to a consensus, but User:Justlettersandnumbers has refuse to discuss anything with me to give me a chance to re-edit it and now I am not allowed to edit anything from him anymore........
  • Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has also made it very clear by reverting on the article of Drama Studio London that he is unwilling to discuss anything with me and refuses to go onto the talk page before reverting all of my edits yet again.--Coreyar (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Coreyar. Your edits were reverted for a number of reasons:

1. It was a clear violation of our policy on promotional content. Here at Wikipedia, we write in a Neutral point of view which you did not do. You promoted the company heavily.
2. Verifiability is a key policy of Wikipedia which is taken very seriously. Your edits did not have Reliable sources to back up the information you added. Instead, you used your own Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
3. It appears you copy and pasted information from another website which is copyright violation. This is not permitted on Wikipedia.

I suggest you take the Tutorial and see Help:Editing before continuing, so that your edits are not reverted in the future. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Willbb234 (talk · contribs). However, is User:Justlettersandnumbers allowed to add red links to an article, inaccurate information and claim ownership of the article by blanking it and not allowing me to edit it again and reverting all my edits and refusing to discuss anything on the talk page with me? Aren't those Wikipedia policy violations?--Coreyar (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • It is such a shame that I have received rather hostile reactions from editors on my talk page instead of anyone kindly giving me help and advice. The only decent editor so far who has objectively helped me and came to a consensus was Ganbaruby. I thought the Tea House would be a friendly place where I could expect help, not be attacked and scrutinised based on one-sided accusations without giving me a chance to explain myself, which has made Wikipedia very off-putting and not a free place to edit at all in my opinion.........such a shame and I hope that someone can still decently help me in a friendly manner to re-edit the article of Drama Studio London--Coreyar (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the serious copyright issues, you added ridiculous trumpery to the Drama Studio London "one of the twenty most prestigious and most selective officially accredited leading drama schools" which was quite rightly reverted by User:Justlettersandnumbers. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong (talk · contribs), Since I am a new editor, all of you could have at least discussed this with me first so that I could have re-edited and removed edits from the article instead of being hostile towards me....I do not appreciate one-sided accusations without giving me the chance to explain myself or correct my edits........However, is User:Justlettersandnumbers allowed to add red links to an article, inaccurate information and claim ownership of the article by blanking it and not allowing me to edit it again and reverting all my edits and refusing to discuss anything on the talk page with me? Aren't those Wikipedia policy violations?--Coreyar (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes User:Justlettersandnumbers is allowed to add red links there is nothing in the guidelines to stop him and it is actually encouraged. The content at Drama Studio London has been blanked pending an investigation into copyright violation which Wikipedia takes very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

See your Talk page as to why you are temporarily blocked. Standard practice is add, if reverted, discuss on the article's Talk. What you wanted to do is re-add your content and keep it in the article while discussing at Talk. Finding one editor who agreed with you (Ganbaruby) is not consensus. David notMD (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Coreyar: being a new user does not give you the right to violate Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia takes its policy on copyright violation particularly seriously, as allowing it to be violated could have legal consequences. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, Coreyar, I have attempted to discuss your edits with you, as you can see by looking at your talk-page, User talk:Coreyar. Matters I've raised with you have been:

1. the remarkably promotional tone of many of your edits, in my view wholly inappropriate to an encyclopaedia (e.g., "the most prestigious and most selective officially accredited leading drama schools")
2. compliance with our copyright policy
3. the possibility that you may have a conflict of interest or paid relationship to one or more of the topics you have written about.

Your "chance to explain [your]self" was to reply to those messages, which you chose not to do; instead, you started edit-warring to restore the same inappropriate content as before, and got yourself briefly blocked. Once you return, perhaps you would care to offer some explanation here? Specific questions you might consider are:

• are you connected to any of the topics you've written about, such as Drama Studio London or Drama UK?
• why do you use such promotional language in relation to them?
• how did you end up writing content identical to that here if you didn't copy it? Was it copied from somewhere else?

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources and tables

If I create a table based on information from a source (or sources) cited several times previously in an article, must I still refer back to the source(s) in every entry of the table?—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, J.S. Clingman. WP:HEADERS suggests that column and row headings are a good place to reference sources, which is what I tend to do when creating tables. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry!—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@J.S. Clingman: Looking at your Draft:Kingdom Studios, you could, above the table, add a short sentence with a description of the table including the reference, like Following is a table of planned films:<ref>...</ref>. Also note that, if you want all the text to be centered, you don't need to specify it for each cell; just change the table header to:

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Searching all projects?

There are times that I would like to search certain words/phrases on all of the various wiki sites - I call them portals, I believe you call them projects (en.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, commons, etc). But short of opening each individual site and entering my search criteria, I don't know of another way to do it. Any ideas? Quakewoody (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quakewoody, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of an in-house tool to do this, but if you type site:wikipedia.org "my search term" into Google, results from all the subdomains (en., es. etc) will be included. Commons is on Wikimedia.org so you'd need to run a second search to cover that. Hope this helps. Depending on what you're trying to achieve, it might also be relevant that if you go to a particular article on Wikipedia (in any language), links to the equivalent articles in other languages are given in the bar on the left (assuming someone has linked them). › Mortee _talk 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

First, doing that on Google doesn't show all results, just most. But also, that is a delayed search. I am really just trying to prevent certain spam, and some vandals have started learning to use "other than" en.Wiki to spread their disease. Wikipedia search is fairly instant, plus I get the info like "last updated" or being able to search just talk pages of discussion pages, etc. Quakewoody (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps someone else knows of a tool that I don't and can tell us both about it. › Mortee _talk 23:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Quakewoody and Mortee: Global Search —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Image

https://thecreative.cafe/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-610d01afd6a8 Does the image here meet the threshold of originiality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Mulch Civic (Pro) (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Steve Mulch and welcome to the Teahouse.

We most often speak of the threshold of originality in discussing logos; some logos are simple enough that they are considered to be uncopyrightable, at least in some jurisdictions.

Your chart, as part of the webpage, would generally be treated as copyrighted material. Whether that copyright belongs to you or to someone you closely copied it from could be a matter of dispute; most likely, in that case, yours might be considered a derivative work. The idea of a two-by-two matrix with labels and items in the quadrants is by now fairly commonplace and I'm fairly certain the general idea of such a chart is not subject to copyright.

But what are you really asking? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

How did 2605:6000:1711:C8C6:6DB1:34CA:FC05:4A8A get a new I.P address so fast?

2605:6000:1711:C8C6:6DB1:34CA:FC05:4A8A How did the ip get a new address so fast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humorous1234 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) This one: 2605:6000:1711:C8C6:A451:EC6E:A430:D49

Humorous1234: some ISPs have a pool of IP addresses, and each time one of their customers connects to the internet, they are allocated an address from the pool. (This is of course nothing to do with Wikipedia.) Maproom (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Humorous1234: At least the last half (64 bits; four hexadectets) of IPv6 addresses are generally assigned on the local network. The ISP assigns no more than the top 64 bits, and often the top 48 or even fewer, to a particular customer. The user's local network hardware is doing it, and it's not unheard of (though I don't know the reason). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation for image descriptions

Should I or should I not be adding periods in the descriptions of images? I see both descriptions with a period and without one (seemingly more without one), so I thought I'd better ask here to get a concrete answer. For example, which of the following would be correct? I would assume with a period, but since I see so many descriptions without one, you know, doesn't hurt to ask.

Inside the cab of an R46 car

Inside the cab of an R46 car.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPunger (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No periods when caption is a sentence fragment. See WP:CAPFRAG. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Restricting edits to an article

I am curious about under what circumstances an article can be, or will be, restricted to open editing? I understand that if there is vandalism, or an editing war on a page, the page might be restricted temporarily, but what if the subject of a bio of a living person wants his/her page closed to edits? Is that ever done? Thanks for your time and consideration. 218.101.176.213 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. No, that cannot be done. The only times when pages are protected are when there is persistent vandalism, edit warring or lots of unsourced content is added repetitively. I think there is a couple more reasons but these are the most common. Protection is never precautionary nor can it be requested from the subject of the article. I hope that helps, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: protection can be requested by the article subject, but they would need a valid reason (most likely persistent vandalism). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Willbb234 is right. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Indeed, if the subject of an article requests protection without what that policy page describes as a valid reason, it is likely to arouse suspicion. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, since you said "living person wants his page" - you should read up on the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Person X can't edit Person X's article. I can't even correct my dead gf's birth name. However, I do have some sympathy for a living person that has an article. Not because they have a page (you seek "fame", you give up certain amounts of privacy), but because some of the stuff that is written can become a bit tabloid-ish. "Recentism" can be a problem. I have seen major movie stars of the 50s-70s with 10 line written about them. While today's people on the "D-list" have these big huge articles with so much trivial detail - and that is simply because of the way we require sourcing. The modern internet media puts out enough press, everyone can be famous for 15 minutes. Whereas the olden stars, well, it cost money to print magazines, they are limited in the amount of pages they can print which limits the amount of people and topics they can cover. Quakewoody (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And its then far worse trying to find equivelent sourcing on people of merit (and especially women) who lived and worked a hundred years ago or more. Sadly, its far easier to trace sources about today's cultural non-entities that meet our notability guidelines than it is to find it for those historic characters who actually helped shape today's societies around the world. But that's the choice Wikipedians have made. Only we can change that. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Taudhakpur

Hello, I just want to know whether my article has been submitted successfully or not. Please check and inform. Thank-you.Rushdesk2017 (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rushdesk2017. Yes, you’re draft has been submitted for review and a reviewer should be able to review soon. Please be patient as it make take several weeks for a reviewer to do so. The draft looks good after a glance so it should be accepted. If you have anymore questions, please do ask. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Moved to Draft and Accepted. The article is at Taudhakpur. Editors feel free to have a look and review my review. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first articles, Rushdesk2017. I hope you got the same sense of achievement that I got when I created mine. Just one thing: it looks like you might be trying to prepare them on your Userpage, which isnt really the right way to go about things. That page is for you to say a little about yourself, your editing interests and related stuff. Drafting new pages is best done in your own sandbox page (see link at top), or as a draft via the Articles for Creation wizard. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving articles from French Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia, I'm a new one here, and i'm a french student. I'm working on Jocelyne Saab's films, who released a lot of her movie in different country. I have been trying to write articles about her on the french wikipedia plateform in english, but it has been locked. Would it be possible to transfert my articles to the english plateform (i'm working from english sources) ? How can i process ? Thanks for the answer Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZLMV (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@RZLMV: welcome to the Teahouse! In order to get the text from your deleted articles at French Wikipedia, you'll need to contact the administrators there. Hopefully they will be able to send you the text, and you can then create the articles here. Please use the Articles for creation process or the so-called "Article Wizard" for your first articles, to help you through the process. New accounts cannot create articles on English Wikipedia until they have made a number of edits - this is different from French Wikipedia. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@RZLMV:, just as an additional tip, please note that film articles on English Wikipedia should meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films) (and WP:GNG in general). But of course any sourced contributions within these guidelines are greatly appreciated. I also cleaned up some formatting issues in the main article for Jocelyne Saab - hope this is helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Thank all Thank all of you for the answer, i actually trying to understand all wikipedia's rulls to the english plateform, and really thank you GermanJoe for helping me improve the English page of Jocelyne ! Regards. RZLMV ([User talk:RZLMV|talk]]) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)