Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 830

Archive 825

←

Archive 828

Archive 829

Archive 830

Archive 831

Archive 832

→

Archive 835

Images in the Public Domain

Hello everyone. I was just wondering were to find images that are in the public domain to use in Wikipedia articles other that Wikimedia Commons? Thank you and have a great day.Frogger48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Frogger48. It's possible to search Google images by license type, but my experience is that the vast majority of them are already on Commons. Better advice might be possible with more specifics. What subject are you looking for an image of? Also, please remember to sign messages on talk and project pages by typing four tildes at the end. This will leave your signature, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking for images of famous actors. Frogger48 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh...famous actors are some of the worst to find images for. First thing to do is search Wikimedia Commons. All those files should be free, and there's about 50 million of them. Second is Google image search. Click "tools" and then click "licensed for reuse with modification". Other than that, your best bet is often to search site:.gov, to look at US government websites, because works of the US federal government are public domain. It's a long shot for actors, but I've found them before. If you reach that point and found nothing, usually I give up and go do something else. But you can always try to email their agent or something and ask them to release an image by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. They have an incentive to do so, because they have an incentive to help us improve their Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Frogger48 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User sub-pages vs. sandbox pages

Is there a functional difference between a user sub-page and a sandbox page? Is a user sub-page with {{User sandbox}} on it a sandbox, regardless of its name?

Singing choc ice (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Singing choc ice: - technically there is a distinction between the two. The sandbox is an area where one can practice editing, refine techniques, and prototype major changes with minimal fear of reversion or conflicting edits. Rather than being a destination, a sandbox is merely a workshop; a pitstop on the way to another edit. A user sub-page is intended to be permanent, and have a variety of uses, from essays to personal writings regarding Wikipedia. As such, sandboxes are for practice, sub-pages are for permanent issues outside of main space. A user sub-page with the sandbox template is also available for use as a sandbox, but is more flexible as it can be converted to a sub-page with removal of the template. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: So a full-blown sandbox has the name "SandboxNN" and the {{User sandbox}} template, while a sub-page can be switched between a plain sub-page and a sandbox by the addition or removal of the template, depending on what the task in hand is? Although I can imagine that adding the template to an existing sub-page won't have the desired effect of removing it from a search engine index, so creating the sub-page with the {{User sandbox}} template gives more flexibility; possibly reducing the need to resort to page deletion or renaming. Singing choc ice (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but basically no, there is no functional difference. User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox is a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. User:GreenMeansGo/RandomPageNameHere would also be a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. Your sandbox is just a user sub page that is linked to automatically in the software, to introduce users into user space sub pages. Your user space as a whole is an area where you are generally more safe to experiment and store works in progress. Although the work there is still overall expected to be productive and related to Wikipedia. GMG^talk 22:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

New article for Osmond Kelsick DFC

I wish to contribute an article regarding the late Osmond Kelsick DFC, a distinguished West Indian RAF fighter pilot during WW2 and later a successful hotelier in Antigua, West Indies. The article has been written by his son and me (his nephew) and is based on letters written by Osmond Kelsick and his original pilot's log, so the article is largely in his own words. I note the conflict of interest issue and Wikipedia's injunction against family members submitting an article. Should a non family member contribute the article instead?

Also, I note the importance of references. Osmond Kelsick is referred to in the Wikipedia entry for Blue Waters Hotel, this being a hotel in Antigua he built and managed for many years before selling it. The other independent references we have are found in 2 books that are mentioned on Wikipedia per Wikipedia articles about their authors, although the specific references to Osmond Kelsick in these books are not mentioned on Wikipedia. However, we are in possession of both books and can provide photocopies of the relevant extracts.

Any guidance on how to get the article accepted would be appreciated.

Thank you

Jean Kelsick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Kelsick (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jean Kelsick: Sounds rather interesting. However, articles are required to be primarily based on references that are reliable and independent. Material written by the article subject himself would fail the independence requirement. What you'll want to do is see if quality independent sources have written substantial amounts of reference material about him. If so, it's okay for people with a COI to submit articles, though we strongly recommend that they be submitted as a draft and have them reviewed by articles for creation. If the only available reference material is his own logs and letters, I'm afraid he's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. You did mention two books, so those would be a good place to start, though just name dropping or briefly mentioning him wouldn't be enough—the reference needs to cover the article subject to a reasonable degree of depth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to draft it at Draft:Osmond Kelsick and submit it through Articles for Creation for review. The letters (which I assume stands for Distinguished Flying Cross) should not be part of the title. Note please that encyclopedias are tertiary and as such are not a particularly appropriate place to write an initial biograhy of a subject. A good bio would draw from both secondary sources and primary sources like his logbooks and interviews with family and associates. We simply cannot use those here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - Thank you for your reply. I hope I am replying to you per the correct medium as I am finding navigating the article submission component of Wikipedia a bit challenging. Osmund Kelsick is referred to in the following books: Michael Bentine's "The Reluctant Jester" (who and which are both on Wikipedia), Norman LR Franks' “Typhoon Attack” (1984, William Kimber, London) and Caribbean Volunteers at War: The Forgotten Story of the RAF's 'Tuskegee Airmen' by Mark Johnson. Osmund Kelsick was a contemporary during the War of Dudley Thompson and Ulric Cross, both of whom are profiled on Wikipedia but without reference to Osmund Kelsick. I have in my possession his obituary in The Montserrat Reporter, a newspaper published in Montserrat, West Indies. Of course, none of these references go into the interesting details of his exploits during the War found in his pilot's log. Possibly his log can be independently verified by the RAF or affiliated association. Is there any point in my submitting for review the draft article we have written? TX. Jean Kelsick (I hope I have signed this post this time).

Jean Kelsick (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft

How do I create a draft if there is already something in my sandbox?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: You could do Draft:put some other title here. Or create User:Thegooduser/sandbox2. Neither option has the nice "sandbox" button but you should be able to find it by typing "User:Thegooduser/" into the search bar. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Thegooduser. Fancy meeting you here at the Teahouse!

I thought you had the hang of this already, but one easy way to a new place for a draft in your userspace is to go to the page Help:userspace draft where you can type the name of the page you want to create. If you can't think of a better name, you can always call it "sandbox2" or something like that, but I think it's good to name the page just like you think the article should eventually be named.

You can also simply re-use your existing sandbox. Just open it for editing and clear away all the old stuff and add new stuff. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hurrying up

The process of creating an article is tiresome and needs improving.How can u help me with my submissions? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Whatever happened to creating a wiki entry anyway? You took it away? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and in the messages on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Type of English when writing articles

Hi,

What type of English should be used when writing country-neutral articles? American or British? Why should it (blank) type of English when writing articles?

Thanks

Saltn'Pepper (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Saltn'Pepper. Wikipedia does not really have a particular type of English that it prefers over all others. Please read WP:ENGVAR for more specific details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're starting an article, choose whichever English type you want. If you're editing an article that is already using US or British English, then you'll need to use that. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation vs Verification

Hello all,

I have been editing for a few months now, mostly adding reliable sources or citations to articles and improving grammar or simply making the style of the article look more to what Wikipedia requests in their guidelines. Sometimes when doing a contribution I come across with the feature that says "verification needed" and other as "citation needed" and I would like to know what is the difference between those two is and also to better understand what is being asked for. I have found other situations where the paragraph or sentence have the citation, but next to it says "verification needed". I mostly look for reliable sources and just use it to replace the "verification" or "citation" needed. This would my query for now since I have more questions to ask. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anon york. First off, thank you for your efforts! Adding citations isn't glamorous, but is an incredibly valuable contribution to Wikipedia. To answer your first question: {{Citation needed}} is used when there is no citation at all for a given statement. {{Verification needed}} is used when there is some sort of citation present, but there is some doubt as to whether it actually supports the statement it is attached to. Most often, it accompanies a difficult-to-access source, like a print-only book or something not in English. To address it, you need to consult the cited source and confirm that it says what it's supposed to say. Alternatively, if you can find a more easily-accessed source that verifies the material, you can go ahead and replace it with that. If it fails verification, in most cases you should remove the text. But there's also a third template, {{Failed verification}}, used when a source has been checked and doesn't support the material it's supposed to, but editors still think the material might be verifiable with another source. In that case, you can remove it if you find another source.

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. That's what we're here for. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe, that is helpful. Another thing I was confused about is when there is a message that says "clarification required", and "dubious". Is the first one used when the paragraph or sentence requires a better explanation about what is being written? The second one I don't know at all how to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Yes those ones refer to the actual statement rather than sourcing. {{Clarify}} is as you say. {{Dubious}} is for statements that are sourced but nevertheless don't seem correct. Both have a |reason= parameter and {{Dubious}} should link to a talk page section that explains what is being contested. If there's no explanation, and it's not clear to you why the tag is there, you can just remove them. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anon york, Wikipedia:Templates may be of help when you run into weird stuff like that, it has a search option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I just ran into a tag that says "by whom?" in a sentence of an article about ACE inhibitor that goes like this: "The use of a maximum dose of ACE inhibitors in such patients (including for prevention of diabetic nephropathy, congestive heart failure, and prophylaxis of cardiovascular events) is justified,  [by whom?]". I was wondering what kind of research can one do to resolve that tag. Apologies for any hassle caused. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I also have a question Joe. Suppose I found a more reliable source that corroborates the information. Instead of replacing the citation, can I just add it? I remember doing this in one of my edits. Please correct if this is wrong. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Essentially the same as a {{citation needed}}. {{By whom}} is supposed to be used to mark missing in-text attribution, but I'm not sure it's been correctly placed in this case.

@Darwin Naz: I think that's fine. Some editors prefer to remove "redundant" sources, but I don't see the harm in listing a few that corroborate the same thing. It does help if one becomes a dead link in the future. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Noted. Thanks. – Darwin Naz (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why nobody is reviewing my new article?

Hello community, I have created around ten article in Wikipedia so far and all were reviewed in a timely manner and tagged accordingly, But my recent article which I created few days back has not been reviewed by any new page reviewer, I want someone to review, tag and pass this article..Here is the article -->> Rafale Deal Controversy (India) thank you. ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There are 2590 articles at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting review, some of which have been waiting for 4 weeks as there is a limited number of reviewers. Is there any reason why your article should be reviewed ahead of the others? There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No specific reasons, just curious and impatient because this is going to be a very popular and heavy traffic article, thanks...i can wait for the review --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well Adamstraw99, you're certainly impatient, as I see you've now decided to submit this article for Peer Review instead. I have to say I don't understand why you didn't simply make this a new section in the article on Indian MRCA competition. It almost feels as though Wikipedia is being used to further some political agenda, and that a stand-alone article on this is not necessary at this juncture. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No Sir, there is no political agenda, topic is getting regular nationwide coverage in National media and certainly notable enough for a standalone article... thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'l take a look at your article but I do not know what influence doing so will have it it being approved. What has to be understood is that WP may not be the best avenue of "breaking" news but it is a great place to start to get an overall understanding of something.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: OK. I am disappointed you have described my above response as an "attack" on you (see here). That is certainly very far from the case. I am not interested in you or in the subject at all; but do want to help Wikipedia and support its editors to improve in the best way possible, and I'm sorry if you choose to interpret my reply here in that rather unusual way. If you find you happen to have a free moment, you might like to consider striking out that word from your post. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned that this string has taken on an air of confrontation. Referring the article to review really should not be thought of as an attack--it is just another part of the process. He has already said that he is impatient so within that millieu ......2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I Like it when people choose to be anonymous while making observations ... Since past 10 years I have received many invites to visit this "Teahuse" and I was told it was a "A friendly place" (I think its still written on top of this page :-) ... I just wanted to make a "friendly" request to the community to review my article.. Nick Moyes, I Am really sorry if my request here sounded like seeking comment on the quality or content of the article, to which you probably responded in first comment... However, Somebody has reviewed the article now so I Want to close this thread...Thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Adam--understand that the internet is not always the best place for discussion because unlike face to face there is not the personal interaction to take plavce to see and gear just how people pose their statement. And you never know what context the person replying is in as they just might have been involved in a stressful situation that can reflect on what is said. It is unfortunate but it is part of the environment that may come to fore.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

How could I creat a new article successfully?

I created a new account on September 11th, and I am still very confused on how to create an new article that could be searched by all. I saw an information said that before creating a new article, a newly registered user should edit 10 articles, is that mean I should edit 10 articles first , and then I can create a new article? Thanks a lot for answering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy Kong (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Daisy Kong: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Daisy Kong and welcome to the Teahouse.

For some reason, new editors think that what they want to do when they first get on Wikipedia is create a new article. Creating a new article is hard - there are so many policies and guidelines to learn and if you get something close but not quite good enough, it often gets immediately deleted. That can be very discouraging.

If, instead, you sat down and went through the various tutorials, learned how to do Wiki markup and citations and worked for a while on improving other articles, it would be much, much easier to write a new article of your own because you will have "learned the ropes". Although it may not sound like it at first, editing other articles for a month or more will likely get you to your first published article in less time overall.

Ready to start? Try the Wikipedia Adventure first, then head over to the WP:Community portal to look for things you can do. Get stumped? Ask here at the Teahouse, you already know how that works! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I imagine part of the problem is, articles having many readers have few glaring grammar errors, lies, and other easily visible faults anymore. This gives the impression of perfection. We old-timers of course know Wikipedia still has plentiful crap, and more added every day, but we can see it because we've increased our sensitivity over the years. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you created a draft and submitted it for review (Draft:Hangzhou Great Star Industrial Co.,Ltd). Drafts do not show up in searches. When it is reviewed, it will be rejected, as it has no references. If this company is of sufficient notability that it has been written about, add those publications as references.

If you first has been a member for at least four days and did at least ten edits, you could have avoiding submitting a draft and instead directly created an article in Wikipedia. However, if you created Hangzhou as an article, it would be quickly deleted, for reason described above, and other reasons, such as promoting a company.

Lastly, do you have any connection to this company? If so need to declare. See WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Article creation

Young birdwatchers
(COI declaration: these are my own kids)

Can i create a article about a birds field guide? Written by Deepal Warakagoda. It is already listed in the publication section of his article. B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Deepal Warakagoda cites only one source, moreover a source which currently gives a "404" message. It would be more constructive to improve that article by adding some references to reliable published sources that discuss him, so that it is not at risk of deletion for lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a 404 if you click the archive link for the source, but it is written by the subject, rather than written about him. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@B.N. Dehigaspage: I remember doing some superb birdwatching in Sri Lanka some 20 years ago, and would have loved to have had a good field guide with me. That said, you can only write an article about a book if the book itself is regarded as 'notable'. Otherwise it would just be using Wikipedia as advertising, and there are other platforms for that. Normally, books need to have had at least one depth review written about it in mainstream media, and meet WP:NBOOKS. But note that WP:TEXTBOOKS gives details for academic books, and how those criteria may be met. You would certainly need to link to specialist reviews to 'verify' the book exists and to demonstrate that it is regarded as of importance. There's a reasonable independent review here. As the title 'birds of Sri Lanka' has been used by a number of major publications like like Warakagoda et al's field guide over the years, it's possible that one article describing the development of publications and field guies on the avifauna of Ceylon/Sri Lanka could be merited, rather than just on one particular work? So maybe it's worth starting a draft or a sandbox mockup to see how you can develop things. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 

Due diligence always helps with what may best serve being made content either as a section of or an entire article within WP but it seems that sometimes people will create an article on a subject that might in parts be found throughout WP if a subject search review were conducted. That way "errant' parts might better find inclusion in WP within a more overall expression of content and these bits and pieces not be taken as the need for an article where sufficient is to be existing.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

About my page

I have to create my page and how i can publish in the external search engines? Like google,Yahoo etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Singh (Noapara politician) (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sunil Singh(Noapara Politician)

this isn't the place for a draft

Teahouse/Questions/Archive 830 Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly In office 2018–Incumbent Constituency Noapara (Vidhan Sabha constituency) Personal details Born 15/1/1967 Nationality Indian Political party All India Trinamool Congress Occupation Politician Sunil Singh is an Indian politician from the state of West Bengal. He is a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly& Chairman of Garulia Municipality. .He is also Chairman of Garulia municipality. References

This isn't the place for a draft, so I have collapsed its display. To see how to submit a draft for review, read WP:Your first article, but also read WP:Autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Link to old version in Talk

Greetings. I've been sidetracked in WP (How could that happen?) by a physics / math article with a poor lede. I wrote up a message in the article's Talk section, but need help formating a link.

In my post I tried to place a link to an old (very old) version for discussion's sake. However, clicking that link brings up the current version. The link URL is correct, leads to the page if I paste it into the address bar. The clunky alternative is for me to post the address w/o a bracketed link, but I'm sure there is some fine point I'm missing. Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You can link something like special:diff/859367690, using the revision number you want. Chris857 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: Possibly you can just use the {{Oldid}} template? Try this: {{Oldid|Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory|148096937}} to get this link:

Old revision of Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory

--CiaPan (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

signing again after correcting the ping address --CiaPan (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: Additional thing you're missing is that external link (those starting with http://) are formatted with single squared brackets (not doubled, like internal links) and the link label is separated with a space (not a vertical bar):

• this is a [[Main Page|local link to the Main Page]]: local link to the Main Page
• this is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page external link to the Main Page]: external link to the Main Page

--CiaPan (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

signing again after correcting the ping address --CiaPan (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you CiaPan and Chris857. Yeah, I figured out that | yields very differnt results in http links. Ciapan, your suggestion about the {{Oldid}} template is perfect and I pasted it exactly into my talk message. And, this whole string of advice I'm gonna paste into my reference sheet on WP edit helps. Gracías, GeeBee60 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

having some clarification regarding Wikipedia

Hello there,

Good Evening!

1. I am new user and I have a quick question about how to create a new page. 2. I have created a page Manish Kumar (not sure) but there is something showing with my username "Manprerana". Kindly guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manprerana (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Manprerana and welcome to the Teahouse.

So far, you've created a user page at User:Manprerana. This is formatted as a fake article and will need to be redone if it is to stay.

You've also expanded the Meena Singh article.

As for the page Manish Kumar, that does not appear to have been created by you using this current username. There is a draft at Draft:Manish Kumar but there are no signs that you ever touched it - unless you are not so new and earlier edited under the name Mrugeshsingh. If that's the case, then you should not be here at all. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets see if I can untangle this. Looks as if there was an old article Manish Kumar, currently a draft. And now you, who have a User name Manprerana and filled it with information that looks like an article about you - your name being Manish Kumar. Wrong idea. Your User page is for a bit about how you intend to edit Wikipedia. It is NOT for a self-biography, photo of you, etc. What you should do is delete everything on your User page and start over. And ignore the fact that there is a draft about a different person named Manish Kumar. If I am wrong, ignore this. David notMD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, you have removed the article-like content from your User page (good), but used it to create Draft:Manish Kumar (2) (bad). There are no references in the draft that would speak to Kumar's notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and hence no chance it will become an article. Wikipedia is not a social media, where people create profiles. It is an encyclopedia for articles about people who are already notable. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

My page was decline for not being adequately supported by reliable sources

Hello everyone, i have made correction on this page as required and i have deleted most of the information that could not be adequately verified, please could you check for me now if its ok, or please provide further suggestions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Owhoko#cite_note-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bderigbemi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the first eight sources cited. None of them does anything to establish that the subject is notable. They all report statements that he has made – what is needed is sources about him. Maybe there are better sources later in the list, that do attest to his notability; if there are, you could make it more likely that a reviewer finds them, by removing most of those that don't help establish notability. Maproom (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka wiki page

Hello, I have a question, more a concern. Before Naomi won the US open, the description on her page mentioned "Haitian-Japanese" and after her victory, the same page removed "Haiti" and referred only as a Japanese professional tennis player. I know wiki changes come from several contributors but you approve them so why did you accept such changes? Why remove the "Haiti" mention? Any issue with Haiti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:524:CD1:428D:872:CA32:93C4 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the talk page of the article. But there is already a long discussion of it there – click on Talk:Naomi_Osaka#Representing_Haiti and then on "show" over to the right. To summarise that long discussion, her nationality is Japanese, she has a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, and that information is all given in its proper places in the article. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What is going on?

I just "joined" and attempted to add an innocuous comment regarding the lack of citation and verification of a statement in an article. I received what is obviously a computer generated email about something called ClueBot that has disabled my comment. I followed a link (actually, there are about a dozen that could be followed) and attempted to find out what the problem was. Of course, nothing seems to work. Is there some Secret Handshake that I should have learned? Or should I just chalk it up as a lost cause, since I don't have a lifetime to devote to unraveling the mysteries of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bknewman. The "secret handshake", as you put it, is that we have a template - {{citation needed}} - for that task. User:ClueBot NG is an automated program that is not infallibile, but generally good at reverting obvious vandalism and leaving constructive edits alone. Chris857 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks. But since I have no idea where that "template" is (it doesn't seem to red-side in th Edit window), I'll just chalk it up to a lost cause. As I said, I don't have a second lifetime to learn all the intricacies just to note that a posting is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bknewman. I checked and Chris857 was kind enough to type {{citation needed}} in the proper place for you. I assure you, it does not take a "second lifetime" to learn Wikipedia editing. The only secret handshake is learning the basics of wikicode. You can find a good introduction by reading the Cheatsheet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bknewman: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup shows a lot of templates for various issues. If you see an article which does something you want then you can click edit it to see how it does it. You can search for help about something by starting a search with wp: in the search box. Your edit said "no attribution or verification", and wp:no attribution or verification could have helped. Or you are welcome to just ask here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for at least highlighting flagrantly incorrect article. As for any future efforts on my part, I will pass! I know that what you described (search link; user talk, tea houses, etc) seems absolutely plain and basic to you. As for me, I suspect that you were using the English language...but I won't bet on it. My first excursion into the Joy of Wikipedia Editing is most certainly my last! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

DVD may have been out a little earlier

DVD may have begun as early as August or September 1994. There is likely evidence that DVD may have come out around that time (no earlier). That may mean DVD may have been out for 24 years; it came out in America around 1996 or 1997. It replaced VHS somewhere in the mid-to-late 2000s. Can someone clarify this?

Angela Maureen (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Angela Maureen, welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that the evidence you have is reliable and authoritative, my advice to you is simply to repeat you question on the Talk Page of the article itself. i.e. Talk:DVD. But don't forget to include full details of your source(s). If you wanted to, you could even suggest the form of wording change you'd like to see. Whilst any editor (including you, of course!) is free to be bold and make those changes themselves, this is a popular page (2000 views per day), so discussing changes and their sources is a sensible way for you to proceed. The Teahouse hosts are unlikely to get involved directly, as we're here to help editors who encounter difficulties in editing Wikipedia, rather than making changes to specific pages. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I disclose COI?

Hi there, I've tried to publish a page about a professor. However it got rejected due to being an autobiography. Therefore, I re-edited it to comply to a more neutral point of view. Upon trying to publish for a second time - I have received the comment "please disclose COI". I have clicked on the COI link, but I have no idea how to disclose it. Any help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlyovich (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jlyovich, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:DISCLOSE will hopefully have what you seek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How to upload my profile on wikipedia

Tell me sir anyone.... So that... i can uplode my profile on wikpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasant kumar panigra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Your WP:USERPAGE can, if you want, be used to tell a little about who you are and what you do/like to do on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Witcombe Cider Festival - approval

Good morning,

Please can someone approve my edit/ add for Witcombe Cider Festival?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Witcombe_Cider_Festival

Many thanks Guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree8 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Appletree8, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft is not ready to be an article, if that's what you mean. But since it's a draft, you have plenty of time to work on it. I suggest you next take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Appletree8. I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång assessment of the draft and also suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Your first article as well. Bascially, what's going to ultimately determine whether the draft is approved as an article is going to be whether it is deemed to be Wikipedia notable enough for such an article to be written. I'm going to add Template:AFC draft to the top of the draft, so that you can submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready; however, I really don't suggest doing so right now because it's almost certainly going to be declined by a reviewer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea

Welcome. I have a tea, thank you Chickeo 08:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Chickeo. Welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've got yourself a drink already. That's great. Once you start to make edits to the encyclopaedia itself, do come back and let us know if you encounter any difficulties, and we'll try and help you. Regards, from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

After editing page alignment

Hi, I've recently edited the Kelty Hearts page to ensure their squad is updated, however, I seem to have an issue with the pages alignment after Current Squad.

It appears fine while editing but comes out of alignment when published.

I've using the viewer to edit rather than source.

If anyone could tell me or fix the alignment for me.

It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipow (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cipow, welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed it by moving {{Fs end}} to a new line.[1] VisualEditor has problems with table-generating templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea house

Is tea house in Asia?

Do they serve tea or any other refreshments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Aranha (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stub template for dancer?

Does Wikipedia have a stub template for entertainers who were known for their dancing? I found Dance stubs, but they are for types of dances rather than for performers. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Entertainers seems to be the appropriate place, but I don't see dancers there. I'm asking because last night I came across Frances E. Nealy, which had focused on her as an actress, but the newspaper articles I found dealt with her more as a dancer. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

{{dance-bio-stub}} is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Culture#Other culture. It adds Category:Dance biographical stubs. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Entry rejected?

Hello -

A friend of mine submitted my bio as an entry for Wikipedia at the beginning of this year. I checked into its status and was referred to this board. I am wondering why it was rejected and what to do to make it eligible for publication. Since that time, I have announced my candidacy for a political position, which is the one change I have made to the original biography. Thank you for your time!

I will paste the entry below:

this is not the place for a draft

Gabriel Piemonte is a writer, editor, and civic advocate living in the Woodlawn community in Chicago. He was born in May, 1968, to Ralph and Nancy Piemonte. Gabriel Piemonte has lived since 2000 on the South Side of Chicago. He is currently a candidate for the position of Fifth Ward alderman in Chicago. Piemonte was hired in 2000 by Caitlin Devitt, editor of the Hyde Park Herald, to cover real estate and development for that newspaper and for the Lakefront Outlook, the community newspaper for Bronzeville that had been started by Herald publisher Bruce Sagan in 1999. Over the course of his employment as a journalist for the newspapers, Piemonte also covered education, politics, and historic preservation, along with other topics. He was promoted to associate editor in 2002. While at the Herald, Piemonte learned about a group organized by Al Hofeld, Jr. and Cecilia Butler to found a credit union to cover the South Side of Chicago and to serve low income residents. He received special permission from his editor to organize with the group, which included residents from Woodlawn, Washington Park, and others. They successfully opened the doors of the South Side Community Federal Credit Union in 2003. It currently has nearly $4 million in assets. Piemonte's coverage of Bronzeville included the State Street Corridor, where one of the the largest concentrations of public housing in the country was located. When Mayor Richard M. Daley announced his intent to demolish the vast majority of family public housing developments in the city, Piemonte joined with Ethan Michaeli, the founder of the low-income residents’ advocacy group We The People Media, and Columbia University sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh in an effort to intervene in a process that they agreed was short on planning and needed services for relocation of residents. That effort was unsuccessful, and the Plan for Transformation, as it was called, continued apace without significant support for many of the relocated residents impacted by it. Piemonte worked for We The People Media for three years. During that time, he developed the People’s Institute, a curriculum for training Chicago residents without formal journalism training or social science education, to become knowledgeable about conduct social science research and further develop reporting skills they had begun to hone while reporting for Residents’ Journal, the flagship publication of We The People Media. He also co-authored, with Beauty Turner, a feasibility study which made the case for a relocation information center for displaced residents of demolished public housing using data gathered from graduates of the People’s Institute. We The People Media has since closed its doors. He eventually left We The People Media and began a project in Hyde Park that combined oral history and historic preservation. The Hyde Park Modern Townhomes Project digitally recorded interviews of residents of the midcentury modern housing that had been built during urban renewal in Hyde Park and also documented the properties and collected important artifacts related to them, such as blueprints and promotional material. The project is archived in the Regenstein Library. As that effort ended, Piemonte became aware of a window to be opened by the Federal Communications Commission for application for non-commercial radio licenses. He joined with Ursula Ruedenberg of Pacifica Radio to found the Midwest Media Group, a self-help project that provided peer support to citizens across the Midwest seeking to apply for licenses in order to start community radio stations. Through the popularity of the ad-hoc organization, which eventually also included applicants in the South and West regions, the pair were able to bring unique resources to their members, including free legal sessions with a lawyer with expertise in FCC licensing. Midwest Media Group members credited the effort in helping them to successfully make application for the licenses. Piemonte then returned to the Herald as editor in 2007. During his tenure, the paper editorialized on a number of local issues, often fighting for a greater voice for the ordinary residents of Hyde Park and in defense of local institutions and cultural events that were at risk of being eliminated to make way for the powerful wave of development in Hyde Park that began in the aughts., Piemonte was lead author on most of those editorials, with review by Sagan. While working at the Herald, Piemonte moved to Woodlawn, in preparation for his marriage to Mary C. Johns, editor-in-chief of the Residents' Journal, the citywide publication published by We The People Media, where she also served as deputy executive director. Now living in a community outside of his paper’s coverage area, Piemonte became more visibly active in local affairs, co-founding an urban agriculture effort that grew food for a local church's soup kitchen and food pantry and co-establishing a community garden on the 6000 block of Vernon Avenue. When the massive public school closure in 2013 was announced, Piemonte partnered with a neighbor to hold a pair of community meetings about a local response. One meeting brought out roughly 30 residents, and Ald. Willie Cochran (20th) attended a second meeting. When the Board of Education announced plans to sell of a number of its vacant properties in 2013, Piemonte convened a number of local community members to advocate for turning a child-parent center that had gone unused for years into a community center. The group got a hundred signatures from neighbors and talked with them about what they would like to see in a community center. They then drafted a plan, of which Piemonte was the lead author, that reflected the priorities of the community. In a first round of bidding, the group was unsuccessful in applying for the property to be donated to the community, although there were no other interested parties. In a second round, a fraternity outbid the community. As a demonstration of the capacity of the group, Woodlawn Voices and Visions was launched, a videography program that also develops critical consciousness through readings, discussion, and the production of documentary shorts. To date, Voices and Visions has served roughly 75 young people, with many enrolled in multiple sessions. The business plan of the group also inspired an urban agriculture program led by Piemonte that operated at Hyde Park Academy for a short time.. In 2015, a fire swept through the Shrine of Christ the King, a nearly century-old Renaissance Revival structure located in the Woodlawn community. Designed by famed architect Henry Schlacks, the church is considered by some to be his masterpiece. The church was also the anchor of the Institute of Christ the King, a religious order that provided meeting space to the community and supported community events. The Archdiocese moved to have the building demolished, and Piemonte and a congregant, Emily Nielsen, formed the Coalition to Save the Shrine. After the Coalition organized a fundraising campaign that raised more than $650,000, weeks of media attention, and a series of public events , the Archdiocese signed the property over to the Institute, which now owns it outright. The Coalition became Save the Shrine, NFP, which has raised tens of thousands of dollars since the building has become the property of the Institute in support of its restoration. Fourth Ward Ald. Will Burns abruptly announced in 2016 that he was leaving his elected office to serve as a lobbyist for Airbnb. While the position was vacant, Piemonte convened a series of meetings in which residents articulated what they wanted from local government. The meetings drew crowds of 30-50 people each and ran over the course of the vacancy, with two meetings coming after the announcement of the interim alderman, Sophia King. In March of 2017, Piemonte began writing about the planned development of Jackson Park on the South Lakefront. He also formed South Side United, an advocacy group opposed to the creation of a quasi-public development corporation to oversee building in the neighborhoods adjacent to the park. The corporation was begun as an arm of the Obama Center development in the park, and Piemonte’s writing began to include critiques of the Center, which was resistant to broadening community inclusion from his view. He also published articles on the site devoted to this project, southsideunited.org, about two other developments proposed for the park, an amphitheater and a PGA golf course, as well as other development issues affecting the South Lakefront. Among Piemonte’s response to these developments is advocacy for elected neighborhood councils for the communities most directly affected by the Jackson Park proposals. Piemonte is the grandson of Boston City Councilman and Massachusetts State Representative Gabriel Piemonte. References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielpiemonte (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft, so I have collapsed its display. The reason why Draft:Gabriel Piemonte was rejected was given at User talk:Twain1872, & eventually the draft was deleted after it had been abandoned un-edited for more than 6 months. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article but firstly WP:Autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help from a native speaker of Spanish

My Spanish is good, but not native. I'm translating es:Historias breves, work in progress at User:Jmabel/Historias Breves. Two things need help from a native speaker of Spanish. One relates to possible connotations or pun on envuelto; the other pivots on the phrase "una tarotista que trabaja en una línea erótica" ("a tarot reader who works in an erotic line," but what on earth does that mean?). Please see User talk:Jmabel/Historias Breves and the draft article itself for more details. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel! Try these people Wikipedia:Translators#Spanish-to-English – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Monkeytheboy and MX: - Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jmabel and Finnusertop: Thanks for the ping, guys. Happy to help! I've responded to the translation requests at User talk:Jmabel/Historias Breves. Please ping me if you have additional questions. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 18:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)