Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 293

Image from Getty Images
I am trying to add "Australians_Film_Screening_Battle_Ground.jpg" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Copping under his request. The image is from Getty Images, can I Embed the image from their site to get around the licensing issues?Thanks for the help! Castablebranding (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Castablebranding, welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia does not support embedded image links. Please do not upload a copyrighted picture and change the license terms. You can read our image use policy for more info or just post here again if you have more questions. --Neil N  talk to me 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Castablebranding. To add to what was already said, we need a photo that is free, in the sense of being free to use for any purpose. An easy way to make sure that this is the case is to take a photo yourself at one of his public appearances.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Great guys thank you for the response. If he were to purchase the editorial license for the photo from Getty Images which allows use in one location, Wiki included, what license would that fall under when I upload the image to the commons area? Thanks! Castablebranding (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Still not acceptable, I'm afraid. As previously stated the image use policy is for free use anywhere for any purpose. Nthep (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon126 has a good point. If you're in contact with the subject, ask him to take a selfie or have an acquaintance take a picture of him and upload the photo under a free-to-use license. --Neil N  talk to me 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Anchors
When using anchor in section headers, is it more common to:
 * a put the anchor in the header, e.g. ,
 * b use visible anchor, e.g.
 * or c, place the anchor directly below the section header, e.g.


 * which has the advantage of not breaking the section link in the edit summary?
 * which has the advantage of not breaking the section link in the edit summary?

Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @G S Palmer:  One of the principal uses of anchors is to protect against changes in section headings which otherwise can be simply linked to using a wikilink.  On that basis I would suggest that your last option of placing the anchor below the section title is the better option as it is less likely to be edited away. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How to use information from a web page I own
I own the copyright to a webpage. On the wikipedia page I am trying to copy and paste the information about my subject but wikipedia deletes it due to copyright infringement. I can't edit the web page as I have forgotten how to login. Also my article keeps being deleted due to "promotion" how do I avoid this? RDs123 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I can address the points in order:
 * First of all, Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted content. If you own the website, you can release the text under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence and copy it across without problems, but this gives other people the right to re-use it and change it (on Wikipedia at least). This would be donating your work. All other text, even if you own it, can't be just copied across without incident. It's also probably a bad idea just to donate content: firstly, there's no guarantee it will remain unchanged, since anyone can edit your article; secondly, you don't want to give away the words you've used on your website (just like you wouldn't want to give away other copyrighted material such as artwork); and thirdly, it's probable that when writing for your website you wanted to promote your company or organisation and Wikipedia needs a different emphasis in its articles than your own website requires. (See the third bullet point below.)


 * You are already logged in, since you were able to sign your post with a username rather than just an IP address. If the text has been deleted, however, you will have to start a draft - which should not contain content copied from elsewhere - from scratch, since only administrators can see deleted contributions.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than a business directory or other networking site. Normally when content is flagged as 'promotional', the editor has written it in the style of an advertisement or a piece puffing up their company, service, product or organisation rather than adhering to the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. So when someone says your work is promotional, they mean that you're not writing in the style Wikipedia requires.


 * What I'd suggest doing is reading the set of links provided you with earlier today. Those would help you understand the core policies of Wikipedia. Also read WP:Your first article - that might help explain what Wikipedia is and is not and help you create content which will stick around here rather than being deleted straight away. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I indeed tagged the page as copyright violation (which it was) and for unambiguous advertising (which it was). The copyright violation could very well be sated by OP in giving permission via OTRS that the text belongs to them. But then, if you saw the page, you would know instantly that it was promotional. Nearly every single sentence was telling me how great and perfect the entity was and why I should join it. That's not acceptable for a Wikipedia page. If the copyright violation no longer applied, the promotional one surely would. I linked them to WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI, a thorough essay on what a conflict of interest is, what you can do, what you can't do, and a bunch of stuff on the subject. I just figured they'd have one if they can just as fast get permission for the text, indicating that they were close or even are the subject who created the article. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - I also post welcome templates (quite often before I look at an article) as they're a useful toolkit for explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're also right to mention conflict of interest, as that was something I forgot in the main body of my reply. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading images/ Licencing question
Hi. If I took a photograph of a building or a logo, could I upload it without permission from the company?  19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The building, probably. The logo, probably to Wikipedia per the non-free content criteria; to Commons probably not, unless it is too simple to qualify for copyright protection.--ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Challenging an article section
How can I challenge an article? For example, say there is some info that I don't think is true, what can I put to show that it might not be accurate? Punk4orchrist (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual place to discuss article content is the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it might be worth having a look at verifiability. If you have reliable sources for your change and the material in there doesn't, then replacing it is straightforward; but if you haven't got a reliable published source, don't add anything. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What if posters/editors are ignoring the points made on talk pages, such as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender#Gender_identity? I'm not so much challenging an article as I'm trying to make the various inconsistent sentences in the same section consistent. Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See here; Maxxx12345 is interpreting matters differently than what they actually are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Publishing an article for the 1st time
Greetings -

I am the owner of a small entertainment lifestyle marketing and management firm, and as part of my portfolio I manage 1 recording artist. He is a pretty widely regarded artist within his genre (he makes line dance music and choreography), being a 17 year veteran who has national distribution for his product, gets records played on major commercial radio stations across the country, and gets booked to perform at various venues across the United States. I just signed him to a management deal in February of 2014, and we had a pretty decent 1st year working together. Anyhow, I say all this to say that I felt he was worthy of a Wiki page at this point, so I opened an account to create one for him. It's a work in progress but I think I have the "meat & potatoes" in place, and I'm looking for an expert opinion on it before I publish it. I'm not very solid on how to do the footnotes and referencing just yet. Also, I'm not sure how exactly to publish the article once I'm ready to "go live" - all I see is the user page right now. Is there some approval/review process from Wiki before it goes live? How does that work? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Derrick Big Mucci - The International King of Line Dance Music (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's nice to see you trying, but you seem to be trying something difficult, especially for a newcomer. You have said why someone is good and deserves notice, but that's not what it takes.  The subject of an article needs Notability (people) which is a long complicated document but probably the main problem is, deserving isn't what it takes.  Notability means, roughly, already famous.  That is, discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources.  Independent means, roughly, not connected with the subject.  Like, newspapers or some other media that don't just say what the subject and his friends, colleagues, relatives and agent say.  You can run into other problems, like WP:BLP since it's a biography.  You will definitely hit WP:COI because you are his manager.  A Wikipedian with plenty of experience might be able to navigate through all these difficulties, but would probably not think it worth the effort.  Too bad; I have nice deserving friends who can't get a fair break in show business, but I'm far too lazy to offer to help them in this way.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, : Wikipedia may not be used for promoting anything: a person, a business, a charity, a band, a show, whatever. Until a subject has already been noticed and written about at length by more than one reliable source unconnected with the subject, Wikipedia will not host an article about them. Once your artist has been written about, Wikipedia may have an article about him: but you are going to find it hard to write that article, because of your conflict of interest (as Jim Henderson noted). One more point: I believe that your username violates our policy on usernames, as it is overtly promotional. --ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Creating an Article about my company?
Hello, I am writing frequent mails to wikipedia concern person, about bringing back my company's article that has been blocked. My Ticket is #2014110410006832, we have tried a number of times that my company comes in search results. Can you please help us to retreive our old article or let us post new article from my user name. I have framed new content which is not promotional. However is there a way I can get my content approved before posting. Please help and suggest us further.10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti.jain12 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi welcome to the Teahouse. The page you created must have been deleted due to a reason. I'm guessing that it's due to conflict of interests or neutral point of view issue. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about yourself or your company. Because in most cases users who are creating such articles violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. And some of them are paid to write articles. Only admins can restore deleted pages. But don't create multiple accounts to re-write the same article again. Because it will be blocked again and also you risk your account being blocked for Sock puppetry.-- Chamith   (talk)  11:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chamith. This is of help and I shall take care of it.

11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti.jain12 (talk • contribs)

Notability troubles
Hi everyone. I am writing an article for a human rights organization called the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project in Uganda and I keep getting really bad reviews! The truth is it sounds like a soft AD and notability is weak. I tried this out several times..making changes all the while. But still its not good enough!!!!

Please, please will someone help me????Nyinakiiza (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you, as the author, admit the notability is weak, what do you expect other people to do? It might help you to read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" - an essay which explains that probably all you can do is wait, until there is extensive coverage in reliable, independent, sources. - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was "speedy deleted" for not stating why the subject is important. The draft at User:Nyinakiiza/draft would pass this test for me.  However the real test is to find "multiple independent reliable sources" that provide "significant coverage" of the subject, as otherwise the article is vulnerable to a slower and more deliberate process that considered notability - WP:AfD.
 * I believe you have a good chance of finding such sources, I am seeing a lot of information on-line.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Adding External Links
Hello! I am the personal assistant to author Jillian Lauren, and have been asked by the author to add more external links to her Wikipedia Biography. The links are all content from verified sources and syndications, and are all articles that will help readers further understand the subject they are researching. I added the links and they were taken down. How can I keep the external links on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarreyn (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm afraid that the simple fact is that neither you nor Lauren have any kind of control over that article. It is governed by Wikipedia's policies (in this case, specifically external links), and the consensus of editors. Wikipedia is very sparing with external links: while a link to a subject's official website is encouraged, very few others are allowed. As somebody with a conflict of interest you are certainly allowed to argue (on the talk page) for the inclusion of a link (or any other material), but in the end you need to bow to the consensus. In my opinion far more important than adding links is to find some more reliable independent sources. At present, in my view, there is precisely one substantial independent reliable source cited (the New York Post) - the rest are all either minor (mentions in passing) or not independent (I've not listened to the Nerdist podcast, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source) - and so the article is liable to be deleted for not establishing notability. --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

how to save editing work for completion later
I would like to edit some articles, but I don't think I can do it in one sitting. Is there a way to save the work and return to it later, without putting an incomplete version in the public space? Miguelyjoven (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you can save it in a document on your computer or as a sub-page in your userspace, for example your sandbox User:Miguelyjoven/sandbox - using cut-and-paste. You have to be careful, though, as the article you are changing might be edited by someone else while you are working on your copy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC).


 * If practical, you can also complete a part of the wanted changes, save them in the article, and come back later to work on other parts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To let people know you want to do more work, you can also add .—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding waving links twice
Hello everyone! It is a good thing that I had attached myself to this forum. In this section, I want to know that can an article contain same waving link twice? For example, in an article's lead section, I had put a link to Ford Motor Company. Then, I added the same link to the body. Is it fine or a serious problem? Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello,, nice to see you around. It's generally speaking a good idea to wikilink something only once in an article. The Manual of Style says that you can repeat a wikilink in an infobox. So if you have a wikilink in the infobox, it's OK to link it once - but only once - in the main body of the text. LouiseS1979 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * u|LouiseS1979, Thanks a lot, I appreciate your help! 08:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikhtiar H (talk • contribs)
 * welcome to The Teahouse. It is actually a good idea to wikilink more than once if the article is really long. That way if someone reads only a section that is not near the beginning of the article, the link will be there. Once in each long section might be a good guideline.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Updating a removed link
Hello,

I am writing from a company New Net Technologies, whose product Change Tracker is listed under the File Integrity Monitoring page under Applications - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_integrity_monitoring. The link is however broken / was removed. How can I restore the link? And will the copy I have pasted below pass through the review process? Please can you also advise on where I can submit this copy for review?

New Net Technologies is an IT Security and Compliance Software Manufacturer with Offices in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The company was founded in 2005 when it launched its flagship software solution NNT-Change Tracker Enterprise. The solution was originally designed for monitoring IT networks for unexpected changes but has since developed into an Enterprise-wide solution for Servers, Desktops, Applications, Network Devices & Databases.

The company is privately held by the current management team.

NNT Provides solutions for:

File Integrity Monitoring System Vulnerability Hardening Change Management Configuration Management

Corporate website www.newnettechnologies.com

SMartin1234 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there! It looks like the link is broken because the article Change Tracker™ has been deleted under the reason WP:G11. This basically means that the article had advertisement or promotional material, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. To restore the link, you would have to recreate the article Change Tracker™. However, do be aware that articles in Wikipedia has to be notable. If Change Tracker™ is not notable, it is best not to create the article.


 * The copy you have provided sounds like an advertisement. You will have to rewrite and reference reliable sources for it to be accepted. Also, if you would like to submit articles for review, you can visit Articles for Creation. The editors there will happy to help you create your article. heyzec! 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But before you re-write the article, please read our guidelines on conflict of interest which explain why you should not be creating an article about a company you work for in the first place. - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Change Tracker™ cannot be an article name. It would have to be Change Tracker, if that product is found to be notable.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Help on editing
Hi! So, i find it very difficult to find articles to edit. Any advice?Samwise723 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The menu on the left side of each page has a link to the Community portal. You can find lists of many articles needing various kinds of work there. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

36 Crazyfists

 * Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I made a new page for the band 36 Crazyfists and their new cd Time and Trauma and I'm told it isn't referenced but I've attached album reviews I guess I am not too sure what references means. Can you help or explain in better detail? Karmakage (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two issues about the references in Time and Trauma. One is that I don't think the rateyourmusic link is a reliable source, because it appears to be a site that anybody can post on. We don't accept such sites as references: it must be somewhere with a reputation for editing and fact-checking. I'm not sure about the blabbermouth site: on a quick look it appears that it is edited, but I don't know how reliably. The other point is that references need to be inserted throughout the text, attached to the information they are used to support. As a general rule, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be found in a reliable source, referenced at the end of the sentence or the paragraph, so that a reader can go and check it, at least in principle. If any piece of information has not been published, or is only in an unreliable source such as facebook or a blog or a Wiki, then it should simply not be in the article. Please see referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It will not let me upload an image
I added the requirements, maybe you can upload it for me? I am trying to change the image of the old logo to the new logo for the Gerald R. Ford International Airport.Artprize99 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can see, you uploaded a new version of the File:Gerald R. Ford International Airport.jpg. After that, in this edit you changed the code of the image in the article from "File:Gerald R. Ford International Airport.jpg" to "File: grr logo". That broke the syntax. I reverted your edit, and the image is now visible. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright notice and references and knowledge problems
Hi guys. I am writing an article in my sandbox for later use I keep receiving a copyright notice when copyright is only about 3%. Can any one help me get rid of it? Also the article has quite a long history but has little online available references and restrictions on written ones due there value. But this history is listed on other wikipedia pages can I use this as a reference. Also should I list multiple references to one event to increase the notability of the article or stick to one prominent one. Please check out my sandbox to give me pointers. Also do I have to have a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on wikipedia? Thank you  RDs123 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I will try to answer all your questions.
 * Copyright material is not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia, even in a sandbox. Please don't copy anything from elsewhere into your sandbox - you can put a link to the external material temporarily, but if you're going to put text in you need to rewrite it in your own words.
 * Sources do not need to be online, but need to be published from reliable publishers: in principle a reader needs to be able to go and check every source, but if they could get it through a major public library, for example, that would be acceptable.
 * Wikipedia may not be used as a reference, because it is inherently unreliable (anybody may edit it). However, good Wikipedia articles should have references, and you can of course use those references. (If you go to an existing article for references, and find them lacking, it would be great if you would add some!)
 * There's no universal answer to whether to include multiple references for the same information; but I would say that quality beats quantity. If you have found one or two good references for a piece of information, there's no need to add any more; conversely, if you've a dozen references but they're all weak (eg dubious sources, or just mentioned in passing), consider omitting the information.
 * No, you don't need a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on Wikipedia; but it usually helps!
 * If you've any further questions, please come back and ask. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But its taking words and saying thats copyright when nobody own copyright to these words. Can admin see my sandbox? RDs123 (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though of course the creative content at the the site that corenseachbot tagged as this being a possible copyright violation of is copyrighted (your note above seems to imply you think it's not), I agree that you have not violated any copyright by the extremely minor matching text, and have removed the bot's notice as a false-positive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha. Okay, I see what happened here. You did violate copyright, in the past version that was deleted. It was just not this version. But, when you reposted with this different content, you copied over the copyvio template, and so the duplicator report was not for the same content as the original page the bot had tagged. Anyway, you cannot retain non-free copyright and license its use here. That's why it is a copyright violation even if you own it. You would have the release the copyright to the world under a suitable free copyright license or into the public domain in order for it to be posted here. Information about the mechanics of doing so are set out at Donating copyrighted materials). You can simply change the notice at the external site to note the release, e.g., replace "© Copyright 2014</tt>" with: The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). However, some of that content is unsuitably promotional for use here, and regardless of whether the copyright issue is resolved, the text requires citations to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the society. If such sources don't exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic. Please see our notability standards. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm not an admin, but I'll try to help. As far as I understand, you are trying to write an article about "UCD Economics Society", but you have a problem with copyrights. You say that you are writing the article in you sandbox "for later use", but that is not true. You published the article twice in the wp:main space. Once under your former username, and once under your current username. It was speedily deleted both times (log). A version of the article is also located in your sandbox (User:RDs123/sandbox). One of the reason cited for deletion is the copyright violation. Most of the (deleted) article was copied verbatim from here. That is not allowed (see: WP:COPYPASTE). I see that here] you try to explain us that the "content in question is owned by you". That does not change the situation. The content is released here and tagged with "© Copyright 2014. Economics Society. All Rights Reserved". That means that reusing of the content is not allowed. Wikipedia only accepts so called "free content", so your content ("all rights reserved") may not be used in Wikipedia straight away, even though you are the copyright holder. Learn here how to donate (your own) copyrighted material to Wikipedia: Donating copyrighted materials. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest
Hi all!

I am interested in writing an article about the person I wrote my thesis on. I'm not concerned about notability, because she has been written about by other people and is generally considered important in her profession. I am a bit concerned about conflict of interest, since I don't want the article to be seen as promoting my academic work. (Which is, and probably deserves to remain, obscure.) If I cite the sources that I used in my thesis rather than citing the thesis itself, am I pretty well covered? Should I also disclose the (potential) conflict of interest, and if so, where would be the best place for that disclosure?

Thanks!

MetaClaudia (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and thanks for asking. The answer, I think, is yes all round. It is not a conflict of interest to write about something you are an expert on, as long as the result is based on published work that covers all views of the subject. (I would warn you that experts sometimes find Wikipedia a frustrating pace to work, because people may disagree with you who you do not consider to have your level of understanding of the subject, and it could even happen that a consensus goes against you on some point. But if you go into it with an understanding of what you are getting into, we'd be pleased to benefit from your expertise). It's not clear to me if your thesis has been published or not. If not, you shouldn't cite it, (which means you should also not quote any arguments or conclusions from it). But if it has been published in a reliable journal or a book from a reputable publisher, you can cite it, and even cite arguments and conclusions from it, as long as you don't privilege it over other published views of the matter. But either way, you should cite other sources, which will presumably mostly be sources you used in your thesis. I suggest you do disclose your potential conflict of interest on your User page, and possibly also on the talk page of the article you write. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! MetaClaudia (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As is so often the case, the people who are actually concerned about having a conflict of interest and not violating our standards, like you, don't have a real conflict at all:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Articles / Sports
Hello Wikipedia Editors;

I have attempted to prepare information to be posted within the sports section of wikipedia but I am unsure as to weather or not it will receive any attention so I wanted to ask if someone would be so kind as to help me have the entry for Randy Beverly Jr completed/published;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#American_football

I think there are enough notable sources for Beverly Jr. The issue is that Beverly Jr is being confused with Beverly, who is an historic entry already.

Thanks in advance, MeanMachine1 93.32.151.39 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you can see, the WP:Requested articles service is heavily backlogged. The easiest way to solve this is for you to write the article yourself. It's not so hard at all. I see that you have reliable sources, which is good. You can write a short article (so called "stub") and let other editors improve it. See here how to write an article: WP:My first article. You can use the WP:WIZARD. You'll have to register an account first (it's free), because anonymous users cannot write new articles. You can ask us for any kind of help here at the Teahouse, or you can ask me at my talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How???????
No big deal!Only I don't know how to go to the game.When I pressed on tea house, I came here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.248.198.4 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome. Teahouse is not a game, it's a forum to ask questions. If you're looking for the Wikipedia Adventure game, it's here: WP:ADVENTURE. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the previous section I guess you did find WP:ADVENTURE. Did you click "Start the adventure" without anything happening? What is your browser and does it have JavaScript enabled? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

English cross check
Hi. I'm in the midst of creating some articles. But my main concern will be the language. Being a non-native English speaker, I'm afraid of too much grammatical errors. Are there any person who can proofreading my articles before I click submit button? By the way, I've joined Wikipedia since 2013 and get very active with it. I found Teahouse welcome message is helpful. But I wonder why I didn't get one. I've seen some who got welcome message from Teahouse but end-up vandalising. Tafeax (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, - welcome to the Teahouse (selamat petang/pagi). Welcome-templating isn't automatic (there may be bots out there, but if there are they don't always get there quick enough and I've left loads of templates manually); to the best of my knowledge it relies on someone who wants to give you a welcome message seeing you when you make your first few edits (or before someone leaves another message on your talk page). I usually leave one when I see a redlinked talk page; I usually patrol new pages, which means I don't often come across vandals but quite often see well-intentioned but ultimately unproductive editing (such as people who think we're a place to post a listing for their local sailing club or jazz cafe - they're not vandals, they just need to be told what Wikipedia is and is not). However, a welcome template on someone's page is IMO a useful way of welcoming the editor and equipping them with a toolkit so they become better editors. There will always be vandals, but hopefully some will progress beyond that initial flurry of disruption and settle down.


 * As far as style and grammar issues, my main editing before becoming more engaged over the past few months was browsing articles in particular areas and cleaning up poor English style and grammar. I am interested in eastern and central European politics and history (I wrote my Masters thesis on the Helsinki Final Act) and got started copy-editing the articles I was reading while I read up on topics. Last autumn, I graduated to the Guild of Copy-Editors when I thought I could tackle the job a bit more systematically. So there are people out there working on the task of smoothing out language which may not be perfect for a lot of reasons.


 * But please don't let it stop you contributing drafts. I think as long as you can write an intelligible article, then there will be someone to come along behind you, even just adding a copy-edit template to add it to the GOCE's lists. If you want assistance or a quick, friendly eye over your articles while they're still drafts or after they go live, leave me a note on my talk page. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you LouiseS1979 for your reply. Your experience on copy-editing has open my eyes. I can improve my English writing by doing so. Perhaps I've done it on Kuala Lumpur International Airport at last hour. Thanks again for your encouragement and willingness to help in future. Tafeax (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * yeah sure. If u r getting doubts about grammar, you can get in contact with me. I'm working as a Language editor in Springer Journals.Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Language style
What language style we use in wiki? Do we use consistency of US/UK words or Is there any rule for certain type of article?Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . That is an excellent question. For purposes of simplification, I will accept that there are two main variants of English, those used in the UK and in the US. There are actually quite a few variations. Indian English is perhaps the most important other variation.


 * Here on Wikipedia, we use UK English in articles like London and Liverpool, and US English in articles like New York and Los Angeles. In other words, we use the "local" variation for articles directly related to that locale, whether history, geography, biography, and so on.


 * For topics without an inherent connection with a regional English variation, we use whatever variety was used by the editor who began writing the article. It is considered disruptive to argue about such things, since any literate English speaker can read and comprehend any variety of English. Please read WP:ENGVAR for a more detailed explanation. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you mr.Cullen328.Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, . Within a given, established article, we maintain consistency. If you are expanding an existing article that uses the the spelling "colour", do not change it to "color". Personally, I prefer the second spelling, but my personal preferences do not matter when editing an established article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Made a minor formatting issue that I cannot diagnose!
I've been editing the latest scores into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Southern_Football_League#First_round and it's been going quite well. Still getting used to using the edit page but I'm doing alright so far! For some reason, one of the fixtures has a formatting issue and I'm not quite sure what's happened. It's very obvious to see when you look at it, all help appreciated! What did I do wrong? Dinotramp (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It took me a little while but I found it, you'd missed a closing } on a template in the middle of the collapsible template, fixed! :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory content
I noticed there is contradictory content on the page about Takashi Uemura. How do I flag this?49.197.18.164 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you just want to flag the contradiction, you may use this template: Contradiction-inline (just place this code in the text of the article, after the contradictory statement). Of course, you are free to fix the problem yourself. Feel free to edit the article and reword it, so that it's not in contradiction. Good thing is also to explain your edit at article's talk page (Talk:Takashi Uemura (academic)). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How to move from draft space when creating an article for the first time?
i already did more than 10 edits on my article and im registered for more than 4 days how can i move my article from draft space to publish it normally?

please helpMarketfeed (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Draft:Annajah.ma is not ready for article space, you have no references from Independant Reliable Sources to show that the subject is notable - specifically that it meets the requirements of Notability (web). Furthermore, the existing content is very promotional, and not written from a neutral point of view. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia are to that article, I suspect you may be connected to Annajah.ma so have a conflict of interest, in which case you should read and follow our guidelines for such editors here. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Marketfeed

sending a message to a specific user
I want to send a message to a user, but don't know how to send it to a specific person. How do I send the message?

JaguarXJ8 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there Every editor has their own talk page at which you can leave messages. Yours, for example, is located at User_talk:JaguarXJ8; other users have and will continue to leave you messages there. Mine is at User_talk:SuperHamster, so that's where you'd leave a message if you wanted to get in touch with me. Remember to leave new messages at the bottom of the page (the Teahouse being the one exception, where new questions go at the top).
 * You can always access an editor's talk page by going to their userpage, and then clicking the "Talk" tab at the very top. Signatures and article histories also have links to users' talk pages. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 22:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @JaguarXJ8:  (e/c) Hi JaguarXJ8. Every user has a talk page. If you look next to your post above, your talk page is linked. Most people's signatures (though not all) have such a link. A person's talk page will also be found in the page history of anything they've edited. You can also navigate to anyone's talk page by just typing into the search field "<tt>user talk:NameOfTheUser</tt>". Once you leave a message for a user on his or her talk page, they will get that prominent orange notification at the top of the page, lust like the one you got when people posted to your talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * welcome to the Teahouse. If you need to communicate privately and both of you have "email this user" activated (you can look on the left side of the person's user page), you can also email. Your email address will not be revealed when you do this the first time. — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

adding content to a page about films/movies
I would like to suggest an addition to

List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees

The section "List of films" give the names of movies that have all (or most) of the "Big Five" Oscars -- Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and either Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Original Screenplay.

The film "Kramer vs. Kramer" is not listed, and it should be listed because it has four of the five "Big Five Oscars." The exception is that it didn't win for Best Actress. Meryl Streep did win an Oscar for that film, but it was for Best Supporting Actress.

I don't know how to contact the watcher(s) of that page, but if you could pass this along to him/her/them, I would appreciate it. Thank you!

Recycler1973 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Recycler1973:   The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees - a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hello, . Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit. In general, if you have information which will improve an article in the encyclopaedia you are encouraged to edit the article to add it; or if you are not confident in doing so, every article has a talk page where you may make suggestions for improving it. (You do not need to get your contribution authorised by a "watcher": the worst that can happen is that somebody may disagree that it is appropriate, and remove it again. Then if you disagree with them you can have a discussion on the talk page, and reach consensus).
 * However, in this case I would advise against it, for two reasons. The first is that the page clearly says "This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories". You're wanting to broaden this from all to most of the categories. This might be reasonable - but you should certainly get agreement on the talk page before changing the definition of the page in this way.
 * The other problem (which is nothing to do with your suggestion) is that I do not believe that this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia at all, because it is entirely a synthesis from published sources, which is not allowed. I have not (yet) nominated it for deletion, but I have asked on the talk page why people think that the page is valid. --ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nthep: "The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees"

I cannot find the specific URL for that article's talk page. What is it, and/or how do I find it?

@Nthep: "...a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress."

@ColinFine: "...the page clearly says 'This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories'. You're wanting to broaden this from ALL to MOST of the categories."

I am not trying to broaden it from ALL to MOST... because that has already been done. I believe that the chart found in the "List of films" section of that page lists all films that were nominated for multiple Big Five awards. Only three films have won all five: "It Happened One Night", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and "The Silence of the Lambs." However, four films are listed that won four of the Big Five: "Gone with the Wind", "Mrs. Miniver", "Annie Hall", and "American Beauty." I maintain that "Kramer vs. Kramer" should be listed with these other four, because it won four of the Big Five. It did not win an Oscar for Best Actress... I don't know if any role from that film was nominated for that category.

The reason I am hesitant to simply make the edit -- which I have done on dozens of other pages over the years -- is that I don't know who won for Best Actress that year. I imagine the watcher(s) of this page are more knowledgeable of the Oscars than I am, and so I wanted to bring this to their attention.

If this is the wrong forum or method for notifying others on Wikipedia, please accept my apology. I'd consider myself to be an intermediate Wikipedia user and editor, but I think both of you are experts. If needed, we can take this conversation to electronic mail; I can be reached at smargon -- at -- udel -- dot -- edu. Thanks again!

Recycler1973 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . In that case the talk page is definitely the place. You'll find it at Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees, or you can pick "Talk" (I think it might appear as "Discussion" on some skins) from the article itself. Discussing on Wikipedia is strongly preferable to doing so in email.
 * Your point about whether you are broadening it from some to all is exactly why I think this page should be deleted. If there is not a reliable source out there which not only defines what "Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees" means, and reliable sources which say whether this or that film meets the criterion, then the entire page is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
 * By the way, 52nd Academy Awards says the Best Actress for 1979 was Sally Field, for Norma Rae. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found it. Thank you.  You have my permission to delete this discussion.  Recycler1973 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Annual WikiCup
I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and still learning how everything works. I've noticed that there is a competition called the WikiCup, and I would love to join. However, I am confused by what I do in the competition; the main page doesn't tell me clearly. I am also confused by the points system. Can anyone help me? Thank you!

Kaob1 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi welcome to the Teahouse. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from WikiCup/Scoring)-- Chamith   (talk)  15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK reviewing
I have nominated Mouna Ragam for DYK, even though User:Thamizhan1994 nominated it for GA, which it passed. The DYK page is here. Is there anything incomplete in it, or any error to be fixed? When will anyone formally review it? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Images on my main page
Hi! I am wondering how to get the images on the top-right of your username †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear what you mean by "top right of your username", but if you are trying to include images in your signature, you cannot. WP:SIGIMAGE states "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures" and then gives a list of reasons. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On re-reading your question, I wonder if you are referring to the "Topicons" that users can add to their User-page (Dragons, Gnomes, Elves etc), I don't know of a specific list of these, but they can be found with a search for WP:Topicon as here - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to images on the top-right corner of your user page? If so, then a template such as Template:Topicon should work. --Jakob (talk)  18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello 2teach4ever and welcome to the Teahouse. Having read the above I can only add that for signatures, the Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial is a good place to learn and if you want a small animal or something like it from the Wikipedia fauna, the place to start is WikiFauna. and last but not least there is of course The Supreme Whacking with a wet trout. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone and thanks for answering! On your main user page there is an image of a sloth and trout on yours. How do you get them? †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the links I mentioned above: Whacking with a wet trout and WikiSloth, before you put anything on your page it is good to read what the image means and/or symbolizes. They are not just 'cute animals'. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that they are not just "cute" animals. I just have one more question, do the animals mean the personality of the user (me)? †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WikiFauna describes the meaning of such animals. The sloth, for instance, symbolizes someone who "makes contributions based solely on hedonistic intellectual enjoyment". The trout actually isn't WikiFauna, but rather the template Troutme, which indicates that someone is willing to be slapped with a wet trout (a gentle reprimand for someone who makes a silly mistake). --Jakob (talk)  19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As said above (thanks!) they do not describe you or your personality in any deeper meaning, just what kind of editor you are on the Wikipedia and how you choose to edit articles here. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses everyone! †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Aligning Error
Hello. I added a character colspan summary for the artical entitled ""Aladdin (Disney franchise)"" to better explain the series characters, as I was editing I noticed that the the text links for the character actors were not lining up correctly with the film titles. They appear to NOT be in the center of the rows just like any other colspans. its been like this for 2 weeks now and I don't know how to fix this. Is this normal?. If I can fix it, how can I do so? (Zucat)
 * @Zucat: , table formatting isn't the easiest thing on Wikipedia.  I've fixed it by adding a style command to the table making all the text centre-aligned. Nthep (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding photos
Creating my first page. Completed the adventure tutorial, but need a push toward finding the photo gallery so I can add photos to my first article.Deschain0192837465 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Deschain0192837465:  Hi Deschain. I'm afraid it's not terribly likely that any images (or a photo gallery) will be possible for the topic of the draft article you started. This is because it's probable that all relevant images are non-free copyrighted. While we do allow display of fair use images for some purposes, this would not be possible for a non-free image of a living person like Joseph Freed (there are some rare exceptions but I see none that would be applicable here). Meanwhile, the fair use images that are already on display for the series he's been involved with would not meet our strict fair use criteria for display in an article on him. Usually an image is fair use only in an article directly about the topic it is most closely attached to. Thus, for example, the fair use logo for Jim Henson Creature Shop Challenge which Freed co-created and is executive producer of would only be fair use in the article on the show itself. Please note that a fair use image may never be displayed in a draft, but only once the topic is in the article mainspace. You could try searching for a compatibly freely-licensed image though. I wrote a post a while back about ways to search for one. Please see here. On another issue, your draft is written in a somewhat promotional manner; some parts appear not to be written from the neutral point of view that articles need to maintain. It has some glowing language as if to convince the reader of the virtue of what's being discussed. That needs to be reformed. On the flip side, I commend you for citing multiple reliable sources; something new users rarely do. In that regard, it would be great if you formatted those citations for transparent attribution, instead of citing raw URLs. I'm going to go format one as an example for you. See also WP:CITEHOW. One more thing. Much of the article is concerned with the projects he's been involved with, and is not really about him. While in a long and mature article on him I would expect to see some detail about his shows, even there I probably would not expect to see quite so much, but certainly I would expect much more about him directly, rather than the projects he's been involved with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)