Help desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 9

Confused about RS , FRINGE and NPOV

Recently I am concerned about whether a Weekly World News-originated source in Chinese WP article of Kennedy tragedies should be cited in the way of attributing it to the author only--since the Weekly World News is not reliable for fact but a couple of Chinese media has used this idea(I didn't see any English media source using this though).

I had a first question:does an unreliable source gain reliability or significance after it is repeated for some times?

Regarding whether something is significant for mentioning, I read WP:FRINGE,WP:IRS, they expressed ideas like:

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is.

How do I decide what claims are "extraordinary"? For example, someone has suggested a way of making the claim less "extraordinary", by just attributing the fact that "Weekly World News claimed that Joseph Kennedy refused visa for 500 Jews..., and this idea is reported by several Chinese media". Is that a good way to say this way, or just say nothing?

And also, are there clear ways to determine whether a source is reliable/respected enough to support a claim?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any precise definition of what sources are reliable enough to support a claim. Weekly World News is about as unreliable as anything published in the United States, and, in my opinion, anything that was only published in Weekly World News should be kept out of Wikipedia, unless there is something specific and notable about its publication, such as that a celebrity is suing Weekly World News for libel for publishing the story. If Chinese media are repeating claims from unreliable sources, the fact that they are repeating the claims might be notable, as long as it is only listed as a claim, not as a fact, which has to be attributed to a reliable source.

It is my understanding that WP:FRINGE in particular applies to non-consensus scientific or pseudo-scientific theories, not to journalism.

Does someone else have a different understanding?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"[D]oes an unreliable source gain reliability or significance after it is repeated for some times?" - no, if the source is unreliable and its claims are repeated by other unreliable sources, the original source stays unreliable. If the claim is repeated by a reliable source, you can simply cite that reliable source. The source would become reliable after gaining a reputation for reliability.

"How do I decide what claims are "extraordinary"?" - it is hard to establish any specific rules. But if you know a lot about a subject and are sufficiently honest with yourself, you will (hopefully) start guessing correctly.

"And also, are there clear ways to determine whether a source is reliable/respected enough to support a claim?" - it depends on what counts as "clear". A source is reliable if other reliable sources could be expected to trust it. That is what "reputation of reliability" is supposed to mean. One "approximate" rule says that if someone other than an author checks the text, the source is likely to be reliable. But it is not completely accurate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful to remember one thing that Robert McClenon says — you can always cite a source, no matter how unreliable it is, if you're talking about what the source's author says. For example, if you have "An article in Weekly World News claimed that aliens had abducted Elvis Presley", the best possible source for that is the article in question. Of course, you must consider whether the statement fits; it shouldn't be included if it poses an issue of undue weight or if it's simply irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, one additional complicating factor as to sources to cite about a claim is accessibility. In this case, the original issue was that Chinese media, citing Weekly World News, made some claim about a notable person. If it is worth citing Weekly World News, they are the best source as to their own claim. If the notable fact is that the Chinese media continue the claim, then the Chinese source is not accessible to most Anglophone readers. It can still be cited; there is no rule against citing non-English sources. However, in that case, it might be better also to cite a tertiary source. For instance, if The Economist, in its coverage of Asian journalism, reported that Chinese media are repeating claims about a notable person, it would be a good idea to cite The Economist. The person who is adding the citation to the article might only add the citation to The Economist, because it may be difficult to verify whether the Chinese media have actually made the claim, which would require a knowledge of Chinese, but it is not hard to verify that The Economist, a reliable magazine, has reported (and so has verified) the claim. Later, a reader who is fluent in English and Mandarin could start with the British report and follow up on whether the Chinese report does make the claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile communication products

Dear Sir/Mam

Nice to meet you. We are fond of Wikipedia, your website very much for it is a good platform for people al over the world to share their ideas and opinions and communicate with each other. So it makes a great contribution to the development of all human beings and hence changes people’s life.

<advertisement redacted> So we want to choose Wikipedia as the platform to communicate with people all over the world not only about mobile industry but also various topics. Could you give us the chance ?We just publish the objective articles about mobile industry, Smartphones, our company, etc. Can we pay for your editors to write the articles for our article was deleted yesterday ? Your editors must be more objective and better.

We are looking forward to your reply. Hope you can reply as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Best Regard, Angela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Xu (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO; NO; NO;

Not done and will not be done ! We do not accept promotional editing here; we strive to be an objective encyclopedic project accepting articles deriving information from reliable, third-party sources. Your proposal is against all we stand for. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a platform for advertising. And we generally take a very dim view of paid editing. We do not provide editors to write articles for payment. If a business is of sufficient notability to meet the relevant notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)), a contributor may chose to write about it, based on coverage in third party reliable sources. Any such article will of course provide neutral coverage - we really aren't interested in whether companies claim that they "dream to change people’s life to make their life more colorful and happier" or not. Such material belongs elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not a platform for people to share their ideas and opinions and communicate with each other. It is a platform for people to write high-quality articles about topics, drawing entirely on reliable writings already published about those topics. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of spelling of 'Yeung Kui-wan' to 'Yeung Ku-wan'

My problem relates to the spelling of 'Yeung Kui-wan'. I generated the basic article based on information supplied by the nephew of the man object of that article, Yeung Hing-on. The problem stems from difficulties in communication with Yeung Hing-on, a Chinese man whose English is relatively limited.

He had insisted that 'Yeung Kui-wan' WAS the spelling of his uncle's name (in a romanisation of Cantonese). Now that the HK government has finally recoognised his uncle, and have placed a plaque next to his uncle's un-named grave, which shows the name 'Yeung Ku-wan'!

Ideally, the spelling 'Yeung Kui-wan' should be eliminated wherever it occurs(except as a redirect). This means, for me, changing the article 'Yeung Kui-wan' to a redirect and placing the suitably corrected text in a 'Yeung Ku-wan' article. So, please could someone either do this manipulation for me, or advise me how to do it. I will undertake to change the spelling in all other articles linked to 'Yeung Ku-wan'.

I have already put the essence of this post on the Yeung Kui-wan Talk page

Duncan.france (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what matters is not how his nephew would like his name to be spelled, nor how he spelled it himself, but how recent reputable English-language sources spell it. I think the memorial plaque created by the Hong Kong government counts as such a source. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at a range of sources, both those cited in the Wikipedia article and some found using Google. I believe that the spelling "Yeung Ku-wan" is the most used. I will therefore rename the article "Yeung Kui-wan" to "Yeung Ku-wan". Maproom (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed. I cannot move "Yeung Kui-wan" to "Yeung Ku-wan", because there is already an empty article "Yeung Ku-wan". There is, I think, a procedure for getting round this, but it involves more bureaucracy than I am willing to struggle with at present, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves. I could move the content of "Yeung Kui-wan" to "Yeung Ku-wan", but that would be the wrong way to do it as it would lose all the edit history, and need to be undone, making the current mess worse. Maproom (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend has now moved the article. Maproom (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HasteurBot

Resolved

Dear Mr. or Mrs. HasterBot

You sent me the following message per email: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeromezone#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FElectric_Ballroom_concern

This email message is impossible for me to answer and it is extremely difficult to find a way to directly communicate with you. This dramatically defeats the purpose of communication and shows the lack of regard in this instance.

Sincerely,

Jerome Frazer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.205.251.117 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jerome Frazer aka 79.205.251.117, I'm unsure why you are not logged in to your account or what troubles you are having with replying to the message that HasteurBot, which is an automated bot intended to notify draft creators that they need to get back to work on their draft or find another way to preserve it if they do not want to see it deleted on them (and even if it is deleted it may be possible to get it back). However, I would be happy to help you in any way reasonable to improve Wikipedia. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical13 has probably clarified this, but you referred to "Mr. or Ms. Hasteurbot" as if it were a person. It isn't male or female. It is a a bot, a program performing repetitive edits. Its user page will tell you who operates it, possibly Mr. or Ms. Hasteur. However, as Technical13 mentioned in passing, you probably forgot to log in, and so were an IP address. The message from the bot should be on your talk page if you log in. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jerome Frazer aka 79.205.251.117, I'm the operator of Hasteurbot. The message left on your talk page is quite clear about the problem is with your AfC submission that has been lingering without any effort made on it's behalf. The message on your talk page lists quite clearly what your options are in terms of ways you may be able to keep the effort you've made. At this point I think between the responses of Technical 13 and Robert McClenon and reading the talk page message makes this quite clear what your options are. At this point, this help desk thread is resolved as you've been given more information. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

share article on facebook

hi , just a swift question . how to share article from wikipedia to FACEBOOK ?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.186.69 (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'share button' like you might get on other websites, so you'd have to do it manually; that is, copy and paste the article URL into your status box on Facebook. — Richard BB 08:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures go down

Why do all the images appear at the bottom in A624 road even though they are positioned in the sections when you edit the page? Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 10:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images default to the right. They also go in the order listed. Since the first image is defaulted to the right, and has to be under the infobox, the second one, which is on the left, doesn't show up until after the first one. If you move the left image above the other one, it will show up higher. CTF83! 10:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

blocking an IP user

Dear editors: I was reading WP:ANI, and there was an incidence in which an IP was blocked indefinitely for making threats. IP addresses change, so if another user came along later and had that IP address, I assume that they would be accidentally blocked. If that person then created a username, could they edit the encyclopedia even though they were accessing it from a blocked IP address? I didn't want to ask this on the notice board, in case the IP was monitoring it. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a logged in user may edit from a blocked IP address. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption to the project; they are not intended to be punitive. By logging in a user is essentially differentiating themselves from the IP "user" who has been blocked. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has not been my experience. At least twice I have had to request an unblock when someone at my work vandalized WP from an IP. I was then subsequently blocked as well. Dismas|^(talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I'm surprised by that. I look forward to hearing from someone more familiar with the blocking system. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin has an option to prevent logged in users from editing from a blocked IP (it's an check box, the default is to allow logged in users to edit from an IP address that is blocked.) RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Blocking an IP address in en.wp.png — the bottom box must be checked to prevent logged-in editors from using the address. This is related to but different from an autoblock, which is set by checking the next-to-bottom box visible at File:ThisIsaTestB-NAS.PNG. It doesn't necessarily affect anyone else, but if the blocked user should log in with that address, the address will be unusable by logged-out people and by logged-in users who don't have IP block exemption. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case where the logged in user is blocked as well, an unsuspecting person who is assigned that IP address by his or her service provider would not know what the problem was, and would not be able to leave a message asking for an exemption anyway. Thanks, everyone for taking part in my education about Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of blocks of IP addresses, known as a soft block and a hard block. A soft block prevents an unregistered user from logging in from the IP address. A hard block also prevents a registered user from logged in. It appears to be that there is some ambiguity in policy as to when each type of block should be used. A soft block is appropriate when the reason for the block is vandalism (a common reason for blocking IP addresses). If a vandal or troll is creating sockpuppets, a hard block of the address will prevent the registration of the sockpuppets. I think that the blocking policy should be clarified as to when each approach is needed. The difference between a hard block and a soft block will not be obvious if the IP address belongs to a cable utility in the United States, because cable utilities normally assign static IP addresses. The difference will be obvious if the IP address belongs to a telephone company in the United States, because telephone companies assign dynamic IP addresses (not only to dial-up customers, who are less common now, but also to DSL customers). It is my understanding that if an IP block results in a registered user being unable to log in, that they are instructed to send an email requesting that the block be changed. It is my view that the current policy is not entirely clear as to when a soft block or hard block is needed, and so leaves discretion to the blocking admin, and maybe should provide guidance to the blocking admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, if a logged-in user is blocked by an IP block, that doesn't prevent him from editing his user page to to leave unblock requests.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Robert made a slight error: while we can prevent account creation by people using a blocked IP address, we can never prevent someone from logging in, and only in very rare cases are blocked editors not allowed to edit their talk pages. The only time we prevent talkpage editing is when abuse has occurred (e.g. you're blocked, so you edit your talk page to curse out the blocking admin), and the only way to prevent someone from logging into an established account is by applying a global lock — this is only doable by Wikimedia Foundation stewards, always applies for all projects (not just Wikipedia), and only ever done when someone's been abusing multiple wikis. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a b c d e f g h from same book source

I often see on pages that the same source is used but at different points with a b c d e f g h and so on being used as the reference bit, how do you do this?--Runes Of South (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for using the same source multiple times can be found at WP:REFNAME. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started

Hello,

I am an author, how do I get started building a Wikipedia page about myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdixon1014 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. It's not recommended to write about yourself (see here), and you also must meet the notability guidelines. I'd check that guideline before even looking at the Article Wizard and your first article page. Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - to expand on that a little, you should start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) (particularly the section on creative professionals) and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Unless you meet our notability guidelines (as verified in third-party published reliable sources), we will not accept an article on you. And even if you do, you are strongly discouraged from writing an article about yourself - see also our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. In short, if you are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, you are probably best off waiting for someone else to write an article about you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from a beginner

Dear Wikipedia

I turned my attention to your "create a book" function.

If one begins to create a book, and then wishes to take a break and return on another day, how does one disengage without losing all of the material, and then reengage on the next day?

I presume that since the material in Wikipedia is free, that it can be shared with anybody for free. However, I also presume that once a book has been created from Wikipedia material it cannot be organized and put up for sale for profit. Is that true? If I should have more information on this subject, please give me the information, or point me to the place where I should go to read the information for myself. [I looked at the copyright information sheet for Wikipedia. Should I look elsewhere for further information to complete my knowledge on this subject?]

If I have further questions of the type which you see above, should I continue to use the help desk, or is there a better place for me to go to communicate with whoever is in charge of the "create a book" function?

I am sure that I will need to go through the exercises of actually working with the system in order to develop some facility in creating a book. I say this by way of apology

for not being very well-informed on the subject matter.

Is it possible to work on more than one book at a time? That means that I will need to know how to disengage from one book and engage the other book, and then reverse the process to go back to the other book to work on it. In order to do that, do I need more information then simply disengaging for a day and returning to reengage on a subsequent day on the same book?

In order to "create a book" do I need to create an account? If so, is there a location in your site map that I should use as my guide? [As you can see, I have created an account, as "Avenuenspecial". Do I use this login to "create a book"?]

Please excuse my exuberance which is born from the excitement of a new discovery.

Thank you and Yours Truly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenuenspecial (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting reformatted for readability --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avenuenspecial. I'm afraid I've not used books, but I think you'll find the answers in Help:Books. I believe you do need an account to save books, but as you say, you have created one. As to your question about selling: you may use material from Wikipedia for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as you attribute it correctly. See WP:REUSE for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ready to submit

I'm ready to submit an article I created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bonobos (Apparel) how do I do so?

Rainor12 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In [1] you removed code which makes a box at the top. I have restored the code in [2] so you can now submit the article by clicking the green button in the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gardiner Lyceum

How do I eliminate the word "Category" in Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Category:Laws of the Gardiner Lyceum and Regulations for its Government? I will be adding additional images to this Category and want all the pages to show for the media. Thanks for help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By adding a further parameter to the {{Commons}} template, as I have done. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I get it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to test on another page.

Is there a way to set up code, So that a block of text on several different pages will read exactly the same as the block of text on the source page? So if I decide I want to change the block of text on all those pages, All I need to do is change the text on the main page, And whenever anyone views any other the other pages, It will pull the most resent text from the master page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonKoller (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is called transclusion. See Wikipedia:Transclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page

I work with brands and athletes in the action sports and some of them are requesting a change of incorrect information on their Wiki page.

Can't find anywhere how to make changes.

Any help? Thanks!

Fred van Schie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredvanschie (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you work with the athletes, then you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the pages about them directly. What you are encouraged to do is to edit the talk page associated with any of the articles, explaining what change you would like make, and including references to independent reliable sources for any information you want added. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course full disclose your own conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish History

With reference to AMit and a deletion of article non access to account. The article you have edited was not complete and was a test, I am submitting for the first time and unfamiliar with wiki software etc.

Irish History/ James Joyce Writer. RE: Article for, Denis J. Maginni Dancing Professor(1846 -1915).

Importance relates to Irish Cultural and social History of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Denis James Maginni Dancing Professor(1846 -1915) was one of the characters mentioned in James Joyces Book Ulysees. He had a dance school at no.35 North Great Georges Street in Dublin. Which is now the James Joyce Centre. During the 1980s this Joyce connection prevented the house from been demolished by Dublin city Council. At that time the council planned to destroy many historic houses from the Georgian era.Georgian architecture was still seen by some(in power) as a representation of British rule and many had become derelict during the recession in the 1980s in Ireland.

Maginni was a well known figure around Dublin when Joyce was alive and his school was a few doors down from the Professors dance studio. I am still preparing the document and did not realise it would deleted, there is more information to add. Newspaper articles, photos etc. Also the copyright for James Joyce's work has been discontinued since 1 January 2012 70 years after his death.

I hope this adds some relevance to prevent the removal of this article just yet. Please note I was using the sandbox to experiment with the article, layout etc. and thought it would not be edited or reviewed in this area. Is this still the case? I'm new to wiki...

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancin Professor J. Maginni (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find which article you are talking about. But if you wish to edit an article somewhere where it is reasonably safe from deletion until it is ready, I suggest you look at the WP:Article wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you are creating an article, and it is not yet good enough to be accepted as a Wikipedia article, then it should not be "in article space", as it is likely that it will be deleted. Instead, you can create it in your "sandbox", and work on it there until it is ready.

Incidentally, your username "Dancin Professor J. Maginni" suggests that you have an affiliation with the subject of the article you propose working on. This is strongly disapproved of here. Editors should be independent of the articles they work on. Maproom (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, the person in question died a century ago. I read this as the user being very interested in them, not having a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter and Dancin Professor J. Maginni: Yes, draft articles in one's sandbox are supposed to be safe from deletion, with a few exceptions (an attack piece, for example) that don't seem relevant to the situation here. I'm asking (by Notification) an admin to help - us non-admins who have answered, so far, can't see edits that are of pages that were subsequently deleted, so we don't know if/when/why someone might have deleted a personal sandbox. (I do note that when I start the process of creating the personal sandbox page, I see no indication that it existed before.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I can assure you that Dancin Professor J. Maginni has made no deleted edits to any page; he'll have to tell us the name of the account with which he was editing previously, or the name of the page in question if he were not logged in. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it — Denis J. Maginni (why didn't I think of it before?), created by Maginni Dancing Professor. The article was always in mainspace, and it was never a sandbox of any kind. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but User:Maginni Dancing Professor also created User:Maginni Dancing Professor/sandbox. Creating this sandbox and experimenting there was fine. The problem was you also created a live article at Dancing Professor Denis J Maginni. It was moved to Denis J. Maginni before being deleted. If you have lost the password to User:Maginni Dancing Professor then you can get a new password at Special:PasswordReset, assuming you can access email at the address stored in the account. Or you can use your new account and work in its sandbox by clicking the "Sandbox" link at top of any page. But if you work on the same subject from a new account then please create the page User:Dancin Professor J. Maginni and state that User:Maginni Dancing Professor is also your account, as required by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hello,

I would like to ask any available editors to review the article I have in progress and let me know if it has enough references/citations to submit or if I need to find additional ones first. I do not want it to get deleted.

User:Jillbdc/Peter W. Cookson, Jr.

Thank you! Jillbdc (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion (which counts for little, I know nothing about education in the US), it's not references/citations that are lacking. It is any evidence that the man is notable. What is he notable for? The article needs to explain that. If it can't, it will get deleted. Maproom (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jillbdc: Please take a look at our criteria for whether someone is "notable" enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. Also, all citations should have (a) publisher, (b) date, (c) link (if on the web), and (d) date of publication (if not an undated web page). In most cases, your citations need to have at least one of these added. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]