User talk:Paul J Heritage

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Robin Meyers
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robin Meyers, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://vtcucc.org/annual_meeting_2013.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Robin Meyers
The rule on Wikipedia is that to be properly and reliably sourced, the references in an article need to be primarily to coverage which is about the subject, in media outlets which are independent of him. A person doesn't get into Wikipedia by writing about himself, or by having a profile on the website of the organization he works for — he gets into Wikipedia because media outlets which don't have a vested interest in promoting him have written about his work.

So with that said, I'll guide you through the problems with the sources that are in the article right now: #1 is his profile on the website of the church he leads, #2 is his faculty profile on the website of the university where he teaches courses, and #3 is an author profile on the website of the publishing company that releases his books — so those aren't sources that are independent of him, but are public relations profiles from organizations that are directly affiliated. #4, #5, #6 and #9 are articles that he wrote — but a person isn't properly referenced by pointing to content where he's the author of an article about something else. #7 and #8 are just videos of him speaking, which still isn't coverage of him. And Rotten Tomatoes is just a directory which just namechecks him; an article about the film in a newspaper which mentioned his role in it would be a good reference, but the mere presence of his name on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb is not.

So that's why I added the primary sources tag — all of the sources in the article fail our reliable source rules in some way. What you need to look for instead is newspaper or magazine articles about him, TV or radio segments about, books which are at least partially about him, and on and so forth — that's the kind of sourcing it would take to get the tag off the article. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have attempted to improve the page based on your suggestions. When you have a moment to spare might you be able to have a look and let me know whether I have done enough to include secondary sources and remove the unreliable ones please? If not, I'm always looking for more suggestions. I now have a mentor who is helping me too. Thanking you in anticipation, Paul J Heritage (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage

Hello
I am David E. Siegel. The Co-op has matched us as mentor and mentee. What sort of things do you think you could use assistance with? DES (talk)

Hello Mr Siegel. May I please call you David? Thank you for agreeing to be my mentor. I need help with just about everything, I'm afraid. However the first issue I am dealing with is restructuring the article I submitted on Robin Meyers so that it has adequate and reliable sources. The user Bearcat left a message on my talk page pointing out the errors. I have spent some time today finding ones I hope will be suitable. For example, Dr Meyers' involvement in the Wanda Jean Allen case is noted on the website of the Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. Is that acceptable? With regard to the overall text, I get the impression that I have entered too much information and that I may need to delete the quotes because it is deemed original research. This came as a shock as I have worked as a journalist for 30 years and done graduate diplomas in media production, education and also theology, where quotes are essential. So I need to learn the style.

In a nutshell, I require help in getting those ugly tags off the page. I apologise in advance for not reading up on this before rushing in like a wallaby at a billabong.

I'm sure I also need tips on etiquette and correct procedure.

Where shall we start? Thanks again,'t

Paul J Heritage (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
 * Of course you may call me David.
 * As to http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/. death/US/allen687.htm it could be cited to establish that Myeers pleaded for Wanda Jean Allen's life before the Parole Board. But it says no more than that. It doesn't establish that Myeers "became known for his attempts", or even that he made more than one. It doesn't discuss him in any detail or depth, it is all about her. A news or magazine story that covered his attempts at some length, and mentioned the attention they had gained would be better. To establish notability independent sources that discuss the subject in some detail are needed. This is more of a "passing mention".
 * As to quotes, they must be cited to an reliable source and attributed, but are not original research if they are. They are often vital here too. One Wikipedia article must not cite another, to avoid the possibility of circular references, but cites found in one article  may be copied to another, if you check that they verify the statements for which they are to be cited. Amazon and Goodreads depend on user contributed content, and so are not normally considered reliable. Neither are most online fora or blogs.
 * The problem isn't so much too much info as too few cites, or too much UNCITED info.
 * The reflist template simply shows where the cites are to be displayed, and can control their formatting (size, columns, etc.). The cites are in the tags, which are in the article prose.
 * WP:AWB is a semi-automated editing tool which must be guided by a human editor, by the way, and edits made with it should be treated just as if they were made manually.
 * Oh, on talk pages, it is usual to indent responses, as I have done here, with a leading colon on each paragraph.
 * To draw my attention to a comment here or on another talk page, use  or   in a signed comment. I hope this is helpful for a start DES (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello David. Thanks for the advice. I've pasted the codes above in the hope that this finds you, but I wasn't sure whether to use the one from the Talk page itself or from the edit source section. I've used both. Could you please advise which of the ones above work? The former or the latter? I'm assuming that it's the former. Is this correct?
 * I have another question for you re sources. There is a YouTube video that features a 2009 news report on Dr Meyers from a tv station in Oklahoma City called News Channel 4. I can't send you the link because I'm getting a message that YouTube is blacklisted. Anyway, it runs four minutes and in it he discusses some controversial beliefs featured in a then-new book. The report also has a dissenting view from another preacher in his city. However, Dr Meyers appears to have uploaded the video himself. Could I quote from and cite this video, which discusses him in depth? Would it be wise to include the dissenting view in the interests of balance or is that irrelevant? Does it matter that I don't know the actual date of transmission? If I emailed the station and they supplied the details would that suffice?
 * I'm still not sure about how to edit the reflist but I feel I should read up on this a bit and do some original research on this for myself.
 * Thanks again for your patience and helpful advice. You are most kind. Paul J Heritage (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
 * Hello again, Paul.
 * As to ping and U they have the same effect. The only real difference is that ping displays with an at-sign in front of the name., , and User:Example would each notify User:Example, if there were such a user. They would render as:
 * User:Example
 * See WP:Notification for more details.
 * About the nowiki and code tags. The nowiki tag is used to suppress interpretation of wiki-markup. Markup between a  and a   is displayed instead of interpreted. This is often used to display details of wiki markup in examples. Text between   and a  is displayed with a grey background and a slightly different font to indicate that it is computer source code of some sort. I often combine these when displaying examples of wiki-code.
 * About YouTube. One very strict rule here is that we do not link to copyright violations. So if a YouTube video of a news broadcast was uploaded by the station itself, or with their express permission it could be linked to and used as a source. But if some other person uploaded it without permission, it may not be linked to. As a good safe rule, if a station has an official "channel" on YouTube, video on that channel may be presumed uploaded by the station. However if the YouTube video is a copyvio, many stations publish transcriptions of programs on their web sites. Any such transcript is a valid source, in some ways better than even an official YouTube version. If the date of the broadcast is know, that date should be included in any citation. But if it is not known, simply omit it. If the year but not the exact date is known, include that.
 * YouTube as a whole is surely not blacklisted, there are many links to YouTube from Wikipedia. Exactly what message about that do you get?
 * An interview is generally considered a primary source, unless the interviewer makes significant statements of fact, not just questions. As such it does not help to establish notability, as it is in the subject's own words, and not fact-checked.
 * As to including the other dissenting view, is the other minister a reliable source? were his or her statements fact checked by anyone? Statements of opinion could be included, if specifically attributed to the other minister and cited. We don't strive so much for balance, often it can be a false balance as you must know. Instead we strive to adhere to the neutral point of view, and not give undue weight to any particular view or source. Excluding relevant points of view is WP:UNDUE, so is making a small, fringe POV seem mainstream and widely held.
 * On references, there is generally no need to "edit the reflist"; individual citations are edited where they are used in the text. See Referencing for Beginners, WP:CITE, and Help:Footnotes. It is possible to put the details of the citations into the reflist, see list-defined references. I actually like this format, many editors find it confusing.
 * I hope this is all helpful. I'm sorry my response wasn't sooner, i am having some problems in my off-line life just now. DES (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello David. I'm sorry to hear that you are having some problems in your off-line life at the moment. For that reason I'm going to give you a break from my badgering for a few days and spend the time following up the valuable advice you have so far provided. You have already been so generous with your time and for that I am extremely grateful. I'll be back after the weekend. In the meantime, and given your interest in Andrew Brown, I hope you don't mind if I include you in my prayers. Paul J Heritage (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage.
 * Don't worry, i enjoy interacting with you, I only mentioned the offline stuff to explain delays. Prayers and good wishes are always welcome, and i hope all is and will be well with you. If you have any questions about anything you read or try, please don't feel you need to wait until some set time to send a message. If I am too busy, i won't be checking Wikipedia anyway, so it will wait until i do.
 * Notice the increasing indents in this thread, please.
 * It is Friday morning for me, just now, and I'll be off to work shortly.
 * Oh, if you wan to ping me and address me by first name all at once, you can use  which will display as.
 * A couple of preference items you might wish to set. If you click the "preferences" link or go to Special:Preferences, you can alter many things about the Wikipedia interface. One is setting your email address, if you haven't already. Even if you choose not to enable the "recieve email from other users" tool (and many editors don't) this can be helpful if you ever need to reset the password t6o your Wikipedia account. Without an email on file, there is no way to reset a lost password. On the "Editing" tab of the preferences page are several useful options. I recommend checking "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" and "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes". Some of the other options in that group might also be useful. On the gadgets tab, there are many useful items, but which ones to use is partly a matter of style and choice. I do recommend "Open external links in a new tab/window", "Twinkle", "Hotcat", and "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". You might want to follow the links that describe others of the gadgets, particularly the editing gadgets, and see if they look useful to you. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. DES (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your latest tips and for letting me know that I can ask questions at any time and put them on notice, as it were. I trust that I have put the correct number of indents on this post. I have activated the changes to "preferences" as suggested. I was already receiving emails when changes were made or messages were received and have now activated "Enable email from other users" although I don't know what this will do or how to send them myself. Could you explain that please?
 * Another question: There is a tag that's been placed at the bottom of the Robin Meyers article about categories. Which categories would you suggest?
 * And now for a general editorial query regarding other articles. Last night our family hired the dvd of a quintessential Aussie movie from 1972 called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Barry_McKenzie. I often like to read about the movies I'm watching on Wikipedia and I noticed that the article in question appears to have some editorialising. Specifically, in the section "Release", after a quote from the director, there is an entry stating: "This quote makes no sense at all", followed by some justification which contradicts the director. I have looked at who made the change, a user named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BOSCOKIARA who states that he has a personal/professional relationship with one of the actors and doesn't appreciate getting messages saying that his edits "don't conform" to Wikipedia's policies and that he is "an educated writer and author!" I feel that the text in question could be altered in a way that doesn't contradict the director, such as by removing the editorialising and having "Despite this, Beresford went on to direct...". However, the article's Talk page doesn't have any discussion, just tags referring to the Film Portal and the Australia Portal. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the section in question to provide me with some guidance on how to deal with such issues now and in the future? Do you feel that the section in question deviates from Wikipedia policy? If so, would you recommend that I make a change or, as a new user, that I should leave it be and alert my concerns to experienced people such as your good self to review the section in question? Thanks again for your sage advice and I hope that all is running smoothly in the off-line world.
 * Oh, one more thing... I tried to put the article and BOSKIARA's Talk page in a hyperlink but on checking the link I received the message: "The requested page title contains invalid characters: "|"." Do you know what I am doing wrong? Cheers. Paul J Heritage (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage.
 * I just got home as it happened, and I'm happy to see a post from you.
 * As to the "enable email from other users" feature, it works like this: When you are displaying or editing another user's user or user talk page, there will be a link in the "tools" area on the left of the screen (at least in the default display style, it may be elsewhere in other styles) that says "Email this user". If you click this, and IF the other user has registered an email address with Wikipedia, and has clicked the "Enable email from other users" setting you would be taken to a form where you could create an email message which would be sent to the other user without Wikipedia giving you the other user's email address.  Now that you have checked this preference item, other users could send email to you in this way, if they wanted to.
 * The tag is simply a note that the article hasn't yet been placed into any categories. I have now added 4, and removed the uncategorized tag in the process. I see another editor has removed the POV tag. Progress is being made.
 * I will take a look at the article The Adventures of Barry McKenzie. (By the way it is considered better style to use the double-bracket link to an article's name, rather than a URL. That way the wiki software "knows" that the link is an internal one, and it can include it in tables that it maintains of what links where, and provide various useful information. Such a link is also shorter to type and easier to read.) I will see if discussion or editing, or both seem warranted. Thank you for calling this to my attention. DES (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You were quite correct: that sort of editorializing was and is completely inappropriate, as per WP:OR. I made this series of edits; you can look at the page history and act similarly should you encounter another such situation. Since BOSCOKIARA made only one edit to the article, and that almost a year ago, i see no particular need to engage specifically with that editor unless and until he or she raises the issue, but I will leave a brief note on Talk:The Adventures of Barry McKenzie
 * I'm not sure what you did that the software didn't like, it is in general true that a "pipe" character (|) should not be included in a URL. In any case, as I mentioned above, internal links should usually be made using wiki double-bracket syntax anyway, where a pipe has a very specific meaning. DES (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at the article The Adventures of Barry McKenzie. (By the way it is considered better style to use the double-bracket link to an article's name, rather than a URL. That way the wiki software "knows" that the link is an internal one, and it can include it in tables that it maintains of what links where, and provide various useful information. Such a link is also shorter to type and easier to read.) I will see if discussion or editing, or both seem warranted. Thank you for calling this to my attention. DES (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You were quite correct: that sort of editorializing was and is completely inappropriate, as per WP:OR. I made this series of edits; you can look at the page history and act similarly should you encounter another such situation. Since BOSCOKIARA made only one edit to the article, and that almost a year ago, i see no particular need to engage specifically with that editor unless and until he or she raises the issue, but I will leave a brief note on Talk:The Adventures of Barry McKenzie
 * I'm not sure what you did that the software didn't like, it is in general true that a "pipe" character (|) should not be included in a URL. In any case, as I mentioned above, internal links should usually be made using wiki double-bracket syntax anyway, where a pipe has a very specific meaning. DES (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Going forward
I've split off this thread as it was getting too long for convenience, and with just us two dicussing there is no really chance of confusion, as there might be in a thread with many participants DES (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Hello, I see that you have received some rather urgent requests for assistance from other editors this weekend and, in light of these, I feel that I should put the questions in my email about The Adventures of Barry McKenzie on the back-burner. When you have a moment could I perhaps instead get your thoughts on how to best proceed with fixing the issues regarding the article on Robin Meyers? I am now searching for reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Would you recommend that I run proposed changes past you first to ensure they are acceptable rather than attempting them myself, starting with the sources themselves? For example, is this book review from The Christian Century an acceptable secondary source? Thanking you (again) in anticipation. Paul J Heritage (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage.
 * Hello again Paul. I've done what I can for the moment to help out the other editors involved, and I've commented on the thread at WP:ANI (a bad example it might be instructive to browse through a bit, if you choose. ANI is not called a "drama board" for noting, but it fulfills a needed function.
 * The review from The Christian Century that you link to above is exactly the sort of thing needed for the Robin Meyers article. This seem to be a thoroughly reliable and quite independent source, commenting directly on Meyers's work, and to some extent on Meyers himself. I could wish, in an ideal world, for a source of similar quality commenting primarily on Meyers and his actions, rather than his writing. But this should help that article significantly. There is no need to have me review changes unless you feel unsure -- the nice thing about a wiki is tht any change can be undone with a single click, without its contents being lost. I have Robin Meyers on my watch list, but feel free to ping me when you have made changes, my watchlist is long (over 5,500 pages) and i could miss the change there. If I see a problem with a change I can edit directly or let you know, or both. The main things to look for in sources at this point is that they are 1) independent -- in no way associated with Meyers; and 2) reliable. Avoid blogs and sites run by a single person. Well established publications, with some sort of editorial board or oversight are good. Always check the "about us" or similar link on a web source, trying to see who runs it and how. Do not use any source that depends primarily on user-supplied content, such as a web forum or wiki. An established reputation is good, but obscure sources can still be reliable. DES (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the feedback above. I've made a start on replacing as many of the primary/unreliable sources as possible. The next step is to add a little more detail and context to the "Key issues" section with the review I linked to above and some peer-review journals that I have found from my university library online. It's past midnight now and really should get some sleep! I've made a series of edits on a section-by-section basis rather than a huge slab all at once. I like to save as I go in case the computer fails or there's a blackout. I hope this is acceptable practice. If you have a chance to take a glimpse and let me know if I'm moving forward I would be most appreciative, as always. Thanks again for your help. Paul J Heritage (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage
 * Hello again, sorry for the delay in my response. Added detail is good, provided it is firmly based on cited (or citeable, but cited is better) sources. Peer-reviewed scholarly journals are generally very good sources. There is no need fopr them to be online, although many of the most recent ones are, or at least their abstracts. A series of smaller edits is fine -- I often work that way myself, sometimes five, ten, or fifteen edits in close sequence, even all on the same section of an article. Many editors prefer that method. DES (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the information. I've replaced just about all of the primary and unreliable sources and I've linked Meyers to other pages so it's not an orphan. Am I able to remove the tag referring to this issues myself or do I have to ask someone else?
 * Also, I've found many newspaper sources on Dow Jones' Factiva... do I have to put a URL date on this and on the peer-reviewed journals as I got them all online? I think I'm done with this article now. Thanks again, Paul J Heritage (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage

The Robin Meyers article looks much improved. Note that primary sources are fine for certain uses, indeed preferred for things like birth dates, and basic factual information about the subject, and for the subject's expressed views. Primary sources must be used carefully, they don't contribute to notability, and should not be used to establish controversial or extraordinary facts about the subject, nor much of anything about other people. If you are honestly convinced that a maintenance tag is no longer appropriate, because the issue has been dealt with, you can remove it. You don't need anyone else's approval. Indicate what you are doing and why in the edit summary. As to providing online links, see Citing sources, and particularly Citing sources and Citing sources. In general, if a link is available, provided it for the convenience of other editors and readers. If you found the source online, providing a link is both easy and more important, as it is just possible that the online version differs from a print version. Access dates are generally needed only if there is no stable print version, and the online version might change or disappear. DES (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, as always, thanks for the information. I've read the citing sources information provided above however I'm still a little unsure with regard to my particular situation. I have access to 239 online databases through my membership of a university library and these require a login and a paid subscription. SOURCELINKS mentions a few scenarios but all of the links I have to these sources have my university's name and "edu" in the url. It says, however, that an identifier like a doi or an ISBN can be used. For the academic journals I have found either a doi or an ISSN and have inserted those. For the newspaper sources which I found through Factiva I have used the template found at Template:Factiva and put the document number into the i.d. field into the 18th and 19th citations in the Meyers article. Before I do that for the rest of the stories obtained through Factiva would you be so kind as to take a quick look at the citations in the second-to-last and the third-to-last paragraphs of the Meyers article and let me know if this is the best solution please? If so I shall continue to do that for the rest of the Factiva sources. I would like the article to be spot-on so that I get it right first time next time I do an article (once I recover from this one...).
 * With regard to the primary sources issue I'm a little confused because the advice I received from Bearcat in the section above was that all of the sources in the article failed the reliable source rules in some way. That's why I removed all of the primary sources, even one that included the subject's expressed views on war in a journal article he wrote. Anyway, in future I will follow your advice and use primary sources more judiciously.
 * Finally (for now) could you please advise whether, apart from the citations issue, you think the Meyers article needs anymore work in any way? Thanks again.Paul J Heritage (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul, I have not worked with Factiva before, it seems that you are using it properly. I think that if a link is available, even behind a paywall or with an edu address, it would be a good idea to add it, in addition to the Factiva ID. You can use the parameter "subscription=yes" to indicate that a paid subscription is required to view the online source, or "registration=yes" to indicate that a free registration is needed. The DOI provides a link directly to the documet or its abstract in most cases, so an additional link is not needed. For a book, if an online version is available free 9say at google books) it can be added in addition to the ISBN, but this is not required or vital.
 * Please be careful that any URL parameters in a cite go directly to the source, and not to an index page with multiple documents, if this is possible. I changed one such link in the article. Titles in the title= parameters should normally be in title case, i.e. all words capitalized except "of" "with" and the like. This is true even if the actual source uses all caps, all lower, or some other stylistic variant.
 * The Meyers article looks good to me, on a quick scan. If a freely licensed picture of him is available, it could be uploaded and added, but it may well be that no such image is available. Wikipedia does not normally use non-free images of living people. If his birth year is known and citable (a primary source is fine for this) it could be added. Don't include his full DOB, as per WP:DOB unless it is clear that it is already widely published, or that he is fine with it being on the web (as his publishing it on his own web site would indicate), since it can be used for identity theft.
 * An infobox could be added, but is not required. See infobox person and its many specialized variants, such as Infobox clergy. Of course if there is more to say about Meyers, it could always be added. But I think this loks pretty good, and notability is very clearly established. DES (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'll work on updating the citations in coming days. Now I have a question about protocols in relation to editing other articles. This evening I was looking at the page Fred Craddock, who is one of Meyers' major influences. I noticed that it is a little unusual in that it does not start with the conventional Early Life and Education section. Rather, it has a brief section called Personal at the end. I clicked on one of the citations (No. 6) which is a CNN feature story from 2011 with a wealth of information about his early life and the difficulties with his father who never once came to see him preach. Could I add an Early Life and Education section at the top citing from that? If so, is it etiquette to consult any of the other dozen or so people who have previously edited the article? There is nothing on the talk page other than tags. Thanks again. Paul J Heritage (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Paul J Heritage
 * If a page is in draft or userspace, one might well consult the creator, especially if the creator is also the sole or primary editor. But no one owns any Wikipedia article, and no permission is required. You could add a new section on the talk page announcing your intentions. Then i8f anyone disagrees, there is a thread ready to use for discussion. This is not required, but is often a good idea.
 * The order of sections in such a case is purely a matter of editorial choice. Many biography articles have "Early life" or "Early life and education" near the top, to have the article flow in chronological order. Others prefer to have the "meat" of the article first, and leave comparatively minor areas like "Early life" for later in the article. Since you have a source, you should feel free to add a section, or expand the existing "Personal" section, perhaps changing its name, or adding sub-sections. I would think it a bad idea to have an "Early life" section at the top, and then a "Personal" section at the bottom, with the information about Craddock's birth. I think the Birth info ought to go with the rest of the info about his early life. That could all be put at the end of the article, there is no rule against it.
 * You might notice that Fred Craddock has an infobox at the top of the article, as many (but far from all) Biography articles do. DES (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC

Image upload
Hello, I hope you are well. There were no free images of Meyers anywhere online so I sent an email to the webmaster at his Church in Oklahoma City requesting one based on a form email. In the meantime I have been editing mistakes or adding information to other sites I have been reading. Yesterday, after a lengthy delay, the webmaster sent me three photos of Meyers in the pulpit. I sent him the standard Declaration of Consent with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which he has now returned. However, because the image is not actually on the Church website I'm a bit confused about the next step. On Wikimedia Commons it says "Be sure to provide a link to the source, where the license is stated". Similarly, the page Template:OTRS_pending says "Please copy the URL of this image or article in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it. If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information.". What do I do? Thanks and best wishes, Paul J Heritage (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
 * I am sorry I seem to have let this matter slip. My apologies.
 * What I advise that you do is:
 * Upload the file to Wikipedia (or to commons), Include as the source "e-Mailed from webmaster of along with CC-BY 3.0 license" and a note that Evidence is being submited via OTRS.
 * Email OTRS, including the permission note you received, the URL of the uploaded image on Wikipedia (or commons) and a full explanation of the sequence of events.
 * add OTRS pending to the image description page, following the instructions at Template:OTRS pending precisely.
 * That should do it.
 * Again I apologize for the delay in response. I've been working 12-hr days due to the ICD-10 switchover. And had some other issues off-line to deal with. DES (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Much appreciated. Onward and upward. Paul J Heritage (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
 * Good. Feel free to ping or message me if there are any problems. DES (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)