Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 June 27

= June 27 =

Hi i just happen to go to UCI and it shows the winners of all the different branches of Bicycling and Notice a BIG TYPO
The winner of the DownHill World Champ 2014 is Wrong you got the right Flag but the name is off. It's Greg Minnar 3x world Champ .just a FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.120.12 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which article is this, please? I've had a look round, but cannot work out exactly what correction you think should be made. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After a superficial quick search, it looks like Gee Atherton won 2014, and Greg Minnar in 2013 (per and the Wiki bios). But if this is wrong, please provide a reliable source and post on the article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW just a spelling correction - Greg Minnaar. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of post by someone inappropriately
Hello

This is in reference to this link- List of booksellers associations I have recently edited some information in the above mentioned link article about booksellers associations around the world. In the ASIA region I added INDIA and DELHI STATE BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, DELHI (FIRST BOOK ORGANISATION OF INDIA) along with the authentic reference link- http://www.dsbpa.in/servlet/Home but someone deleted it. So today I again added this information. I am requesting you to kindly authorise this change and not allow anybody to delete it.

Looking forward to you early help.

Best,

authentic_delhiuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentic delhiuser (talk • contribs) 08:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody can edit, and its content is determined by consensus. We do not lock content except where there is a significant incidence of vandalism. You are having a content dispute with, and the way to resolve it is by discussion between you on the article's talk page. But please remember that our purpose is building an encyclopaedia, not promotion of anything. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have edited List of booksellers associations and posted at Talk:List of booksellers associations about these edits. DES (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage
Greenland is not mentioned on your SSM list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.73.33 (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. If you can improve an article, you are welcome to do so, preferably with a citation to a reliable published source. If you're not confident in editing the article, every article has (or can have) a talk page, which is for the specific purpose of discussing how to improve the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Greenland is part of Denmark. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not part of Denmark, it's part of the Danish Realm, which is different. The Danish government has pretty much no influence over Greenland's internal affairs. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please let me know specifically which list you are talking about. I'm involved in editing of a number of SSM related pages and templates, and specifically remember Greenland being added to a number of them within the last couple of months (as opposed to the Faroes, which still don't have SSM). Naraht (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage says: "On 26 May 2015, Greenland, one of Denmark's two constituent countries in the Realm of Denmark, unanimously passed a law legalising same-sex marriage. The law goes into effect 1 October 2015." Greenland is mentioned in all five SSM-related lists I found. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So if it doesn't go into effect until October, it shouldn't be mentioned on the list until October. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the list. Sadly, unregistered users rarely come back to reveal which page they were posting about. I have posted to User talk:88.106.73.33. Let's see if it helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability
I created a page about a lawyer, professor of law, and on-air legal analyst (NBC News) only to have it deleted. They keep giving me broad reasons, though nothing specific, and when I check the requirements I have seemed to meet them: I've listed references to every claim made. She is a professor and listed as so on the University website; she is an on air legal analyst and I posted many links to NBC, MSNBC and the Today show with her on-air; I added links showing her as Board member or founder, co-director etc to multiple organizations, and newspaper articles where she is listed with awards and achievements. I used the exact same format as I did for another on-air commentator I created, though his remains while hers keeps getting deleted, and she appeares on network television while he is on cable: how is he more notable? This is the part I don't get, I see so many pages about people you've never heard of and whom have done nothing significant, yet they're still listed. I ask "what can be deleted or added to the page to meet your approval", yet I never get a specific response, if any. CAN ANYONE HELP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brieaustin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit of a tangent, but why, precisely, do you "need to get this page live" (em. mine) as you wrote here? —Cryptic 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you are talking about Karen de Soto, the discussion is at Articles for deletion/Karen DeSoto: it makes it clear that the article did not demonstrate that she is notable (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word). Note that her writings, her appearances, her listings on the staff of organisations, do not of themselves contribute in the slightest to her notability, which is 100% about whether and how much people unconnected with her have written about her in reliable sources. Since an acceptable Wikipedia article (especially about a living person) must be almost entirely based on what independent sources have said about the subject, if such sources cannot be found it will actually be impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject, so the notability criteria are there to stop people wasting their time trying to do the impossible. --ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , If you can find, and present, third party soruces that actually discuss de Soto in some detail, the deletion could be revisited. Mind you, I think that the Hudson Reporter article on the election had some value, but it was of largely local significence. Mere passing mentions such as the press release naming her "Attorney of the year" with no detail are basically of no value, and again this is purely local, something of regional or wider significence would be better. I would expct from the thingts mentioned of her that sources would (or at least might) exist, but they wern't presented. DES (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, listings from her current or past employers (such as the university web site) or from organizations with which she is associated while they can be (and should be) cited to confirm basic facts, do not help to eastablish notability at all. Sources to establish notability must be independent, not merely 3rd-party. DES (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also,, you seem very inent on getting this particular article live and keeping it live. Have you been hired to do this, or assigned to do it as part of your job? If so, please read our guideline on paid editing. Or are you a friend or associate? That woudl still be a conflict of interst and should be declared. DES (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

it's just a phrase, I'm doing it for Karen, she is a close friend of mine and "need" to get it done because it is sucking up all my time. Brieaustin


 * As a friend, you have a conflict of interest, and therefore per WP:COI you are strongly discouraged from creating this page. Also, if it's been deletion by discussion before, it's highly likely she isn't notable enough, per WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cryptic So question, how many newspaper articles does she need to be mentioned in, or talked about in to be considered "notable?" 3, 5, 10 -- I've come across 6 just within minutes search The Star Ledger newspaper. Brieaustin — Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine there are a lot of articles that she is mentioned in, for example in about the 6th paragraph See here, or in this article it states "Also being honored are Ambassador of the Year Daisy Martinez, a professional chef on the Food Network, Attorney of the Year Karen DeSoto, a legal expert who appears on MSNBC, and Honorary Woman of the Year Cindy Vero, a popular radio host who appears on KTU 103.5 FM." and here is another HERE

Does any of this get closer to being notable and getting the page approved? If these are a least helpful I can find more. Brieaustin — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. We're not looking for passing mentions: we're looking for actual discussions of this person in and of herself, not appearances in a list or passing references in an article about something else entirely. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, both of those are what we call "passing mentions" a phrase or a sentance that mention the subject, but does not go into any detail. Instead to trying to find more of those, what is needed is a few sources that discuss DeSoto in some detail, say 2-3 paragraphs or more, rather than just mentioning her. I would think that there would have been some of those when she was on the city council, as some of your sources said that she had been in the past. DES (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (By the way, the notification system doesn't work unless you sign the comment where you include the link or ping template with four tildes ( ~ ). Signign talk page commetns makes things much easier for other editors. Thanks. DES (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC))


 * Hello, DES while I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, I find this whole thing archaic. The fact that she appears on national network TV for over 10 years as the legal analyst that the stations called to comment on high profile cases (with dozens of links showing her on air to confirm that), and she has won awards, only not with as many words as Wiki would like makes her fail the notability text, but any Tom, Dick or Harry who does anything, stupid or noteworthy, as long as they are written about with a few paragraphs in a few media outlets, they are notable? Makes no sense to me. Anyhow, should I find the additional articles being requested, do I then just re-post the article again with the additional references?

Brieaustin (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC) brieaustin [[User talk:brieaustin|
 * I am sorry you feel that way . I can understand how it seems to you, because this is very different from the standards that, say, a news organization uses for who is newsworthy. The reason is simple: while a news organization or the author of a book can use what people say or what the reporter or author observes, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based pretty much entirely on what has already been published about a subject, and largely not by the subject. If no one has written and reliably published anything much about a subject, then there is nothing to base an article on. An editor's own knowledge won't do -- there is no way for any reader to verify it. What a subject says about him- or herself won't do, as it could be self-serving and is proabably unconsiously biased. Your friend DeSoto is in an odd situation, as she covers many things in the news, but it seems that no one covers her. It is a bit unusual that somone as prominent as she seems to be has not been discussed more in reliable sources.
 * In any case, when and if more sources are found, a new version of the article can be created at any point. I would reccomend creating it in the Draft: namespace. This would simply mean that it would be called Draft:Karen DeSoto. Pages on Wikipedia with names that start with "Draft:" are used to develop and polish articles that may not yet be ready to satisfy all the rules for articles. When someone thinks that they are ready, they can be moved (renamed) and become regular articles at any point.
 * In fact, I'll make you an offer. If you request it, I will undelete the version that was deleted and move it to Draft for you to work on. It would need to be reviewed before being moved back to the main article space. Drafts are not indexed by search engines, but can be edited in exactly the same way as regular articles. Or if you prefer, I won't do that and you can start over when you have the needed references in hand. I'm sorry but that is the best I can do for you. DES (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DES Thanks for the response, and yes it is confusing that a legal analyst can be a guest and/or in-house commentator for so many years covering some of the highest profile cases for over 10 years and be refuted as a legit legal analyst. She can win awards but because the she and the award are not discussed in multiple paragraphs about her, they don't count. Magazines can list her in their "top" influencers and that doesn't count. Commentators are not the news, they discuss the news, and it would seem that being in that high position, again not in some regional cable show but network television (with links to those show appearances) would provide all the criteria required. I appreciate all the time everyone has taken to try and define the criteria for me and yes, if you could revert it to Draft that would be helpful. Meanwhile when I find enough articles that talk about her I'll insert them and request it go live. How many articles are required as a benchmark?    [[User:Brieaustin|Brieaustin (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

AEDP
I have volunteered to create a wikipedia article for a psychotherapy organization. The organization AEDP, has recently published an article in the Sage Knowledge Encyclopedia of Counseling and Psychotherapy. The originator of the organization wrote the article. She would like me to simply copy/paste her words, as I am writing this on her behalf. The article is crafted in an encyclopedic style. My question is, under these circumstances, do I need to paraphrase as suggested? Do I put her words in quotes? Is it a copyright violation because it is already in a published book? I'd like to know if I have to re-write something that is already perfect. thank you. Carrie Ruggieri--18:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Carrieruggieri (talk)
 * All contributions to Wikipedia must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If the copyright holders agree to release the encyclopedia text under the above mentioned licence (see WP:DONATETEXT for details) then the article can be published verbatim otherwise you will need to re-write it. Ruslik_ Zero 19:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that it's quite possible that the author of the article in the SAGE encyclopedia does not hold the copyright to the text even though she wrote it. (Authors of encyclopedia articles usually relinquish copyright to the publishers.) You'll need to examine the copyright page of the book to be sure. Deor (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Besides the copyright question that you asked about, and people have answered, your question raises some others in my mind. I'm finding it hard to think of what the Sage Encyclopaeia article might be about that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. If it is about AEDP itself, then it is a non-independent source, and may be used only in a very limited way in a Wikipedia article about the organisation (Wikipedia articles should be almost entirely based on what independent sources have said about the subject, and hardly at all on what the subject has said about themselves). If it is not about AEDP, I'm wondering why it belongs in a Wikipedia article about them. I'm also wondering if you have a connection with the organisation: if you have, please make yourself aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest. At the very least, an article will in no sense be for AEDP: it should be about AEDP. See Neutral point of view. (I apologise if you're already aware of all this). --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Template help
I copied and pasted Template:Footer US NC 100m Men and created (with new data) Template:Footer US NC 100m Women. The formatting results are not the same. Above the edit screen are two boxes called Manage TemplateData and Information about Template Data which make no sense. Do these boxes insert some hidden code to make a template work? I don't know what fairy dust to sprinkle on this to make these work properly. Trackinfo (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed by adding a missing .[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Footer_US_NC_100m_Women&diff=668940636&oldid=668936908] If template code is displayed instead of the template being applied then there is usually missing a   or  . PrimeHunter (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy
Hi. I am having trouble using modules to try and put two inboxes in to one. I am trying to create and infobox for Jeff Hardy that features information about his wrestling and musical career. Any help or somebody fixing it would be of much help.I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Template:Infobox professional wrestler currently can not be embedded. Ruslik_ Zero  19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the issue appeared to be that you should have used 'child' parameter instead of 'embed' for Template:Infobox professional wrestler. Ruslik_ Zero 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Username change
Dear sir\madam I want to change my username, i wrote my real name and want to change. Please Help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albjna Korrani (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To change your username, you need to go to Changing username/Simple and follow the instructions there. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)