Help desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24[edit]

Policy on Use of Web Citations to Sites Needing Registration[edit]

I am pretty sure there is a policy against citing web locations that require registration and log in, but I can't find it. Softtest123 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softtest123: I don't believe there is? Our policy is actually the opposite - a source shouldn't be rejected just because it is hard to access (requires payment, login, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See WP:PAYWALL. Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear on what Softtest123 means by "citing". Although there is no problem with using such links in references, there is a guideline that discourages their use as external links. See WP:ELNO, number 6. Deor (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SuperHamster: and @Deor:.

By "citing" I meant <ref>{{cite web | url=website requiring registration or fee | etc.}}</ref>. I work on resolving web citation issues and have a raw link to fix. I'm not inclined to leave passwords on various sites around the world. If the problem with the reference were any other, I would whack it. If I felt ambitious, I might try to find another reference, but usually I mark it with {{fact}} and move on. I am reluctant, however, when someone has put in some effort to improve WP, to simply delete their work. On this point I am in a quandary. I think I am generally opposed to the cited policy except in very special circumstances where it is the only source supporting the fact cited and it is a reliable source. I believe all facts should be verifiable by anyone (even if it requires a trip to the library) but not if it means leaving a password on a web server of unknown security. Softtest123 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should absolutely not be removing citations just because they are behind a paywall or because you personally cannot access them. That is a completely wrong-headed thing to do. Some of the highest quality sources available are inevitably going to be behind paywalls. If you have reason to believe that a source is going to fail verification then you can ask at WP:LIBRARY. Someone there may be able to provide you with a copy or check the source for you. However, please don't routinely put in a request for every source you come across. If every passing editor requested every source they would soon be swamped.

It is also wrong to tag cited information with {{fact}} just because you are unwilling to register with the site. Your security concern is nonsense by the way—unless you are using the same password everywhere, a particularly stupid thing to do if that includes your bank. You didn't mention this, but just so you know, you shouldn't remove citations just because the link has gone dead. There are a number of ways this can be fixed by other editors, but it never will be if you remove the citation altogether. Spinning Spark 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by leaving a password on a web server of unknown security. But whatever you mean, you must not pretend a citation does not exist just because you don't like the web cite it is hosted on. Deleting material supported by reliable sources just because you don't care for the policies of the web site where the material is hosted is not acceptable and could eventually lead to you being banned. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! My writing must be very unclear. I do NOT delete references to sites requiring login. That is the reason I started this discussion; because I was uncertain if there were EVER conditions under which such a citation should be deleted. There are other inappropriate references that should be deleted, for instance, references that do not, in any manner, support the article fact cited. And, on occasion, I spend some time correcting {{dead link}} where the bad link has been deleted removing evidence that might help create a proper reference.

As to security; please consider a reference of the following form: <ref>[http://TrojanHorseSite.com/ http://LegitimateSite]</ref>. This appears as a normal "bare url" link frequently found on Wikipedia pages. An unsuspecting Wikipedia editor, in order to fix this reference, might go to that link and find what appears to be a legitimate account creation to LegitamateSite. A carefully crafted TrojanHorseSite could intercept that account creation information, save it and forward the information to LegitimateSite. If our unwary editor creates an account, TrojanHorseSite has obtained an account under editor's name and credentials. If our editor uses the same credentials to do all such editing, TrojanHorseSite can find other instances of accounts (editor contributions). Further, apparently legitimate sites, containing useful reference material, could well be a website designed to collect user credentials. Again, should an editor reference that site, the credentials could be linked to a specific Wikipedia editor as would any Wikipedia user seeking additional information about a topic by logging into the malicious reference.Softtest123 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softtest123: Yes, your writing is extraordinarily unclear. Even after reading your original post several times I still cannot extract from it the meaning you now state. It is hard to interpret "If the problem with the reference were any other, I would whack it. If I felt ambitious, I might try to find another reference, but usually I mark it with {{fact}} and move on." as anything other than deleting or tagging sources without actually reading them. Also "I think I am generally opposed to the cited policy" led me to believe that you were doing this in the full knowledge that it is against our guidelines. Anyway, to answer your new question, any site hiding malware, and a url disguised in the way you indicate can reasonably be assumed to be malware, should be removed immediately and the user who inserted it reported to administrators. SpinningSpark 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark:Ah! But I don't read that into the policy. You are saying there are exceptions to the rule of not deleting references that are login or pay sites. What are the other exceptions? Where are they published? Is it clear to you now that I do not delete references without compelling reason? Is it clear to you that there is danger in the process of repairing bare URLs? I am asking that the policy be clarified in this regard. Please contribute if you have ideas about how the policy can be made better.Softtest123 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softtest123: An insertion as you describe is not a bare url, it is spoofing a bare url. There is absolutely no doubt that it should be removed; that is so obvious we really don't need a policy on it. Genuine bare urls on the other hand should be expanded. SpinningSpark 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softtest123: There are some templates such as {{Closed access}}

, {{Subscription required}}(subscription required), etc.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the CS1 templates now have |registration= and |subscription= parameters. -- Gadget850^talk 00:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing user talk warnings[edit]

Let's say a user gets a warning on their talk page. The user then erases the warning. Is it OK to undo their edit to display the warnings on their talk page again? Warrenkychu (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenkychu: Nope - while perhaps not desired, users are allowed to remove warnings (along with most other messages) from their own talk pages. See WP:UP#CMT for more details and exceptions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While archiving of talk pages is preferred, if the user removes the notice, they are known to have read the notice. Some edit warriors and vandals may think that removing the notice will permit them to continue the misconduct because later notifiers will not be aware of the previous notices. However, the notices are still in the talk page history. In fact, on giving a notice to a user with an empty talk page, it is a good idea to check the talk page history for previous deleted warnings. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned user space content[edit]

Heya, quickie: Came across User:DerClogger this user page while making a change on the Tom Cruise article. They haven't edited in 2 years--should the user page be deleted, and if so, by which method/criteria? And if not, is a blanking sufficient? Seems like a WP:NOTWEBHOST issue. Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAKEARTICLE blanking is sufficient unless there are BLP issues in the content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, TheRedPenOfDoom Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated filters are blocking edits that are supposed to be allowed[edit]

When I signed up here, I found that I would be able to edit protected articles and change their titles after four days and ten edits. Well, I'm a confirmed user now, and I'm trying to rename the 2014 pro Russian unrest in Ukraine article because the name is incorrect, but the filter keeps saying this is a potentially unconstructive change. What the cunt? Stephen B at USDA (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the page Stephen B at USDA ? Lor^Chat 06:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine would be much better titled 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because it's not really an armed conflict except in a few far eastern regions. For the most part, it's a bunch of protests, not a war. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see Stephen B at USDA your attempted move failed most likely because it was quite a high profile page. It would be a better idea to propose the move on the Talk page. Further more its quite a controversial page. Any major edits like what you were trying to do could impose a Discretionary sanction on yourself by a Admin that could lead to unwanted trouble. In Short: Discuss the move before you try it or it could lead to unintended consequence's. Thanks! Lor^Chat 06:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well just fuck the whole encyclopedia then. Thanks for your time. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a little Uncivil and maybe a bit harsh on the poor Wikipedia Lor^Chat 06:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with what Stephen B at USDA said — "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" is a daft name, the conflict is not "pro-Russian" (though it serves Putin's interests), it is between pro-Russian groups and anti-Russian groups. However, the way he said it will win him few allies. Maproom (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my uncivil behavior. I'm just rather shocked that I have completed the appropriate actions to gain more editing privileges and now it turns out that they don't really exist. If I could be given another chance, I would like to clean up my behavior and work with the community to get things straightened out if that would be possible. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are already autoconfirmed, meaning you are able to move pages that are not move protected. I believe that the page you are referring to is not move protected, but you seem to be just a few hours short of 4 days old at the time you tried to move the page. In any case, it is still better to propose a move on the article's talk page before moving it. Darylgolden^(talk) 09:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been problems with page move vandals who create many accounts, get them just past the autoconfirmed limit and then make vandal moves until the account is blocked. You encountered a filter designed against that, but the filter cannot distinguish between vandals and good faith editors. The filter is sometimes tweaked to thwart the strategy of currently active vandals, and details of the filter are private to prevent vandals from seeing it. You are not a vandal but this is a controversial move which should be discussed first so it's not bad that the filter happened to stop you. In fact the move is already being discussed at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine#Requested move 22 June 2014. You can post there. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' activities[edit]

Can anyone give me a link to some kind of tool that can provide info such as number of blocks, deletions, and any admin's actions he/she has ever performed?123.20.222.248 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:There's no such thing. Its up to the admin(s) discretion to record their own activity's.~~ Lor^Chat 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what OP wants, but still an interesting page nonetheless: User:JamesR/AdminStats lists the top 100 most-active admins for any given admin action. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information you want can be found at special:logs. Applying the appropriate filters should give you what you want. Spinning Spark 12:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Nallabati Raghavendra Rao[edit]

Reference help requested. hello, I need your help to set references to this page i.e., I wanted to point this to a weblink. Thanks, Venkataramakrishna (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create a references section. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Manual referencing. However, the reference you are trying to insert is useless as it does not actually verify any of the article. Spinning Spark 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at Uyghur people[edit]

Hi! I had som questions about editing a article, I was editing the article of Uyghur people, i Edited sections Medicine, Art, Education and i added two more Sections about Uyghur Issue of China and Population Problem, but another user came and deleted those sections, He says that the edits i done was refered to "Unreliable Source" I citet book that i read that are legaly Published by trusted Publishers and Famous authors, and he claims that i am "Not being Neutral" in my edits, I cannot understand why he is only showing the PRC side of the Uyghurs but not the Uyghur side of the Uyghurs, Uyghur are in exile and Uyghurs are one of the minoritis that china is suppressed by china, Uyghurs have the same issue as Tibeteans, But it is true that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information where many people gets knowledge from but while this user is editing the articles so that it will be on the side of only one side but not the other side, Specificly Uyghurs are having real problem inside china and There are two represents for Uyghurs one is Pepole Republic of China and other one is World Uyghur congress, The user is deleting and only adding parts that is supporting the PRC view over Uyghurs. what do you think about this issue? Dolatjan (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content disagreements should in the first instance be discussed on the article talk page and attempts made to reach consensus. Please make a sustained effort to do this before asking for outside help. If after exhausting discussion on the talk page there is still no consensus you can ask here again for advice on how it can be resolved. Spinning Spark 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola tesla Baptism certificate[edit]

Hi I am Anand Jha from India and I have a doubt in the case of Nicola Tesla Birth-certificate. According to the site it is 10 july 1856 but the baptism report point toward the 28 june 1856. How can a man get his birth certificate before his birth? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanand Jha (talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is all to do with different calendars have a read of Old Style and New Style dates. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact our article on Nicola Tesla specifically states "10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856" - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! Questions like this should probably be asked at the reference desk, since this area is reserved for questions about Wikipedia, instead of general knowledge. Have a nice day. Feitlebaum (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question about image flag[edit]

I am not sure why our photo is marked for deletion - could someone explain why and how we can fix it? This is an image we own and would like to share on wiki commons to be used on a wikipedia page. Thanks!

File:"The Final Lap" report cover.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfesta (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated for deletion because it is suspected that the uploader does not own the copyright. I presume that Grey2K USA own the copyright of the cover of this report. If you are associated with Grey2K and can influence the content of the website, then the easiest way to establish that this has been released on a free licence is to post the licence on the website and then go to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_22#File:"The_Final_Lap"_report_cover.jpg and mention that you have done this. If you are not associated with the organisation then you need to first get their permission to release on a free licence and then contact us through the OTRS system with your proof of permission. Spinning Spark 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I just posted on that page that I am the one who created it for GREY2K USA, I am the graphic designer. We do not have a link to a license to post though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfesta (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfesta: That is probably not going to be sufficient, there is no way that we can verify online that you are who you say you are. You will still need to submit your evidence to OTRS. Also, you were working for Grey2K USA so this would normally be a work for hire. That means it is their copyright, not yours. SpinningSpark 23:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark thanks for your help, is there any way you could break down the steps to submitting evidence to OTRS? I am posting on behalf of the organization. --Dfesta (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfesta: For images uploaded to Commons (recommended) see Commons:OTRS. For images uploaded locally to Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. SpinningSpark 19:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make the page active[edit]

How can I make my page active, and I need to change the title Trchambers to Tom R. Chambers ...

User:Trchambers

Thank you.

Tom R. Chambers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trchambers (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trchambers: Hi Tom - I suggest going through the articles for creation process by placing the AFC submission template on the page. This way, an experienced editor will review the article, and either give it the green light or decline it with suggestions on what needs improving.

I can tell you right now, though, that the article is far from ready, for several reasons:

The article needs cited sources. All articles should have proper citations that verify where information is coming from. This also helps establish notability (i.e. the subject is significant enough to have an article).
The article needs proper formatting. Take a look at any other established articles for an example of how articles should look. You'll see that articles are divided into sections, the title is bolded in the lead, bare external links don't appear in the body, etc. Wikipedia's Manual of Style details how articles should appear.
Any images on the article needs to be uploaded to the site for use. Be sure to review the image use policy first however; Wikipedia only accepts certain types of freely-licensed images.

I know this is a lot to hit you with, but there's still lots of improvements to be made. I've also left a welcome message on your talk page with more links and information. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll[edit]

In the article "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll"

Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent was ranked number 1 based on unreliable sources! How could this become suddenly on the top of the list while it wasn't at all mentioned in it before?!!. Please remove it, changing history is a crime!.

This is already being discussed on the article's talk page. Please contribute to the discussion there. Maproom (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging a page[edit]

I came across a page click here This area in not Chinatown and never was. It has 3 stores and on office for yale's Chinese students and I am sure a few Chinese people live in the area but it is not a neighborhood name in the city. They even added it to the list of neighborhoods. They posted it to get the news out about a one dragon parade they have but this again is not a reason to rename the historic Whitney. I do not know how to challenge it. and I do not want to erase it with out going though the proper channels. Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypixie (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Happypixie. I know nothing of New Haven, but all three references in the article appear to be quoting the same press release, and I haven't found any other references to "Chinatown, New Haven" (except one in Wikitravel, which is not a reliable source), so I have nominated the article for deletion, using the articles for deletion process: the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinatown, New Haven. (Note that I am not taking a position on whether or not the area is called "Chinatown", just saying that there are not sufficient references to it as Chinatown to ground a Wikipedia article). For future reference, the article's talk page is the first place to bring up questions about an article: if you get no response there, by all means bring it to the help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ColinFine. I brought it up to others in my area some think it is a community and they added some restaurants and stores to the page others agreed that it is still not established as chinatown. It has not defined area and encroaches other established areas. I asked them to build the page if they feel it is a neighborhood of the city. One person who is a data specialist did say that the area has the largest number of asians in the city. I am hoping he will add that info. Happypixie — Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Happypixie. It doesn't matter how many people think that the area is called Chinatown, if that belief is undocumented in reliable sources. Wikipedia works only with verifiable information. Now that I have proposed the article for deletion, if people think that it should be kept they should join the deletion discussion and explain why the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk page archiving[edit]

How do I add the archive feature to my talk page?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion[edit]

I want to nominate Stateless nation for deletion. However this seems to be more of a list than an article. I was just wondering if I nominate lists in the same place as articles.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Yep, lists go through the AfD process as well :) We actually have a list of lists undergoing deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And someone nominated that list of deletion in 2013<g> RJFJR (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How To Obtain Full Protection of Living People's Entries[edit]

Dear Wikipedia community, I'm writing to inquire how to fully protect a semi-protected article. There are good reasons to request a full protection, given the long history of the entry. Please advise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWivesTales (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OldWivesTales: You can request any type of page protection over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, though note that full protection is rarely given for articles and is a last-resort of sorts. Full protection is typically only applied temporarily to prevent on-going edit wars, or used on high-risk templates. If you want to request long-term full protection for an article simply because it's a controversial subject, that probably won't happen. See WP:FULL for details on when full-protection can be applied. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking to see what article you (OldWivesTales) were requesting full page protection for. It isn't obvious. However, from your contribution history, which appears to consist mostly of adding two particular references to multiple articles, it appears that you should read WP:MINOR for a better understanding of what a minor edit is. The addition of references is not necessarily uncontroversial. Some editor might question the applicability of the source. So please read the policy on minor edits, which states that adding or removing references or links should not be marked as a minor edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding redirects and disambiguation pages, the only articles under permanent full protection are as follows:

There are a few other articles currently under indefinite full protection — Sigmund Freud, Tony Penikett, Leslie Howe, and Mmiata Anam — but I can't imagine any of these will remain protected for longer than a month.

I have been involved in talk page discussions on the communist mass killings page, and reviewing the article's history over the past couple of years, I have some real misgivings about keeping that restriction in place. From what I've seen, it has only served to stagnate progress on a page that is in desperate need of an overhaul. I had attempted to rewrite the whole thing off-wiki last year, but I couldn't handle that sort of commitment due to circumstances beyond my immediate control.

You can certainly request indefinite full protection at RFPP, but be forewarned that the likelihood of an administrator enacting such a measure is almost inconceivable. I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but if it's Israel and the apartheid analogy, I don't think it comes anywhere near the threshold where permanent full protection would be given any serious consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original post referred to obtaining permanent full protection for a living person's entry, that is, in Wikipedia terms, a WP:BLP. However, none of the articles that he or she edited was a BLP (although some of them may have referred to living persons). As Kurtis notes, permanent full protection is an extraordinary measure, very contrary to usual Wikipedia policy. (It is often requested for promotional articles by editors who don't understand Wikipedia, who request that an article be "locked in the approved version", but those articles often wind up being deleted instead.) Temporary full protection is used to stop edit warring so that discussion can take place on the talk page to resolve differences. What is the OPs reason for proposing permanent full protection for an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Marie Slavick[edit]

25 June 2014

Hello

This is Madeleine Slavick, and I am responding to the article (Madeleine Marie Slavick) someone compiled without contacting me for verification. There are a few errors.

I suggest this edit: (Madeleine Marie Slavick)

Madeleine Marie Slavick is a writer and photographer of German–American descent. She has lived in the United States for 25 years, in Hong Kong for 25 years, and currently lives in New Zealand. Her blog[1] has visitors from more than 100 countries.[2]

Biography Slavick has authored several books of poetry, prose, and non-fiction, including Something Beautiful Might Happen, delicate access, Round – Poems and Photographs of Asia, and most recently, Fifty Stories Fifty Images, a book on her twenty-five years in Hong Kong. From 1995 to 2012, she worked as an editor with Oxfam, managing several book projects such as China Voices and My Favourite Thing. As a photographer, Slavick has published her images in several magazines and books, and has exhibited internationally in solo shows, group shows, and in a traveling show with three of her artist-sisters, Susanne, Sarah, and elin.

Madeleine Marie Slavick Field writer, editor, photographer Works Fifty Stories Fifty Images (MCCM Creations, 2012), Something Beautiful Might Happen (Usimaoda, 2010), My Favourite Thing (Living Psychology Publishers, 2005), Delicate Access (Sixth Finger Press, 2004) and Round – Poems and Photographs of Asia (Asia 2000, 1998)

Thank you Mmslavick (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can provide reliable sources demonstrating that Madeleine Marie Slavick is notable, the article is likely to be deleted, rendering the above request moot. If we assume it will survive, the best place for the request is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]