Help desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

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.

April 12

New Template

I created a new warning template, for threats of violence: Template:Uw-violence Should I have done this, and if it is a good template, how should I integrate it into the warning system? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template is a good idea in principle, but wrong the way it was created. "Reported to the authorities" is a legal threat, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Frigid Ninja 01:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that we shouldn't report death threats to the authorities? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously think that death threats should be reported to the authorities, but I'm not sure if putting this in a template is a good idea. Frigid Ninja 01:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Threats of violence is not an accepted policy, so reporting such threats to the authorities is not something we're obliged to do, strictly speaking. We most likely wouldn't stand around warning somebody if they make a serious threat anyway, they'd blocked straight away. There's the problem of the possible legal threat as well, like FrigidNinja says (in which case the editor who posted the template may be blocked if it's used in error). Why not start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and get some feedback on it? We also have Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, but it doesn't look very active to me. Chamal ^T•C 03:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an established procedure for such dealing with threats of violence and harm - WP:EMERGENCY. They are never dealt with on WP by vollunteers (that's us), the WMF deals with it due to the possibility of legal complications. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUJITH VIGNESHWAR

Sujith vigneshwar born in Kerala,the southern state of India. He is a well known media professional.theatre activist and researcher . Starting theatre acting from early child hood which lead him to work with "ABHINAYA theatre research centre and working there for couple of years he enrolled as a student in school of drama ,thrissur kerala ,india in the year 1999 .He finished his masters in theatre arts from the same organisation. He was awarded with a scholarship in the year 2000 from cultural ministry for theatre studies. During his years in TSD he acted in more than 45 major productions.

After his post graduation he started working independently with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes1234sk (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? Frigid Ninja 02:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to create the article yourself, follow the advice in WP:YFA. It is recommended that you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation so the article can be reviewed. Or you can request an article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a redirect

I recently created a disambiguation page here: Homeland Party (disambiguation) However, searching for "Homeland Party" leads to this page: Homeland Party

It does not go to the disambiguation page I created. How do I redirect to the disambiguation page? Thanks in advance. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your question I have taken the liberty of changing the internet URLs to wikilinks.

I have moved the old Homeland Party to Homeland Party (Turkey), and edited the resulting redirect to point Homeland Party at Homeland Party (disambiguation). - David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

im trying to find out how to add one of these files about tazzering with a heart problem over to the lawyer and how to add it to an email page

hi my name is michelle, im trying to find out how I can add in≈formation from a web site, that ive had to look up on about being tazzered while having a heart condition, how to then add it onto an email, as I need to send this information onto the lawyer, to help my husband — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.170.166 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The helpdesk is for assistance with using editing or using wikipedia. However it appears you are looking for general assistance with your computer and how to include information from the internet into an email. Please see the people over at Reference Desk and they may be able to assist you further. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using "[sic]" once for two words?

Using an old 19th-century quote that should've been "veil of snow": is this acceptable: "vail of snew [sic]" as opposed to "vail [sic] of snew [sic]"? This three-word phrase is buried in a larger quote. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:QUOTE doesn't answer this question. I would use a single 'sic', unless it was important in the context that both words were spelt unconventionally. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to [sic], English stack exchange answer, and English Composition 1. Use it after every word or copy edit. I would simply do it as "vail of snew" (veil of snow), which may be wrong but makes the most sense to me if including the original wording was important to understanding the point. Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a single [sic] after "snew" because the two words are so close together. If you were to correct the spelling, MOS:QUOTE says "...trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment...". Insertion of a correction in parentheses afterwards is not documented, and could be taken to be part of the original (as with anything not in square brackets should be). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the spellings in the original are not, apparently, typographical errors, I think it would be presumptuous and misleading to silently correct them. Keraunoscopia could combine ColinFine's and Technical 13's suggestions and use "vail of snew [sic, for 'veil of snow']" if the aim is both to signal the obsolete spellings and to clarify the meaning. Deor (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful answers, thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port not provided by IDEA service provider for my mobile no ^{[details removed]}

Sir,

I wanted to change my service provider of my mobile no ^{[details removed]} from IDEA to MTNL therefore i had applied for port for the last more than 10 days,but it has not been rovided to me without any rime and reasion.I had sent a mail also to IDEA but in-vain. You are requested to issue necessary direction to IDEA in this case.

Thanks & Regards S.K.Sharma ^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.234.223.194 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 April 2013‎

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Ushau97 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a BLPprod after a PROD has been removed?

Someone has proposed an article for deletion and the author has contested the PROD. Can I add a BLPprod or does it have to go to AFD? Hack (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about a biography of living person and if it is unreferenced then you could add {{prod blp/dated}}. See WP:STICKY. But WP:DEPROD states that If anyone, including the "article creator", removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion --Ushau97 (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the point of the question was to ask if a BLPprod was a type of prod for the purposes of WP:DEPROD.Hack (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the author had contested the proposed deletion, whether it is a BLP or another article, and if you still want the article to be deleted, then it would have to go to AfD. Sorry if I don't understand what you mean. --Ushau97 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was after. I can't seem to find this sort of situation documented in the various deletion policies/guidelines. Hack (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which I have provided from WP:DEPROD documents that. Third point to be exact. --Ushau97 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPROD doesn't apply here. BLPPROD and PROD are two different processes, and removal of one tag does not negate future use of the other. In other words, if a PROD tag has been removed, you can still tag the article for BLPPROD, if applicable; similarly, if a BLPPROD has been removed after the addition of a source, a PROD tag can still be applied for other reasons. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this sounds like nitpicking but the de-prod process says that a PROD can't be placed on a page that has previously been proposed for deletion. Hack (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. But you aren't proposing to place a PROD, you're proposing a BLPPROD, which is a separate, additional process. Really, this ought to be spelled out at on the relevant policy pages; I'm sorry that it isn't. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will clear it up a little. WP:BLPPROD says "Unlike standard proposed deletion," which in itself to me says it is a different process. WP:BLPPROD goes on to say, "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If the biography remains unsourced after ten days, the biography may be deleted." Furthermore it is worthy to note that "Unsourced biographies of living people (BLP)" can only be used for articles "created after March 18, 2010." It seems to me that there may be an issue here with another editor, in which case I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:BLPPROD#Objecting and I would also add a link to that section in the Edit Summary. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my husband to WIkipedia.

I will like to find out how to add my husband's name to Wikipedia. He is an author and currently developing a bible quiz game that is set to go world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoyewusi1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you must evaluate your husband. Does he meet the notability criteria? Has he received significant coverage in reliable sources? Read WP:BIO, and ensure he meets all criteria. Next, read WP:COI. As his spouse, you have a conflict of interest regarding your husband. Finally, if he is notable, you have reliable sources to back it up, and you can write from a neutral point of view, read WP:YFA to get started on writing. --Frigid Ninja 11:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do please pay special attention to WP:PROMOTION (in particular, points 1 and 5). While I wish you all the best in sales of your game, Wikipedia is not the place to promote, advertise, or even inform people about it, unless and until it and he are written about by independent, third-party, reliable sources. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps also WP:NEXTBIGTHING.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mesut Özil

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

concerning the Mesut Özil article. As I recently found out, you deleted his assit satistics. Is it possible to put them back? Because as a playmaker assists are as important to them as goals for strikers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.34.93 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. They were removed by User:Kingjeff on 25 February, without giving an edit summary, and the only mention of assists I can find in the talk page was Talk:Mesut_Özil/Archive_1#Concerning the latest stats update, more than a year earlier, where User:Berntie said in passing "I'd also have no problem if we remove the assists.". I suggest you either ask Kingjeff on his talk page User Talk:Kingjeff, or else start a discussion about it on the article's talk page Talk:Mesut Özil - it will make a change from endless discussions about his nationality. --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how can I contact an administrator to ask for their help in removing a photograph posted in error (the correct photograph has now been uploaded but the original is still there?

I posted a photograph yesterday and it was the wrong one. Today I noticed my mistake and went to delete the first photograph and post the correct one (for which all the recorded details still hold) I managed to upload the correct photograph but can still find no way to delete the erroneous one. Can an administrator please help with this. Leopold7 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not needed. Have you WP:BYPASSed your local cache? Technical 13 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really necessary, but since you asked, I've deleted the old version for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table has consumed article...

I just caused the production table in the Peugeot 508 article to freak out and consume the lower half of the article in this edit, but can't see which ref tag is causing the issue. Can someone fix it please? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that. I found it when i checked again. ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Market

I am contacting you on behalf Greenwich Hospital (Naval Charity) that runs the market as well as www.shopgreenwich.co.uk website to promote Greenwich Market traders and local shops. Please update the info of the Market about opening days - it has been open on Tuesdays for over a year now. If you have more questions. Thank you.

Kind Regards, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.42.237.98 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the stuff about opening days and the days on which stuff is available - it was unsourced, unencyclopedic and prone to being out of date.--ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does a beginner suggest splitting a category?

I've edited or originated dozens of articles, but never worked much on categories. What's likely to be my effective procedure for suggesting that we (or I personally) split Category:Educational operating systems?

Do I simply go ahead? If not, can someone summarize for me what's relevant in the various proposal and guideline pages? Or just carry out the work instead of me?

My claim is that for two groups of articles there, the term "educational" applies in such different ways that the groups are not really related.

Operating systems provided so that students may inspect and modify them (perhaps "Trainer operating systems"): Some articles, including Kaneton, Kastor, Kid Operating System, MINIX, and Tinex, describe operating systems that are intended as example software for programmers to learn the design and implementation of an operating system. (XINU isn't in the category yet. I would like to add it to this group.)
Operating systems provided as tools for teaching and learning generally (perhaps "Software platforms for education"): The remaining articles describe operating systems, software distributions incorporating operating systems, or even (speaking of Sugar) a desktop environment not incorporating any operating system, that are intended as useful software to support the educational endeavors of educators and students of various subjects, with no particular relevance to the design and implementation of any operating system. --Hoziron (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That category is not overpopulated enough to really need "splitting." I would suggest simply adding two sub-categories and placing each of the articles in the proper sub-category without removing them from the main category. Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think subcategorizing will be effective for me. Thanks. But the number of articles in the category doesn't concern me. What concerns me is that when we describe software such as Edubuntu as "educational" ("designed for use in classrooms"), we are using quite a different meaning of the word "educational" from the meaning that is appropriate to software such as Tinix ("It is for teaching rather than using" - I have added emphasis in both quotations). It's almost as if a category "Wood shops" would contain workshops in which carpentry is performed along with retail stores made of wood, or located in forests, or selling products for people who spend time in forests, or whatever. --Hoziron (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure to "split" a category is done by adding subcategories, then you move the articles to the relevant new subcategories - do not leave them in the original (parent) category, unless they cannot fit neatly into only one of the new subcategories. (Sorry Technical 13, you're mistaken) An article must never be in a parent category of any of its categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, do you have a link to the appropriate WP guidelines that explain that all out. I'm not contesting your wisdom, just wish to read up and better understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took a little digging but I found it :) WP:SUBCAT. My use of "never" was a bit overstated, however non-difusing subcategories are used only for specific situations not relevant in this instance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Flores wikipedia Page (Help Edit)

Hello,

I saw an article posted about a young man named Travis Flores that was a COI because of its creator. I noticed that someone else had made some changes to help the article yesterday, so I decided to help with the citations today. I wasn't sure if he met the notability requirements and I was debating whether or not I should even attempt to edit, until I read his story and some of the articles that I found. If you have any input, please feel free to help. Such an inspirational story of a young man.

Travis Flores

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhatterarticles (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a poke at it and cleaned up the citing style some, someone that knows how to use the "cite" templates might want to have a go and cleaning them up some more. I've haven't touched the potential COI issue. Technical 13 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some additional MOS editing.--ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked his name to some other pages, so it shouldn't be orphaned anymore. I'm not sure how to handle the COI issue. Perhaps someone else will be able to help with that. Reviewmonster (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Flores Biography

Thank you for sharing the bio about Travis Flores. I know someone with CF. Such an awful thing to live with.

It appears that multiple people have looked at it and made edits. The original posters should notice that in the talk section of the page, the article has been listed as "Start" & "Low Importance" on the wiki bio project. The article appears to have good sources, and is well written. I saw that someone mentioned the article is not orphaned anymore, but it still lists it as such, so someone should look at that again.

I will verify as much content as I can. Lastly, I saw that there was an issue with COI as well. I am not sure why, because the article does not seem biased and it has been edited by multiple people now. Does someone know how to answer that question?

Will work on verification of sources now.

Editsbyedits (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it will never get above "low" importance, because in the whole scheme of things, this biographical article is, well, of low importance.--ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a good look at the article and it's history and see if I can't get rid of that COI. I have been avoiding it because I'm at work and don't have time to read in-depth the article and check all the sources... Technical 13 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: What ukexpat said is true and that is what I meant when I pointed out the "Low Importance", so if the original poster sees this hopefully they understand. Thanks for the clarification. Technical 13, I have no idea how to handle any COI issues t or I would look into it more myself. Editsbyedits (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have removed the orphan tag when you saw that there was at least one incoming link; I have done so. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI simply says that someone affiliated with the page somehow (related, employed by, personal friend of) has edited the article and "may" have inadvertently added some "insider" information that isn't from a referenced source or "may" have used {{Peacock}} words to make the subject of the article "seem" more or less important than it is. If the article is clean of that stuff, it is safe to remove the tag and note on the talkpage who had the COI and that it has been checked out and is now clean. Technical 13 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection for Up (2009 film)

Hi guys ! I just searched for "Up (movie)" and it defaults to Up! (1976_film), "a 1976 soft core sex comedy". I think it should default to Up (2009 film) instead. It's not cool for kids to land on that porn film page, and the 2009 movie is probably much bigger anyway, no ? Letting more experienced people take care of this ! ;) Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.40.166 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. Up (movie) already redirects to Up (2009 film). You will get redirected to Up! (1976_film) if you try to go to Up! (movie)(including the exclamation mark). Up#Entertainment shows the 2 films above, plus one other, so there is perhaps scope for suggesting that Up (movie) should redirect to Up#Entertainment. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, I really typed "Up (movie)" in the search box, hit Enter and was redirected to Up! (1976_film). When you type it fast enough, oddly, the version with the exclamation point shows up first in the drop-down... I see now that when I wait a few seconds, "Up movie" and "Up (movie)" show up too.

No, scratch that. Interesting. When you don't type the parenthesis, "Up! (Movie)" is listed first. So that's when I hit Enter, probably. As soon as you type the parenthesis, the order changes. When you remove it, it changes back. Really odd. Well, if there's a way to fix that, it would probably be better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.40.166 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm getting something wierder. When I type "up (mo", "Up (Morrissey–Mullen album)" is first, without the ! is next and with the ! is third, When I add the v, the album is removed, and *with* the exclaimation point jumps to the first choice. With the exclamation point stays as first through the v, i, and e, however when the closing parentheses is added, as mentioned above, with the exclamation point drops to second again. So a little wierd, the issue seems to be oddities in how the code that does the drop down sorts different pages after removing some punctuation.

All that aside, though, Wikipedia is not censored. I read that to mean the sexual nature of the other movie should not be a factor in deciding whether it should be the default target of an ambiguous name. It's supposed to be about common usage and knowledge of one of the targets versus the others. In this case, I doubt either one is commonly known (somewhere, there's a page hit counter that could provide some evidence if needed), and the default should be the dab page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with what you said on the censorship issue but a slight quibble with your side note. Up (2009 film) is a Pixar movie. It was immense. It was nominated for five academy awards including best picture and won two. It was the sixth highest-grossing film of 2009 on the earth. It's probably about 2,337 x, give or take a megajoule, as commonly known as the Russ Meyer T&A flick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one aspect to this is a desire that although the searches generally ignore punctuation in doing searches, that if multiple hits occur when punctuation is dropped, the one that exactly matches what is typed should be listed first. That way "Up (Movie)" would have always been preferred to "Up! (Movie)" (or at least once you got to character 3).Naraht (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is so confusing... Up, Up!, Up (movie), Up! (movie) should all redirect to Up which should then link to Up! (1976 film) and Up (2009 film) respectively. I would think this would clear up all the issues. Technical 13 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuh: OK, I need to get out more

. It seems that, now:

Up (movie) redirects to the 2009 movie, as do searches for that title.
Up! (movie) redirects to the 1976 movie, as do searches for that title.

This seems reasonable. Replacing the word "movie" with "film", though, redirects to the DAb page in both cases, which seems wrong. I would expect "film" to have the same result as "movie".

Up redirects to the DAb page, which also seems reasonable, given the many non-film meanings associated with such a common word.
Up! also goes to the DAb page, but such specific punctuation could be argued to mean the user intends the 1976 movie and should go there directly.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

using scanned material as a reference for an article

Following a dispute over the existence of a reference in an article, an editor requests that I will scan the reference (which he describes as non-existent). I wonder where to upload the scanned material (which is not important as a photo in the article...) and how to reference it in the article once it is uploaded. thanksרסטיניאק (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]

From what I can make out looking at the dispute, this is a copyrighted newspaper article, and just as posting a scan of it here would infringe on the newspaper's copyright, so too would posting the scan on some other site. Therefore you should not post it anywhere, and whether you do or don't, because it would be a copyvio, it should not be linked as a source. The fact that you have seen the original allows you to use the original for verification without any link. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. If you want to send a copy of the scan to Soosim to make verification easier for him, to relieve his concerns, and possibly to nip the dispute in the bud, that seems like an option.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purported scans of articles are not reliable sources anyway, in this era of Photoshop. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster has the original article, which is suitable. Just for clarity, you can't link to it because you can't post it online, but you should cite it properly using {{Cite news}}. Copying it and sending it to someone seems like just another copyvio, and I would say the other editor would have to either accept your testimony or have a pretty good reason to basically say you're lying about it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]