User talk:Dmthompson

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dmthompson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Lori L. Lake. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Triwbe (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori L. Lake

Your edits have been moved to Lori L. Lake as per WP:MOS. Please edit that page not the redirect page.--Triwbe (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The alice b readers award

A tag has been placed on The alice b readers award requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vianello (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I am assuming that the Alice b awards page has been deleted? I went to the page (Alice B Readers Award)I created a couple of years ago, and it all looks fine, has citations, seems to follow required formats. That page carries no flag or tag, so am I correct that all is well there? (If I created an incorrect page that you have rooted out, I apologize. I don't recall doing that, but I may have and appreciate that you have cleaned up the mess.)

Thanks for your assistance. Dmthompson (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's still at The alice b readers award. This message dated from 2008, and the tag was later removed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hello, Dmthompson. I noticed your edits to the Lesbian pulp fiction article. Seeing as they are unsourced, I'll likely revert your additions. But I am willing to give you some time to source the material. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Citing sources for information on how to go about that. Also, changing the format of the "Development of the genre" heading to "Development of the Genre" is incorrect, as is your "Reemergence of Lesbian Pop Fiction" heading, per WP:Manual of Style. Read over that as well; not only to see what I mean about heading formatting, but for general information about formatting articles on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I am hoping that the updating of the formatting and my adding citations is sufficient to allow you to keep my additions to the article? I have worked long and hard studying this topic, and the edits I made reflect the facts of the books and articles I have researched. Thank you for any other advice or help you can give. Dmthompson (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your recent edits, it appears you have been adding sources to the article. That's fine, and your additions won't be deleted. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dmthompson, thank you for adding reliable sources. I'm not sure that this or this source that you added to the Butch and femme article count as reliable sources, though. Read some of the WP:Reliable sources page I linked to above if you haven't already, as well as the WP:Verifiability page, and you will likely come away from them with an understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. If ever in doubt about what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia, you can ask about it at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Lori L Lake-2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lori L Lake-2013.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LGA _talk^edits 03:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Alice B Readers Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ann Roberts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sandra de Helen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sandra de Helen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra de Helen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dmthompson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dmthompson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dmthompson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dmthompson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Alice B Readers Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jae. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler copyright violation

Hey, I just removed an edit you did because it directly copied content from bellabooks.com which has a copyright notice. I know you've been here a while, but please ensure you keep the copyright policy in mind when adding content. Thank you for all of your other edits though! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS SO MUCH - I'll fix it! ;-)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of lesbian fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buyer's Remorse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra de Helen

Hello. Do you have some kind of connection to Sandra de Helen? You put her name on your user page five years ago.--- Possibly (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to see the message I sent yesterday? I will reiterate it here:

Hi, I absolutely love the poetry of Sandra de Helen. I am not related to her, I do not live near her, I've never dated her or any of her relatives or friends or acquaintances . . . but I *have* met her a number of times when she has done readings and events in Portland. I also met her once at a GCLS convention and she was charming and shy. I took a picture of her back then that I will post so it meets the copyright guidelines, but I did ask her about photos, and she said she would gladly send me more if I needed them. Basically, I'm a great big Fangrrl, and I want her to write more and be known for her mad skills.

I tried to help her with her first website 4 or 5 years ago when I heard via Facebook that Wikipedia was threatening to erase her page (which I totally did not understand because this woman has been a powerhouse in her 77 years!) She's written more poetry than many poets (many of whom Wiki has never questioned). She's written tons of plays, three of which I have seen performed online. She has read her poetry at festivals and workshops and bookstores and online, in small gatherings and large theaters, and she's read portions of her four novels as well. Because she is so well thought of, her work is archived at 3 or 4 scholarly places (the names of which I will hunt down and add to the reference page.)

So I am attempting to put something together for her to be proud of before her demise, something that displays how talented she is, how important her work has been to the lesbian and feminist communities across the nation, and how much help she has provided to younger playwrights and poets. I'm just not sure why y'all at Wiki keep telling her she's not notable. You've got HORDES of people on Wikipedia who are not notable - or who have become infamous! - and Sandra is not one of them. ;-)

Let me know what other questions you have. In a matter of a couple of days, I will put finishing touches on the page, and I think you will eventually see that she is, indeed, VERY NOTABLE! All best, Dmthompson (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)DMT

Dmthompson (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you say above, you are a friend of hers, which means you have a conflict of interest. It is that simple. See WP:COI.--- Possibly (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please do not add promotional links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify what you are referring to as a promotional link? I have no idea what you mean? Dmthompson (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also pasted these on the article talk page, so you could see the examples of what is not acceptable. Does that make sense? We consider putting links like this into an article to be promotion of outside organizations.--- Possibly (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you are going to reply about the links, please reply below in the thread that at the end. Thanks--- Possibly (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Dmthompson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello----I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. My interest is in seeing that notable lesbian and feminist writers and organizations receive full and fair coverage here and in other venues. If you refer to whatever record you keep of the effort I make in creating Wiki pages, you will see that over the years, I've mostly been focused on writers. Does someone at Wikipedia have an issue with lesbians or lesbian works, or what? I do not understand the pushback here, as if someone at Wikipedia had some personal grudge against this author. I've put up many pages with fewer references with no problems. Isn't the woman notable just for having published 8 well-reviewed books, six of them with reputable traditional publishers?

I don't intend to advertise anyone. I am not the employer or employee of the subject of the article. I am not their client--they are not mine. I'm a retired school teacher and my affiliation is as an admiring fan who believes that Sandra de Helen's contributions to the literary world and the lesbian community of writers is NOTABLE. I mean, come on----Wikipedia carries a category of a "List of Super Bowl Commercials" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_commercials. How is that NOTABLE? Or take a look at today's "Random Article": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Tartaglia. Who wrote that and got it through? There are two books listed in the bibliography but no references at all. Why is Tartaglia notable and de Helen is not? Does she have to be decapitated to warrant a page?

One more thing I almost forgot: I have never received any compensation for any article I've edited or created.Dmthompson (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for your note. Wikipedia really likes notable lesbians: we have 728 articles on lesbian writers. The reason your page triggered concerns was for four reasons. First, the only edit you have to your user page is to add a link to Sandra de Helen, so it really looked looked you were writing an autobiography, which we strongly discourage. Second, the external linking, which I give an example of above, is not allowed as it is promotional. Third, some of the sources you used are blogs (or Goodreads.com, if I recall correctly) and these are not what we call WP:RS. With so many poor sources and self-published items used as sources, it is a reasonable questions to ask if she is notable per out policies, so I tagged the article for notability. Another non-involved editor will assess that eventually. Finally, you are connected to the subject you are writing about, which makes you an impartial editor per our WP:COI policy. The best thing is if you leave the article for unconnected editors to edit. You can make requests on the talk page if you would like changes. Ok, does that all make sense now about why I had concerns? All the things I have mentioned are Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Also, can we keep the discussion to this thread? Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything you are writing makes sense. Thank you. Let me comment on the four points you related:

1) I only wish I had the talent of the poets and others I find notable. <g> As I've spent most of my lesbian life with a dearth of resources until lately, I have been trying to rectify that in my own little way, especially now that I'm retired and have a little more time. A lot goes on that never hits the mainstream media. This makes it difficult for any notable lesbians to affirm their accomplishments, not to mention existence.

2) I can remove any of the links that you think are promotional. I listed various links because de Helen appears to be involved in them. Feel free to give me whatever advice you can share.

3) One of the difficult things about the sources is that blogs, reviews, and online interviews constitute the places where one would find most commentary on de Helen's work (and many lesbians' work). Because she is a poet, so many of her poems have been online; because she's a playwright, many of her plays have not been published, though I have found several dozen have been produced, including one in NY off-off-broadway a few years back. Some plays--in print and in performance--are on the internet (such as "Blue Roses" and "Singer Clashes with Cougar"). A lot of her work has been collected and archived, and I am currently seeking online or other sources to verify this at Werner Josten Performing Arts Library - Smith College Libraries, The Lesbian Herstory Archives, and International Centre for Women Playwrights. In addition, I'm researching awards and recognition she has received.

4) I don't believe the fact that I like and respect Sandra de Helen's work is a reason to reject the Wiki entry. We are not "friends" - I am a fan who has followed her work, much as I follow the work of Mary Oliver, Dorothy Allison, Sarah Waters, Judy Grahn, and Adrienne Rich (all of whom I have had interchanges with by email and/or seen in online performances or in person at some point in the past few decades).

I do believe we can come to an agreement, and I must say, I have learned a great deal during this process!Dmthompson (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmthompson:, let me give you some tips! Your article was put together really well, it's just that you aren't fully familiar with some of the policies. You are more than welcome to write more articles on Lesbian writers. The first thing is to find really good sources, which establish notability. There are some other tricks: if you can find two good book reviews, you can write an article on the book. It is all about satisfying WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBOOKS. (I have written 500+ articles on women artists because I figured out that they pretty much cannot be deleted if the artists are in two permanent collections.) So read those notability guidelines carefully. Also, be aware of our WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION guidelines. I think perhaps you just got really excited about the Sandra de Helen article, so I will leave that to your judgment. The key it to try to maintain WP:NPOV. Finally, there is a group of editors called Women in Red who are working to include more women on Wikipedia. If you ever need help, their talk page is really good place to ask questions abotu women-specific articles. I hope this helps--- Possibly (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

=======That's great! Thank you so much for the Women in Red link and also for the guidelines. I really learned a lot about how to write these entries in a more streamlined and supported fashion. Thanks so much! Dmthompson (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sandra de Helen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Patterson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Judy M. Kerr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judy M. Kerr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy M. Kerr until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sue A. Hardesty moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sue A. Hardesty, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sue Hardesty has been accepted

Sue Hardesty, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Advocate (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Lynch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Dmthompson (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, Dmthompson. I noticed that your recent edit to Cheryl A. Head added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I knew something was wrong - couldn't figure out why I wasn't getting the correct photo in place. I will fix it. Have a great day! DM Dmthompson (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Judy M. Kerr

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Judy M. Kerr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[1]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Moriwen (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moriwen,

This page was originally deleted because the previous reviewer said the individual was not "notable" enough. Well, now she is. *Of*course* there will be some substantially similar material to the older version I posted! The individual's career has carried on and she now IS notable. She is on her third book, has many reviews, podcasts, and interviews, and it is unfair to even question this. I have had trouble in the past because various of the Wiki reviewers have seemed to be picking on authors who are lesbian, claiming they are not "notable." I am hoping this is not how you operate. If you review the material, you will see that this individual well-deserves a page.

Thank you for your consideration,

DMT Dmthompson (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh......when y'all said "speedily deleted" you should have said "ALREADY DONE!" I didn't even get a chance to click on the "Contest this speedy deletion" button, and POOF! The page is gone.

I must protest this treatment. Did anyone actually **read** the page? This is truly unfair.

DMT Dmthompson (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Can you undelete per WP:Requests for undeletion#Judy M. Kerr with the condition (if Dmthompson agrees) that the page remain in draftspace until published via AfC? Comparing the new version with the AfD version, while it is sufficiently identical, I see improvements in citations, and there is content about the second book, which was "forthcoming, 2021" when the AfD took place in 2021. Jay 💬 06:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jay, for your request, and for drawing my attention to this. Dmthompson, I will restore the page to draftspace, on the understanding that Jay has mentioned. You may like to re-read what you have written, and consider whether it was the way of requesting help which was the most likely to get a positive response. JBW (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for looking at this swiftly and agreeing to restore the page. I will - of course - be adding more data. The individual is a speaker at a conference in June and featured at a literary event in MN in July. I'll be able to add lots more data. I also have to get in touch with her for more verifications.

So I will be as cooperative as you need me to be.

Now I just have to figure out what happened to the other page I posted!

Have a great day,

-) Lori

Dmthompson (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not worked in draftspace, see how WP:AfC works. Also, remember to add the Conflict of Interest disclaimer here once you get in touch with Judy M. Kerr. Reading the past discussions, I see you never added your COI for Sandra de Helen, or Mary Oliver, Dorothy Allison, Sarah Waters, Judy Grahn, and Adrienne Rich. If you corresponded with them by email, it is sufficient to be considered an interested party. Jay 💬 04:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, Jay. We have never had contact with big-time authors such as Mary Oliver, Dorothy Allison, Sarah Waters, Judy Grahn, and Adrienne Rich. Also, I greatly admire a local poet and playwright, Sandra de Helen, and I had a difficult time trying to prove there was no COI. I do not consider myself an interested party with a conflict with any of the people I build a page for. I do not get paid--have NEVER charged. In fact, I don't generally get in touch with any of these authors unless I have to write to an agent or some website to get permission to use a photo or a video, etc. Wikimedia now wants me to submit a permission slip for an entry I created for KG MacGregor, and I will do that, but I took the picture at a conference, so I have to figure out how to get that permission.

Anyway, I find authors who I admire--perhaps I have seen them speak or been at a reading or Book Festival or I have simply read some or all of their books. If I think they deserve being wiki'd, then I research and create the pages. I don't think this is any different from a basketball fan who is ga-ga over Steph Curry or someone who has seen the Grateful Dead 18 times (and actually has a guitar pick once tossed off the stage to her!). Over the years, if I read something about any of the subjects I've written about, I will add that data here. Over time others also add information, and most of the pages I have written have expanded quite nicely.

There is a dearth of Wikipedia representation of lesbian authors (even though few editors at Wiki seem to believe me). Lesbian writing is, indeed, a small niche of the writing world, but it's vital and expanding nonetheless. I don't think people realize there are over 100,000 lesbian-related books listed on online retailer websites, many of them representing truly amazing writers with experiences and attitudes that speak to people in English-speaking countries around the world. Some of those authors are inextricably woven into the fabric of the 20th/21st Century historical reclamation of lesbians who had to hide their true selves.

I'm going on too long, and I apologize for that. I've been putting up pages periodically - probably 3-5 of them per year - for at least 20 years. I didn't use to have many issues at all----and in the last year, seems like everything I post gets challenged, deleted, fought over......it's exhausting!

So thank you for working with me on this.

DMT Dmthompson (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up these names is because you mentioned them above at #Managing a conflict of interest and said all of whom I have had interchanges with by email. Direct contact is not required, email correspondence in a personal capacity will satisfy COI. Note that COI is different from the specific paid editing (which requires a different disclosure), and although the standard notification by User:Possibly mentioned paid editing, that is not the case here. The point is that a COI editor's interest in the subject is biased because of the personal connect, and that reflects in the writing. So you may want to read up on WP:COI - General COI (not paid editing), and reconfirm that you don't think you have a COI. Jay 💬 08:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay,

I must have misspoken in my message in the past. I know I have never emailed with the late Mary Oliver, or Judy Grahn, or the late Adrienne Rich. I vaguely remember asking one of my team for reference verifications from Dorothy Allison and Sarah Waters - but I don't recall that I myself had any contacts that would not satisfy the COI policy, though I may have followed up on something......but I just don't remember at all, meaning that I was not in any state of personal connection. Those writers are all "rockstar literati," and I'm an admirer, but not personally connected other than feeling admiration and gratitude for their contributions to lesbian literature.

Di Dmthompson (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, Jay: What do I have to do to get the JUDY M. KERR author page back online? Will someone repost it or do we have to recreate it?

Thanks for your help,

Di Dmthompson (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBW had restored it at Draft:Judy M. Kerr so you can get it reviewed and published via WP:AfC. Jay 💬 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Di. I should have given you a link to the draft, instead of just saying I would restore it to draftspace and assuming you would then be able to find it. Thanks, Jay, for filling in the gap I had left. JBW (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You all rock! Thanks for your help!

Dice & Lori Dmthompson (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the COI discussion! If you have an external connection with Lori L. Lake, you will have to disclose your Conflict of Interest. I see that you edited that article last in April, but if you have a COI, please do not edit the article henceforth (except to make simple corrections), but put the content on the article talk page that you would like to add, and someone will add it to the article on your behalf. Jay 💬 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

Hello. I would like to discuss something private with you. How can i contact you? Rainbowtribe95 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can email either one of us at newsinfo60@comcast.net

-) Lori and Dice

Note that per WP:NOSHARING, Any user account should represent an individual, and Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted. If there are two of you, you would need separate accounts. Jay 💬 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I see what you are saying. Lori does the research and hands it over to me. This is actually my account and I'm the one who makes the updates and does the coding. I do believe she has a separate account as well, though she doesn't know how to code anything. We have a little team of people who are constantly recommending authors to focus on based on their relevant work and pertinence to the community of writers. Jac and Marcy and Sly have never been in my account. So, I hope that's okay.

Dice Dmthompson (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. For Lori, there is nothing to code! Although to add source citations, the markup may look a bit complex at first. In Visual Editing mode, adding content is similar to using a Word processor. Jay 💬 08:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Judy M. Kerr

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Judy M. Kerr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy M. Kerr. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 10:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - See #Speedy deletion nomination of Judy M. Kerr above. Jay 💬 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judy M. Kerr (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HitroMilanese were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not meeting WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Presented sources are either unreliable or WP:PRIMARY. Please see WP:RS.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Judy M. Kerr and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dmthompson! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]