User talk:EdLibris

EdLibris, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EdLibris! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GoingBatty (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Comics Grid has been accepted

The Comics Grid, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

— Bilorv (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Randykitty was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see WP:JWG on what is acceptable content in an article on an academic journal.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Randykitty, thank you very much indeed for reviewing the draft and for pointing us to WP:JWG, which was very helpful. I have done revisions accordingly including the conflict of interest declaration in my user page. (Regarding a previous inclusion of DOAJ, we had originally followed the example of Programming Historian, which includes it and did not seem to have caused any controversy. We are now aware you do not consider it evidence of notability so have limited the indexing services mentions to the ones recommeded. It would be ideal if published entries for other similar projects receive the same advice). We are not precious about the Esteem section but we suggest it provides evidence of Notability, but needless to say I defer to your experience. Thank you. --EdLibris (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I have a moment, I'll look at the Historian. In general, that something in a specific article doesn't cause any controversy does not say much. WP is a work in progress and with millions of articles, it will be clear that not all will be up to par (we call this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or, less reverently WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). I specialize in academic journal articles, but there are thousands of them and I can't possibly check all of them. So I concentrate on new articles and from time to time do a cleanup of an older article. In another 30 years I may have done them all... :-)) --Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Cheers. --EdLibris (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi EdLibris! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sandtalon (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you! Feel free to undo if you haven't already. Thanks. EdLibris (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]