User talk:Lidia Pita

This is Lidia Pita's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your question about me, the entry editor: I am not paid to develop this or any entry on wikipedia (I don't understand why you thought that ???); I know and study the work of the psychologist Vera Felicidade. I am the editor of the entry on Vera Felicidade Almeida Campos in Portuguese (Wikipedia.pt) which has been published since 2012. I saw that Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos is on the list "Women in Red/Missing Articles in english" and from that I decided to do this English entry with changes to the article published on the Portuguese Wikipedia that were requested in 8 interventions (from Wikipedia's editors) during this week and that helped me to improve the final result. All demands were met and the article was accepted and published. I hope I have answered your question and I await the publication of the entry.

Project Women in Red/Missing Articles - psychologists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Psychologists Lidia Pita (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions

In the infobox, for date of birth, it says . It probably isn't obvious to a new editor, but what this means is:

This is a comment to editors, not to readers (the " marks it out as a hidden comment
Then it means "enter the birth date using the {{birth date}} template"
And goes on to point out that the month, date, year, should be entered as 2, 2 and 4 digits respectively

So rather than typing "08, 18, 1942" (which, as I pointed out above, is not an acceptable date format in any circumstances - not least because 08, 10, 1942 could be read as a date in either August or October), you need to take away the "comment" markup and use the template, ie leaving it as , which displays as (08-06-1942)June 1942, 8 invalid month invalid day. .... Aaargh this isn't working. The birth date template info was wrong.

Going back into this (why am I wasting so much time on this article?), I see that the infobox was added in this edit, where you misunderstood how to input the birth date and added it beside the commented out version of the template. But at that point the template said . So you should have typed , which displays as (1942-08-18)August 18, 1942. At some point later you or another editor changed the instruction inside the comment, to make it wrong. I've had enough. Please take care with your edits, don't meddle with code you don't understand: ask questions if need be, but then listen to the answers and edit carefully. Goodbye. PamD 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist following up on this: it was in this edit that you changed the instruction in the infobox, but ignored it anyway. What a mess. I've fixed it.

And you don't use an infobox to add a photo to an article. I've fixed that.

The way to add a URL to an infobox was explained just as the way to add a birth date was, but as you didn't understand it I've fixed that, too: now you have a clickable link in the infobox, but without the "http://" either. PamD 19:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD PamD Please receive my sincere apologies for the confusion with the date format, infobox etc. I am not just giving justification, but I was exhausted with a lot of work these days at my workplace and underestimated the importance of studying the formatting and coding of wikipedia articles. No excuses!

I mainly want to thank you for your edits on the Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos article and for all the instructions you have given me since the first contact.

And finally, just today I looked at your UserPage and was impressed with the quantity and quality of your work on Wikipedia English! As a reader I thank you, and I admire those who, like you, work dilettantly for the democratization of culture. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey and I hope I've helped you along the way. Happy Editing! PamD 06:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD You certainly helped a lot. Thanks and regards. From now on I await the final review and hope the article will be moved to mainspace. I came to this by looking at the Women in Red Project (Campos is on the psychologists list) which I think is an excellent project. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos (August 2)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Works that the subject took part in the publishing of can not be used as sources. Please use significant coverage from independent and reliable sources instead. This is a place to have an encyclopedic summary of her for the general public, please do not dedicate too much texts to elaborate on the technicalities of her research, theories and works. Include sources to show that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC, and include sources of details such as date of birth.

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:Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos 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.

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tutwakhamoe, yes it is extremely frustrating to have the article rejected. I worked very hard to make this article good for publication on Wikipedia, I had help from about 8 senior editors who generously dialogued and collaborated with me 4 months ago and approved this result (content and form) and since this date we were waiting for the final approval. But worse than being frustrating for me is the fact that the information about the author's work will not be available in English language on Wikipedia. Dr. Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos has a great influence on psychology in Brazil, there is a subject at the University, in the psychology department, which bears her name in the title, for example, and the initiative to make an entry in Wikipedia English was in Wikipedia itself: she is on the Women in Red Project list and it was when I saw her name on this list that I decided to do the article. It is a pity that the article will not be published! Lidia Pita (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lidia Pita! 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! Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tutwakhamoe, yes it is extremely frustrating to have the article rejected. I worked very hard to make this article good for publication on Wikipedia, I had help from about 8 senior editors who generously dialogued and collaborated with me 4 months ago and approved this result (content and form) and since this date we were waiting for the final approval. But worse than being frustrating for me is the fact that the information about the author's work will not be available in English language on Wikipedia. Dr. Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos has a great influence on psychology in Brazil, there is a subject at the University, in the psychology department, which bears her name in the title, for example, and the initiative to make an entry in Wikipedia English was in Wikipedia itself: she is on the Women in Red Project list and it was when I saw her name on this list that I decided to do the article. It is a pity that the article will not be published Lidia Pita (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too have some of the articles that I spent considerable time creating got draftified by other editors, so I can understand your feeling right now. But any review need to abide by the established rules, and at this point the draft is too reliant on self-published materials. Please understand that even if I have accepted the draft then, without fixing the issue the article would have been tagged for improvement or even nominated for deletion by other editors. Sources don't need to be in English, reviewers can use Google Translate to review citations in other languages. Since the subject is an expert, her works can be cited under WP:RSSELF, but an article where about 3/4 of the citations are self-published is not really appropriate. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutwakhamoe I will follow your suggestion, thank you. Lidia Pita (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos has been accepted

Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos, 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.

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!

Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong I greatly appreciate your action, words, and acceptance of the article; I am confident that the English-speaking reader interested in the history of psychology will benefit from this information and openness to expanded study. All the editors who dialogued with me were courteous and contributed in a fundamental way to the final result. Thank you again! Lidia Pita (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]