User talk:NoelineKyle

Welcome

G'day NoelineKyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email help@wikimedia.org.au.

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your user page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Article titles

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Oronsay (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patricia Downes Chomley has been accepted

Patricia Downes Chomley, 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!

Laplorfill (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note

Many new biographies have missing country/state/city identification in the talk page project tags - just a small note has been partially fixed... More bios please! - good work! JarrahTree 07:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Mary Kirkpatrick moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Nurse Mary Kirkpatrick, 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. Reading Beans (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Nurse Mary Kirkpatrick

Hello, NoelineKyle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nurse Mary Kirkpatrick, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Kirkpatrick (nurse) (April 28)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Can you please improve the clarity of the references? Most of the lead section does not have footnotes - can you provide some? The letter is cited "a letter to the author in May 1978" - we can't use this, as it has not been published, unless it's in one of the books cited here, in which case please cite that. Footnotes like "Immigration Records, SS Cambodia, 4 April 1884" - please provide a link to the information online if possible, and/or cite a secondary source for this. etc. For formatting the footnotes, there are some very useful automatic tools that can do most of the templating for you (check your Preferences --> Gadgets). Feel free to ask on my Talk page if you need help or have questions about citation norms on Wikipedia.

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:Mary Kirkpatrick (nurse) 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.

asilvering (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NoelineKyle! 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! asilvering (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, I'm the one who just declined the article above (sorry about that). Are you aware of the Women in Red wikiproject? That is another good place to ask for help with biographical articles on women. Experienced editors there are always happy to help less experienced editors adapt to Wikipedia's various formatting, referencing, and notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am an historian and have written and had published many books. I find Wikipedia extremely awkward as there seems no real academic reason for the decisions made but mostly based on a complicated method of determining provenance etc. i am highly experienced re referencing indeed have written a book about that same topic, but referencing for printed books certainly seem very different to Wikipedia. I am aware that you seem to prefer a website instead of say an informal reference such as a letter or an email or such which are quite common in writing publications especially re women who are the hardest of all to find information on. I also know about RED but am quite happy to muddle on my own. I attended one workshop re Wikipedia and found it to be useless as it seemed to focus on writing which is not my problem. My problem is working out your convoluted, long and extremely confusing rules!!!

Cheers

Professor Noeline Kyle ,

University of Sydney NoelineKyle (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I suggested going to Women in Red - people there are very familiar with the extremely confusing rules, and very happy to help! We're especially keen to bring down this particular barrier to editing. The more historians who are working on this project, the better. I suggest the citation gadgets because they've been developed to take most of the work out for you - basically, you can drop an ISBN or URL in there and not only will it format it correctly, it will add various working URLs to Worldcat, Google Books, and so on. I believe they're based on Zotero.

The principle behind "no informal references" is WP:V, verifiability, and WP:OR, on no "original research". The idea is that Wikipedia will say what published, secondary sources say. Archival material, interviews, and so on, are what historians writing those secondary sources use, but we want the references on Wikipedia to be something that anyone reading Wikipedia could theoretically follow up on. No one can follow up on an email to Noeline Kyle to make sure that Wikipedia was reporting its content correctly - unless, of course, you write it up in something that is published. Then, they can. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Hollywood Private Hospital Kempsey.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hollywood Private Hospital Kempsey.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding File:Hollywood Private Hospital Kempsey.jpg

Hi! I'm looking at the file now, and I see that it got tagged by a bot for lacking licensing information. This is because the licensing/public domain information for the file is not machine-readable. I'd be more than happy to convert the information you've provided into something machine-readable for you. To do so, I just need one more piece of information: do you have the approximate date that the photograph was taken? If you don't have the exact date, are you able to let me know if the photograph was taken before 1 January 1955?

Happy editing!

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The photo of Hollywood Private Hospital was taken between 1913 (when Nurse Kirkpatrick first rented it for her new hospital) to 1916 when she left to open another hospital elsewhere. I would guess it was around c.1913-14 as the front has no actual street but is just a stretch of grassed earth. The nurses in the front yard indicates it was still being used as a hospital. The actual house was built in the same year as Nurse Kirkpatrick opened her private hospital there. (a ref for it at: Patricia Riggs A Portrait of Kempsey, Robert Brown & Associates, Bathurst, 1988, p.8 ISBN 0949267376

Thanks for agreeing to fix this for me. I must admit the idea of having a bot tell me to somehow fix it made me think I would just delete it and leave it at that. If you can do something that would be great.

The image is from a collection from the Macleay River Historical Society (Kempsey Museum) and they give me permission to use it also. After the photographer Angus McNeil died somebody took all of his precious glass negatives and was taking them to the local tip. Another good citizen rescued them and took them to the Kempsey Museum and over the years volunteers have scanned the glass negatives and they are now available at the museum to search and purchase for. researchers

Noeline NoelineKyle (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you getting back so quickly! I've made a fix on the file page; the file should no longer get deleted by the bot. I do admit that the image upload process is a bit byzantine and in need of modernization, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any questions going forward, feel free to leave me a message on my user talk page—I'm more than happy to help :)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am at an age, I am 82, where although I am computer literate (I worked as an academic) I am totally unable to deal with the pages and pages of notes and rules when I go to a help page!! It is partly that as I age I am losing my tolerance for such things and also partly perhaps a symptom of someone who thinks they know a lot having to deal with things they know very little.

I shall be in touch when I falter again. I am putting up NSW nurses and midwives who took leadership roles and were extraordinary for their times, for colleagues of mine who are volunteers at the College of Nursing Archives in Sydney. So it is my job as for my sins I am seen as more computer literate than they are....ha ha

Cheers

Noeline NoelineKyle (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Georgina McCready, from its old location at User:NoelineKyle/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 05:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I have no idea what you mean, and I can't find my article anywhere in a space called...Articles for Creation???? So you have moved my draft but where to< and why?// Was it wrong? Was it not suitable? I can't find the placed titled Draft Namespace as it simply doesn't tell me anything??/

Cheers Noeline, sorry to be so obtuse, but I am am bamboozled every time I press publish?? NoelineKyle (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoelineKyle: Your draft is at Draft:Georgina McCready - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 06:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georgina McCready (June 17)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

While offline sources are acceptable, they must be cited in a way which makes it possible to locate and verify them; see WP:OFFLINE for advice. (Please also try to provide online versions where available.)

Furthermore, it would be very helpful if there was some indication as to what the sources say, and what depth and extent of coverage they provide.

Due to the sparse referencing, there is also quite a lot of content which clearly isn't supported by the sources – where is all this information coming from?

As it stands, I am unable to verify much of this, and therefore unable to ascertain notability, and consequently have no option but to decline at this time.

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:Georgina McCready 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina McCready

McCready is obviously notable, so I linked the ADB entry and resubmitted and accepted the draft for you. I'm not at all sure what the previous reviewer meant by sparse referencing, as there is lots here, but for future articles, here are some suggestions:

avoid archival sources as much as possible, and use them only for basic facts; if you do use one, it's best if the item is digitized. The idea is that readers need to be able to verify them, which is quite difficult for most people if the source is an unpublished item in a box somewhere in Australia.
separate your sources rather than combining them in a footnote. This might be what DoubleGrazing meant by "sparse". If a paragraph all comes from one source, it's fine to just stick one footnote on the end of the paragraph. But when you're using multiple sources, it's very helpful if you can be more specific about what comes from where. This makes it much easier for other editors to come in and add or edit the biography without doing damage to the attributions.
for the same reason, please avoid "op cit" and so on. If someone comes by later and rearranges the article these can be difficult to disentangle.
please give specific page numbers for the parts of the books you're using, especially if they're print-only.

By the way, if you're using Visual Editor (the WYSIWYG one, not the source code editor), there should be a "cite" button at the top (or you can press ctrl+shift+k). This can automatically generate references for you if you have the ISBN, doi, or URL. That's how I reformatted the ADB citation for you. imo this makes it much easier to add links and so forth, which makes AfC reviewers happy. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hah, I see I've already mentioned the citation gadgets regarding another one of your drafts. Sorry! You are of course welcome to use them as much or as little as you like. But AfC reviewers will be much reassured by URLs, when they're available. :) -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support , all these people contacting me is driving me a bit mad...ha ha NoelineKyle (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catherine Tully (July 25)

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

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:

I can't find most of this information in the sources provided - for example, the last paragraph has a footnote that only verifies "welcomed into the sub-branch of the Returned Sailor's Soldier's Airmen's Imperial League of Australia", not anything else. If there are secondary sources available with this info, she's probably notable. If this info is in primary sources only (eg archival documents), I don't think she's likely to qualify for a standalone article. You might be able to make an article on the 20 nurses who received the 1914 star, if they're notable "as a group"?

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:Catherine Tully 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.

asilvering (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is a good point. I kindof got carried away with the websites, and will in future make sure there are secondary sources. But I don't think I can do all of the 20 nurses? thanks for the quick response. I will take your comments into account when I do any more. cheers NoelineKyle (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Kirkpatrick (nurse) has been accepted

Mary Kirkpatrick (nurse), 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!

scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Noeline 🌹 49.189.112.242 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judith Cornell (September 12)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia requires referencing and in-line citations for biographies, more than what is currently provided. Reliable sources with independent coverage needed to demonstrate the notability of the subject, which has not yet been accomplished.

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:Judith Cornell 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.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Judith Cornell has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Judith Cornell. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judith Cornell (October 8)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Judith Cornell 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.

Greenman (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Catherine Tully

Hello, NoelineKyle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Catherine Tully, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Judith Cornell

Hello, NoelineKyle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Judith Cornell, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]