User talk:Slowisfastwithcoffee

This is Slowisfastwithcoffee'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neil Seeman (December 16)

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

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:Neil Seeman 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.

Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I am new to this. I think this is very easy to address. I will try. Thank you. Slowisfastwithcoffee (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slowisfastwithcoffee! 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! Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neil Seeman has been accepted

Neil Seeman, 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!

Lopifalko (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lopifalko; I'm learning a lot as I get the hang of this. I am trying to dedicate myself to improving or adding Canadian authors who have made an impact (I'm Canadian and a big reader). Thank you Slowisfastwithcoffee (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds like a wonderful plan @Slowisfastwithcoffee. Happy editing, and ping if we an help with anything. Star Mississippi 14:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hi Slowisfastwithcoffee! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Neil Seeman 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. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kj cheetham -- that's really helpful to know. Thanks. I will be much more sensitive to that and note things accordingly as I get better at this. I was in fact thinking about exactly this in a very different context, with another author page where I found there was a very old allegation made by the biographee (against someone for stealing her idea). I then looked into it and it was more ages-old gossip, not a real lawsuit, and even then none of the claims on either side were supportive with citations I could find. So to even have it in there makes it look silly since it's not resolvable.

Do you have any links to help me learn about how to deal with unproven allegations of old quasi-legal controversies (i.e. controversies like an author claiming another author had stolen her work ... but where the controversy was just "she-said vs. she-said" and there was nothing ever resolved since it was never considered important by the media or courts? I imagine it's difficult too since perhaps a lot of legal records on topics like this are resolved by private settlement.

Thanks (I know this is a hard detail question; don't worry if you don't know... I'll have to self-educate). Slowisfastwithcoffee (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to get into specifics, but a key policy on Wikipedia is WP:VERIFY. All content must be verifiable. It's sometimes better to say things like "Source X reported Y", rather than something closer to "Y is true". WP:RS is worth a look about sources in general. Also very important when dealing with biographies of living persons is WP:BLP, which also says Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Hope this helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is *really helpful*; thanks. Best wishes for the holiday season, and happy New Year! Slowisfastwithcoffee (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sometimes content needs discussing on the article's talk page before added too. You may also wish to seek help from WP:TEAHOUSE if you get stuck. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you Slowisfastwithcoffee (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! I should also add, if you're interested in authors in general on here, WP:NAUTHOR is worth a look at too, for what counts as notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]