User talk:Taraxacum44

Welcome!

Hi, Taraxacum44. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxacum44, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Taraxacum44!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Lyward

I have written an extensively expanded article on the educationalist and psychotherapist George Lyward* (3400 words) based on and including the one that is currently there (750 words). This being such a major change I did not want to just plonk it in there without any warning and thought I should run it by a senior editor first. Can you advise me please ? Many thanks.

George Lyward Taraxacum44 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:Help desk#Extensive replacement text for existing entry. In future, please post your question in the one best place you can figure out. If nothing happens after a suitable interval (at least 24 hours in most cases), you may consider posting somewhere else. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved draft

Hi, I've moved your sandbox draft into the draft name space, which is the preferred location for pending drafts. You can now find it at Draft:John Killick (writer). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the speedy response ! Taraxacum44 (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Lyward

Hallo Taraxacum44 (or should I call you Dandelion?), thanks for all your work on George Lyward. I created a very basic stub back in 2012 after hearing the Great Lives episode. I see that in my initial edit summary I didn't say so but said "add further reading - scope to expand article greatly": I must have forgotten that I hadn't yet saved any version of the article, as I usually make a note of why I started the article, in the first edit summary. I was certainly aware that there was much more to be written about this interesting person, but hoped that the basic content I'd added, together with the references, further reading, and external links, gave a good starting point. It's great to see someone with real knowledge adding more references and expanding the article in a well-sourced way. Thanks.

A couple of little points: there shouldn't be a space before a reference, or between references, and Wikipedia doesn't use "curly" or "slanted" quotes/apostrophes. I've done a bit of copy-editing on those two counts, added a few links, and expanded on the listed building stuff (also added the Finchden Manor redirect to Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Kent and Category:Grade II* listed houses, while I was about it.)

I see above that you asked at the Helpdesk about just overwriting the existing article with your new version: thanks for not doing so but improving it incrementally based on the existing content. Happy Editing! PamD 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam,

--- should I call you Dandelion? --- I'd prefer Norman !

How great to hear from the creator of the original stub. That was me on the Great Lives programme along with Tom Robinson. Thanks so much for the encouragement and the formatting tips. In fact I am working now on fixing the references so they work properly (different page nums for the same reference). Figured out how to do this using the Source Editor. Should go live with the improved version today or tomorrow.

Yes I have wanted to expand the article for some time but struggled to assemble enough published sources. Lyward never wrote his magnum opus despite good intentions.(This is a whole fascinating story in itself). But I have a reasonable set now. His research assistant died a while ago and her husband passed on to me a treasure trove - a box of the background material she collected in her attempt to help G.L. write The Book (and an Autobiography) back in the 60s. And then a big help came in in 2019, when Alan Wendelken's widow published his (unvarnished!) account of life as a boy and then a staff member at Finchden.

Some the Finchden 'Old Boys' run a Facebook page, and I am very much looking forward to telling them the expanded entry is now available.

Best wishes,

Norman Alm Taraxacum44 (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Norman,

Good to hear from you, and how interesting that you were on the Great Lives programme!

I see that you've reshaped all the refs into a variation of the standard "sfn" system but some time when I'm not just editing on my phone I'll restore two elements of the original ref formatting: using {{NHLE}} which future-proofs against any rearrangement of their database and using {{ISBN}} which makes a clickable link to provide access to info about any book. There's a policy somewhere about retaining original choice of citation style.

Technically you've probably got a Conflict of interest in Wikipedia's terms, but so have many subject experts, I suspect. As long as everything is neutral and well-sourced, all should be well. PamD 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the references, was puzzled by The New Era, and am falling into the rabbit hole of wondering whether the World Education Fellowship formerly New Education Fellowship, with its journal of varying title over the years but currently New Era in Education, is notable enough for an article. It's a red link in Beatrice Ensor already, with the journal mentioned as Education for the New Era. I think perhaps I'll put it in my heap of "Possible article ideas", as I have other stuff I ought to be getting on with today. ... Done: User:PamD/sandbox#World_Education_Fellowship_/_New_Education_Fellowship

It's a pity that the copies of the New Era papers on John Whitwell's site don't make any mention of the journal, because without it they look like random essays on a bloggish personal website, and someone might question whether they are reliable sources. It would be good to find an online source connecting author and title to the rest of the bibliographic info - Whitwell doesn't give a date or any other info. PamD 16:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted in the "Copyrights" section of https://www.newera.ijkie.org/about-the-journal/ that "Authors can allow others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.", so the publication on JW's website, with no such acknowledgement, is an infringement of those terms! Ah well. PamD 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again,

Thanks for all the help with this. I have an actual hard copy of the New Era journal if that can be of use. And I see that the Finchden Manor website has reprinted three of the New Era articles, along with the cover and the title page. May I should switch the links for those three to that site. Just leaving one from the Whitwell site.

More anon !

Norman Taraxacum44 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that page is excellent: I'd be inclined to include it, as well as the specific links to the papers, because it supplies the bibliographic info for the refs. The very fact that the magazine produced a special issue about GL is probably also worth a mention! PamD 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Killick (writer) (May 21)

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

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.

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:John Killick (writer) 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.

thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taraxacum44! 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! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Your edit to A Confederacy of Dunces has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa,

OK - there are several summaries of the plot out there. I thought I had put the synopsis in my own words well enough but will have another go. I think the last para of the current entry does not do this wonderful book justice being just a general reference to subsequent incidents in the book.

Many thanks,

Taraxacum44 Taraxacum44 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:John Killick (writer)

Hello, Taraxacum44. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Killick (writer), 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) 01:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]