Jump to content

User talk:Wenncesslas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Wenncesslas, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Tomanova (October 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Wenncesslas! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your experience Kylie Tastic; I have tired to address your crit. If you have a second, would you mind looking at the state the article is in and let me know what you think? The three last sections need to be expanded--as of now, they are simply placeholders--but the main section, with references, only needs a polish (imo). Wenncesslas (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Marie Tomanova has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marie Tomanova. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Marie Tomanova has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marie Tomanova. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Marie Tomanova has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marie Tomanova. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Theroadislong. I have tried to fix via your suggestions. If you have a moment to take a look, I'd love your input.
Warmly,
W Wenncesslas (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Wenncesslas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak,
Thank you for your input. I am a tad confused, as I am a newbie--I was going to take your advice and have page moved, but it seems like it was deleted. Can that be undone? Also, I am unclear what the conflict of interest is. Wenncesslas (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I looked at log and the fotograf cite you deleted as advertising was cited as from a Press Release. I thought that is how it should be done. I was simply citing from where I got the information. I intended to continue to edit and see if there was a link such as the one you provided, ironically. I am in no way associated, so unambiguous advertising is not happening. I would appreciate any help or guidance so get this page back and properly completed.
Thank you,
W
---- Wenncesslas (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the message above, I'll reply in detail later today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11
55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl

[edit]

Hi Megalibrarygirl,

I seem to have had some issues getting a bio on artist Marie Tomanova published and, in fact, it was deleted. It was suggested in a link that I contact any user on a list to get it moved or reinstated. Could you help me with that? And maybe give me some advice or guiadance?

Thank you,

W Wenncesslas (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I asked you if you had a COI because it's unusual for a newbie to attempt a full length biography as their first edit, without getting any editing experience unless they have an involvement with the subject of the article.

  • When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
  • Some of your text has no references, but you misunderstand the point of referencing, it's not appropriate to dump everything written about her as a source. Your sentence Like Young American, New York New York garnered international acclaim for its raw, straight forward images that celebrated the multiculturalism of New York City from the point of view of a Czech immigrant finding her way to the American dream. has no fewer than 11 references for what is only an opinion rather than an actual fact. There are other places where you have adopted a kitchen sink approach to referencing.
  • Sources need to be independent, reputable sources, but yours include interviews with her, press releases and reviews of her work. Her notability doesn't depend on what people think of her projects
  • Despite your plethora of low quality refs, it's hard to see how she meets the notability criteria linked above. AFC reviewer Theroadislong said reviewers will be looking for significant in-depth coverage of Tomanova in the sources, there is none here unfortunately so it seems that she does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST yet see WP:TOOSOON... they will need to pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST.
  • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
  • Your text is desperately short of real facts, but is padded out with cherry-picked reviews and quotations, including her talking about herself, hardly objective prose.
  • You present your own and other opinions as if they are real facts Her work focuses primarily on issues of identity and displacement. She first came to international attention with her first book, Young American [sic], which celebrates individuality and youth, particularly in regard to gender, sexuality, and self-expression... she found a much-needed creative outlet in photography... an attempt to see and understand herself as part of her new, unstable feeling environment... with her reputation as an artist becoming established... the success of her 2016 co-curated exhibition and similar window dressing without proper facts.
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
  • You had one or two, I've seen worse.
  • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
  • Although you can use attributed quotes for illustration, I think the extent to which you have doen so is excessive, especially as they seem to be promotional in intent You also uploaded a copyright image

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. If you are writing about yourself, or someone you know as a friend, colleague, client, employer or relative, you have a conflict of interest, and you must disclose the nature of that COI.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimfbleak,
Thank you for your attention and diligence, as well as for the detailed feedback. As a scholar writing a book on Eastern European photographers, your comment about your reasoning for a COI, i.e. that few attempt a long-ish article is taken as a compliment. While I am used to the peer-review process in academics, I am a tad concerned/confused by this Wiki experience so far and I have appreciated your help to follow protocol and get this published. My understanding is that I was submitting a working draft, not a final, and thus some things were going to be cleaned up. Of greater concern is the assertion of lack of notablilty, esp. not supported by reliable sources. My feeling is a personage with a NYT feature, the subject of an HBO documentary, and three monographs, and an international solo exhibiton record is enough evidence of notablility.
I will take a look at all of the links you have provided.
My main concern at this point is to get this undeleted, so that I may work on it. I reached out to one of the editors you linked, and I am waiting for a response.
I do not believe I understand the following, but I will go through the mateiral provided in order to get a grasp:
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
Thank you.
Warmly,
W
```` Wenncesslas (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A draft receives a degree of protection, but can still be deleted as, for example, promotion, copyright violation or an attack page. An external link is something like Vogue CS, which should not appear in the main text (looks like the wrong edition anyway...). A limited number of external links is permitted in a separate section, for example a link to her own official website Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I help you with the difference between peer review and Wikipedia, please. Though WP:ACADEME is aimed at our editors to help them work with, not against, expert editors, I think you may find it beneficial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Wenncesslas! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Adding categories or sections to living person bio such as "Early Life", has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Tomanova (October 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent 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:
You have a major problem wth references.

This is a prime example of multiple instances of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

It is impossible to review until we know which references you will choose
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.
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wenncesslas&oldid=1254588040"