User talk:Dosidoremi

Welcome!

Hi Dosidoremi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edcolins thank you! Dosidoremi (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Edcolins (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dosidoremi! 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! -- NotCharizard 🗨 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Richard Matzner has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Richard Matzner. Thanks! StarryGrandma (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment--- I appreciate the guidance as I am new to contributing to wikipedia. I want to improve the article, as you suggest, but is there a particular section that is more offensive, or just a few words here and there throughout? Perhaps I did not sufficiently de-bias in paraphrasing from the various sources, but I am a bit confused as to how these sources are less independent than what is typically found on scientists who are not conventionally famous (though have contributed important work). I did not avoid any references, in fact, I used everything reasonable I could find. I am grateful for the reference you found that I missed however--- are you suggesting I use this in addition, or rather replace this with some particular part that you do not think is from an appropriate source? Sorry to ask for more detail, but I acknowledge and appreciate guidance, and I don't want to misinterpret what you have said. Dosidoremi (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost no one who starts editing here has ever written for an encyclopedia before or knows what an encyclopedia article about a currently living person should look like. All the sources you have, except for papers he has written, are written as public-relations style profiles. Faculty profiles at universities are written by the PR departments these days and the same for award society profiles. So its not surprising that just taking the material directly ends up sounding like them. For one way to approach writing an article see User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher.The requirements he must meet (at least one of) are given by WP:NPROF. The article needs to be a narrative about what he did and how he developed as a researcher in chronological order, not just a list of accomplishments of varying degrees of importance. Focus on the physics that he did, since his impact on his fields is the reason for there being an article about him. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've written/edited my fair share of glossary-type resources, but you're right that they've never been about people! I'm focused more on the science/math/philosophy/history content in general. I will try to amend the language to make the verbs more bland-- less like the ones a PR person might use. To be honest, this is a recalibration since I thought I was doing that to some degree, but this goes to your point of the pervasiveness of this kind of language, to include Wikipedia. So I thank you for your feedback and resource links. However, I think the characterization of resources here is a bit unfair, and you are overlooking several that are neither profiles nor papers where the subject is an author-- for example, the Nobel Prize resources. In fact those made me realize this part of history wasn't sufficiently documented here. The subject and the BBH Grand Challenge Alliance, which I also created a page for and which Thorne spends a decent amount of time talking about in his speech/paper, have certainly been of sufficient impact based on my understanding of WP:NPROF. I think its also notable that a scientist/professor who did serious research also spent a fair amount of their career in public service. This is unfortunately not so common, thus I hope you are suggesting to just re-write/paraphrase that section, rather than remove it? I'm afraid I press further upon your generous guidance, but again, I don't want to misinterpret it. I greatly appreciate your review, which is helping me learn to be better here. Dosidoremi (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gwen Rudie (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Gwen Rudie 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Matzner has been accepted

Richard Matzner, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Gwen Rudie

Hello, Dosidoremi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gwen Rudie, 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, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gwen Rudie

Hello, Dosidoremi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Gwen Rudie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)