User talk:KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...Draft:Jennifer Zilm (draft) Hi there! I have been working on a draft entry for Jennifer Zilm. This poet already is listed in another Wikipedia entry on the "Pat Lowther Award." I am struggling with why the editors who have reviewed the draft so far feel that the subject is not notable, and that it sounds like an advertisement. All of the sources included in the draft are reputable literary, public journals and magazines in Canada. This poet has been cited or reviewed by well known journals like The Walrus and the Canadian Literary Review, as well as by the League of Canadian Poets. There are many Canadian poets with less documentation who have Wikipedia entries (e.g. "Matthew Tierney" just to provide one example). So my questions would be: 1. Why is Matthew Tierney notable, but not Jennifer Zilm? (Tierney's entry in fact has no citations at all !) 2. Why is the Zilm entry said to sound like an "advertisement"? I guess I am wondering if the problem here is that Canadian poetry is a very tiny specialized area, and is it possible that the editors who have reviewed this entry are not familiar with the field? Thanks so much for any assistance you can provide. KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have offered seem to be brief mentions of the subject. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject. It's fine to cite something saying this person received an award, but that is not in depth coverage that establishes that this poet meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable creative professional. Reviews of her work might merit her works an article, but not herself.

Other articles should not be cited as a reason for yours to exist, please see other stuff exists. It is very possible that those articles are problematic as well- as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...draft: Jennifer Zilm The most current rejection of this draft stated that “Tone of the article needs to be fixed - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)" I am still not clear how the tone of the article needs correcting (how could it be corrected?) How does it sound like an advertisement? The previous rejection stated "I did a search for Jennifer Zilm and couldn't come up with any of the traditional references for authors -- for example, Publishers Weekly. I think it's either too soon or a statement on how difficult it is for poets to get coverage. Particularly poets who have been published by independents. JSFarman (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)”

Thanks in advance for your help! KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before they got clobbered, I was able to read your quotes from those reviews. You should not upload extended quotes of copyrighted material to Wikipedia.

I agree that they are more than inconsequential mentions but I'm not sure they are sufficient to establish notability for the poet. Here's the explanation: in most cases, reviews of a work tend to help establish the notability of the work but not necessarily the notability of the writer. It depends on how the review handles things and when it treats largely of the work at hand rather than any sort of biographical information about the writer, it will be seen as falling into this category.

Sometimes these rules seem to be terribly unfair, I know, but the unfairness reflects that way the sources treat subjects rather than a sign that Wikipedia's very general but strict rules for notability work with an intentional bias. For more information about this, you could look at Systemic bias. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...draft: Jennifer Zilm My thanks to earlier editors who have answered my questions about this draft.

I'm still struggling with specifics. Is there a talk group that specifically addresses systemic bias in having draft entries moved to the main space? I'm trying to improve this draft entry on Zilm so that it can be moved into the main space. I have a PhD in English literature, with a specialty in poetics.

I believe that Zilm is notable, and that I have found substantive sources (not just reviews) that indicate this, including awards nominations and references in well known popular magazines. These aren't necessarily found online.

Zilm is a younger female poet. Poetry is poorly represented in Wikipedia. I've done a little searching for analogous Canadian female poets. For example Catherine Owen and Priscilla Uppal.

I note that both of these entries, although now in the main space, are flagged for "sounding like an advertisement" and for "notability." I find this really frustrating, as both of these poets are notable, in my experience as a literary scholar. They are both not only well regarded in the literary academic community, but also in the popular poetry community.

So I feel I've hit a wall. Is there a space within Wikipedia where under-represented new editors (I'm a woman) and topics about under-represented subjects (women, poetry, fewer online/'popular' links/resources) can find more specialized assistance?

Thanks in advance for your help -- merci! KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karen. The {help me} method would catch attention of few editors. I would suggest you asking the question on WP:TEAHOUSE. It is a venue similar to a forum, and you would get many suggestions there. They would also point you to some other talk page(s) with speciality of the field that you are working with. I will keep your request open, so that some other editor can also give their opinion. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karen! Hope you're well. Writing articles is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia for editors of any level of experience, doubly so when the subject is from marginalized groups. I want to be thorough, so I'll list out your questions. Please feel free to let me know what I've missed.

Is there a talk group that specifically addresses systemic bias in having draft entries moved to the main space?

Several. Off the top of my head, I can think of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Wikipedia:Art+Feminism focuses on in-person meetups (in better times, alas), but you may find their ambassadors helpful (and their resources, some of which are hidden, like Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks#Other WikiProjects). The first two deal with systemic bias on Wikipedia more broadly but can help with the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

Zilm is notable

You probably already know this, but I like to cover all my bases, so please bear with me! What Wikipedia means when it says "Notable" differs from usual, everyday definition. "Notable" means "meets our criteria for inclusion". I find the summary over at WP:42 most helpful.

These [sources] aren't necessarily found online.

That is totally fine! Please give us as much information you have about the source (author, title, page numbers, quote, publisher, publication date...). As long as we can theoretically go into the appropriate libraries and find it, you can use it! Cite it just as you would any source in a paper. :)

I've done a little searching for analogous Canadian female poets.

Just a tangent, but English Wikipedia has over six million articles. Most serve as poor examples. I tried looking for Good Articles (GA) or Featured Articles (FA) of women writers from Canada and found Margaret Atwood. Of course, a younger poet will have a different article than Atwood's, but you can take a look at the sources used and the article structure to get an idea of what you're shooting for under ideal circumstances. I'm sure I could find a few more good examples if I checked the artists categories, maybe. GAs and FAs go through a review process, so the quality tends to be better (at least when the reviewer promoted the article).

Just a bit on the side: finding the right sources in my experience makes quite the challenge and takes some adapting to. I'm not very familiar with thesis writing (beyond poor grad students joking about it), but you can draw from a variety of sources, primary, secondary, or even tertiary, eh? Wikipedia's much stricter about sources: in-depth coverage from sources with editorial oversight and that are independent of the subject. We can only summarize what those sources say without synthesizing them or adding our own original research. Anything else will see very limited use, if at all. As you can see, sometimes that ends up compounding existing systemic biases.

I wish I could do more, but I hope you found whatever info I did provide helpful. Good luck! Merci beaucoup, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Zilm has been accepted

Jennifer Zilm, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

MapleSoy (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues! Thank you for your contributions. I am MapleSoy and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MapleSoy (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Emily McGiffin concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Emily McGiffin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Emily McGiffin

Hello, KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Emily McGiffin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Heather Heying has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Heather Heying. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help! entry for "Heather Heying"

hi all, thanks in advance for your help! I received feedback from robert mcclenon on this article I drafted, but I can't even figure out how to respond to him in this hall of mirrors. He has said that the subject does not fulfill "academic notability" but to consider "general notability." I feel this subject, "Heather Heying," has substantial "general notability" but not necessarily via standard sources. Her husband ("Brett Weinstein") has had an entry confirmed, and I'm confident she has equal notability, but what exactly do I need to do to confirm this in the article itself? Thanks so much for advice :) KarenDaltonSingsTheBlues (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Heather Heying has been accepted

Heather Heying, 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 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Blue portrait medium.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Blue portrait medium.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) 06:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]