User talk:Libby norman
- 1 Interview for The Signpost
- 2 Muijen
- 3 Request on 16:48:36, 23 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 184.108.40.206
- 4 Peach basket hat
- 5 A kitten for you!
- 6 Reverted
- 7 A page you started (Tam (women's hat)) has been reviewed!
- 8 Elizabeth Handley-Seymour
- 9 11:26:44, 4 May 2015 review of submission by 220.127.116.11
- 10 Ollie(cat)
- 11 18:23:36, 28 May 2015 review of submission by Asiainitiatives
- 12 Edward Rayne picture may have an issue - suggested alternative.
- 13 Orphaned non-free image File:Edward Rayne.jpg
- 14 Per Holknekt
- 15 Review of Catherine Havasi article
- 16 AFC rationale
- 17 Thanks for help with Catherine Havasi article
- 18 Draft for Eugene T. Simpson
- 19 References
- 20 Thanks for approving my contribution!
- 21 18:30:02, 14 August 2015 review of submission by 18.104.22.168
- 22 DYK for Eugénie hat
- 23 Wickstrom's Identity
- 24 A kitten for you!
- 25 Peter Russell
- 26 Review of Catherine Havasi
- 27 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 28 Request independent review of draft
Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 10:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi this is Muijen - feel free to edit and make changes to any and all the pages I started - that is the point of wikipedia anyone can change things! Feel free to add remove anything! As far as I read on wiki site; if you flag it Wikipedia will delete the page. If they do, in that case you might have to start a brand new page. Now that they trying to merge the Nature Reserve he worked so hard on to establish is going to be sold to a water company - I think it is good that the wiki site is available to English speakers as well. Hope you can make the time to make the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muijen (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ready for you to check again:)
- Responded on Speicer1212's talk page – hopefully right place. Libby norman (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peach basket hat, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.quidecco.com/cgi-bin/cgi_ref_by_path/referer/http_3a_2f_2fen.wikipedia.org_2fw_2findex.php_3ftitle_3dUser_3aLibby_5fnorman_2fsandbox_26amp;ampcurid_3d39465926_26amp;ampdiff_3d618146307_26amp;ampoldid_3d618145968/url/http_3a_2f_2fen.wikipedia.org_2fw_2findex.php_3ftitle_3dUser_3aLibby_5fnorman_2fsandbox_26amp;amp;ampcurid_3d39465926_26amp;amp;ampdiff_3d618146307_26amp;amp;ampoldid_3d618145968/.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bot removed from page, had picked up test version of article on my sandbox. Libby norman (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your message. They are trying to give "goois natuur reservaat" that he helped create away to a Dutch water winning corporation. I wanted to translate some of the information in Englsh to raise awareness internationally.
Although I have never added anythign to wikipedia and I am kind of new to this. The Dutch paper wrote a call to action to have people add information about heritage and translate it and add it....
Thanks for your suggestions - hope you like the picture!
A page you started (Tam (women's hat)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tam (women's hat), Libby norman!
Wikipedia editor Jbhunley just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Very nice article.
To reply, leave a comment on Jbhunley's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi Libby Norman! Just written up an article on Handley-Seymour and thought I'd drop you a line to see if you fancied adding any content of your own or would be willing to take a quick look through it to see if I made any errors or mistakes before I nominate it for Did You Know?. Best, Mabalu (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
11:26:44, 4 May 2015 review of submission by 22.214.171.124
My goal is to be consistent with the pages for OKCupid and match.com -- same density of cites, same walk of the line between fact and advertising. I thought the initial draft met that standard, but the reviewer disagreed. I hope the redraft gets there, if not could you be a bit more specific in the diagnosis? Thank you.
I have no affiliation with The Right Stuff (other than being a member, and hoping to suggest membership to a few new females in Boston).
Thanks Libby --
The NY Magazine ad is a verifiable source for the two historical facts it's cited for, that the company advertised in NY Magazine 20 years ago, and targeted specific universities. Seems like exactly the right thing, true? (I'm a lawyer -- it's common that I can use a specific item of evidence to show one fact, but can't use that same evidence an hour later to show a different fact.)
References 1 and 2 are an alumni magazine for Dartmouth students and alums -- just reporting, right?
I don't understand your request that I look at WP:CITEFOOT -- I did, and that specific section of the page asks that I use < r e f > and < / r e f > which I've done. Elsewhere on the same cites page, it's recommended to use cites to google books -- which I've done. Can you explain further?
Most of my external links are to permanent archives, like Google books, or long-stable archives of magazines, Not all, but most. Where there are cites to ephemeral links, that's intentional, because the article describes current (and evolving) state of the world. What would you recommend?
That was the help I needed. Thank you. David
Hiya, thanks for your review, the articles I found are the only ones mentioning her. She is popular die to her appearance on chat shows esecially Ellen. She is a regular part of Ricky's life. What do you suggest I do regarding articles? Thank you. Adyoo3 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
18:23:36, 28 May 2015 review of submission by Asiainitiatives
Hi Libby, Thank you for your helpful review. I have shortened the article and made a few amendments, as per your recommendation. Please let me know if you would be willing to have a look at it again. As we are a very small organization, and we haven't been written about in detail.
Edward Rayne picture may have an issue - suggested alternative.
I think there are probably issues with using the current image because it includes another identifiable person (Vivien Leigh). Probably best to use another image that shows Edward Rayne more directly - I've uploaded this one which I think is of good enough quality, full-face and no scope for confusion. I lightly edited it to take out the text around the face to avoid visual distraction. What do you think? Mabalu (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Mabalu, I think you are right on this. I did consider the issue of showing two people, but wondered if we would get away with it because both subjects are deceased and the source is Rayne's website. I even tried cropping Leigh out but the picture just looked weird, especially as the pot plant positioning behind his head isn't great. Importantly, a full-face would be more in the spirit of a 'fair use' – and better ID, which is useful for the article's value as his physical characteristics were so often remarked on (Sergeant Bilko, etc). This is better than anything else I've seen (the only other usable image I found was English Bridge Union and that was clearly scanned from somewhere else and of very poor quality). Definitely replace and thank you for finding the image. I'm hoping to write up Rayne the company over the course of this week.
- By the way, great article on Elizabeth Handley-Seymour – another important female designer who deserves a Wiki page and I never knew a thing about her. Sorry I missed it but I was out of operation pretty much throughout March/April and it somehow slipped off my radar. I'll see if I can add, although it looks very well sourced – did you already nominate it for DYK? Libby norman (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Edward Rayne.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Edward Rayne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Review of Catherine Havasi article
I created the Catherine Havasi draft. I see you're reviewing it. There were a couple objections in the comments. My responses were removed. I just want to be sure you removed them, perhaps to make it easier for you to edit. If you didn't, I should add back summaries. The most important is that the Comment is incorrect which says that the sources don't support all the statements. That reviewer just didn't read carefully enough. I highlighted the sentences in the references that state she was the co-founder and director of OMCS. I also disagree with the WP:Coatracking appraisal. That's an advisory essay that cautions against diversions unrelated to the subject. e.g. John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, followed by an extensive discussion of Catholicism. But here, the explanations were closely related. So, for example, to not have at least a bit of explanation about how ConceptNet works (as described by Havasi in her academic work, making the summary similar to explaining what an author's book is about) and that it tests with the verbal acuity of a 4-year old, which Havasi says has likely not been substantially improved upon, is to give the reader much less context as to her importance in the world of Artificial Intelligence. She created (with a team) one of the world's most advanced AI programs (there are probably 20 sources that state this - I included a just a few.) and without some context, the reader won't understand her significance. So I very much think this is the opposite of Coatracking - the statements I provided gives more insight in Havasi and her work and her significance. They don't divert from the main subject. Thanks, Ed BC1278 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278
I saw your comment here, and thought you might want to adjust your wording in the future (no point in going back to that one, IMO). A WP:BIASED source is okay, and we do accept some kinds of sources that might be "promotional". What we really need is an WP:INDY (independent) source. So a travel magazine or a book that is 'promoting' this as a travel destination is okay, but a source paid for or written by a travel-related restaurant association is not so helpful (for demonstrating notability/that we should have an article about this subject; it still might be a reliable source for supporting an individual statement). It's kind of a minor point, but WP:INDY sources might be easier to explain than "promotional" sources.
Thanks for help with Catherine Havasi article
- Thanks for your notes Edsussman. I did spot all the previous traffic on the page when I took a look, but had to remove some sections as these contained refs that were interfering with going through the text (refs 1, 2, and so on, weren't in the article but in the comments section). I did pare back to what I felt was the key information here, bearing in mind what everybody had said. There looks to be lots of potential for the article to grow and be improved over time. Best wishes. Libby norman (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Draft for Eugene T. Simpson
Hi Libby, I wonder if you could guide me to producing better source material for Eugene Thamon Simpson, a modern composer and conductor who has performed around the world and is currently the curator for a special collection of Hall Johnson artifacts. I'm in correspondence with Dr. Simpson and he's provided me nearly 30 newspaper clippings and the like, but I don't know how to cite such materials on Wikipedia (properly). Can you advise? Thank you so much! Trumpet4christ (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Trumpet4christ, I'll gladly help. The key thing to find your way around is the citing conventions. If you have reliable and neutral sources (it sounds as if you do if these are newspaper clippings, etc), then it is very easy to insert a valid reference into text. There is no requirement for such materials to be available online, provided they are acceptable and properly sourced. So, If you press edit on the page and then pull down the arrow beside Templates (lefthand side). This gives you a menu of possible sources – web, news, book, journal – choose the right one and then fill in as much information as you can. I've just done this on Eugene Thamon Simpson with reference 1 and it looks like this:
- The template does the hard work of formatting in the right way, but do fill in as many fields as possible. Also include a name for this reference in Ref Name (bottom left of pop up box) – you can ascribe any name you want – and once you've done that, you can reuse the same source in multiple places if it supports information. The reference will then show a b c and so forth next to it to indicate where it is a source, while the reference in the text will just have one number 1, 2, 3 and so on.
- One word of warning, you may have to rewrite in places in order to ensure copy and sources match up – I now always start with the sources and construct the article around them. This can be frustrating if there's information you know to be true, but can't prove, but Wikipedia is always a work in progress and it's better to start small with an impeccably sourced article and then build upon it, even if it takes a bit of time. Hope that helps and do let me know if you need further help. I'm also posting this on your talk page so you have it to refer to more easily. Libby norman (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fitzgerald, Maureen (3 February 1994). "Rowan Choir Set For Utah Special Invitation For Talented Group". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
Thanks for approving my contribution!
Just wanted to thank you for approving the article i'd submitted (IndiaSpend.com). First time contributing articles, which is why I'd accidentally made a request to Articles for Creation instead of creating one myself. Will remember that for next time, thanks again! -Shijithpk (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Shijithpk and thanks for your message. No problems putting it through Afc, and some editors prefer to do that for the first few articles, but I'd say you have grasped how to construct a well-referenced and informative article and may prefer to create future articles via your sandbox. Well done on a good first article. Libby norman (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
18:30:02, 14 August 2015 review of submission by 126.96.36.199
Question: The submission guidelines state: "Appropriate uses
IMDb content which is acceptable to reference on Wikipedia include:
Hello. A quick question: The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America."
Unless I am reading the IMDB page incorrectly, the films posted were MPAA rated and the credits supplied directly by the MPAA. Did this not qualify as a reliable source or have I misunderstood. Thank you for your time.
- Hi, thank you for your message 188.8.131.52. I said IMDB was not a good 'standalone source' as in not good enough as a source to support everything in your article. Inline citations was the issue here – and key material in the article, such as the biography, had no reference sources at all, as far as I could see. You will need to add a References section (with reflist underneath) in order to infill references, as currently you only have an External links section, and do check out the link at the top which would explain more about the decline and the reasoning behind inline citations in biographies of living people. Hope that helps. Libby norman (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Eugénie hat
|On 18 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eugénie hat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Eugénie hat (pictured), designed for the last French empress, became a sensation in the early 1930s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugénie hat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
I appreciate the review, I've revised my submission per your feedback and it's pending re-review. However when I look at the 'pending submissions' page I don't see it there. Just making sure that I've done this process correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwickstr (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help last week, Libby. I today just about completed the entry for The Seed Savers' Network. Yet to put up Further Reading and External Links.
Biographical details found for the mysterious Peter Russell (fashion designer)! Unfortunately, the V&A researchers had even less luck than we did with finding out anything new about Bianca Mosca... but their new book on British couture is AMAZING and an absolutely knockout gorgeous resource absolutely LOADED with tons of info and details. It really should be linked as future reading on all the relevant biographical pages. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Review of Catherine Havasi
You were nice enough to review the Catherine Havasi article I submitted to AfC. Someone has placed a flag on the article, nominating it for deletion, because it's claimed the subject does not meet academic notability guidelines. As you may recall, Catherine Havasi has abundant general notability in addition to academic notability.
Would you mind taking a look? I placed a full explanation in the Talk section Talk:Catherine Havasi in the section "Notability".
- Hi, I've just responded on the talk page Edsussman. I agree that this is flag is questionable and propose to give them 24 hours to post on the talk page so we can have a sensible discussion. So if I don't hear back tomorrow I'll be removing the flag. Libby norman (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Request independent review of draft
You were good enough to do an independent review of an article I wrote about Catherine Havasi where I have a COI. I have written a redraft of the stub AlienVault, also in the world of technology. I also have a COI here and the redraft needs an independent review as per WP:COI. The stub has flags for poor citations and tone.
I believe I've addressed these issues and written a much more authoritative article on the company, which runs the largest open source project in the world for computer security threats and has been financed with $116 million.
Since you seem comfortable with the topic of technology and are very thorough, I thought I'd see if you might have the interest and inclination to be the independent reviewer.
The redraft is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/subpage2 and was written with my primary account (I disclose the alternates on each user page). I've made a COI disclosure on the talk page of the AlienVault article.