User talk:Mkamrath
Mkamrath, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Mkamrath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC) |
June 2022
[edit]
Hello, Mkamrath. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mkamrath! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mark Kamrath that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about that.
- Thanks for sharing the protocol. Mark Kamrath (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Mark Kamrath for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kamrath until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, understand all.
- Thanks Mkamrath (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Mkamrath! Sorry you've had your article end up at Articles for Deletion. As an English professor you might be more likely to meet the guidelines of WP:NAUTHOR than WP:NACADEMIC - typically, people are considered to meet that guideline if they have published two books that meet WP:NBOOK. Since academic book reviews count towards item #1, "the subject of two or more non-trivial works", it's reasonably common (relative to the WP:NACADEMIC criteria) for people in English literature to meet this by the time they're full professors, by writing two sole-authored books that get 2+ reviews each. Is it possible you meet these criteria instead? If you don't for solo-authored works, I think there's an argument to be made for the edited works of Charles Brockden Brown counting towards this. Regarding your comment about other academic bios that seem to contain less in terms of research/impact, if they're in really bad shape you might consider nominating them for deletion yourself (or suggest them to me and I can try it). But it may also be that they do actually meet the inclusion guidelines, which can seem pretty arcane and arbitrary at times. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your helpful advice.
- Yes, I am a full professor and I have one monograph, 2 essay collections, and 2 MLA-CSE approved scholarly volumes. I am also the General Editor for the Charles Brockden Brown Electronic Archive and Scholarly Edition, an international editing project. I don't know of anyone who has received 3 National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants. Google Scholar shows 233 citations for my work https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=Mark+Kamrath&btnG=
- Anyway, I am glad to follow whatever path you think best.
- P.S. I recently completed (by invitation) for Oxford Bibliographies in American Literature its entry for Charles Brockden Brown, meaning that I am the person they wanted to critique the last 50 years of Brown scholarship https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199827251/obo-9780199827251-0066.xml Brown, by the way, is one of the most closely studied authors now in American literature. Please see the Oxford Handbook of Charles Brockden Brown (2019) Mark Kamrath (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Mkamrath! Sorry you've had your article end up at Articles for Deletion. As an English professor you might be more likely to meet the guidelines of WP:NAUTHOR than WP:NACADEMIC - typically, people are considered to meet that guideline if they have published two books that meet WP:NBOOK. Since academic book reviews count towards item #1, "the subject of two or more non-trivial works", it's reasonably common (relative to the WP:NACADEMIC criteria) for people in English literature to meet this by the time they're full professors, by writing two sole-authored books that get 2+ reviews each. Is it possible you meet these criteria instead? If you don't for solo-authored works, I think there's an argument to be made for the edited works of Charles Brockden Brown counting towards this. Regarding your comment about other academic bios that seem to contain less in terms of research/impact, if they're in really bad shape you might consider nominating them for deletion yourself (or suggest them to me and I can try it). But it may also be that they do actually meet the inclusion guidelines, which can seem pretty arcane and arbitrary at times. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)