User talk:PinneyFowke

This is PinneyFowke's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:PinneyFowke/sandbox 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PinneyFowke! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi PinneyFowke! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, PinneyFowke. 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond to this query, which I posted here already three months ago. It is quite clear from your username that you have a COI with regard to Bob Fowke, and this needs to be formally disclosed. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I thought I had disclosed it - and also it was why I didn't use a different name, as I didn't want to 'disguise' it. Yes, I do have a connection, I'm his wife, but I am being very careful to keep all the information included in the draft factual, so it can be checked/verified. I am a UK lawyer, so am fully aware of how conflicts can arise. PinneyFowke (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:PinneyFowke/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:PinneyFowke/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:PinneyFowke/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:PinneyFowke/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

blogs are not suitable sources.

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 User:PinneyFowke/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that there are two aspects to my problem with getting an entry accepted, and although the first appears to be the major one, I think it might be solved if I can sort the second?

1) Notability - I accept this was fair criticism on my first draft, I had not put in enough detail. I have now added more information. However, the practical difficulty that I have experienced is that Bob Fowke's science fantasy illustrative work was produced as painted artworks in oils and gouache mainly, and he effectively ceased this type of work when the market for this switched to computer assisted/generated artwork, which means that there are relatively few factual references to his work, apart from the IFSDB, and Science Fiction Monthly on the internet. This leads on to:

2) Finding referencing sources online, and not using blogs. I accept that taken overall blogs are not indicative of facts, but it does appear there is not an overall ban on referring to them, I want to be able to use them illustratively, to show continuing recognition and referral to Fowke in the SF world. My question is, how do I do this?

The sort of issue I am trying to tackle can be demonstrated in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Foss where Chris Foss in the second illustration down on this page has included a cover from Science Fiction Monthly (it is one of his illustrations, so that's fine!), however if you enlarge it you will see Bob Fowke is featured as one of the 'superb SF art' artists featured in this edition. I have managed to quote the reference to this journal on the Internet Archive's website.

Is Tumblr a blog site because the 70s Sci-Fi Art articles at https://70sscifiart.tumblr.com/search/bob-fowke have this?

3) Basic question - how are blogs distinguished from websites?

Apologies for having asked questions via multiple routes, because I'm essentially a 'learner' I was following links in the explanations to find out which were the correct ones to use.

I really do appreciate help and assistance, as I don't seem to be making any real progress. PinneyFowke (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:PinneyFowke/sandbox

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

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. ✗plicit 23:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]