User talk:WikiMrsP

Your submission at Articles for creation

Philip Dray, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dray

Hallo. I've added some 'reliable, external' references to book reviews at the end of the article. Ideally, you'd transform these into an account of the reception of these books, quoting from the reviews with inline citations (see WP:REFB for help) to make this into an article of substance. Otherwise it risks being deleted. Best of luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will work on this. I very much appreciate your help. WikiMrsP (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tavi

Hello, I have just noticed that you made this edit and commented as "Rm unrelated links". According to the WP:ALSO and WP:UCS those links can stay. They are all notable fashion bloggers, they do the same on a daily basis. I am expanding this article with relevant information. I kindly ask you to reconsider to leave this section. If you have any doubts, please feel free to reply here. I am watching your talk page. Thank you --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are ~~thousands, perhaps tens of thousands~~ millions of fashion bloggers. By your argument, they should all be listed on this on this page? Your two friends/clients (I see you also added them to the Sartorialist) are not well known outside their home countries. They are not at all related to Ms. Gevinson.

I agree with you, we should not add all of them. The See Also section links should be limited to a reasonable quantity. Usually from 2 to 4. The links should be related, but do not have to be directly related to the topic. As per The Sartorialist I can say that this is an example of non directly related topic. Yes, it is fashion related, but the scope, the purpose and the subject of The Sartorialist is completely different. So the fact that they are not directly related to Ms. Gevinson doesn't mean that they cannot be in the WP:ALSO. Thanks --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 22:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be a fashion blogger expert, but I can think of a dozen fashion bloggers who would be a more appropriate fit to "see also" than the two you are including here and on the Sartorialist article. What is your purpose of inserting these little-known bloggers (whose notability outside their home countries is in any case disputed) into the articles of two of the most famous fashion bloggers? It seems more than a little Conflict of Interest or self-promotional to me. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you deleted once again my edit using this summary "there are millions of fashion blogs; why add these two, who are not known outside their home countries, and are completely unrelated to Ms. Gevinson?". Please consider that: in the See Also section we can put few related links, if there are many related links it does not mean that nothing should be added. Whether they are or are not known outside their home countries, it doesn't mean they are related or not. They are related because: They all have a blog, their blog is about fashion, their blog is about themselves, they are the main sujects of their blogs, they are stylists of themselves, they create outfits and wear them, the pictures of them in their outfits are presented in their blog posts, they all give a description of the outfits, they all have an active life in media. I think there is pretty much here to see that they are very related. Whether they are from the same country or they ever met themselves is in the scope of WP:ALSO and a link in the See Also section can have people related, but they can be not directly related. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the "See Also" section to promote unrelated blogs of questionable notability in which you have some interest. I do not believe that is the purpose of the See Also section. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 23:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to the two bloggers you are promoting throughout Wikipedia? Not an attack, just a question. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again personal attacks. But I will answer your question. It is the same there is with Tavi and adding references to Tavi's article doesn't mean promoting her. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Hello. First of all I'd like to point out that this is the first time I provide a third opinion to a dispute of this kind, as this is neither my area of interest nor the one of my expertise. The first think I'd like to tell you both is that there is no inconvenience at all in placing a large number of entries in the “See also” section, provided the article is long enough to justify this (you can see an example here). Nonetheless, your article is not that long now to include such a number of links, so I'd advice you to put just two or three at most for the time being (perhaps four, see below). On the other hand, the core of the dispute relies upon the large palette of entries worth including here. Why not including four entries, with two being included by one of you and the other two by the other? I believe this is a very civilised solution to solve the conflict. It's up to you to choose the one that better fits your expectations, and just commit yourselves not to change the other's entries. Please bear in mind that here in Wikipedia anyone can come and edit any page, and that you cannot expect your edit to last forever. Hope my words shed light into the dispute. Happy editing to you both.—Jetstreamer (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to use the See Also section for self promotion? I did not know that. Thanks for your third opinion. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per request on WP:RFCBOARD, posted RfC at Tavi Gevinson Talk page. Coastside (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to join WikiProject Chicago

Hi WikiMrsP,

Welcome! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your great edits related to our project WikiProject Chicago!. We are a group of editors working on improving articles in the scope of this project, and we need your help to meet the project goals. Please come over to our project page to take a look!

You will see a list of articles that need most improvement .
You will find a group of editors who share similar interest with you.
Overall, this is a friendly place to discuss any issues related to Chicago, ask questions, and collaborate on improving articles on Chicago!

Feel free to put your name on the project member list. Hope you will have fun here, let us know if you need any help! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]