User talk:Writerspace

Denise Hunter

What you actually need to do is to directly type {{subst:submit}} itself, rather than the complex code string you used. If I fix it for you then I'll get any followup notifications about the submission instead of you, because it'll record me as the "submitter" — so it's best if I just explain to you how to fix it yourself so that you'll be properly recorded and credited and notified as the submitter. (I can also tell you that without any actual references in the article it's certain to get rejected, but it's up to you.) Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you SO much for your help. I hope I'm responding correctly. I'm still learning. I re-added the code to the page and submitted. It told me it was in review and gave me a spot to set the name with a note that it should be moved to draft. When I clicked to request it be moved to draft I got this message "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: You cannot move pages because your account is too new or is blocked from editing. If you would like a page to be moved and you are not blocked, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not just copy and paste the contents of the page to a new title, as that destroys the edit history of the page." Can you tell if I've done it correctly? As for references, I've linked to any Wiki pages that exist for references within the article (such as her novels that have been made into Hallmark movies, actors in the movies, etc), and linked to Denise's site but everything else in the article -- all of her personal history came from Denise herself. Writerspace (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Writerspace[reply]

Just wikilinking items in the body text doesn't count as referencing, and information that comes from the subject herself doesn't count either — to be properly referenced, an article has to have footnotes in it, citing media coverage about her. The problem is that without media coverage, we cannot independently verify that everything the article says is actually true — people do sometimes try to get into Wikipedia by lying about accomplishments they don't really have (such as musicians claiming to have had charting hits they didn't really have, writers claiming award nominations they didn't really get, etc.) — so what makes a person notable is not the things the article says, but the depth and range of media coverage that can be shown to independently verify that the things it says are actually true. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Yeah, I just got the rejection notice. I'm going to try to add citations to IMDB for the movies and see if can't find some still-available bestseller lists to link to. Should that make a difference? There won't be any media reference for her personal life info. Writerspace (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a notability-supporting source; it's a directory that simply has an entry for every film or television show that exists, with a corresponding entry for every person who was ever involved in that film or television show at all, so if just having IMDB entries made people notable in and of itself then we would have to maintain an article about everybody who ever had any film or television credits at all (all the way down to gaffers and best boys and assistant production accountants). We're not looking for evidence that people exist, we're looking for evidence that they have noteworthy distinctions that make their existence more noteworthy than usual — so you don't make a person notable by referencing their film and television credits to IMDb, you make a person notable by referencing their film and television credits to media coverage about those film and television appearances.

By the same token, you also cannot make people notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing the content to Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves in the first person, online bookstores, the self-published websites of their own publishers, blogs or the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims being made. That is, you don't make a person notable for winning a literary award by referencing it to that award's own website — you make a person notable for winning a literary award by referencing it to media coverage about the award presentation, in order to prove that the award is even notable (i.e. an award that gets covered by the media) in the first place. And you don't make a person notable for writing books by referencing those books to the website of their own publisher, or to an online bookstore, in order to verify that the books exist — you make a person notable for writing books by referencing the books to media coverage about the books (book reviews in real media, etc.) in order to verify that the books got independent attention from somebody other than their own publisher's marketing department.

When it comes to demonstrating that a person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, reliable sourcing is not just "any web page you can find that technically verifies the claims" — it's "third party media coverage by journalists that reports the claims as news". Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do understand the distinction you're making. The IMDB links I'm using list her as one of 2 writers for each movie and I've linked to her inclusion on the various bestseller lists like ECPA and Publishers Weekly, awards lists like Holt Medallion, Carol Awards and Foreward Indies, and her appearance on the 700 Club. I've linked to news sources like FtWayne.com whenever possible. I included some of the Q&A links like bookpage.com and focusonfiction as support for some of the statements about her personal life and the start of her career. Would it be better to remove those?Writerspace (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Calliopejen1 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 does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Writerspace/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Writerspace/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Writerspace! Having an article 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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Denise Hunter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Denise Hunter. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Denise Hunter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Denise Hunter. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Denise Hunter (July 19)

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.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Denise Hunter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Denise Hunter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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) 21:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have revied to add citations from numerous 3rd party media sources: Television stations WANE 15, WTHR 13, and WPTA 21, Publishers Weekly, Sterling Journal-Advocate (Sterling, CO daily newspaper), The Journal Gazette (Ft. Wayne, IN newspaper) and Pilot News (Plymouth, IN newspaper) and Smart Living Fort Wayne (a regional magazine)

paid editing

Hello Writerspace. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Writerspace. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Writerspace|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do whatever I need to do to be in compliance with Wikipedia's terms of use. I am paid to handle Denise Hunter's website and she asked me to code the Wikipedia article for her. Please advise on what I need to do.

I have edited the Writerspace user page to reflect payment by Denise Hunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerspace (talk • contribs)

Is it okay to begin editing the article again?Writerspace (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Denise Hunter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Denise Hunter. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Denise Hunter (July 21)

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

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Denise Hunter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Denise Hunter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

MurielMary (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Denise Hunter

Hello, Writerspace. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Denise Hunter".

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 deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]