User talk:TipsyElephant

Gary Nicolas Nader Article

I have updated the Gary Nader article as best I could based on the feedback from you and other editors. Before I resubmit, I need to take care of some disclosures. As far as I understand, I can make disclosures on this page? Or am I supposed to make disclosures elsewhere? --GaryNNader (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello GaryNNader, it looks like WP:DISCLOSE addresses this particular question. I would suggest disclosing any conflict of interest on your user page, which you can find here. For example, my user page includes a list of previous employers at the bottom. I would also suggest disclosing any conflict of interest on the talk page of the article in question, which would be here. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: (talk) 20241204044301

Hello TipsyElephant, thank you for providing the link and clear direction. I find myself getting lost in a regular basis and I travel down the rabbit holes trying to figure out the next step. I have added disclosures in both places as recommended, and plan to resubmit the article for review (after many corrections). I look forward to any other recommendations/corrections.

--GaryNNader (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GaryNNader: before resubmitting make sure to remove any external links to other websites from the body of the article (I see at least two). If you want to read up on the guidelines concerning external links read Wikipedia:External links. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You can leave the external links in the publication list though, and if you want more details on how to format those you can read WP:WORKS. I'll go through and correct those though so you don't have to worry about them. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GaryNNader: actually, I'm having trouble finding ISBN or OCLC numbers or even Google Books, Internet Archive, or Gutenberg Project links for Latin American Masters and Marc Chagall. Can you find anything on those? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: (talk) 20241204044301: Hello TipsyElephant, Thank you for formatting the list of publications on this article, that was very helpful. I researched and found even more publications, and put together a full list along with all the OCLC links to match the formmatting. However, I think I might have messed up attributions to you because I copy/pasted the entire revised list over the existing list in the draft. Would it have been better to insert the missing publications between the existing edits, rather than copy over the whole list? I tried to go back, but I had already saved the edit by the time I realized my mistake. If it was an error, is there a way to fix it? Glassdaughter (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Glassdaughter that's okay. I would focus more on trying to demonstrate that Draft:Gary Nicolas Nader is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I would recommend reading WP:N for standard notability guidelines and WP:BIO for notability guidelines specific to biographies. If you're unable to provide sources with in-depth coverage about Gary Nader then your article will not get published to mainspace. I would also recommend reading WP:RS because you don't want to just add WP:BLOGS or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Nader. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: (talk) 20241204044301: Thanks for the advice. I have edited the first section of the GaryNNader article to highlight aspects of him and his work that might be considered notable, along with citations. Could you review and advise if the article should be resubmitted at this point? I appreciate your input. Glassdaughter (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Glassdaughter: I would suggest removing the CV and the external link that is in the body of the article. I would also look for better sources. Most of what you've got are either not WP:RELIABLE or they are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It's possible that Nader simply does not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on WP:BIO. If you can't find better sources I can take a look on newspapers.com and see if I find anything. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I haven't been able to find anything better than what I've listed. I read WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, I'm not sure I understand where a trivial mention ends and an acceptable mention starts. The example in the policy is rather short, like a sentence. I have at least two articles that are minimally a page long. When is a citation considered in-depth? Everything I have provided in the article is, I believe, not original research and a lot longer than the example given in the policy, including the full article by an art professor from a university who is very qualified to cover the topic. Is it the number of articles that is wanting? All my confusion aside, if you could check newspapers.com for something more substantial, that would be amazing! Thanks in advance. Glassdaughter (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Glassdaughter: I added the sources to the draft's talk page. I found quite a few from the Miami Herald. Based on the Newspapers sources and what's already in the article I would bet that Nader passes WP:BIO. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: That's amazing! Thanks so much, that really made my day. I have resubmitted the article now after working in some of the citations you found. Glassdaughter (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Thanks for all your work and help in getting the GaryNNader article up to snuff. I guess there isn't anything I can do at this point to do any further cleanup to resolve the remaining warning message, despite having submitted a disclosure. But there is something I can do, please let me know. Thanks again! Glassdaughter (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I mentioned the Gary Nader article to a friend of mine, and she read it, and pointed out to me the Controversies section as potentially defamatory. I think she may have deleted it, but it seems to still be there anyway. However, now that I re-read that part of the article, I don't recall labeling the section "Controversies" and to me, it does seem a bit of a misnomer (how is a theft a controversy?). The other sentence is about a legal dispute that ended up being in Gary Nader's favor (Miami Dade College ordered to pay Nader's legal fees). Again, not sure how that would be construed as a controversy. Am I missing something about controversies as a section label in Wikipedia? I couldn't find anything about that specifically. I didn't want to adjust the section title incorrectly. Thanks in advance for your input. Glassdaughter (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Millennial.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Millennial.png. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of science podcasts has been accepted

List of science podcasts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 100% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 02:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red Man Laughing has been accepted

Red Man Laughing, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 100% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

2pou (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tell them I am.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tell them I am.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)