User talk:Jama myth

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Jama myth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Meguro has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. DAJF (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jama myth, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jama myth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...I am writing my first article. I have chosen the subject of a living Japanese artist. I understand the policy about requiring at least one reputable source but am having a problem with this aspect. The artist is quoted and cited in reputable art catalogues, she has appeared on BBC and ITV art shows, she has had articles written about her work in the Evening Standard, Time Out and other magazines and newspapers. The problem is that these are all hard copy sources. Would such references actually be valid for Wikipedia?

This question is actually quite important for me as I am an historian specialising in biographies and oral histories.

I appreciate your support.

Jama myth (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jama myth. It is such a shame that people get the idea online sources are needed. No, we absolutely do not require citations to online sources and many of the finest published reliable sources are not available online or are behind a paywall (e.g. books). Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.

We also do not require [only] one reputable source. That is what is needed to not have an article deleted under a certain deletion process. What we want ideally is for every single statement in an article to be verified by citation to a reliable source. There is no such thing as a decent article with one source. We also require sufficient use of particular type of reliable sources to demonstrate notability: those that are secondary in nature and entirely independent of the subject of the article. Note that the sources you appear to be referring to above – interviews and the artist writing about herself – are WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not demonstrate notability and must be used with caution mostly only for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact.

Most people approach articles all wrong. They write what they know and then try to back into source later. The proper way to write an article is is gather together a collection of sources first, that talk about a topic in some detail. Digest what they say and then write in your own words (do not copy and paste) information that those sources verify – and nothing that can't be corroborated in them. As you do so, cite to those sources for their information. Do your best to write neutrally – just facts without any editorializing and avoid all promotional language, puffery, empty buzz language, flowery passages, etc. Remember: "show don't tell": "Her art is beloved!" "Three of her paintings are on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I really appreciate your input and support. Feel a bit of an idiot for missing: WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources. But I think I'll just Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks again. jama myth.

You're most welcome. Please feel free to drop by my talk page directly, for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, tried to go to your talk page but, and excuse me being a dipstick, I couldn't see how to message/comment/talk to you. jama myth

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Jama myth. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm this is interesting. I was working on my first article in the sandbox to practice and learn, I didn't make any attempt to publish. As a subject I worked on something I know well, an artist I manage. I can see an obvious COI but understand that concept and would be trying to write "in fact" with referenced footnotes. Do see the issue but would like to ask this question, "How does my subject get written up as a wiki? Do I just go out and get someone else to do it?" My belief was that I would produce an article and it would then be reviewed. If at review issues or problems were perceived then I would naturally abide by that judgement. That was how I saw this and the fact that COI would have to be declared, I was just working in the sandbox!Jama myth (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your sandbox is indeed for experimenting and learning without interference from other editors, so there is no immediate problem, but you still ought to familiarize yourself with the guidelines concerning editing with a conflict of interest if you plan to publish the article on Wikipedia in the near future. As mentioned above, writing articles about people close to you is not prohibited, but new articles submitted for review are likely to be refused if they read like a personal tribute to someone without including impartial facts backed up by reliable sources. Another course of action would be to request a new article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Sorry to sound discouraging, but it's hard to watch someone put in a lot of time and effort, as you have, trying to create an article that may not have any chance of getting off the ground. As I mentioned above, you are welcome to keep experimenting in your sandbox in your own time, but I would recommend reading through the relevant guidelines and also taking a look at other biographical articles already published on Wikipedia to see how things are done. If you still have any questions, please feel free to write them here, and I will try and help. --DAJF (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort you are putting in here to support me. It is appreciated. As far as I can see my main misunderstanding is in the idea that I can prepare articles in a sandbox and then they will be reviewed for publication once I submit them. Being a writer by nature, rather than an editor, I have been laying out and editing my article bit by bit, learning the process and reading up on the issues. I wasn't expecting this work to be under review as I was trying to go through the learning curve in the sandbox. I hope you will accept that this is how we have come to this position and my intentions are not to try and publish without compliance. I am just beginning and it appears my "sandbox strategy" of climbing the learning curve has led me into issues. So on the positive side, good, I am learning! On the negative side, bad, you guys are picking up my mistakes and I am taking up your time.

On the conflict of interest issue, I completely understand and fully support such a policy. In my first chosen article, I intend to contribute more, I chose a subject I know well, have material on and have all of the references from media, publications and history. To me, that seemed like the obvious place to start with a target of getting to understand how Wiki article writing works technically. Equally, it is more challenging because of a perceived COI you have to produce a piece of writing that has the internal discipline to pass that test.

Thanks for offering to help. I have only been trying this for a little over 36 hours now and already I get the feeling of a lot of support from those deeply involved with Wiki article writing. This is very much appreciated. I want to publish the article I have in the sandbox, I want to get it right in terms of my own writing, the Wiki protocols and for it to stand as a good piece of writing of a Wiki article. Jama myth (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your understanding that your sandbox is an area for experimenting and slowly preparing material in your own time ahead of publication as a full Wikipedia article is perfectly correct, and so long as you don't upload any more copyright images, you are basically free to do what you want on that page. Apologies if it sounded like you were being bombarded with too much outside interference from an early stage, but I still feel that reading through the relevant guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and Wikipedia's notability guidelines will save you lot of stress and disillusionment later on when/if you come to publish your article or submit it for review, as articles are not judged on how beautifully written or illustrated they are, but on whether the subject of the article is actually sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article (See WP:CONTN). --DAJF (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi. Your understanding that your sandbox is an area for experimenting and slowly preparing material in your own time ahead of publication as a full Wikipedia article is perfectly correct..." I would respectfully comment however, if that is correct why then was I pre-empted before I submitted anything for publication? May I also respectfully ask the question whether you can see if this could appear to be counter productive in developing effective Wiki contributors?

I would also like to respectfully reply to what you are saying here:

"...as articles are not judged on how beautifully written or illustrated they are, but on whether the subject of the article is actually sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article..."

There is an implicit suggestion here, as I am reading your words, that my own writing is about being "beautifully written or illustrated", whereas my writing has and will always be about accuracy, veracity and openness. Just because I have expressed the way I am writing as a craft does not mean that I am employed in works of fiction or poetry. What I was saying is that I like to be precise, I take time at being precise which is why I was working in a sandbox and didn't submit what I was doing for review.

I haven't felt I was bombarded, on the contrary, I have felt like I am being supported. But so far, I have quietly worked in a sandbox, been patient, worked through tutorials, engaged with editors but then I find my imperfect work, not submitted, is already under scrutiny and I am being blocked in the sandbox faster than I can get to the points on the learning curve. Can you see how that is difficult out here beyond the knowledge you hold but I have to work through?

I am open to the fact I need to learn, I am reading the material but I go back to my first point, one you agree with, I thought the sandbox was where I experiment not where I was judged. Despite what I believed and what you say to be true, "...sandbox is an area for experimenting and slowly preparing material...", I have found myself diverted because material I am working with is being altered externally. My editors are pre-empting my learning! You are marking my exam before I have written it.

Again, I am appreciative of your support and recognise the issues you are dealing with are difficult to manage on such a project as Wikipedia. I'm just talking from the other end of the telescope.Jama myth (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No one, myself included, is blocking you from working in your sandbox. With the exception of copyright violations (which will be removed swiftly), no one else is allowed to even touch it, so you are free to carry on at your own pace. If you need any more help or advice further down the line, you can leave a message here or on my Talk page. --DAJF (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will seek advice as and when I need it.Jama myth (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Akane Takayama, from its old location at User:Jama myth/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Akane Takayama (February 20)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Akane Takayama and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]