Talk:Jeanne D'Orge

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup

@Netherzone: Cleanup has been done on the Jeanne D'Orge article. Please take a look when you get a chance and let me know if there is anything that need to be done for the tag: Unreliable sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't started to go thru the article or sourcing yet, but see that there is still a WordPress blog being used as a source. Please remove and replace with a reliable source. PLEASE learn what WP considers to be appropriate sources, appropriate tone, and notability criteria. It is taking up a disproportionate number of hours of other editor's time cleaning up after you. LEARN the guidelines for the encyclopedia before you create and keep on creating more work for others.

I tagged a handful of your articles last night for poor sourcing, but you should be doing this yourself, not other volunteers. You need to also check each source individually to make sure is is not being used in a way that misrepresents what is written in the article. I haven't had time to do that with this article, but all original research, puffery and exaggeration, extraneous trivial details; sources that are not about the person (or building or...) themself/itself should be cleaned up by you. Competence is required to edit here and that includes the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles. Reference bombing articles is not the solution to poor analysis of sources and extraneous trivial detail, which is what we have here. Courtesy ping @Melcous, @Graywalls. Netherzone (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'll remove the WordPress citation. Going through the rest of these articles. Sorry about the trouble it may have caused. Now I am more focused, and ready to cleanup! Greg Henderson (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, WP:RSP is for sources that have been repeatedly discussed on RSN. It seems like you're trying to game the system and tenaciously cling to trivial contents by inserting/retaining poor sources that should be clear to anyone with significant experience on Wikipedia that they're poor sources. One such example is your use of Ancestry.com after your use of FamilySearch was called out, or retaining Wordpress, because you've only specifically been called out on Blogspot. And here you're, more concerned with the tag than about poorly sourced contents being present. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think I am trying to game the system. In the past, it was basically ignorance on my part. I do not use Ancestry or Family Search any longer, or Wordpress. I am in the process of cleaning up some of these poor sources, so please be patient as I go about this. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, please remove all puffery, flowery language, euphemisms, excessive detail, especially when it is not about HER but about other people. Write in a neutral, non-literary/poetical, encyclopedic manner devoid of embellishments. Be direct and factual. So many editors have asked you to do this, please comply. We are an encyclopedia, not a human interest website. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have removed excess puffery and flowery language. My old articles were created during a time when I had less boundaries and understanding of the guidelines. I will cleanup other articles as well. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you missed a whole lot of fluff, @Greghenderson2006. Look at my most recent edit, cleaning up more euphenisms, flowery language, puffery, redundancy and name dropping, superfluous content about other people, brand names, and improving overall encyclopedic tone. This was completed only until the section on Carl Cherry House. Please see if you can perform clean up from the Carl Cherry House section to the end of the article. Then go back to see if all the sourcing accurately references the content. Netherzone (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted before, Greghenderson2006, it does feel like you keep rushing to create new articles and remove maintenance templates without taking time to learn, change, and fix problems. Let me be very specific. I have just made one small edit that was a good example of what doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, changing the sentence After Chery's passing on April 15, 1947 in Carmel, D'Orge experienced profound grief. to Cherry died on April 15, 1947 in Carmel. There are two reasons I have made this change. 1 is MOS:EUPHEMISM - wikipedia avoids euphemisms in favour of direct and precise language, so "died" should always be used over "passed away". 2. Wikipedia is not an obituary and does not include run of the mill content. When someone's spouse dies, most people experience profound grief, but saying so is generally not encyclopedic content without some other reasons (e.g. that grief led to her creating her most famous work of art, or that grief led to her own death). To be blunt, your writing often feels like it belongs on a history or memorial website rather than in a global encyclopedia, which is why I'm guessing you feel overly criticised by editors like myself here. Melcous (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cleanup and good advice. I will continue to learn, change, and fix these type of problems. You example is spot on as I left a euphemism. I thought I had caught everything, but your keen eye caught it. I don't mind the criticism, that's how I learn. Wikipedia is a encylopedia not a run-of-the-mill website. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, it was not just "a euphemism", the text was filled with euphemisms, dramatizations, original research and fluff. You have been here since 2006, it's perplexing that you still do not understand how WP works, especially when so many of us have been trying to help you learn FOR YEARS. Netherzone (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I should had said "euphemisms". I understand how WP works much better now. Since, about August of last year, I have been making an effort to really improve and show, through my later articles, that I can write encyclopedic articles. I am not perfect, and I have a lot to learn, but I am getting closer to the goal of becoming a Wikipedia editor that you can trust. Than you for your help and patience. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Date and Location

There is a scholarly journal article which states that her birth year was 1879 and the location as Stockport, Cheshire (Western American Literature in the References section). However, given D'Orge's penchant for changing her name and history as it suited her, I'm not sure that it's necessarily that reliable. I have left the article as is. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]