Jump to content

User talk:Tchula65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2021

[edit]

Information icon 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:Sewell Peaslee Wright, from its old location at User:Tchula65/Sewell Peaslee Wright. 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. signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sewell Peaslee Wright (May 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
One of the three references is a broken link - it is not clear that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR.
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.
Greenman (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Tchula65! 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! Greenman (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sewell Peaslee Wright Bibliography: Short Stories 1923 - 1926 (May 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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. 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Subject does not yet have an article. The content in this article may need to be merged into that article, should it be created, but notability for the subject needs to be determined first before proceeding with this.
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.
Greenman (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sewell Peaslee Wright Bibliography: Short Stories 1935 - 1938 (May 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Subject does not yet have an article. The content in this article may need to be merged into that article, should it be created, but notability for the subject needs to be determined first before proceeding with this.
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.
Greenman (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sewell Peaslee Wright Bibliography: Short Stories 1927 - 1930 (May 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Subject does not yet have an article. The content in this article may need to be merged into that article, should it be created, but notability for the subject needs to be determined first before proceeding with this.
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.
Greenman (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sewell Peaslee Wright Bibliography: Short Stories 1931 - 1934 (May 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Subject does not yet have an article. The content in this article may need to be merged into that article, should it be created, but notability for the subject needs to be determined first before proceeding with this.
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.
Greenman (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendous effort, to no avail

[edit]

Bibliographies do not exist as separate articles. Abandon those. Within the draft about the author, the bibliography content contributes nothing to his notability. For authors, there is often a section titled Selected works, say a selection from his novels. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, remember to 'sign' your Talk comments by typing four of ~ at the end. Basically, yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of topics (people, places, events, companies, schools, etc.) that are considered notable because people have published content in reliable sources about those topics. It is not a repository of all known information.

That said, for author Philip José Farmer there is Philip José Farmer bibliography. For Issac Asimov, there exists Isaac Asimov bibliography (categorical), Isaac Asimov bibliography (chronological) and Isaac Asimov bibliography (alphabetical). So maybe the plan should be draft about the author first, with an abbreviated bibliography, and if that is accepted, only then a bibliography article. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, new editor of biographies

[edit]

Hi, I see you made a good start, adding some bits to biographies. Me, even in my early days (almost 15 years ago) I didn't do much in biographies, having learned that they are difficult. Hey, at least you aren't trying to work on living people. When there's no plague I do a lot of coaching in various classrooms, libraries etc and one thing I tell my students is, "The only good biographical subject is a dead biographical subject." Of course, some of them think they're smarter than their teacher, push into this dangerous territory anyway, fail and study and fail and learn and repeat and eventually succeed. Darn, I don't mind when they think they're smarter than me; just when it turns out to be true.

Your main subjects appear to be science fiction writers, mainly the happily dead kind. I'm slightly surprised not to remember their names, having been an avid reader of Analog and others in the 1960s. Oh, and of course the Trinity of Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke and, well, a cast of hundreds. Anyway my students generally have their heart set on biographies of people I never heard of, so I accommodate them. Unless it's living people.

My recommendation is an indirect approach. Rather than the article first, do the connections first. You already know that the articles are linked to each other so the whole encyclopedia provides a great cobweb of digressions for the reader. So, start with that. You already know your subject is worthwhile, but to what is she relevant? A few years ago I went to a lecture by Alice Bowman. Wow, smart lady, I thought, capable manager, dynamite lecturer. So, what does her Wikipedia biography say? Nothing. Not only was there no biography, but not even a mention in any of our millions of articles. So, I mentioned her in the New Horizons article. One short sentence with a reference. Busy with other matters, after a few months I looked again and the mention had been slightly expanded but, more interesting, it had a link to a neat little biography. It doesn't say all that I know about her; doesn't have to. So, I successfully instigated a biography of the living and didn't have to do any of the hard parts myself.

So, your fiction writers are perhaps important to something. They published in Astounding and other prominent mags, some of them off-genre. Possibly they rate a mention or at least a line in a list, in the article about one or more of those publications. Somewhat more likely, they may have addressed various favorite sci-fi themes such as Mars in fiction or Robots in literature. A discussion of the various ways to handle a theme may benefit from a mention of your subject's story, with a biographical WP:REDLINK. Other hooks may be available. Lists of alumni?

One of your subjects already has a Wikidata item, which might also help: Wikidata:Q47430560. Indeed if you have some experience with databases you may want to improve it.

So, yeah. Indirect. You see, much of the ability to get things done is a matter of reputation or image. If we old-timers see someone trying to promote a friend or relative, or making one dumb mistake a dozen times in a day, or calling attention to the stupidity of people who are stopping good things from happening, we don't get our hopes up. So far, the only perhaps mistake you have made is to take the direct road to new biography. This does not at all show the evil attitude that we dread; it's just an inefficient strategy. Show your ability to learn, and all your early mistakes are forgiven. Our hope changes from cautious to more whole-hearted. This kind of power is informal, not codified as in rules (we have so many thousands of rules, guidelines, policies and so forth that nobody can remember a tenth of them) but it works.

Incidentally, no mistake is forgotten. My early editing record includes some terrible whoppers. Just forgiven. All us thousands of old-time, daily WP editors started dumb; not a problem. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the plague we have more online meetups than usual. Purposes are various including helping new editors with some particular type of article. Today I discovered that some of them are this week. If you're not interested in the chosen topic, tune in anyway; we usually welcome all sorts of questions.
Tuesday Asian female biographies
Wednesday NYC monthly general discussion meetup. Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/May 2021
Saturday NYC Prospect Park. Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Hacknic
Probably there are others during the week; these are just the ones I've noticed and intend to join. The Prospect Park one will have me actually going there and sitting on the lawn with my fellows but there will be an Internet connection for anyone in the world who would like to join.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harriet A. Glazebrook has been accepted

[edit]
Harriet A. Glazebrook, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nightenbelle (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Returnshp (July 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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. 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.
KylieTastic (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me this is precisely the kind of subject that ought to be described in Wikipedia but not in its own article. Several articles use the term without doing much to describe it, and it is proper that they don't go into detail. Better if the term be listed, defined, and compared among Internship#Types though someone who searches more carefully may be able to find an even more appropriate place. Mentioning a subject on a list, or giving it a paragraph, is much easier and more useful than starting a lonely new article on a subject that does not appear to be strong enough to support its own article. The larger, broader article will also usually have more editors watching it, protecting it from problems, once they think your subject has a proper place there. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds. I used Internship#Types as inspiration for my article. You gave me an idea 💡. I put a question out on the Talk page for Internship to see if there is home for Returnship there. Will keep you posted if I get an answer.Tchula65 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. I also posted to the Goldman Sachs talk page to see if there is a place there to insert a mention of the fact that Goldman Sachs trademarked the term 'Returnship'. Cross fingers. Tchula65 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, @Tchula65:. Internship is probably easier. Two days and a half have elapsed. This is the kind of thing where lack of response means yes, so yes, go ahead and figure a way to say it in the list of types. With any luck, someone will improve it within a day or three. If no flak appears by then, it's time to figure how to fit your item into the article about the big, important and controversial Goldman Sachs corporation. This may more easily attract adverse attention, but you can hope for a reasonable explanation and guidance from the presumably vigilant caretakers of that kind of article.
Oh, @Tchula65:; I see you signed up for this coming NYC WikiWednesday. See you there. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Returnship

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Tchula65. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Returnship, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Returnship

[edit]

Hello, Tchula65. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Returnship".

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! 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Atticus Todd

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Tchula65. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Atticus Todd, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Atticus Todd

[edit]

Hello, Tchula65. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Atticus Todd".

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! 22:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tchula65&oldid=1106032837"