User talk:Spinster300

I don't know how to tag you but you can restore your version back to how it was. Also thank you for making it more understanding on why you did the changes. Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you kindly. The draft has been restored, the improvements made and it has been resubmitted for review. Please be patient. I am sure that as the subject's career grows, so will their article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Once the article is approved and is on Wikipedia, ill be able to add the career back and public image of the reliable sources? Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the Will (TV series) his name in Reccuring cast is always removed. It aays its promotions but thats only his name so i dont understand why. Would it be possible for you to put it back? Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

article

is accepted, if and when it is. Please also note that repeated poor quality edits can get you banned or blocked from editing.

While Wikipedia welcomes new editors, it is important for them to thoroughly understand the rules that govern the encyclopaedia; please refer to the various help pages that several other editors and I have previously linked you to. In the meantime, I advise against drastically changing the shape and form the article is in right now even after it is accepted (if it is), until and unless you can reliably source all your claims and the subject receives

Tea House

.

You may, if you like, upload copyright free images of the subject and add it to the draft. The rules for which images can be uploaded can be found in a step-by-step guide at the Wikimedia Commons upload wizard. If you need help on how and what to upload, please ask your queries at the Commons help desk. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Drmies and Cabrils, I am leaving this notification to you so that you are looped in on my discussions and edit decisions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I was told that

Draft:Burning Men is a good draft and that i should submitted it, which i did and it is currently on review. I also look up reliable sources to edit on Wikipedia and use tea house everytime i have a question. I also know how to upload images but i dont know who are the photographers so they cant be added and it is very complicated to add the images. There is also multiple actors who doesnt have a Wikipedia pages that are named into Wikipedia articles so i dont understand why it takes him to be approved to be added on the series wiki page. I edit only if i have the right sources, including existing ones Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for your undertaking! It is highly appreciated and beneficial to the encyclopaedia that new editors are interested in the subjects they intend to edit, as you are! Thank you very much!

Might I also suggest adding all the missing topics you wish to have included in Wikipedia on

Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested Articles? Especially Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession

for any actors you feel have not yet been covered on here.

Experienced editors can then look into the topics you request on this WikiProject. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Im not sure what im supposed to do? I add the tag into the draft article ? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, kindly add the names of the actors within the [[]], followed by a brief description of why they are notable and links to your sources proving their notability at the relevant sections of either of the two pages mentioned above, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

since you used promonews, can this music video be added too? https://www.promonews.tv/videos/2012/05/23/jagga-love-song-nicole-albarelli-ben-cook/13222 Veganpurplefox (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for the link. I will check it later today. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks and your welcome! I don't live in the uk so i have no access to any magazines he appeared in but do you know if theres a way to access physical magazines that havent been out online to read? Cause he appeared in a lot of them Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinster300. Thank you for your offer to help research and develop draft pages that have been submitted for review. On my Talk Page you suggested you would do this by going through the drafts mentioned there, however I think it would be more productive for you to go directly to the list of new draft pages submitted for review. Several of the draft pages mentioned on my Talk Page are fundamentally flawed for acceptance onto Wikipedia, and I would be concerned that you could be wasting your time trying to improve pages that simply will not be able to meet the relevant criteria, and attempting to do so could generate undesirable activity from authors who appear to be paid for creating pages and are not genuine editors. For this reason I am posting this here on your Talk Page rather than on mine. I trust you understand my reasoning. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils, I completely agree with you. I have already checked the Wikipedia:AfC sorting page, and I am quite glad that there are subsections in particular for Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography and especially Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. I might consider applying for reviewer right soon, but I am aware that experience at AfD is required, and generally I have stayed away from that vital WikiProject because the discussions can get pretty heated, and that is not my cup of tea.

In case you would be interested in taking a look, I have come across

VIAF has come up well. Please let me know if you get the chance to review them anytime soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Great, that's a sensible approach I think. If I have time I will try to look at those drafts. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils, thank you for the encouragement! I have applied for the AfC reviewer rights in the meantime. May I reach out if and when I have queries or need assistance?

Pinging Drmies, so that they too are aware of how I intend to participate going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Permission granted. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, oh my, thank you very much! Quite an honour I was not expecting to be a New Page Patroller; I merely wished to help out more at AfC! I hope to use my new found rights with utmost responsibility. Thank you and kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, hold on: I assigned you "new page reviewer", which is what I thought you were talking about, and that's Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, a useful tool; I see now that you were talking about a script, that I can't help you with. I'm sure Primefac will let you know soon. Anyway, you may find it helpful regardless. Thanks again for helping out with that article. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, sorry about the confusion about the permission granted, that of New Page Reviewer. I can see that I can now review drafts as well, if I have the AfC Helper script activated in my settings; however please kindly revoke whichever rights you think I am not yet suitable for if granted by accident. Thank you very much, regardless. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, can i also have your help in my other draft Draft:To Dream it was declined but maybe it exists reliable articles that i havent cited that i though they were not reliable. Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, I will take a look at it when I get time in the coming few days. Please be patient, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Okay thank you, and thank you for your help in getting Ed Hayter an article, im sorry that not seeing sources from the perinital reliable source it wouldnt be approved and i was scared that being submitted again could be declined again like it was. Is it okay if i add his instagram in the external links now? Many other actors have it Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:MOS. Many other actors may have it, but even those can eventually be removed. An external link to IMDb is sufficient for the moment. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Ah ok i see Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, for your future reference, please carefully read through the following pages, as these are the topics you seem to be interested in: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks you i will do that. I can fox references and will try to improve other draft that way as well making the infobox as its something i know to do the right way. Ill read that before i make any other changes in articles as i noticed it is more complicated than i expected to be Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fix reference * Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About his name would it be best to change it to Ed as everyone calls him that name? Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:COMMONNAME. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Ok i see, ill wait and try to reach out again to medias for them to write significant coverage of him. Which i have never got any answers yet. Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

speedily deleted. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

I already did it when it first was mentioned its on my talk page Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More like user page, where i listed things about me, babel box, my interests. Its on the section of why i edit Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, that is sufficient for now. Thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for understanding Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But again im just a fan of these actors and being autistic makes me hyperfocus on them and do everything involving them, i also own a fan account of him. But as i live in canada and him in london i am not a friend of him and neither paid for it Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am many interests and once I hyperfocus on a person or anything else, it's them and only them until its replaced with someone/something else and then go back to previous hyperfixations, but my interests stays the same and I still love other things such as parrots even if I'm not hyperfocus on them anymore Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for the clarification. Wikipedia:Writing better articles might also be a useful read for you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Youre welcome and will read it , i also added a bunch of userbox in my user page that may help other reviewers Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hayter, 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

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!

Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tagishsimon, thank you very much! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, i believe he is notable and i looked him up in this website: https://www.bfi.org.uk/preview/page/cfa4a40b-c655-4699-9fcc-b0e97551371b/working-copy/1684234680/6_p2ELUsFyId3V-mwEy3ObfGotrJtoAqvgVjVUYKZZs , that im making a draft for

Dear Veganpurplefox, I will take a look at the draft and the subject in the coming few days. Thank you for reaching out. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for approving it! That was really fast! Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:Puffery once again, as that was mostly what I needed to clean up. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

I see, i will read that again. Maybe no one was interested in him enough to create an article? Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about the public image, in tea house i was told to add content of which other people have talked about him. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:SIGCOV which the subject clearly lacks for the time being. Their role, and the impact of that role on the overall culture or the industry needs to be significant, and reliable sources need to cover how significant it is. One or two news or press articles talking about how good/bad an actor was in this role or that role is not enough. Most articles will commonly introduce or mention something positive or negative about the subject they are talking about to provide some context for their readers. Our job is to cut through all of that and get to the point from an encyclopaedic perspective. I hope this makes it clear on how you should phrase your drafts going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Ah i understand, thank you for the clarification! Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will now focus on reading much of the links you have provided to me and try to improve how i write the articles. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing the section of Production and maybe Reception needs to have content removed,maybe there is puffery stuff in

Draft:Burning Men that i submissed Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

His name was again deleted from the user mrOllie in the Will (TV series) .how can we get him in the cast? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is beggining a deletation article about him now Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

MrOllie wishes to propose deletion, it is their right to do so. If the article survives, it survives – if it does not, it does not. In the meantime, kindly refrain from making any panicked edits or spamming users' talk pages. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Women in STEM | Geofocus: Sub-Saharan Africa Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article editathon Tip of the month: When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello. Minor problem over at Clare Kenny: there are over a dozen inbound links from all the bands the AFD'd musician was in, and none for the artist. Also, the dab page currently only has one entry. Shall I unlink all the music articles? Are you planning to add another entry to the dab? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikishovel, my apologies for overlooking that detail; I was following the instructions as they were left in a comment on the draft before I accepted it. I did not realise that the musician's page had been deleted. Please kindly unlink those music articles, and we can probably move the Clare Kenny article back to the regular name form and introduce some links to the artist so that the article is no longer an orphan. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No problem at all, and easily fixed. All the music articles are unlinked now, and your suggestion of moving the artist article over the dab makes sense, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikishovel, thank you for your kind undertaking! Please let me know if there is any other cleanup required. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This article has 16 legitimate sources, which exceeds most Wikipedia pages and matches Shelley Herman husband's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Carver.

There is nothing "highly promotional" about the tone. It simply states the facts, which have been backed up by the 16 legitimate news links. No product or service is being sold or promoted. Please site the specific promotional tone you claim. exists.

The claim that Shelley Herman's published book is only "celebrity anecdotes" is reductive and incorrect. The book is far more than that, but I would be flagged for a "highly promotional" tone for going into anymore detail.

Interestingly, another writer who wrote about his experience as an NBC page has not had his page flagged, in fact, he has fewer references than Shelley Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_J_Pilato LosAngelesWriter (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:Puffery

. That is the main reason for the rejection of the article as it currently stands; the subject does seem to be notable and the sources seem to be quality sources.

Regarding her husband's article and the article on the other NBC page, please study the phrases used in those articles and you will see why yours cannot be accepted into the main space as it stands. And please refrain from citing other articles on Wikipedia for confirming what should or should not be in any other article – we have a whole policy about it; see

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

.

I have some time today and so I will improve this article in whatever capacity I can. Please have a look then, before resubmitting it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your response. Please cite any of these "particular words being used to phrase a sentence can still indicate a promotional marketing speak or be written in a non-neutral tone" in the Shelley Herman Wikipedia page.

I look forward to your response.

I took your advice and looked at the Wikipedia article about the other NBC page, Herbie J Pilato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_J_Pilato, which includes several promotional phrases about Pilato's books such as: "everything and anything one could possibly want to know – and not want to know" and "Pilato's subject expertise" and "earns its definitive title hands down; even for those with only a casual interest, it proves more diverting than one might expect." LosAngelesWriter (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

draft

, and it now complies with our policies in its present form. Other, more experienced editors will eventually come along and expand it as new sources are published about the subject as her career progresses. Please feel free to resubmit that draft and I will accept it.

Regarding the other NBC page – the statements you are citing are direct quotes from reviewers of his work in reliable sources, and that is fine as per

WP:WEIGHT

). The key difference here is formatting of the sentence – for example, the article's prose should NOT read something like: his book was considered "amazing and thrilling". This statement is non-neutral because it reads like an opinion, which is unacceptable. Instead, a neutral statement for that same quote would read like: [name of journalist] writing for [journal/newspaper/magazine] acclaimed the book as "amazing and thrilling". As an encyclopaedia, we are aiming to state the facts as they are and not derive any conclusions on our own. If the journalist and the source are notable with their own articles which can be wikilinked to, that will add even more credibility. I hope this example clears any queries you might have had.

About the statement of him being hired for his expertise for a movie, it weakly passes as a summary under our policy on

close paraphrasing, but of course it can be improved – which I went ahead and did. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Hi @Spinster300.

You declined the draft Monica Gagliano yesterday due to lack of sources and because it was written like an essay.

I just wanted to point out that under

The editor asked for some help on the Teahouse and they did add a few more secondary sources, and I accepted the draft. Qcne (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:NACADEMIC

is quite the task to navigate, I had found the several citations of the subject's own work and the narrative style prose to be the main cause for concern.

However, I was confident the subject was notable and the draft would be improved and accepted eventually – and so, I am quite happy that the editor reached out on Teahouse and was able to get the help they needed. This process, after all, is the ultimate goal of our exercise here on Wikipedia.

Once again, thank you for letting me know, and please do not hesitate to reach out if a similar scenario occurs in the future; I would be most grateful for your help and insight. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300,

Curious what you think about this one? I've cleaned up based on the previous reviewer's comments. They have a lot of coverage, particularly for one film. I couldn't find any bio material about them except here, which looks to be not secondary or independent. Filmforme (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:Three, but I think the draft has a better chance if it is made into stub as there does not seem to be extensive coverage to justify the article's length at present. I will need to take a better look at the draft in detail tomorrow. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear Filmforme, since you enjoy creating articles on people in the film industry, could you take a look at developing Draft:Adjani Salmon for me? I feel that that subject has a lot of promise. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Re:

Draft:Russell Geoffrey Banks

Thanks, whatever you think. I'm a bit surprised they don't have more for the work they have done so far.

Re:Draft:Adjani Salmon I've made a note of this and will take a look. – Filmforme (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent edting and acceptance of the article. BFP1 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Better than my editing of this message![reply]

Dear BFP1, thank you for your kind words. Please let me know if you have any such articles or drafts I may be able to assist with. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289 Online events: New: Alphabet run I & J | Geofocus: Indian subcontinent | Women in Politics Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Tip of the month: When translating articles from another language Wikipedia, don't forget to include attribution in your first edit summary. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Spinster300 –

You recently declined my submission due to not having enough sources for Carlton Heard. I have supplemented the material with additional sources to strengthen the discussion on the subject. Should you have any recommendations for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thanks!

-Blackspace7 BlackSpace7 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlackSpace7, thank you for reaching out! The draft needs some work before it can be accepted into main space. The references also need to show that the subject satisfies all our notability guidelines. I shall take a look at improving it in some days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Please update or let me know what updates should be made.

-Blackspace7 BlackSpace7 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlackSpace7, I have been away for the past few days. I will take a look at the draft soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Spinster300:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spinster300,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission. I wanted to let you know that I've made some adjustments to my submission based on your feedback regarding its tone, which didn't meet the encyclopaedic standards. I've also removed any unnecessary sources and made the information more succinct. If you have any further suggestions for improvement, I would welcome your insights. Kind regards, Plushwiki21 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plushwiki21, my apologies for replying back so late, I was away for a few days. I see that the article has been accepted already – Congratulations! The article reads clearer and more concise now. It will be expanded in due course as more sources on the subject come to light. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there! Thanks so much for your speedy review of my draft entry. I'm just a little confused at your comment "We need more reliable sources about the subject, not just reviews of the subject's work" as none of the sources are reviews of the author's work? I was hoping you could give me a steer on this - maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what the comment means! - as I'd really like to revise and resubmit this entry. Many thanks! Mareotis (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mareotis, I have been away for the past few days. I shall take a look at the draft soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks so much! I think I've worked out where I went wrong though - apologies! I'll edit and resubmit. Mareotis (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Hello Filmforme, hope you are well! Thank you for letting me know about your draft. I will hopefully find some time this weekend to take a look at it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. –Filmforme (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, my apologies for not having gotten back to you about your draft, I have been travelling over the past few weeks. I just went through the changes you have made since you pinged me. The article seems okay now, and I see that you have moved it to main space. Please let me know if you wish for me to take a look at any other articles you are working on. I will try my best to respond in time. I return back to my routine in a few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I understand, no problem. I had dug around and found more on them. What do you think about

Draft:Shaw Jones? Filmforme (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Filmforme, from an initial look – the draft needs better sources. It is very well written, but more reliable sources are needed. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Women who died in 2023 | Honoured Women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Avoid copyright problems by rewriting in your own words. You can check any article or draft with Earwig's copyvio detector. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Nadja Tesich draft that I submitted for review is only my second Wikipedia entry. Can you tell me where I went wrong, as far as citations? 24.105.145.198 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article is quite well written, but there are several statements that lack a reference. Please reference those statements. You can reuse references as well. Please see:

Referencing for beginners. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spinster300. Thank you for your work on

I have marked

WP:GNG

? I don't see any significant coverage. The sources used are mostly databases, interviews, and self-published selling profiles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:ARTIST

and decided to start stubs on them based on the information I found on them at the expositions themselves, apart from whatever scarce materials I could find online.

Please feel free to draftify them in case you feel they are a case of

WP:TOOSOON, however I am not sure if I will be able to improve them any time soon as I will be travelling again right after the holidays. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 49 reviews, for a total of 68 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296 Online events: New: Education (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Temperance women Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2023 Announcement In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part of the #1day1woman initiative! Tip of the month: Check out the new navigation on our Women in Red Project home page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The article Jean-Marie Rausch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very short page with only one paragraph. Also has some unreliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Marie Rausch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Marie Rausch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlakeIsHereStudios, thank you for this notice. I created this stub a while ago, and I am glad it has caught your attention for possible expansion or deletion. I will leave its fate to the ongoing AfD discussion. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300! Thanks for reviewing the draft

Dear Atibrarian, duly noted. Thank you for your improvements on the article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Please do not decline articles for NPOV in cases where there is no neutrality issues, such as you did at

Dear Curbon7, thank you for your comment. I often struggle with choosing through the limited options of reasons for dealing with any draft. I will try my best to use the custom reason option to provide better context going forward. Interestingly, I had the Józefa Bramowska draft in my bookmarks as I wanted to work on improving it myself in the coming few days before accepting it into the mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

If you had the article in your "bookmark" with the intent of "improving it" as claimed, then why the haste to decline? I will suggest you familiarize yourself with the AfC review process more for better understanding. Atibrarian (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atibrarian, my sincerest apologies if my actions offended any of the other editors of the draft or other reviewers. It seemed sensible to me to vacate the draft from the AfC pending reviews log while its translation was improved and it was eventually brought over to the mainspace. And I see that you have cleaned up the draft already, thank you for that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Curbon7! Thanks for your honest assessment and submission. Atibrarian (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spinster300, thank you for leaving me a message about my draft submission (I created a new page about "Sandra Kobanovitch", french film director). I just tried to make it more "neutral" and less "peacock terms" and resubmited it now. Can you please tell me if that looks good for you? If there is still problems can you point them out? Thank you for your help. (By the way, I just translated the french version of the Wikipedia article, which seems already neutral to me but I made it ever more neutral now, I hope it's good). Calembourgs (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calembourgs, thank you for writing in. I am happy to take a look! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear

WP:PYRAMID. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear @Spinster300, thanks for your valuable advice, I'll try to write the article again. On the other hand, all the passages are sourced from French press articles (Le Parisien, France 3, France Bleu, which are national media recognized in France), is this enough for the English version of Wikipedia? Everything mentioned in the article is supported by secondary sources (awards won, films made, etc.). Thank you again for your precious time. Calembourgs (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calembourgs, these sources are perfectly fine – what is not apparent is why the subject and their career is notable. Merely having articles in these French papers (even if they are highly reputed) is not enough, since paid public relations and press exists. What is necessary (at least, in this case) to determine notability for the context of Wikipedia is the content of those press articles. Has the subject been associated with important productions, notable in and of themselves? Has the subject won any significant awards, which are again, notable in and of themselves?

In this subject's case, the articles are used to reference their childhood, which as saddening it is to read, does not make them notable. The three short films mentioned use references to talk about the films themselves – the first film premiering at Cannes has no relevance to her own notability, but would rightly fit in an article about the short film itself. Same goes for the second film, unless it the subject who won the award as its cinematographer. The subject's photography is likely what you could focus on, given that it won an award. Has the subject's photography been part of any major exhibitions in notable museums, biennales, galleries, etc., or been published via several journals or publications? Answering these questions will help us better determine this subject's notability for Wikipedia.

I hope this clears things up. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, this clears things up ! Thank you so much for taking the time to detail your answer and the elements necessary for the notability of the subject. To answer you factually on what can make this subject interesting and "notable" for the encyclopedia (in my opinion):

• Young filmmaker who presented her first short film at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015 (the media that talk about it portray the filmmaker and her unique career path, more than the film itself, for example here: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/normandie/2015/05/01/evreux-sandra-jessica-koban-presente-son-court-metrage-cannes-716217.html or here: https://www.leparisien.fr/hauts-de-seine-92/sandra-22-ans-ira-presenter-son-premier-court-metrage-au-festival-de-cannes-23-04-2015-4716459.php (she appeared under a pseudonym at the time).

• She then went on to make a film with actor Samy Naceri (who's pretty well known, beyond France, he has a Wikipedia page in over 30 languages I think - I didn't even know there were that many languages!). The film she directed won an award at a festival in Canada for its image quality, but it was the cinematographer who got the prize, not her, but it shows the quality of her film and her work as a director (she directs the cinematographer and dictates the artistic choices).

• She has won an award as a photographer in Tokyo, the TIFA (Tokyo International Foto Awards) https://www.tokyofotoawards.jp/winners/social/2023/23-44894-23/, and her work will be exhibited in March 2024 at the Metropolitan Theater in Tokyo (I have secondary sources, French media, that mention this victory and upcoming exhibition). The French news agency AFP reports on this festival, which is notable : https://www.afp.com/fr/lagence/prix-et-recompenses/david-gray-et-steven-saphore-recompenses-aux-tokyo-international-foto-awards-tifa-2021 , it also listed here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photography_awards

As you mentioned, it's the last point that's surely the most noteworthy.

I can find many photographers on Wikipedia who mention this award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vijayan , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Jarque , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Saltzman and others...

I don't know if all this is enough for your criteria here, if it isn't I understand and ask your forgiveness for taking up your precious time. Thank you again for your kind replies. Calembourgs (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering if you might be able to direct me to which bits of prose read more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry on the Charles Knight artist page that was recently rejected again. I’ve added more citations but am slightly at a loss in terms of tone as I thought I had kept it objective. Any specifics or direction would be so helpful, thank you! Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, I am very happy to help! Let me go through your draft once again and make improvements on it directly. After that, we can review and discuss before you consider resubmission of the draft. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much! Much appreciated Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, I have improved the draft by making it a lot more concise and rewritten several paragraphs and sections that were too closely paraphrased from the sources which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please add the citations needed and please add links to the newspaper obituaries if possible (print-only sources are fine, but more details, the better!). Feel free to resubmit the draft for review, and I shall accept it into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This has just popped up on to my watchlist from a link added to John Leopold Denman. I have a reliable (paper) source which devotes several hundred words to Knight. I will edit the draft tomorrow accordingly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hassocks5489, thank you so much for that! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks so much for your help with editing the article! You have done a brilliant job and I really appreciate your time helping to get it right. Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, you are very welcome! Please feel free to write back at any time you need help on articles or drafts going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

I would like to ask why you have shortened the text of the Wikipedia entry "Carl Rechlin" so much. This article is based on the German Wikipedia entry https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rechlin, the content of which has been checked in every detail.

Best regards User Rechlins Rechlins (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

inline citations for all statements made within an article's body (this rule is stricter for biographies). These inline citations are missing for the article on the German Wikipedia. Please expand the English article if you are confidently able to verify all statements with inline citations. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Hello. I have seen that the article I created and you revised is now extremely short and, to me, quite uninteresting. I wanted to complete it, but now I dont know what I should do, especially as I don't quite agree with the little that's left of what I originally wrote. Can you please me advise me as to what I should now do ? Thanks. Rouncival (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rouncival, the draft needed to be made more concise to pass the article review process, as the previous iterations of the draft were adding unnecessary sections and dividing up information that could be easily summarised in a single paragraph.

Please feel free to expand the current article into a full-fledged biographical article. Please remember to keep the text neutral, summarise from citations in your own words, and cite everything to verifiable and reliable sources. Several citations are already present on the stub for you to begin your work with – feel free to add material (suitable for an encyclopaedia) that can be sourced from those existing citations.

Please let me know if you need any help. Happy editing! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply, I'll start today and let you know when I'm finished - it may take a few days. Kind regards. 2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:58EF:8295:84E3:AB5A (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is no rush! Please take your time. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I'd like to get your input on this draft. I had trouble finding better sourcing for their accolades and theater history, but I think they may meet

Dear Filmforme, I will take a look in the coming few days, if that is fine. May I also ask after your other couple of drafts that I had to unfortunately decline? Were their issues fixed? Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes that'll work, and I'm not sure if I've asked you about Draft:Suzana Norberg?

RE:

Draft:Shaw Jones

; I had included some more refs before submitting, but since the decline, I've only found a blog review for a new play they are in, and an interview that I don't think is significant or independent enough.

RE:

WP:GNG. I've read some say they only need to meet one, but I've been hesitant about it. Filmforme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:ANYBIO, though I've heard that regional emmys are not notable to count for "a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Filmforme (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Filmforme, I will take a look at these drafts and any others you are working on. Perhaps once we have gone over them, you might consider submitting them then? Drafts submitted without thorough work backlog the Articles for Creation project and reviewers have to spend a lot of time sorting and declining drafts that don't make the cut. I hope this is agreeable to you.

Please list out all the drafts you are working on in your next reply and we shall take a look at them step by step. If any of them are already submitted for review, not to worry – we shall clear them first. Thank you once again for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially the coverage of female actors.

May I suggest you look at another WikiProject called

WP:GNG

. That way, you will be able to contribute articles on actresses from all over the world and not just focus on North America, as that is another one of English Wikipedia's biases, geographically speaking.

Please let me know what you think, in the meantime please list your current drafts and we shall get to work. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Spinster300 Thanks, I agree. I have several drafts I don't feel confident in resubmitting until I can address some issues brought up from the feedback I've received. But here's others I've submitted already:

• Draft:Chris Soriano
• Draft:The Last Butterflies
• Draft:The Master Chief: Part One
• Draft:Michael Lewis Foster

RE: Women in Red, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Should I translate and publish or submit those as drafts too? Filmforme (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, the Michael Lewis Foster draft was good to go. I will see how the others can be improved later today.

Regarding Women in Red, it would be wiser to create drafts initially. I am happy to review them for you and guide you with making them. Please note that the subjects, while notable according to the standards of other language Wikipedias, may not be notable according to the English Wikipedia. A good gauge that I use is to see if the subject's various credits or accolades have articles in the English Wikipedia. It is also worthwhile to do a simple search and check if the subject's name is redlinked or unlinked across several existing articles on the English Wikipedia as well.

I would also like you to note that the German, French, Italian, and Spanish Wikipedias in my experience have generally maintained a high quality of articles and sources that are easier to bring on to the English version.

It is also a good idea, when checking the WiR redlist indices, to see if the subject's Wikidata item has several library database entries from

VIAF – what this indicates is that the subject's work has been either published widely in several countries (hence mandating a legal deposit

) or considered important enough to be acquired by the music/film/television series departments or archives of various countries' national libraries/archives/museums – thus, putting up a very good case for notability. These database entries render on Wikipedia at the bottom of the article under the template "Authority control databases" and you will find them to be quite populated on most established actors', directors', screenwriters', and producers' biographies.

I shall be in touch later today for the other drafts. Happy editing! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear

WP:TOOSOON. The movie draft, I would leave to the judgement of editors from those WikiProjects. Thank you for your valuable contributions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

@Spinster300 Thank you for your continued help on these. I'll keep my eyes out for more on the others. –Filmforme (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on these banners. Just a note that there is generally no purpose in adding |year=2024 and 293 because 293 is a 2024 event so it will automatically be categorised as such under that year. The |year= parameter is for cases where the exact meetup is not known. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, thank you for letting me know that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Just guessing here, but maybe you were trying to get the year (2024) to appear in the nested display on the banner. If that is the case, we can do that by changing the template's code and I have made a suggestion at Template talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Adding year on collapsed display — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, my idea was to keep both: the drive and year. I plan to go back and tag all previous WiR articles of mine with their respective years of creation. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

No please don't! We can do this automatically using the template, if you wouldn't mind commenting at that link I gave above... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, alright, I shall! Thank you for letting me know. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for creating Manara Valgimigli! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IgnatiusofLondon, how very sweet of you, thank you! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Spinster300, I have added and edited references on the draft article on artist Natalie Beridze that you have revised and declined for publishing. Please note that the page already exists in German language and the draft is addition in English. I have updated/edited references, and i believe the references ara comprehensively covering all points mentioned in the article, some other improvements were also made. I would be grateful you could revise the article once again. 31.146.234.210 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that the article still does not pass English Wikipedia's standard for a

WP:SIGCOV. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear @Spinster300, I have been fixing the draft article on Felipe Castanhari that you revised and declined for publishing. Is there anything else I need to do before it gets approved? ElegantEgotist (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, thank you for your note. I will take a look at the draft tomorrow and let you know my suggestions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, there are still some issues with the draft. The biography and controversies section still need to rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone. I am happy to make those changes for you, if you like. Please let me know. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I would be very thankful if you did so, because English is not my first language, so I translated it almost verbatim from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, where rules are much looser. Thanks a million for your input and feedback! ElegantEgotist (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, you are very welcome! I will make the necessary changes to the draft in the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, thanks a million! ElegantEgotist (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:BOLD, I would strongly recommend sticking to the AfC process while you are a new editor. This article still needs a lot more work to pass the regular Articles for Creation process, and in the main space incomplete or poor articles are often the first ones nominated for deletion. I shall proceed to make my improvements on the article as it stands at present. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

It wasn't me! ElegantEgotist (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, my sincerest apologies. I read the notification while on the fly. I see that your article was accepted by a fellow reviewer. My sincerest apologies, once again. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Nevertheless, thanks for making the article way more presentable! ElegantEgotist (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gillian Hart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absolute mess, unsourced, and includes text that seems to be written by a person close to article subject. If someone has a reason to save this, please do so by fixing the amount of issues present.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

P.S. I have just realized the article has been vandalized but nobody noticed it. However, I still have major concerns about the article, so I'm keeping this here.

Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear

AlphaBetaGammsh, thank you for this notification. I have restored the article to its last accurate version. I further do not wish to contest the deletion nomination, I am happy to let the community come to a conclusion on the topic. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Hi @Spinster300,

I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to review the draft article I have been writing Draft:Max Mezo.

I have taken your notes and have tried to improve the article to the best of my ability. Although, I am very open and hoping that you could take another look at it and possibly make any adjustments you think are necessary to have it ready to be published. This is my first article and I've been working on it for quite awhile now. It has been fun learning more about the process and how wiki pages come to fruition.

Thanks so much! Limekiwi29 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for writing in. The draft still needs a lot more work. I am happy to make edits to it over the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, that would be amazing. Thanks so much. Limekiwi29 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject? Once you send me those here, I can see how they can be worked in to the article. As it stands, submitting it again with no significant change to the draft will result in another decline. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear

WP:BLP. If you can help with that, please do so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Hi @Spinster300, Thank you for making the adjustments. I have gone in and added citations and rewrote some things according to your indications. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the draft. Cheers. Limekiwi29 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:PYRAMID

style of prose in its present state. The statement you have replaced about the subject's alma mater, would belong in a more in-depth summary style article, if we had the sources to cover it.

The community news citation could perhaps cite the suburb where the subject grew up, but I found no evidence that the streets the subject is a resident of as mentioned in the news article correspond with those of the suburb the subject grew up in from the suburb's own article. Is there any way you can clarify this?

The Facebook citation for the subject's birthdate is generally not recommended, unless it is common knowledge via a verifiable source or a post on a verified account (see

WP:BLP

guidelines.

Also, may I please confirm that you are not yourself the subject, or are in any way related to the subject of the article? In case you are, it is strongly recommended that you disclose this information. Please see

WP:COI

.

Please let me know if there is any other way you may have to improve this draft. At present, it is likely a case of

WP:TOOSOON with only borderline notability. Please note that, you are welcome to provide offline sources, as long as they are verifiable by other editors who may have access to those offline, real world resources. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear @Spinster300, thank you for all the information, like I said I'm relatively new to article creation so I appreciate all the needed context.

For the community news article, I googled the intersection in Toronto to confirm it was in the beaches area.

The facebook I was unsure about, i saw other influencers and smaller pages did not have a cite for their birthday, for example Khaby Lame, Chiara Ferragni & Dixie D'Amelio. I couldn't find any other news sources where they say his exact birthday except for his facebook.

I am not Max or connected to him in any way, I'm a fan of his and have been a follower for many years.

Can you share examples of pages/sources that have been written for other up and coming influencers that would be considered notable for a wikipedia reference.

I saw you created the article Edward Hayter and I felt that Max's sources were far more notable then Edwards, so curious how Edward's page is more suitable for wikipedia than Max's. Thank You, @Limekiwi29 Limekiwi29 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:NPOV

, since being a passionate fan or enthusiast about a subject (which is very welcome) can lead to some form of bias in the prose and article text which can be cumbersome to edit out. Thank you also for confirming that the intersection belongs to the suburb as mentioned in the news article. We can leave that bit in the article.

Regarding the birthdate citations for Lame, Ferragni, and D'Amelio – please notice that each of their biographies carries an "Authority control databases" template at the bottom of their respective articles.

Information in this template is populated by certain bibliographic data maintained by libraries, museums, universities, and other such highly reliable and resourceful institutions across the world. These institutions employ qualified librarians and cataloguers who will generally create a well researched and authoritative profile on various topics based on information they have collected from books, journals, movies, music, series, and several other media formats they are mandated to collect.

This authoritative data can possibly be considered "common knowledge" about certain aspects of a person's life; like their birthdate, birthplace, educational qualifications, former names, married names, pseudonyms or pen-names, and thus mentioned in the article without an explicit citation (although, one is encouraged whenever possible). It is easier to rely on and trust that these highly respected institutions will have done their due diligence to verify the facts before creating said authoritative profile. Of the names you listed, I give you the example of Lame, where his birthdate is mentioned in a reliable authoritative record as published and maintained by the National Library of France.

Alternatively, if the subject does not have any authoritative profiles with such institutions, like a many growing number of internet celebrities do, it is possible to cite their birthdate from the date harvested by most search engines like Google, from various fan sites (such as Famous Birthdays) who have probably taken the birthdate from a birthday post the celebrity made on their birthday on a verified and public social media account. In such an event, such harvested data on a search engine from such primary sources (the social media post) or other sources (Famous Birthdays) can be considered "common knowledge". However, it is important to note that fan sites such as Famous Birthdays are considered unreliable on Wikipedia if added directly, and the social media post is considered a primary source if added directly, and must be used with a fair amount of caution. Given the nature of Mezo's article being that of borderline notability of a

living individual

, it is best to omit the birthdate until it becomes common knowledge or can be reliably cited.

Regarding the Edward Hayter article, notability can be demonstrated in several ways, and Wikipedia usually has criteria and guidelines per topic. The most ideal way notability can be established for an actor is to demonstrate that they have played significant roles or have won significant awards. On Wikipedia, significance is often self-fulfilling. If the movie or show or award is significant enough, it will have an article of its own as it will have qualified notability criteria for each of those topics. In Hayter's case, he has portrayed a significant individual on a significant show, and another significant individual in a significant play at a significant theatre, and won a best actor award at a significant film festival, among other relevant things that add to his notability, albeit at the level of a stub article, which is likely to organically grow as his career progresses.

Reliable sources are generally needed to prove that these claims to notability are rooted in fact, and are not just a hoax or fiction. The reliability and verifiability of a source, and its nature (primary, secondary, etc.) are required when discussing the source itself. Take for example, the article on J. R. R. Tolkien. Large portions of his article are supported by his own letters, or biographies written by his children, all of which would be considered primary sources. But his article exists primarily because of his prominence and significance as an author of significant works. It is just that the most reliable manner in which several aspects of his life can be supported on a platform like Wikipedia is through those primary sources.

This in not to say that the fact or statement of notability that the source is meant to support does not matter, but it is within a specific context. Take for example, an individual being described as very generous and charitable by a very reliable, secondary source. This claim bears no significance in and of itself because of lack of detail, except to maybe summarise that said person "was remembered as a charitable person" in a long article; in a short article, this statement would not be immediately relevant to a reader and other editors may consider it an unencyclopaedic fact not worthy of mentioning as it bears no significance. If however, there is a primary source, say from a prominent charity, which has self published their annual report where this individual has been named as the primary patron or donor of a large sum, it can be used to demonstrate that this person was a significant philanthropist, adding to notability. If a large number of such sources and claims exist, a "philanthropy" or "charitable activities" section will even be added to the article of this person.

I apologise if this explanation is tediously long to read, but I hope this clarifies as to why Mezo's draft is still in its naissant stage, and his notability in and of itself needs to improve, regardless of the quality of sources added. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest Tip of the month: When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Good morning, @Spinster300! I'm very sorry if I'm abusing your patience, but I'd like to ask your help in yet another issue. Earlier I was working on another draft, Draft:Wendel Bezerra, but it got denied as well because, once again, Portuguese-language Wikipedia (from where I translated it) doesn't give us much to work with. As soon as you're unoccupied, would you try to work your magic on it as well, or is it unsalvageable as it is??

Best regards and thanks for your work on Felipe Castanhari! ElegantEgotist (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, this particular draft will take some work; I am not quite sure about the notability of voice actors. I will see what I can do. The Portuguese version also has a notice to it, so it is not the most ideally helpful translation. I will try and see if reliable sources can be found. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I think you accidentally hit the wrong review button, marking him with "not neutral" when there is nothing (for an academic) that is not neutral in that. I therefore have accepted it, but also tagged it with a need for more secondary sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ldm1954, thank you for letting me know! I marked the draft as decline because of the prose being a little too promotional in tone for me – I have come across several well-written academic articles that have stated facts similar to this article with a lot more neutrality. Please address the issue of the article being an orphan, and I can see that there are some copyright violations in the page's content as well. Please address that too if you can, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I strongly disagree with you about the copyright. Most of what is being marked is his books/references and that should not be. Dumb codes which classifying titles such as "Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity" as violations must be ignored as inappropriate.

For an academic this page is very quiet. Loud (and bad) is

Draft:Prof. Kieran Murphy. More typical are Benjamin Schafer, David Steurer or Dan Romik all of which I consider comparable. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Ldm1954, my apologies. I meant the summary style of the prose of the stated facts about Vallacher's career. Of course, the titles of the works cannot be changed. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Spinster300,

Thanks for your feedback that the article needed to be written more neutrally before it was ready for mainspace. I've done a bit of a rewrite to make it look like less of a resume. Can you advise me if what I've done is adequate and whether I should resubmit it to AfC or in your opinion does it need more work? TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TarnishedPath, thank you for the changes you have made. The article reads a lot better and more neutral now. There are some reference formatting and prose issues that need to be fixed, and I shall do those later today. After that, we can accept the draft into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Spinster300, Thank you for your advice to rewrite the article more neutrally. Apparently, you have considered the mention that "the Index for Jewish Art is the biggest digital repository of Jewish art and material culture in the world" to be a judgmental statement. It is, however, an objective truth: there is no such another project, which collected so many documentation materials. Despite that, I have deleted this part not to provoke anyone. I think now the article contains no judgmental statements at all and is completely encyclopedic. I hope now it can be accepted for publication. CatherineOlesh (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:NPOV here on Wikipedia. I am happy to go through the draft and edit it further, if you are fine with that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear @Spinster300, that would be great! Thank you! Maybe there's something, which reads not neutral, but I am already so used to this text that I don't see it. I would really appreciate your help. CatherineOlesh (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spinster 300,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and taking the time to read this draft. As I am new to creating Wikipedia articles, I need all the constructive criticism I can gather. FYI, I'm going to carefully read WP:Writing Better Articles; WP:BECONCISE; your link to "not a publisher of personal essays;" and WP Avoiding Common Mistakes. I really do want to learn as much as I can about this style of writing, as I'm planning on writing more articles in the near and distant future. Additionally, I did see the Manual of Style (MoS), and I may selectively read parts of that one.

Thanks to your discussion regarding Ed Hayter, I now know that there's a list of requested articles out there.

I do have a question for you, however: after I make the corrections to this draft, will you be informed that it's ready to be re-reviewed when I re-submit it? That would be helpful on my part - to work with the same editor, rather than another random one. Is it possible to request the same reviewer for a draft?

Thanks again - Karl8704 Karl8704 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:WPWIR

for interesting projects on the coverage of women in various fields on Wikipedia.

I am glad to know that my discussions with other draft writers has been helpful to you. You may also want to take a look at my detailed response to the creator of another draft here, about how no amount of editing can justify or fix inherent notability issues.

Unfortunately, I will not be directly informed of your resubmission unless the draft or article is directly on my Watchlist. Please feel free to ping me here once you have finished improving the draft. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Spinster, I do not quite understand what you mean by: Several sections of the article need to be rephrased or rewritten for the article to pass. I am author of multiple full length articles on Czech Art (Mikuláš Medek, Adolf Hoffmeister, Theodor Pištěk, Zbyněk Sekal, Vladimír Janoušek, etc.) which were reviewed without any objections. Can you specify what should be "rephrased or rewritten"? Thanks. NoJin (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:Puffery; the subject is notable, and the draft will be accepted, but please take a look at making the language more dry and neutral, if possible. I am not sure about the writing style on any of your other biographies that you have contributed. In case there is puffery, it will be edited out eventually, if it has not already. Thank you for contributing important Czech artist biographies to the English Wikipedia! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear Spinster300, I try to be as objective and neutral as possible, but the articles are about art. I don't do any "own research", but I draw on texts by art historians and curators, whose writing style is specific and quite different from descriptive texts on other topics. By the way - I don't understand why a text about Jan Mikulka, who is really important painter, award winning repeatedly in UK, arouses emotions, while the English Wikipedia tolerates a stub about the unknown regional Czech footballer Jan Mikula.--NoJin (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoJin, please note that on Wikipedia, we do not compare notability. We have a standard notability criteria, but that does not mean we compare one subject to another in the various aspects of their notability. Article length does not matter, either. What matters is whether the article content presented is encyclopaedic in nature or not.

Take the example of the footballer you have pointed out – the article is factual and to the point. There are no subjective descriptions anywhere. As compared to the

Draft:Jan Mikulka

, which has statements such as "which is the most prestigious competitive showcase of contemporary portraiture", "Since the artist works mostly on commission, we do not see his works very often on the open art market", "Mikulka can express the psychology of man, he can capture man in his complexity, as a human being charged with feelings and spiritual vibration", and many other statements which need to be removed entirely, or attributed as quotes from that specific author writing for that specific source about the subject or his work.

I am happy to clean up the draft for you if you like, but it needs to be made much more concise (see:

WP:NPOV). Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Dear Spinster300 I understand the point of your remarks. Writtig article on Jan Mikulka was hampered by the lack of sources and I had used phrases from the English article by Mark Gisbourne perhaps excessively. I shall clean up the text and submit it for review. Thanks for your suggestions.--NoJin (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoJin, you are very welcome. Feel free to let me know once the changes are made and I will be happy to review the article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing Mimaki-hime! I'm actually over the moon💛 Camillz (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Camillz, you are very welcome! Please continue to improve it wherever and whenever you can. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

On 15 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Knight (artist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Knight's wartime painting activities led to him being mistaken for a German spy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Knight (artist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Knight (artist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spinster300. Thank you for your review of my article on Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer). Draft:Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer) I see it was declined. In this submission of it, I added a lot more citations than the first submission (went from 3 to 16 sources). If possible, I would love to know which specific areas you feel need more citation or if there are sections you think I should just delete from the article so that it can be approved. Thank you so much for your time. Jennifer Bak (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:INLINE

).

Several statements are also externally linked, which is not allowed. Please convert them to plain text or to wikilcnks to other articles or article sections within Wikipedia. If the source is reliable, you may use the current external link to cite the claim being made by the statement (see:

WP:BECONCISE

).

Please let me know if you face any issues while making these corrections and improvements, and I will be happy to chip in. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Spinster300, please tell me what is not reliable and what you consider to be reliable in the draft at

Hello, please have a look at

WP:THREE. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

I removed the references to CoastToCoast, Rotten Tomatoes, and TVGuide. For his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, I added the links to James's two appearances directly from the JRE site. I left in the newspaper sources and added one or two more. Please let me know if there are other changes that need to be made and I will work on those. Thanks. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article can also be summarised and made more concise if possible (see:

WP:CONCISE). I am happy to make those edits, if that is fine with you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Spinster, I am fine with you making those edits and doing a review. Thank you. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will make the changes soon, in the coming day or so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Spinster300 request you to review my draft once again, i have tried to keep the content in an encyclopedic, non-promotional tone. Draft:Tarun S. Anand MSatindia (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:THREE

good sources from the article that talk about the subject in some depth, are intellectually independent from the subject (not interviews, and not from paid PR by the subject, or the companies), and are in reliable newspapers, journals, or books? That would be most helpful.

From a quick link check, there are a lot of interviews (considered primary sources), which is fine, as long as at least three good sources can verify the subject's

WP:BECONCISE). Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

@Spinster300Thanks for your revert, please see the following links

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

I hope this helps with notability criteria. I would also appreciate if you would like to make any edits in content to make the articles comply with wikipedia article standards. MSatindia (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MSatindia, some of these sources are fine. There are also several prose issues in the draft as it stands which need to be fixed before it can be accepted. I will make those edits in the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Spinster300Thanks, much appreciated. Do let me know if I can help in anyway. Happy editing. MSatindia (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinster300 I really appreciate all of your work and time that goes into helping fellow wikipedians and understand that you might not have been able to revisit this article yet, would really appreciate you taking a look at it once you get sometime. Thanks MSatindia (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed whatever has been flagged by you(& the flagged in the previous comment by GSS). Kindly check as all the government official website link has been provided. Although contents are in pdf format. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

neutrally, if possible. I am happy to edit your draft over the next few days, if that is fine with you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Thank you @Spinster300, I will do this today and let you know here. Thanks ThePerfectYellow (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spinster300

I have tried to write the prose of the article as neutral as it can be. Kindly check. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spinster300,

I have edited the tone of many paragraph here and I tried to make as neutral as it can be. Kindly check. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spinster300

Kindly let me know the errors that we can edit and solve. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spinster300,

Thank you for your quick read and review. I will revise and attempt a more neutral, encyclopedic tone (which I thought I had approached, having removed all marketing/promotional language from my description of Mr. Longo's life & career and entrepreneurealism. Of course, the lingua franca of his industry is breathlessly promotional and ecstatic, so there's only so much I can do to make the "maestro of make-up" seem like a materials scientist.) Perhaps you could point to an example or two of the kind of diction and or rhetoric that is considered not-neutral?   That would be very welcome!  

Now, as to the issue of reliability,  please know that my sources are 2000 + pages of tear sheets--actual pdf's of print journalism in newspapers and magazines that cover fashion, beauty, celebrity, entertainment and, yes, gossip. There was a time--not that long ago--when people used clipping services to keep track of their appearances in the press. Vincent was one of those. Now--I have cited 50 plus publications that are authoritative in their industry---such as Vogue, Elle, US Weekly, Hello, OK, InStyle, Town & Country, Make-up Artist Magazine, Houston Post, Cosmopolitan.  etc.. In these publications, Vincent is often the subject, or even more frequently, one of the experts solicited for comment or advice. Because I no longer have University Research Library privileges, I am not able to cite J-stor, etc., or other digital sources that archive these print publications from the 80's, 90's and early 00's, but I understand that that was one of the tools available to editors like yourself?   I mostly have HARD copies, as it were, which I naively thought would be a gold standard.   I also have a spreadsheet of major magazine covers for which Vincent earned the make-up credit, but I’m not sure how to cite such professional success.  We are awaiting digitization of the VHS recordings of his many regular broadcast TV appearances, otherwise, I’d have cited those, too!  (The introductory clip from the Miss American Broadcast, produced by D. Trump and featuring Melania Knauss Trump as a fellow judge seated right next to Vincent—confirms this claim.  Appalling proximity, but true.)

I fear that the issue complicating matters for Wikipedia and, perhaps, yourself as its representative editor, is that Vincent Longo is a Brand, as well as a man, and his brand derives from his talent, his friendships, his access, his celebrity, his philanthropy and the penumbra of luxury that surround his life’s work.   I have attempted in this bio to document those interlocking aspects of his biography.    

My belief--and I think it a widely held one-- (see the Lear Center at Annenburg, USC, for example) is that entertainment was one of the major developments of the 20th century and it sure seems to be cannibalizing the 21st.  And so also is branding a major cultural/economic/political phenomenon that has impacted our world (for better and often for worse).    The publications that I’m referencing are the media organs for entertainment, branding & celebrity culture, but you say they are unreliable.   And yet, if an American History Professor taught a course about these topics and wrote an article about Vincent as an exemplar  (reaching a couple of hundred people, rather than millions) that would be a more credible source, it seems.  

On a related matter,  I think you would be dismayed to read the contempt voiced by one of the editors who volunteers to answer questions and assist would be contributors (at Libera Chat, fyi)—and not just toward me, but to others whose comments were visible to me in our dialogue stream. I kept being "helped" by the same person, who scorned my work and ignorance, though I was able to request a different person to answer my questions about formatting. (I also retained an Upwork consultant and expert on Wikipedia formatting to assist me--since Wikipedia's automated approach is buggy and doesn't even include Magazines as a possible option).   Please forgive me if I feel hostility toward myself as a paid writer and toward my subject.  

As you may have read in my bio, I am a reasonably well published academic by training, but have worked primarily in movie marketing (and taught that subject at UCLA Film School) and as a documentary researcher and writer. (7 significant projects under my belt—I lecture on the subject at international organizations and was recently invited by PBS to address their in-house documentary makers.).  My Ph.D is in English (UCSB). I do not consider myself a hack (nor do my clients) and my work on the history of film marketing has been "borrowed" for the wikipedia article on Andrew J. Kuehn (Andrew J. Kuehn) and also for the architect, Eileen Gray.

All of which is to say is that I would appreciate your consideration and some specific advice. I am working hard to get over the hurdles, but the explanation for why the wealth of references I have supplied are not sufficient is not one I find persuasive.  (I dropped the NY Post from my citations, even though with regard to Page 6 Celebrity Gossip, they are as reliable as anyone. There appears to be no nuance here in assessing such organs of the media.) When a subject, like Vincent, has been the subject of scores of articles and profiles and mentioned hundreds of times in the publications of his industry--that also happen to be publications of MASS media circulation--I have to believe that he is notable and his inclusion in wikipedia relevant and deserved.   I’m eager to make that happen.    I welcome your assistance.   

Fred Greene, Los Angeles Flgreene13 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flgreene13, thank you for writing in, and thank you for your detailed explanation of your situation. I am sorry that you have had a tough time getting help on your draft; alas, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that has its positives and negatives. Thank you as well, for diligently disclosing paid editing for the subject of your draft. I am also happy to learn that your own authorship has proved to be a reliable source to articles on here.

If I may precisely get to the points of contention for why this draft does not yet make the cut – several sentences and paragraphs in this draft can be cut down and rewritten in a neutral and non-promotional tone of language. The draft as it reads is like a standard, glossy biography a publicist might submit to news agencies. This is not encyclopaedic, nor scientific. On Wikipedia, we need to write drily, plainly, and boringly. Stick to the facts and present them as they are, and let them speak for themselves. Wikipedia is highly concerned with how the notability of the subject is demonstrated within an article. (Please see:

WP:PUFFERY

.)

The cited sources were flagged for the overuse of magazines, surely authoritative in their subject area, but have been known to be problematic for biographies of living people (which are subject to higher standards of editorial scrutiny on Wikipedia). Print-only and offline sources are perfectly fine as long as they have been cited in a manner that makes verifiability for another editor or reader as easy as possible. For most of the magazine sources, including the

WP:RS

.)

After reading the draft, it does not become immediately apparent as to why this subject is notable. On Wikipedia, subjects cannot inherit notability simply by being related to or proximal to several celebrities and notable individuals; however, this frequently does lead to them more easily establishing their own notability. That is the case here: Longo is notable for several decades worth of work with prominent public figures, designers, magazines, photographers, and appearances on important talk shows. While this is mentioned in the lead paragraph of this draft, it is written too promotionally. It needs to be a lot more plain and factual, without any aforementioned puffery. The remainder of his career needs to be presented in a linear fashion, as with most biographies, and not in a sectional manner as it is now, which is more typical of CVs or résumés. (Please see:

WP:PYRAMID

.)

I am happy to make the relevant cuts and edits for you in the coming few days, if you like. If time permits, please also read WP:Writing better articles, to get a better grasp on how Wikipedia absorbs and presents information in the articles it carries. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Spinster300--

You have restored my faith, Lol, with this thoughtful and generous reply. I'm heading to the airport shortly, but will follow up Tuesday when back from Easter weekend. FYI, I modeled the presentation of Mr. Longo's Bio/page on that of Kevin Aucoin, his peer, friend and fellow leading make-up artist of the supermodel generation. I look forward to grappling with your advice and to benefiting from your offer of assistance.

All my best--

fred Flgreene13 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flgreene13, please have a lovely Easter. We can work on the draft once you are back!

To quickly address your statement here – the articles on

WP:NOR

. Even the tense of the prose will be simple past.

The subject of your draft is a living person, and thus more strict checks and conditions are in place to avoid slanderous claims, or vandalistic attacks, or leaking of private and sensitive information, as stated in

WP:MOS

, is to write biographies which are linear; this is why Wikipedia articles read the way the do, something which even mainstream media has commented on.

Events that happen early in a person's life (generally, family background and circumstances of birth, education, and career beginnings) are presented at the start, and then the various aspects of their career are mentioned linearly (career growth, career establishment, career decline, retirement, etc.). Other ventures, if prominent enough (business establishments or charity), are given their own sections only if they are unambiguously and abundantly cited in reliable sources. Same goes for personal life (for marriages, relationships, and children), or media impact and public image, or endorsements, or controversies and legal issues, or awards and recognitions, etc. Otherwise, all these are mentioned in the linear manner, time period by time period, parallel to the subject's "main career", since the subject clearly had a significant career achievement the same year they started a company/charity or got married/divorced. Wikipedia has to present all facts of a person's life as plainly and neutrally as possible. And so, both negative and positive events will be mentioned, and neither are given any undue weight.

Furthermore, Wikipedia editors measure the quality of an article based on the standard established by Wikipedia's

WP:WHATABOUTX

.

I hope this is helpful. I will make my improvements to the draft in the coming few days, as and when time permits. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Spinster300, thank you for the explanation of formatting linearly vs. in sections, which now makes sense to me in terms of living and deceased subjects! I'm going to take another pass at editing for neutrality, before I will presume to accept your offer of editing assistance. One last question: I have many citations in paragraph one that are chiefly/solely there to prove that Vincent did actually work with the actors, politicians, celebrities, etc., that I claim he did. Those articles aren't always or even often about him, but in them, he is credited with make-up, make-overs, involvement and/or expertise, whether in the text of an article, or on the "on the cover" box on the table of contents-- even in fine-print on an editorial spread (sometimes written vertically on the side of the page). The "unhelpful" help editor told me I shouldn't be including any of it, but how do I balance that with the obligation to document every claim/assertion made? As you'll note, in later paragraphs, where citations are to articles about Vincent by name and/or prominently featuring Vincent's work, products, philanthropy or celebrity doings, I've augmented the citation information with relevant quotations about him. Much obliged in anticipation---fg Flgreene13 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spinster300--

I have just reformatted it (linearly), replaced what might be considered puffery with plain, just the facts, neutral language, and removed a duplication or three. I welcome any editing assistance you would be kind to offer at this point, prior to another re-submission. (I believe that's the way forward?). Thank you in anticipation. fg Flgreene13 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spinster300

I am gently pinging you to say I'd appreciate your review of the latest draft which, I believe, implements your advice given above. And, assuming I am so blessed, may I get some idea of likely time frame? Looking forward to your edit notes and the opportunity to resubmit once such notes are applied. Best---fg Flgreene13 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flgreene13, my apologies, I have been busy in real life. I will edit the draft over the course of this weekend; some improvements need to be made. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Very good-- real life is importunate. Looking forward to your improvements. best--fg Flgreene13 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

WP:GNG and thus has been accepted into main space. Please let me know if you have any further questions or queries. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

Thank you--I'm eager to see what you've done, but if accepted into the main space means what I think it does...!! Now, if I can only find your edits to the draft from the 22nd. To be continued-- Yours, fg Flgreene13 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spinster300,

I hope you are well, I have went through the draft created and was wondering if you could have a look at it before I submit it again. Any advise would be appreciated.

Have a great day DanielHicksAss (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DanielHicksAss, kindly do not submit the draft just as yet. We can work on it together and I am happy to accept it when it is ready. As it stands currently, a lot of the non-neutral and promotional fluff needs to be cut down or removed entirely. I am happy to make the improvements for you in the coming few days if you like. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Spinster300

That works great thank you, if there is anything you would like me to do in the meantime please let me know & I look forward to seeing the changes and working with you to build this article up. Thank you for offering :)

Kind Regards

Daniel DanielHicksAss (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spinster300 Hope all is well. Just checking in. I believe there is about to be new news coming out very soon in regards to Gary. So hopefully some new sources that we can use to improve the article. DanielHicksAss (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DanielHicksAss, I am looking forward to the additional citations. I will rewrite the problematic sections soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Spinster300, That's very kind of you - this just published [6]https://voyagela.com/interview/check-out-gary-a-waless-story/ - not sure where this could be implemented.

Warm Regards

Dan DanielHicksAss (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello Spinster300,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]