User talk:WriteIncunabula

Hello, WriteIncunabula, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

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

This submission does not appear to be written in

peacock terms

that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Stuff like "a life that did not start, but became dedicated to service" isn't very encyclopedic.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reverend Peter Farmer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WriteIncunabula, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note at "Articles for creation", and I thought I'd clarify what needs to happen for your article to be approved for the encyclopedia. Two editors have said "find sources" and "not enough proper references". User:RileyBugz also provided several good places to search for Reverend Peter Farmer. The intention is to follow two policies, providing

@Dougmcdonell: Thank you for your feedback. I do appreciate the time people are spending helping me. I am a bit stubborn and opinionated, but truly fascinated by this process and grateful even if I sound argumentative. With that caveat, of course I do have a response. While I understand it does not matter what is already up and active on Wikipedia, the article upon which I spent far more research than may be apparent is getting somewhat too strict of a response. I hope it has nothing to do with the fact of the subject's religion, and I doubt it does, but the word "service" is in no way some form of promotion or "peacock" phrase, and I am surprised it was taken that way. That was the first and only reason given by the reviewer who rejected the article. As to notability, I believe that any person with a PR budget can get a high volume of articles printed in any walk of news, and easily "pass notability" according to the way some define it. In this case, I traveled to the local library which was the only available archive on the planet for the dates in question, and spent hours going through microfilm. Rather than posting several quotes from articles through a span of decades that discussed the parishes and schools the subject of the article managed and led, I picked only the most relevant facts. In other words, I stuck to the subject, kept it brief, and used published newspaper articles that were approximately fifty years apart in order to bookend the facts of a man's life. Aside from those newspaper articles, I used his "record of service", which I acquired after contacting the subject's alma mater directly. Not every institution employs an Archivist, but this one did, and he provided me with detailed records from their stored files. This is not a fly by night institution, but one anyone could look up, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The Archivist's contact information is on their web page. Is there any way in the world a reasonable editor would not consider this a reliable source? Again, I refuse to believe this would have anything to do with it being a seminary. Other sources were archives posted on the websites of the parishes he served by church historians. These archives quote specific dates as recorded by the men and women who filed them through the years, and even included hand-written notes made by priests in the margins of their sermons. I excluded one, for example, that discussed a famous wedding at which the subject of my article was the minister. Why? Because fame and notability should not be the same thing. A single wedding in which he was the ordained priest that made a stir in the local news has less to do with his life than, for example, the school he founded, or the influence of the great war on his life decisions. I dearly hope Wikipedia does not become a flattened record of top-40 pop stars whose publicity teams managed to get articles published about them whenever they put out another pablum song. I fully intend to augment and improve my article over time, but am frankly surprised and disappointed, not at the fact of being rejected on my first try, but at the reasoning. There is no puffery in saying a man lived a life of service, if that's precisely what the facts demonstrate he did do. And that, in itself, if properly documented, is not only worth reading about, but notable, in and of itself, regardless of the volume of news articles written. Lastly, I think it is important to note, I never met the man, and the only reason I wrote this article in the first place was because in the course of other research I was doing I began to learn more about him, and could not escape how notable his life was, and deserves to be. And again, thanks so much for your time. WriteIncunabula (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WriteIncunabula:Hello again, your comment "peacock" phrase......only reason given by the reviewer", actually that was the easy one to fix, the other notice that you're missing was far more significant, they said "find sources", I would recommend trying the helpful sources he gave you there, the current lack of notability will defeat the whole article. On that topic, the "reliable_sources" link I gave you it states "Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged", the archivist's contact information will not satisfy verifiability for two reasons, the first is just practicality, a volunteer page reviewer is trying to cover dozens of pages per week, they won't take the time to contact the archivist. The second reason is you haven't provided the references that the archivist is using, the original publisher of the information is required, if it is published by a primary source (a church) or if it's unpublished by a secondary source, then it doesn't qualify under "reliable_sources". And finally that material is not "likely to be challenged" as none of it is key to the articles notability, which is certainly a requirement. So if anyone was to protest that reference (which they haven't yet), just delete it, then in the unusual event where someone subsequently challenges "Headmaster, All Saints' Episcopal Day School, CA – 1961-1977" you will need to find a published source for it, or delete it. The comment about references isn't that there is something wrong with the ones you given (even the archivist), the problem is you're going to need additional reference(s) to show that this article is notable. This is not about quantity of references, the one reference to "Time Magazine's man of the year, the Reverend Peter Farmer" would do the trick. If you don't have a beauty like that, then two published secondary sources showing notability is fine.

The

wp:PEACOCK

. I certainly agree with your opinion, however my opinion and your opinion of his noble character do not belong here. If that claim was made by the Reverend Peter Farmer, provide the reference, or if you provided a reference showing the bishop was quoted by a newspaper saying that, then you might get the bishop's opinion in. I could be wrong about that possibility as a search for "life of service", did not find that phrase in wikipedia.

If you find yourself tempted to be argumentative about neutral point of view, notability or reliable sources, I would suggest surrender immediately, those are primary policies, it's impossible to win an argument that contravenes them. The "too strict of a response" is a characteristic of getting a new page reviewed, once an article is in, life is easier, perhaps too much so for maintaining quality editing. Being "stubborn and opinionated" may actually be a requirement for editing Wikipedia, so long as it appears as neutral point of view in the article, you'll do well. Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 78.26 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see

WP:INDEPENDENT

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reverend Peter Farmer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Reverend Peter Farmer, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Hello, WriteIncunabula. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails

WP:ARTIST

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Dan Lam
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:Dan Lam, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting an image into the

I am not going to listen to a podcast because any information by the subject does not influence how Wikipedia covers subject. This image is not a portrait because a portrait, by definition, shows a person's face (or face/head/shoulders). You can look that up in any dictionary. If that person does not want to provide a image showing there face, that is certainly their prerogative. The article does not need to contain an image in the infobox. MB 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can take my word for it: this is not just information "by the subject" but about the work. A wikipedia article about a living subject should not create a negative effect on the artist's process. That is the sole reason I chose that portrait above a less widely published one that shows her face. I have viewed many "portraits" that shroud the face of the subject, there are multiple definitions of the word, and furthermore, the spirit of showing a "portrait" of the artist is fully embodied by this particular image. No article "needs" an image of any kind, but this one makes the page look much more visually well designed, is perfectly appropriate, all things considered, and when I found it I believed I had gotten lucky with precisely the perfect compromise between respecting living subject (and living work, and process) while also making a fact-based page of interest to Wikipedia readers. Therefore, I would appreciate, if you still disagree, that we seek three editors unknown to either of us to see what their opinion is, based on our disagreement. I would be happy to abide by their majority opinion. Or, if there is an existing method of arbitration under a formal Wikipedia policy, I would ask that you pursue that route, rather than changing my work, as you are not apparently willing to take the time to listen to the primary source behind my reasoning. Thank you again for your time. In spite of this disagreement between us, I do appreciate the work you put in to Wikipedia, and hope you appreciate mine as well.WriteIncunabula (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriteIncunabula, Just as a suggestion, you guys might want to carry on this debate on the page's talk page so that it is better archived in case the subject comes up again Sulfurboy (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dan Lam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sculptor Dan Lam was born in a refugee camp in Morong, Philippines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Lam. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dan Lam), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

peacock terms

that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Manny Bamfo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Manny Bamfo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WriteIncunabula. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Manny Bamfo, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:WriteIncunabula. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=WriteIncunabula|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Tagging on at the end of a long userpage post that you're a paid editor is not proper disclosure. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sulfurboy. Thank you for the information. First I would like to say I did more than "tag at the end of a long user page post." I fully disclosed the first time I was to take compensation for writing an article, and then wrote an update to that, further disclosing that the previous articles had not yet been submitted, and why, but that I was now taking on a new job for compensation. I apologize if it seemed long, but I'm a writer and do get wordy, and am trying to improve my style for Wikipedia. I thought I had fully disclosed by publishing to my user page the way I had, but today I learned the technical requirements, thank you, and I will add them to the two pages I submitted today as soon as I can, and will do so each time in the future. I'm actually fried tonight, so will do that in the morning with a clear head. As to "very strongly" being "discouraged" from direct article editing and writing articles for compensation, I believe journalists, historians, and encyclopedia writers are all paid for their work. I did not get the impression I was being strongly discouraged, but was very rudely addressed today for the first time by an editor at Wikimedia Commons. I understand that being paid by the subject of an article is different, which is why I disclosed I was doing it, and why disclosure requirements make sense to me. I have refused about ten companies and individuals in the past three months who have asked me to write a Wikipedia article for them, because I did not believe they had met the notability requirements. I do not advertise for Wikipedia customers. I do inform each one that I will not guarantee acceptance, will go through the editorial process at the mercy of other volunteer editors, and I will not take on any work I believe I cannot treat objectively, or is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I believe this is ethical, and I believe my clients are behaving ethically by engaging someone who tells them all of this (and significantly more in terms of journalistic style, which I am omitting as this is getting long). You know Wikipedia much better than I do. I've never commissioned a page, but I suspect there are plenty of unethical sorts out there who do make guarantees and tell their clients "no problem". I think you know better than I do the people who choose to use me have other options.

Sulfurboy I've now updated my user page according to the technical requirements and interface Wikipedia provides to disclose my paid work (which I thought I had already done in full). As I understand it, this is sufficient to proceed with editing the two pages: Manny Bamfo and Recharge, which I will now do according to the feedback I received from you. If you disagree, please let me know. Thank you again for your time and work.WriteIncunabula (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

peacock terms

that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Recharge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Recharge, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Manny Bamfo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Manny Bamfo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an appeals process? I believe this article exceeds Wikipedia’s notability guidelines substantially, both in terms of coverage, and quality of sources, especially compared with many other existing articles. I think there may be bias against disclosed paid work, in effect punishing the company for attempting to seek a legitimate entry for their founder the ethical way, whereas so many others, including competitors, get their pages up the wrong way. As the writer, I’ve already been paid for my time, non-refundable, and the client agreed in advance I would not guarantee publication nor go around the editorial process. So the latest additional work and any appeal is on my time. Objectively, this article meets and exceeds notability standards. Thank you. WriteIncunabula (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Hello, WriteIncunabula. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WriteIncunabula. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WriteIncunabula. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WriteIncunabula. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]