August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello Bearcat I wanted to see if I could get your opinion about creating awards articles for the Yorkton Film Festival. Thanks, LorriBrown (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be absolutely fine to do that, as long as the articles are supported by at least some evidence of sourcing beyond just the festival's own self-published website. (That's not to say that the festival's website would be entirely forbidden, it just shouldn't be the only source you use.) I see that you've been sprucing up the festival's main article over the past several weeks, so thanks for that — I've removed the problem tags from it, since you've clearly improved the article. If you want a rough idea of how to format such an article, feel free to take a look at the articles that already exist for the Toronto International Film Festival's awards (most but not all of which I created) — you don't have to exactly replicate them word for word if there are things about Yorkton that work a bit differently (like not naming runners-up or whatever), but they can still be a useful template to start with and adjust as needed. In the longer term, if Canadian film festivals are an interest of yours there are some projects I'd love some help with in the future, like getting some of the remaining redlinks in List of film festivals in Canada started, adding entries to that list if you know of any notable film festivals it's still missing, and/or getting Vancouver pumped up with year and award articles like TIFF's. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat Thanks for your reply! :-) I really like how the tiff articles have been done! + Thank you for removing the tags. LorriBrown (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Theroadislong Can you kindly help me understand what I can do to remedy the issue with primary sources. What I think that may mean is that the article is referencing the pdf too many times in various places within this article.

I've replaced the dead links with newspaper article links or links to the pdf. Have researched and located many newspaper articles (various years) on Newspapers.com. I noticed that you removed some content (Advert) and I've removed some content. I've linked perhaps too much to the pdf that I think must have been in a different format on the YFF website and then must have been consolidated into that pdf. I tried to reduce the Copyvio concerns. I've attempted to make the content relevant and would like to update it to include more current information... but haven't had the time as of yet. I would like to expand the article to include associated pages for the awards (and had a discussion with Bearcat) and would like to include a section on the categories and notable film premieres similar to that in the tiff article. If you concur with Bearcat that the article meets the notability concerns then I would like to try to address the primary sources concerns before moving into other aspects to improve the article. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh Theroadislong, I see... you wrote the explanation already on the article talk page. LorriBrown (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

LB - Would you consider creating an article about Susan Aaron Taylor, a living woman artist (who does not live in Canada)? I know her, so would have a COI, and more to the point, I have never created an article. Your thoughts? David notMD (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Sure... I would be happy to work on an article for Susan Aaron Taylor. I can certainly relate to your concerns with the COI. :- ) Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If you believe there is enough in the way of reliable sources, I can add a photo of her that I took to Wikipedia Commons. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I'll get a draft page started for her and then please verify I have the correct person or maybe it will be obvious. A picture will be great.LorriBrown (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that Susan Aaron-Taylor. David notMD (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo added to draft. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Second photo added to draft. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Is it proper to put 'Professor Emeritus' in the info box section?LorriBrown (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a published source David notMD (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Yes, of course... the CCA. LorriBrown (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks for the pictures. :-)LorriBrown (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about section caption "and reception" as there is no content based on reviews of her work. Maybe delete those words from the caption? David notMD (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point I suggest no more edits until the AfC is reviewed. Also, be prepared to reply if reviewer asks you if you have a COI or are paid. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to the lengthy comments on the draft Talk page, I revised and reorganized content. Largest change was removing the critic's quote, as that could be seen as cherry-picking a laudatory comment from what might be a mix of positive and negative reviews. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Whispering^(t) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Whispering Thank you for doing that for me.LorriBrown (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I made a few edits to the above article. It's ready to be published! Are you going to press the move button soon?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Nice thanks! Waiting for some feedback from the artist first. I think it looks pretty good but like to give artists a heads up. Likely to post very soon though. Thanks for working on it some more. :-)LorriBrown (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? That sounds like a less than good idea. We are independent of our subjects. Are they a friend? Please do explain. We have conflict of interest policies. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP No that is not the reason. NO COI. Just have made artists aware that an draft article is pending and do they have a picture they would like to upload that could be put into the article or any concerns. Some have not responded and a few have said they would like to post a picture but either don't like the terms or can't figure it out. Most are just grateful. Is that a problem? ...Against the rules maybe? I've read where editors have contacted subjects for pictures.LorriBrown (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Maybe it is just insecurity about my articles? If it is against the rules or if you think it is a really bad idea I won't do that anymore. Never really viewed it as a bad thing... or an against the rules thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LorriBrown (talk • contribs)

In my opinion the "...or any concerns." could be problematic. One thing if there is an error of fact, and the subject of the article can provide a reliable citation for the correct information, but notifying a person of a draft article could lead them to believe content could be subtracted or added based on their request. People who are not Wikipedia experienced do not understand that anyone can edit any article (with certain restrictions), and that neither the subject nor the original creator 'owns' the article. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's probably not a good idea, as editorial control is supposed to be with impartial editors. You can also get into some trouble with off-wiki harassment: for example if one of the subjects is not interested in talking to you and they complain to Wikipedia. The very vast majority of articles on Wikipedia have been created without any input form the subject, so that should tell you something. The whole system is designed to work without subject input, and that is good as we remain impartial. The one case where it is probably OK is where you ask the subject after the fact if they have a photo they would be willing to upload, but then again you are running the risk of them not reacting well. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

David notMD and ThatMontrealIP I do understand and respect the process in Wikipedia and appreciate both of your considered thoughts on this issue and my actions. Although my understanding and comprehension of the protocol is really basic at this juncture. I also know I have leaned pretty heavily on those of you who have more knowledge and experience. Wikipedia is an amazing place and a well developed community that I really have admiration for and enjoy being a small part of.

My reaching out was not intended to be flippant or to give some impression to the subject that I have any measure of control. My intentions were simply meant as a courtesy. Feedback that I've gotten has been positive and non confrontational for those that have responded. Most would like a picture in the article. One subject preferred to not have an emphasis on multiple marriages. I thought that was fair enough (i.e. multiple names mentioned). I have not been attacked or challenged and that certainly would create quite a different experience, for sure. Perhaps it is a very bad idea and not worth the effort necessary to prefix the purpose for the contact or the risks involved in doing it.

I do greatly appreciate and respect both of your perspectives and your mentoring! I think after this conversation I've taken on a whole new view on whether this serves any real and necessary purpose. So thank you! It already takes lots of effort, thought and consideration to create the article and the system has built in mechanisms to correct and/or catch any potential issues or problems. Will follow that lead :-) Thanks again !!LorriBrown (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You might think it's a courtesy, but it's an unnecessary one that just makes you look like you are encouraging a conflict of interest. It brings your articles under more scrutiny as it raises the question of whether you're allowing the article subjects to dictate content, even if it is minor changes. It's a very unorthodox approach. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called How to add AfC draft code back into Draft Article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Thanks for the ping! Your article on Michael de Courcy looks great. Well sourced and no copyvio issues. I made one change to the collections section, feel free to revert if you think the old version is better.

Ready to publish? I think it's ready. You can also publish and use the "under construction" template at the top to keep other editors from changing it while you are working on it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Need some help to rename an article. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Guidance please on how to improve an article with broken links. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ThatMontrealIP I created the Elizabeth Chitty page in my sandbox and just posted it to the main space. I tried to do the Earwig's Copyvio Detector search but was not successful "The given page doesn't seem to exist: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth Chitty." I'm not sure what I've done incorrectly as I've tested before and it worked. Is there a lag time? Also posted it as a start article. Not sure how to determine if it is a start or a stub? If you have time.... of course to help me with these issues. : - )LorriBrown (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks ok to me! For the copyvio detector to work you need to give it only the article name, as in "Elizabeth Chitty".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Awesome. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Judith Schwarz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lopifalko (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Linda Craddock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Susan Hudson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lopifalko (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Lopifalko Thank you for approving this article for Susan Hudson!! :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I have taken the liberty of modifying your user page to use wikilinks rather than external URLs in the tabs at the top, see this edit. Similarly here on this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph Thank you for making this edit. Can I request your help in moving the new page created for Joanne Jackson Johnson to a draft rather than as I've inadvertently created to main space. Not really savvy with how to create drafts have created them in a variety of ways... unfortunately, mostly have to be fixed by someone else. :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Done an hour or so ago, and on the draft's talk page I've given you advice for the future. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph I'm really confused now with the Joanne Jackson Johnson page. Was there already an existing page for her created by User:MarkZusab? ...or perhaps did he already have a draft page for her? Regardless, it looks like it is back in the main space again - only this time with content. :-)LorriBrown (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The other editor decided to create the page after I'd moved your effectively empty page to draft namespace. If you click on the history tab you'll see what's been done. Naturally you can contribute to the article, now that it exists, providing that you've got references to published reliable sources to support any content which you wish to add. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP I was hoping I could get your opinion about draft:Yvonne Lammerich. She is quite an accomplished artist and her exhibitions and bibliography is quite long. So I have focused on that and added things she has written. A couple of things I am having trouble with is that a lot of the writing is in French and I have spent a quite a bit of time trying to find references but can't find for everything that she has listed, should I leave them in or take them out. The other thing is I've found with some more than one reference and would like to leave them in but what is your opinion about doing that. I am getting kind of overwhelmed working on this article... Thanks!! :- )LorriBrown (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Looks like a great article. Well done. My one suggestion is that the very long catalogues/reviews section is perhaps not needed. There is a lot there that is effectively turning that part of the article into a CV, and WP:NOTCV. You might seek advice on how to fix that, or on whether I am correct in that regard. Another interesting thing is that you have found a multitude of sources (in that section), but I presume you cannot read the French ones or do not have access. It's an interesting problem, having too many sources, and I am not expereinced enough to say what to do with the bulleted items that you have in turn sourced with inline refs. Perhaps ask at the WIR talk page?

Regarding the whole article, were I you I would just push it to article space (rather than run through AFC), as it is a fine article that is very carefully written and meticulously sourced. Notability is certainly there. I added a public artwork section with sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Thank you for your input! I took out the stuff w/out references... but it is still bottom heavy. I'll think about posting direct although I've had decent luck with the AfC process so far; with exception to the KT article (COI)that was sort of brutal. : -) LorriBrown (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an excellent article-- much better than the puny stubs that I have been creating. I'll happily push it to article space now if you like.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I just looked at your user contributions. You have 2,555 live edits and one (count em, one) deleted edit. That is spectacular. It reflects that you know what you are doing. You don't need me to push an article to article space: just be bold click move yourself. I doubt also that you need AFC. You know what you are doing. Always happy to help if you have any questions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Hey thanks for the encouraging words. That's very nice to hear. Never have moved an article to main space yet. How is that done? Sounds easy but I'm unfamiliar with many things in here. Always happy to learn. I want to first put in some categories for her and the project info on the talk page. Maybe I'll move it tomorrow.LorriBrown (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You deserve to be encouraged! Re moving articles, at the top of any page you will see a menu called "More". Click that and select "move". That will take you to the article move page, which renames articles or moves them between name spaces (article, draft, talk etc). You want to move from "Draft" to "article" space in this case. Select "article" space, which is marked "(article)" for some reason. In the reason box give your edit comment, and click "move page". Easy as that! There is a more thorough explanation here, should you desire. One of the advantages of publishing at this point is that many fresh eyes see it. For example my stubs often get reviewed by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Wikipedia's most prolific editor, Oronsay or Onel5969, who are all fabulously experienced editors. They never fail to add some category I did not think of.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP That's awesome. That is all very helpful information. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP I decided to submit the article to Afc for approval. My mistake User:RHaworth deleted it. I am having a conversation in the Teahouse but am very frustrated because other users are piling on and just keep citing the rules not what the content was that broke the rule. Can you decrypt the message left on the Draft:Yvonne Lammerich? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi! That's unfortunate. The issue was that you must have mistakenly used some material copied form a website, as the reviewer and an admin have confirmed this is the case. If you read the teahouse thread, User:Cullen has kindly offered to send you the deleted material by email. However before posting it again, you have to make sure there is absolutely no copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Thank you for the editing on Yvonne's article. I can see that there were several issues with it. Not sure what to do now?LorriBrown (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a few items and submitted it for AfC again! Nothing to do but wait.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

AFC is optional. I removed the AFC tagging and moved the article to main space. Please continue improving it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP I looked at the Copyright 101 page and used the Copyright Violation Detector tool to scan some random pages. It seems any kind of list will be reflected as a problem. What I think I may have frustrated the administrator was the manner in which I phrased my questions. I’ll try to work on that to not be defensive and get them on the defense. I get that the list I had for articles YL wrote was pretty obvious. I did believe that you could use lists and research references for this information. What I didn’t initially understand was how to pinpoint the problem areas so that the problematic content could be deleted – having gone into full panic mode. Anyways I attempted to e-mail you not to complain but rather to get some tips on how to present information so it doesn’t appear to be a copy & paste. I am familiar with the information artist provide to various venues and it is modified versions of their bio’s… How this is copyright material is curious to me since it is provided by the artist themselves and quite often posted on their own website and in various forms on multiple websites. If I can figure out that part I think I can motivate myself to reengage. I appreciate your advocacy for the efforts put into the article. This is a huge block for me but you taking the time and making the effort to intervene was quite helpful and very encouraging to me. Thanks! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! I just saw your email now-- it somehow got trapped in the spam folder. I would not take anyone's actions as being upset, as a core pillar here is civility. You are doing great. It does sometimes take a thick skin here though! Re copyright, you must have mistakenly pasted in some items. I would advise against using an external editor (if you are) like MS Word or the like. It's also helpful to edit in article space rather than in a long draft, as in article space things get caught earlier, should there be a mistake. personally I do not have copyvio issues as I add edits one at a time (they are free!) and am careful to paraphrase any text I might be using, and to cite it correctly. I think the chance of copyvio is higher if you are creating large articles all at once. I also tend to recognize copyvio quickly as I do a lot of reading in my day job. When I see it or suspect it, I will use Earwig's copyvio detector on a page to check. I hope this helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Yes, very helpful. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

...that newly created articles accepted into mainspace are eligible to be submitted to the "Did You Know" feature on the Wikipedia home page? The submittal process is explained at Wikipedia:Did you know. The process of submitting is a bit complicated (creating the application and submitting the application are independent steps). DYKs result in thousands of article viewers on the day used. There is an option to including an image with a DYK, which tends to increase viewership. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for the heads up.LorriBrown (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello David notMD, do you think that the Draft:Judith Schwarz article might be a good fit for the "Did You Know" feature? Would be curious to hear your thoughts on whether this article might be worthy of the efforts to submit the article. Also, what is the code to post on the article to submit it for AfC approval...? I think it is ready now. :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your content is bottom-heavy: short article, followed by too much content under Selected Exhibits, Collections, Bibliography and Further reading. Within those listings, some are only mentions in passing of JS. Recommend cutting by more than half. Maybe cut Collections entirely. As for the DYK, can you propose at least two questions in DYK format (that...) which would interest viewers of the home page to click on it? David notMD (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

To submit to AfC, put double curly brackets "{{" and "}}" around the phrase subst:submit at top of the draft. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, Thank you for the feedback! Pairing down bloated articles is very difficult for me. :- ) Any better now?LorriBrown (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Minimally, delete refs 10, 22, 23 and 26, and all content relying on those references. In general don't double- or triple-dip. A description in text does not also need to be referenced in Exhibitions and in Bibliography. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you very much!LorriBrown (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, I see what your getting at. Makes sense. Maybe some other stuff needs to be deleted but for now have made the recommended changes and submitted for AfC approval. Fingers crossed. :-)LorriBrown (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Among AfC reviewers, there is a bias against too much information in proposed articles that are biographies of living people. The underlying suspicion is that these are promotional in nature, sometimes autobiographies, sometimes undeclared paid, sometimes friends or family doing undeclared (or declared) conflict of interest. This is why I recommend a less-is-more approach to articles about artists, musicians, athletes.... David notMD (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. I could not find any references to Linda Brock but perhaps that name is included in one of your sources. If you have a reliable source, you could include the alternative name in the lead. Some use of the artist's CV is in order, providing the other sources used give evidence of her notability. I've deactivated the categories as the article is still a draft. You can reactivate them again when you move it into mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Thank you for taking a look. It is just the one article in 2003 for Galleries West. Search as I may in google could not locate the other articles that do not have references. Do you have any tips on researching. I have had the hardest time with this article in particular. Changing search strings does not seem to help. Is there a place where we can go to research magazine articles. I've found some good newspaper articles on some of the biographies but not this lady. Not sure why. Oh, I didn't realize I had done that with the categories, when I placed them into the article. I'll take a look to see how you changed it. I've submitted for AfC approval. Fingers crossed. :-) Do appreciate your help! LorriBrown (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You might find it useful to join the Newspaperarchive but until you gain more experience, I would recommend you stick with articles on people who are covered in sources you can find on the internet. That also makes it easier for the reviewers who assess your articles.--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I saw your note on the Joan Almond talk page. Feel free to revert my edit, but my reasoning was as follows. I have been making many stubs on women artists lately, and for the older ones in particular, the easiest available information is often who they were married to, because this is what was published 50 or 100 years ago. I think that reflects an out of date patriarchal notion of women: let's describe their family attachments first. I think we need to get past that and describe first their accomplishments in life, as the early press would have done had they not been patriarchal. It amounts to the same kind of thing as when a female political candidate's clothes are described in news reporting. Second, I tend to see the personal life section last in articles. And finally, the personal life is, well, personal and not as encyclopedic as their accomplishments. SO there is my 2 cents, but feel free to revert if you feel it helps the article flow.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP I don't want to revert your edit and was nervous that you might think my inquiry was challenging the change. Thank you so much for your reply. It makes perfect sense. :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

no need to be nervous! Thanks for your contribs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called If articles exist in another language? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called A question about a Living Person Biography at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Help please with deleted article. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Kent Tate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Theroadislong for approving this article! I've noticed there is one mistake on a date 1992 s/b 1982 in the third paragraph, second sentence: "In 1992 Tate received his first significant recognition in Toronto with the A.R.C. satellite installation Museum of Post-Habitation (a transformation of a crumbling dwelling),[9] that concluded in the performance Ending All Occupation.[12]"

Since I have a disclosed COI with the subject would it be allowable for me to directly edit this date or if not could you kindly edit it?LorriBrown (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kent Tate. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Legacypac, Thank you for the new comment. If I understand this message - there really isn't anything I should do on this article but wait for another reviewer to take a look and hopefully approve it and move it into the main space. Correct? :- )LorriBrown (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You know you are not a new editor and AfC is optional right? Strip the comments and get on with it. Give an man a fish, teach him to fish. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, No actually, I did not understand that to be optional with a new article that I have COI with. But so be it. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, then no wait for some unconnected person to accept it. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, Okay then... but does that mean that the article is still in queue for a second review from the posting date of March 8th? That notice seems to have disappeared. I apologize for being somewhat daft about the approval process. LorriBrown (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The yellow review box moved to top. Yes it is still waiting on a review. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Joan Almond (2), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi David notMD, I need your advice in how to defend the Kent Tate article. It was approved today and already there are edits that I don't understand and don't know how to defend. For example, a citation has been removed as well as both of the quotations plus other things that I don't understand. I find it confusing to follow the edits. Can you help me or advise me in how to deal with this. The page is already very skimpy and tagged as a Stub for seem pretty vulnerable already to being tagged for deletion. Thank you for any help or suggestionsLorriBrown (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC) that you can provide!! LorriBrown (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepted is accepted. Very unlikely that it will be nominated as an Article for Deletion (those that pass Articles for Creation rarely are). The editor, Theroadislong is an experienced new article reviewer - those deletions were part and parcel of the approval process. Editor 184 cleaned up the Category stuff that is in a box at the bottom of the article. At this point, I STRONGLY recommend leaving this lie fallow, and perhaps work on other article that do not involve a COI. David notMD (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, I suppose I just don't get the process of article creation. Yesterday Legacypac added the message "I'm inclined to accept this now that it has been cleaned up. If another reviewer agrees please do the honors. Passed copyvio check. Has reviews of work, which can't really be collected like paintings or sculpture." This is why I don't understand the necessity of cutting out the Vanguard reference for Jennifer Oille's review. Oille is in fact a notable writer (deceased) and Vanguard was a very important magazine in Vancouver at that time, although it no longer exits (but it does have a page in Wikipedia). The quote I believe helps to put into context the purpose for including this particular exhibition in the article. So deleting the quote entirely takes the point away. I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems somewhat flippant to hack away at the subject matter without taking into consideration how to reword it or improve it or to think about why it might be there in the first place. As you know, it is no easy task to create an article from scratch and to make effort for it to read coherently while also making a good faith effort to describe fairly what is the point of their practice.

I've been working for several days if not weeks now on another article for Joan Almond. Her story to me is a very interesting one, the little I know about her art practice from the few articles that I've been able to locate. I do believe that her practice is more interesting than what I can locate written about her. So I find this process very disconcerting to think the effort to be truthful and balanced will just get hacked away at. I know that with the Kent Tate article there is a conflict; however, to me there is no difference between these two articles. So please, if you will, help me understand why you agree that deleting this text was a necessary part of approving this article. Well... you don't really have to but it would be very, helpful to me. I am not trying to disparage either of these editors. I have utmost admiration and respect for the level of skill required to navigate this platform and all of its complexities, you included. But I also don't understand why I should not be able to challenge something if I strongly believe it can be defended, without challenging someone's integrity or level of experience. I do appreciate your sage advice even though I am contesting this one. Thank you. LorriBrown (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of profiles or resumes. While length does not necessarily correlate with importance, editors who have a personal connection to a subject (as you with Kent Tate, hence the need to declare a COI) tend to want to include too much. Finding examples of articles to point at is not useful, as there are hundreds of thousands of articles that did not go through AfC, and are in need of trimming or deleting. My advice on KT is put in on your Watch list, and see what changes over a few months. After that, consider adding content (referenced!), and I would expect that no one will be so incensed as to revert your additions. Editors such as Legacy and Theroad focus on AfC, and have a strong less-is-more philosophy. But I doubt they keep articles that passed AfC on their Watch list. On your Joan Almond draft, you can choose to move it directly to Main space or submit via AfC. IF you choose the first path, be aware that there are also editors who patrol newly created articles. They may be more inclined to start an Article for Deletion than try to fix the article. You would then be in the position of trying to fix the article while people with a deletionist bent look at it an leave their opinions at the AfD discussion. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ilaria Ramelli is an extreme example of article trimming, as length reduced by 95%. The originator had by-passed AfC. Article later tagged with header "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies.", and then went through AfD. Decision was to cut the fluff and keep article as a stub. There was then an attempt to re-add resume-like content, reverted. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, Thank you for your response to my rather long and somewhat ranting message. I greatly appreciate your patience and will heed your good advice. LorriBrown (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called New Article Creation at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If a family member has PERSONALLY taken a photo of KT or any of the artwork, that person can add the photo at Wikipedia Commons, and then the photo can be used with the article. Likewise, KT can add a photo taken by KT. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for this additional information David! Would this mean that KT first create a user account in Wikipedia as KT and then use this account to upload their photo to Wiki Commons before then adding the photo to the article? Would this be at any point in time or only in the draft phase? LorriBrown (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, can by-pass that. Whoever took photos can join Wikipedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&campaign=loginCTA and once joined, can add photos through step #4 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contributing_your_own_work. There, use the Upload Wizard. A different person (you, for example) could then go to Commons Main Page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and Search for Kent Tate. From there, get and paste the photo files into the Draft:Kent Tate article. A problem: RIGHT NOW there are three images for Kent Tate, but all are nominated for deletion. Any new images being added would need to have different names than the ones slated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for this explanation! LorriBrown (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again David notMD , The pictures in WikiCommons for KT are slated for deletion... but not yet deleted. Would you know how long this process takes? Would KT be able to upload artwork and request those versions be expeditiously removed and/or replaced? Thanks!! :-)LorriBrown (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown, Hello. Just incase you have not got a reply from David notMD, I'll answer these questions. In answer to your first question, deletion on Commons can take a long while. For example, there are still deletion discussions in progress which started in October 2018. Deletion discussions can be closed 7 days after they are opened, so the deletion discussion at [1] is eligible for closing. It may be a few days or a few months, but only time will tell.

In answer to your second question, KT can upload the images if they created the images and they can do that anytime by creating an account and uploading their images (as David notMD has written above).

In answer to your third question, KT probably can't request that the images are deleted quickly. The deletion discussion will run its course. The images still being there does not mean that KT can't upload the images, as they can upload them with different file names.

If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask me, David notMD or at the Teahouse. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Can a draft article be moved? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Joan Almond, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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 User:LorriBrown/Joan_Almond 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 User:LorriBrown/Joan_Almond, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

L - What I suggest is that you create a comment on I Dream of Horses Talk page. Point out that you started on your draft before the other one, and have more content and more references. I suggest, given that the other draft has not been submitted (IDOH thinks it has been?), yours take priority. IDOH will either agree, or not. Either way, I also suggest that you contact the other creator. Remember, in the end, all work here is collaborative. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joan Almond (2). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've clicked on submit for Draft:Susan Hudson, the missing {{Infobox person}} is no showstopper for an IMNSHO clear case of WP:PROF. –84.46.52.110 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For some hours or days I've bookmarked Special:Contributions/84.46.52.110 and might find a reply here, no guarantees, but the WP:TEAHOUSE can't help you with that. –84.46.52.110 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello (talk) I was curious why you submitted the Draft:Susan Hudson. Didn't think it would pass quite yet so was planning to work on it some more before requesting approval. Guess it will amount to the same thing if it is approved though. Thanks, LorriBrown (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, they really mean it when they say a review can take up to two months or more. –84.46.52.110 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please continue working on the draft while it awaits review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

84.46.52.110 Okay, I get it now. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss it Yes indeed, I'll do that.LorriBrown (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Need help with contacting a user please at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

		Hello, LorriBrown, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I noticed you've made one or more edits to women's biographies. Should you be interested in helping to redress the balance of articles about women, you might wish to consider joining our Women in Red project. Less than 18% of biographies here are about women - and you could help us increase this! Here are some pages you might find helpful: Useful Wikipedia links: Wikipedia:Introduction Your first article Referencing for beginners Simplified Manual of Style The five pillars of Wikipedia The Wikipedia Adventure (fun interactive tour) Links for Women in Red project: Ten simple rules for creating women's biographies Wikipedia:Writing about women Editing biographies of living persons Resources page for Women in Red project List of notable women who don't yet have an article on Wikipedia Dates for future online 'editathons' and real-world gatherings
		I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) This automatically inserts your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages. If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or at the Women in Red project's Talk Page. Alternatively, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help you. Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But you don't need to use a template to make your userpage look nice. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you for showing me this site. I joined and started my first article. Happy to know about this project! LorriBrown (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, LorriBrown, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm pleased to hear you are interested in writing articles about Canadian artists and writers. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Unless you have some ideas of your own, you might find the names of interesting women on our Canada red link list which shows the names of Canadian women who have been covered in other language versions of Wikipedia but not yet in English. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Hi Carole, I discovered the list of users in the WikiProject Biography/Members within the Wiki Biography project and wanted to see if it is appropriate to request input - or if these users work on approved articles only. I've drafted a Living Artist Biography (User:LorriBrown/sandbox1) and its pending review - but would very much appreciate any kind of feedback.

If it is not appropriate to ask for help on this platform - I apologize in advance!  :-) LorriBrown (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you can ask anybody, especially if they're active. But it's preferable to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE where a lot of ready-to-help volunteers can be found and your questions will receive diverse input much more easier than when talking to individual users. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaching in - the outstanding issue to resolve before a reviewer gets to the draft is too many quotations. Have four (Jennifer, Merike, Larueen, Jeff), whereas two at most would be more in scale with the article. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been working on a draft and have submitted it for approval; however, I would love to get some feedback on it before it is reviewed. Please help me with...

04:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)LorriBrown (talk)

The reviewer will give you feedback about the draft. See additional answer below.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You have to tone this down. It is over the top promotional with tons of buzzwords and hype. Also you need to declare any WP:COI. I could have this quickly deleted as SPAM as it is

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:Kent Tate 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:Kent Tate, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:COI. Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the 'request edit' template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
• you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

As for the second bullet, if you are the person creating the article you are allowed to work directly on the draft until it is accepted. What is needed is a statement on your User page describing the nature of the COI (friend, family member, co-worker, etc.). "may have" is not sufficient. If the draft is approved, the approving reviewer or another editor may decide to put an announcement at the top of the article that an editor has a relationship with the person who is the topic of the article. Over time, if there are enough subsequent edits by non-involved editors, this can be removed (but not by you). ONCE THE ARTICLE IS ACCEPTED you should refrain from editing the article directly. Instead, as above, propose changes on the article's Talk page. This is to prevent a COI editor from creating a short article, having it accepted, and then packing it with lots of content afterwards. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: I have modified the second line on my page to be more specific. Thank you very much for this post and all of your very generous help! LorriBrown (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you! I'll be working on that. LorriBrown (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The declining editor raised question of COI or PAID. Your User page either needs to describe your relationship to Tate or be specific that you are not being paid and do not personally know Tate. COI creation and editing is allowed, but needs to be declared. Paid MUST be declared. Also, I shortened the article by more than 1/3. When you resubmit, you will get a different reviewer. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I thought I had already thanked you for this information and for doing this edit... :-) LorriBrown (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called How to Request Help with an Article? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Teahouse Community - HELP Please! at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay on how finding examples of poorly written or referenced articles does not justify other articles. When an article is primarily written by one person, it is often weak. Over time, many contributors tend to improve the article. The one-editor problem is especially true for obscure topics, for example video artists. At Nicole Cohen, go to View history, and then in a menu bar toward the top there an option Pageviews. This shows how many viewers per day. A box to the lower right shows how many editors keep a watch on it. Contrast that to Henry Moore, a Featured article. My point is that there are a lot of bad articles out there. Many did not go through the Article for Creation process, and so did not have an experienced editor deciding yes or no. Instead, the creating editor just dumped the article into Main space (this is allowed). There are many, many, many articles that as they are, should either be deleted or improved. After you succeed with Kent Tate you should have enough experience to go forth and improve existing articles. My own history here at Wikipedia is no articles created, 15,000 edits, five articles raised to Good Article status, and hundreds of articles improved. Often improvement is deletion. In April 2017 the article Tocotrienol was a bloated mess. I and other editors cut its length by two-thirds. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for your explanation and for providing examples. LorriBrown (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Comments on an article. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LorriBrown:, I've noticed your edits at The Teahouse and it looks like you've had to tweak your posts numerous times to get them the way you want. I've had that issue myself, and have found that it's easier to use the Show preview button to check my work and links before I publish. It seems like every time I fail to check the preview, I end up re-editing my own work several times. Just wanted to share that tip, maybe save you some time and clicks as well. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Schazjmd Yes indeed! Read after posting and then realize mistakes have been made (sometimes more than once) and want to correct them. Thank you for the tip! I've ran into editing conflicts before and don't know how to recover what was written when that occurs. So get a little too hasty with postingLorriBrown (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown,

Welcome to the Wikipedia community!

Did you know that Artificial Intelligences (AIs) support Wikipedia? I saw your post on Teahouse, and I’m personally contacting a small handful of new Wikipedia editors to make sure your voice is heard as we build and refine these AIs.

Will you please provide an interview to share your thoughts about AI on Wikipedia? It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.

I am working in collaboration with Wikimedia Foundation staff to do this research, so if you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon!

PS. You can learn more about our study here.

Best, Bowen, aka Bobo.03 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a good article to try to improve. It has been around since 2008, but is only a stub with one reference. By present-day criteria it should be a candidate for deletion. There are Wikipedia 'deletionists' who have the philosophy that the weak and wounded articles should be winnowed out. The opposing point of view is to try to rescue weak articles before someone nominates for deletion. Immediate goal in this case would be to add at least two references that are about Brian Fawcett (not written by Brian, not an interview with Brian). David notMD (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you! Just curious to know, is it best to work on articles offline and then post the edits all one time - or at least more consolidated? Had I known that many little edits could be looked at as a negative - I likely would have constructed the new article differently; however, I guess that only would work for articles that other editors are not actively working on. Thanks again for the perspective.LorriBrown (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In general, the suspicion spotlight shines on "SPAs" (single-purpose articles), where an editor only works on one article. I've often done incremental. If you visit Vitamin deficiency and click on View history you will see that over a few weeks in February I did almost 150 edits, in process increasing length by 10X. For existing articles, I recommend copying a section to your Sandbox, working on it there, then returning the revised content to the article. In effect, you will be working off-stage. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I've located a couple of reviews that I wondered if they could be added to further reading 1) the National Post Open Book: Human Happiness, by Brian Fawcett by Philip Marchand; and 2) and The Georgia Straight Local Matters, by Brian Fawcett by Brian Lynch; - plus this article in the Prince George Citizen Award winning writer returns to Prince George by Christine Hinzmann. The Dooney Cafe link doesn't exist on the site any longer. There is a link but only has his name and picture Brian Fawcett. Is the old link okay to leave because it has the date retrieved? Also, I wanted to ask if these are acceptable links for references: ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM Source for information on Fawcett, Brian 1944-: Contemporary Authors dictionary. ... Brian Fawcett's; BC BOOKLOOK #108 Brian Fawcett; and the Northern BC Archives (University of Northern British Columbia) Fonds 1996.2 - Brian Fawcett fonds. There are other links to bios for Fawcett on book publisher sites but I would imagine those would not make good references. Thanks!! LorriBrown (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not Encyclopedia.com as it is a bit opaque for its sources of information. If a source is only an interview - not. But if information is in the lead to the interview, that is OK. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I've gotten the Brian Fawcett page updated. I think it looks better. I changed Pearson Prize to Hilary Weston Writers' Trust Prize. Wish there was a picture available. Lot's of pictures of Fawcett in articles but nothing in WikiCommons. If you get a chance to take a look let me know if you think it is an improvement and not too many citations now. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Still over-referencing. Should not need five refs to confirm winning the Weston prize. More content based on articles written about Fawcett would help. SeeWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works for preferred way to list works by an author. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I need your opinion about an edit I made on the Brian Fawcett page. I changed the award for Virtual Clearcut from the Pearson Prize for Canadian non-fiction, supported by # 5 #108 Brian Fawcett - - to - - Hilary Weston Writers' Trust Prize for Nonfiction, supported by #7 2003 Winner Hilary Weston Writers’ Trust Prize for Nonfiction for Virtual Clearcut: Or, the Way Things Are in My Hometown. Subsequently, I contacted Writers Trust of Canada and James explained the sponsor of the Writers' Trust nonfiction prize has changed several times over the years: from 1997-2005 it was with Pearson Canada. Nereus Financial followed. It was unsponsored for a few years. And Hon. Hilary Weston began sponsoring it in 2011. So technically at the time Fawcett received the prize in 2003 it would have been called the Pearson Prize. Should I change it back - or should I pose this question in the Teahouse? Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Could reference it as the Pearson Prize for when it was awarded, in parentheses state that Hilary Weston began sponsoring in 2011 with a name change (referenced). David notMD (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Made the change. Think it makes sense. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called How to locate an archived Teahouse conversation thread. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Link to Draft not available at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called Vandalism? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown! You created a thread called A question about templates at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: Hello Cymru, I wanted to inquire if you can help me (or recommend how I can get help) to improve the draft article 'Kent Tate' so the warning post 'written like a resume can be removed. I have looked at other 'artist' biographies on Wikipedia and many of them have lists of select exhibitions - so I am not sure if the body of the article is a problem or that I had the heading as 'Biography'. I removed the 'select exhibitions' from the page so perhaps that will help the article. Thank you!! LorriBrown (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: Hello - Just trying to double check if you were notified... LorriBrown (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Hello Lorri, I didn't get the notification until just now due to being off Wikipedia. Biographies of living persons aren't really my forte on here; I would suggest asking over at Wikipedia:Teahouse–they have a lot of resources for newcomers on here! Best of luck. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass:Thank you for your reply!!LorriBrown (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hello, I heard you being interviewed some time ago I think on CBC about work you've done on Wikipedia and pages you've worked on including I thought artist pages. If I've mistakenly identified you as this person - I apologize! What peaked my interest was the advocacy or interest in artist biographies.

I am currently trying to work on a draft article for a living artist biography for Kent Tate. Have had some difficulties and need help with this article. There is a

post on the draft article which I am unsure of how it got posted there (robot or real person post). None the less it warrants my attention to the page to follow the recommendations and see if warning post can be removed. There was a list of select exhibitions in this article - so I removed the list. Looking at other biographies many have various styles of lists so would be helpful to understand what is acceptable - or if lists really should not be posted. I also apologize if this is not the proper means by which to communicate. Thank you!! LorriBrown (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking less like a resume, but in my opinion should be shortened by 10-20% before submitting. Perhaps create an Awards, grants and residences section, and more the scattered content into that. Also, no need to list all, even if there are references available. (Maybe leave out all grants?) Toward end of Filmography there is repetition in the content about Isolated Gestures. David notMD (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you! I am working on pairing it down... I greatly appreciate your input! LorriBrown (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD and David notMD: Hi David, Tried to clean the article up and shorten a bit. Very curious to have feedback if you have a chance to take a look. Thank you!! LorriBrown (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Couple of ref with no info (38, 39) because there is no original ref for the multi-use to link to. Otherwise, I feel this is good to submit. If declined, the responding editor will point to what needs to be fixed. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD and David notMD: Yes - I will have to repair them. Thank you for taking a look. Also, how do I try to submit the article... Thanks again! LorriBrown (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste at the top of the Sandbox this text subst:submit with double curly brackets {{ }} before and after. This will generate a largish box explaining that the article has been submitted. It may take as long as 7-8 weeks for the submission to Articles for Creation to get reviewed. You can continue to work on it. David notMD (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This might be a good time to create your User page. I suggest start small - a few sentences about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Given that since January, all of your edits have been on one article (Kent Tate), a sentence or two describing your relationship to the topic may help forestall questions about COI or PAID. Meaning, declare if you have a personal relationship with KT or are being paid to create an article about KT. On my own UP, I describe my relationship to the dietary supplement industry, but make clear that there are no paid connections. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I moved the page you created at Template:LorriBrown/sandbox to User:LorriBrown/sandbox1. It appears you created it in error when trying to create a userspace sandbox in your own userspace. If you have any questions, please let me know by responding here and putting {{ping|cymru.lass}} in front of your question so I get a notification! Thank you. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: Thank you for the help! Yes, I was attempting to create a draft of an article that I can work on and hopefully get input on to make sure that it meets the criteria necessary to post in Wikipedia. I not very familiar with how to do things in this platform so I appreciate the links you provided. Is there a difference between a draft of an article and an article created in Sandbox? Thank you again. LorriBrown (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lorri! Happy to help. I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of moving your comment under the same section as my original comment and indenting it so we can keep the discussion in the same place. There isn't necessarily a difference between a draft and a sandbox, except that sandboxes can be used for more than just article drafts (can be lists of things to do, test versions of templates, drafting major changes to an article that already exists, etc. There's a page at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox that talks more about sandboxes.

We also have a special namespace called Draft: that can (but does not have to) host draft articles; you can read more about namespaces in the first link in this sentence, and about Draft: space specifically in the second. More information about our notability guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Notability, and you also might like to read Wikipedia:Your first article! Let me know if there's any more questions you have that I can answer. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)