User talk:Camilopinilla

I have moved your help request to the end of this page - please add new things to the end.  Chzz  ► 19:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved it again. Please do add new things to the very end of the page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Help request
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopinilla (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 January 2011

You used a 'helpme' without saying what you wanted.

However, I notice in the edit summary that you wrote this;

Am requesting help with the article I submitted. I have all the sources, but would like assistance in formatting them to Wiki specifications

Looking at your edits, I assume you mean Kevin Brown (author) - or, the other copy of it, in User:Camilopinilla/Kevin Brown (Author, Journalist & Translator).

I will leave this request here, for others to answer.  Chzz  ► 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally find it very helpful to use the optional citation gadget. To install, go to "My preferences", select the rightmost tab "Gadgets", the check the box next to refTools (in the Editing gadgets section). Once installed, it will add a new button "Cite" to your editing toolbar. Click on it to add a citation. Makes it much easier.


 * I'm assuming you are looking for help with Kevin Brown (author)


 * I'll fix a couple using the citation gadget, and let you finish.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Harder than I thought. Some of those refs are challenging. I fixed a few, some still could use some work.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New helpme
Again, I'm moving your request for help here. You didn't ask a question. What can we help you with? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Camilopinilla, in order for us to help you, we need to know what you need help with. Please either post your question here, or come to the IRC live help by clicking here. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
BTW please also remember to sign your posts, and to provide links to pages you would like us to examine. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also avoid asking for help in many places at once. See my summary below. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Brown (author)
Hi. In response to your enquiry at WP:EAR I have reviewed this article as requested.

The page is missing the place of birth  in  the lead. References to sources that are only listings on publishers' or wholesalers' sites will not add to the assertion of notability. One administrator has already suggested above that the references you have provided are 'challenging' - the following is the detailed analysis:

Unfortunately, the above sources do not appear to assert notability under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR. Although the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you'll need to read our policy on article submission, and in case you are in any way connected at all with the subject, you may wish to read this important advice. I suggest that you attempt to search the sites you are using as references and link directly to the pages that are strictly about the subject. Try to address these points as quickly as possible by finding dedicated article in the established press that mention any  significant awards the subject has received, and that confirm any academic degrees and lectureships. Also try  to  provide full details of any  publications (date, publisher, ISBN, etc) that  have been met  with  critical acclaim (not  reviews or jacket  notes). I have regretfully had to  restore some of the maintenance tags, so please note that  the article may be referred by any editor at  any  time to WP:AfD for deletion debate. Regards, Kudpung (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This URL does not appear to link to a mention of the subject and should be removed from the references.
 * 2) According to this, the 'interview' may have been submitted to the web site by the author, in which case the site does not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source.
 * 3) Amazon.com product product listings and/or descriptions do not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source.
 * 4) This URL does not appear to link to a mention of the subject and should be removed from the references.
 * 5) This URL does not appear to link to an article about the subject. It appears to be a blog item written by the subject. It does therefore not not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source that confirms notability.
 * 6) This URL does not appear to link to an article about the subject. The web site only carries an extremely fleeting listing of the subject as being the translator of something among a long list of woks by many authors/translators.
 * 7) This cited web page does not appear to mention the subject at all and should be removed from the references.
 * 8) This cited web page does not appear to mention the subject at all. In fact it appears to  be about an Ana Cecilia Barragán interview, and should be removed from the references.

Not trying to start an edit war here. It's better to have an imperfect article than no article at all. But, per <+OlEnglish>, I'm respectfully removing the most recent tag. The sources have all been meticulously researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopinilla (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 February 2011


 * Hi, please take a moment to read up on WP:TPG and sign and indent your posts. You made a request  at  WP:EAR that has been been addressed in  depth and in  detail for you, and in good faith. This took  quite a long time, and I'm sorry  if the final analysis didn't  come up  with  what  you  expected. The sources are not plausible, and unfortunately, when it comes to  WP:BLP we are very strict. I will restore the template you removed, because it will spare you a warning, and it might stave off the reduction of the article to a stub, or even its formal proposal for deletion long enough for you to find some references that comply with our policy. I'm sorry again, but that's the best I can do for you, and as you have been WP:forum shopping, I think you'll most likely be getting the same answers everywhere. Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You said:


 * It's better to have an imperfect article than no article at all.


 * With all due respect, I disagree. This is a subject I thought about recently. If Wikipedia has official positions on this question, I'm not aware of them, so these are my thoughts, not a summarization of official policy.
 * I think it is fair to say that that attitude prevailed in the early days of Wikipedia, and while I wasn't active then, I would have supported it at that time. In 2002, if a person were searching for information about Kevin Brown, and stumbled across the article as it is now, they would probably be pleasantly surprised and pleased to find so much decent information on one organized location. However, as Wikipedia has grown, and developed a reputation, the minimum standard for articles has tightened.
 * People who pay attention to the Wikipedia model know it still suffers the shortcomings of a model where anyone can edit, but they also know that Wikipedia policies impose requirements on references supporting claims in articles. A reader of a biography should be able to assume, if there are no warnings on the page, and the article is reasonably stable (no recent edit wars), that the references in the article meet the Wikipedia standards. It would be quite unreasonable for a reader to conclude that most articles strive for this standard, but this one is an exception because something is better than nothing.


 * Back to the specific article. While I haven't checked out the comments of Kudpung closely, I'm familiar with this editor and Kudpung is highly regarded as an editor. The concerns should not be viewed lightly. ::I note, looking quickly, that the article has 16 footnotes, and Kudpung has concerns about eight, so it doesn't appear to be the case that all references are problematic. I'll also note (and here is an area where editors may disagree) I think some sorts of references, such as personal blogs, are acceptable in some uses, as long as they are not being used to support notability (for example, a personal blog can be used to support the notion that a particular person claims to hold a particular view). The references supporting notability have to qualify as reliable sources.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree w/ Kudpung, and thank him for taking the time to check the article so thoroughly.
 * OlEnglish said that you could remove the tag, but not that you necessarily should - and that, if you thought it appropriate to do so, you could explain why in your edit summary. That is quite correct, and helpful generic advice; but when helping "live" in IRC, it is not possible to do the kind of detailed checks that Kudpung has subsequently performed. Therefore - as another user (Kudpung) objects to the tag removal, we need to discuss it. Please refer to WP:BRD, which applies to tags as well as anything else.
 * Nobody owns an article; we all want to improve all Wikipedia. Sometimes, that means removing unreferenced information. Kudpung was pointing out ways in which we can improve the quality of Wikipedia, by highlighting concerns with that specific article. The tags at the top are also for that purpose - to show other editors what the problems are, so that we can try to fix them.
 * In reply to "better to have an imperfect article than no article"; the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, once said that Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information - and that is the rule we live by; verifiability.
 * Please read WP:VRS, which summarizes the essential requirement.


 * Camilopinilla, I am concerned that your edits are only to this one article, and thus you give the appearance of a single-purpose account, with possible conflict of interest issues. I recommend that you help us to improve some other articles, which will broaden your knowledge of Wikipedia ways.


 * In the worst-case scenario, if we - that is, the community of Wikipedians, which certainly includes you - decide that, for now, this specific article does not meet the notability requirements...then it might be deleted; but even if that does happen, you'd be able to get it copied back to your user-space, for possible later improvement.


 * Now, please let us keep any further discussion about the article in the right place please - that is, Talk:Kevin_Brown (author). Camilopinilla, if you do have queries specific to the article, please make them on that page - and if you then enquire elsewhere, simply put a short note, with a link to [[Talk:Kevin Brown (author) ]] - that will avoid any accusations of 'forum shopping'.


 * For further "meta discussion" - about Wikipedia in general, and help - feel free to ask here though.
 * Thank you for your understanding; I know that Wikipedia can be challenging for new users (to say the least!) but I assure you that we're all here to help. Best,  Chzz  ► 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chzz, thanks for that link. That fits in perfectly with my view. I've sensed a different impression in some of my reviews of the earlier days at WP; I'm happy to see this strong position as early as 2006. I still think the view (among some) was different earlier, but the current situation is quite clear.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
When replying, please remember to log in, sign  your post, and compete the edit summary. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kevin Brown (author) (March 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Kevin Brown (author) 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:Kevin Brown (author), 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Kevin_Brown_(author) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Kevin_Brown_(author) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin Brown (author) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kevin Brown (author), 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 Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kevin Brown (author)


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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)