User talk:DragonParkTN

Welcome!
Hi DragonParkTN! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, DragonParkTN. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Fannie Mae Dees Park, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, your username implies some sort of connection with Fannie Mae Dees Park. Could you please enlighten us? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am writing this page as part of a final project for a class at my university. I created the account specifically to write the page, and therefore thought the name was appropriate. I have no personal connection or affiliation to any aspect of the topic, beyond choosing it as a suitable article to write for the project. The requirements for the project included finding something you thought was important that didn't have a Wikipedia page, and this fit. Apologies for the misunderstanding. DragonParkTN (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's okay, and I can see the rationale. It's just that choosing a user name like that and then writing your first article on a related subject triggers the inevitable question about COI. But as long as there is no conflict (and you're not impersonating anyone), there's no problem in that respect. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification, and I apologize again for the misunderstanding. I am relatively new to this process and wasn't aware it would create an issue. Thank you for your help. DragonParkTN (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Fannie Mae Dees Park
Hi. I've moved your article back to draft space, where you can work on bringing it up to standard before submitting for review. Please do not try to move it yourself. Deb (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I worked on it and submitted it. How is moving it into article space different from submitting it for review? I edited quite a lot based on your recommendations and don't see any clear issues which would make it unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. Please feel free to reach out to me here if you have any further questions or concerns. I would be happy to discuss further and make any necessary changes. Thank you for your feedback. DragonParkTN (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are different kinds of 'review'. We have the WP:AFC process for creating new articles, which is strongly recommended for new users; there your draft gets reviewed by experienced editors before being published, to ensure compliance with certain key policies. After an article has been published, it then gets reviewed by the New Page Patrol, who assess (or 'moderate', if you like) every new article, and may either send them to drafts if they're not ready, or request deletion if they fail some core requirements; your article is awaiting this review. And finally, there is the ongoing 'peer review', of sorts, by everyone who reads that article and may decide to improve or expand upon it.
 * This article was, correctly IMO, moved from the main article space to drafts, because it needed further work, and the draft space is the best place to do that. You have now moved it back into the main space, which closes the door for further draftification, so if someone decides that the article isn't fit for publishing, they could start a deletion process. That would be a pity, and in hindsight it would have been great if you asked about this before moving the article, but we are where we are.
 * If you'd like, I can give you a list of suggestions for improving the article, if you're still up to editing it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, I wasn't aware that there were different processes for review and publishing. I'd really appreciate any suggestions you have to offer, I've spent too much time on this project to let it go now. Also, I just moved it back to a draft, so hopefully that should avoid the deletion issue? Best, DragonParkTN DragonParkTN (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for moving it back to drafts, that certainly helps. I'll post some suggestions in a new section at the bottom of this page shortly. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fannie Mae Dees Park. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. JBW (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this applies. I wrote it based on sufficient evidence and I have no personal connection to the topic. DragonParkTN (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate it if you would elaborate on this point. I'd be happy to make any necessary changes, I'm just not sure if I understand what you are referring to here. DragonParkTN (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you really asking me to believe that you can write a page full of such language as "who had tirelessly fought the forced urban renewal", "serves as both a beautiful piece of art and as a unique play structure", "she was a pillar of the community", "it is a fitting tribute to her legacy", and so on and so on..., and really need to have it explained why that is adding commentary or your own point of view? JBW (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested improvements
Okay, here comes! :)
 * 1) Wikipedia articles should basically just summarise what other sources have previously said about a subject. The writing process ideally starts by finding a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely are secondary (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.), reliable, and independent of the subject, and have provided significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of it. You then summarise their coverage (in your own words, but without adding any 'spin' or commentary, per JBW's earlier point), and cite each source against the information it has provided. This gives you appropriate content and the necessary references, as well as evidence of notability, all in one go.
 * 2) Just to clarify slightly, you can also cite primary sources, but only for purely factual, non-contentious information. So if eg. the sculptor says they used recycled materials for the artworks, we can take that as read. If they say they used smashed-up Picasso pottery and some super-rare Ming vases, that requires independent verification. And if they say their sculptures are the greatest in the world, that's clearly not factual, and we couldn't include that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) You must write in a neutral, factual manner, avoiding expressions like "tirelessly fought the forced urban renewal being imposed on her neighborhood" which is rather polemic, as well as peacock words like "iconic", "stunning", etc. If you're going to call something "stunning", that must not be your own opinion, but can only come from a published source, in which case you can quote it backed up by a citation. Even relatively innocent-looking commentary like "The park is a favorite of residents in the area" immediately raises the question 'who says so?', or 'how do you know that?'
 * 4) A related but separate point: everything should be referenced. You currently have several paragraphs without any referencing, which makes me wonder where is that information coming from, and how do I know it's true? As a bare minimum, a paragraph should have at least one citation, at the end, and probably more (one is only really enough for a short paragraph, and only where the same source genuinely supports every statement in it). Anything potentially contentious needs to be referenced right after you've made the statement. Basically, the reader should never feel the need to doubt what they're reading.
 * 5) The article needs a short lead section, which briefly describes the subject, sets the context, and explains why the subject is notable. See WP:MOSLEAD for further advice. (Incidentally, the lead is the only section without a section heading, meaning the current 'Overview' heading isn't needed.)
 * 6) I think the contents are a bit 'upside-down', in that the 'Importance and legacy' section, which tells me why any of this matters, comes last, and by then I may have already lost interest. This can be partly rectified by adding the aforementioned lead section, partly by perhaps condensing some of the narrative in the 'Overview' and 'Fannie Mae Dees' sections. You may also consider bringing the 'Importance and legacy' section further up, rather than leaving it last. I think a suitable section structure could be something like:
 * 7) Lead
 * 8) Background (incl. summary of the 'Fannie Mae Dees' section, and 'Importance')
 * 9) Description
 * 10) Public art
 * 11) Role in community (or something like that, ie. what does the park mean to the locals, but only if properly referenced and neutral in tone)
 * 12) References

I may add more thoughts on this later, but these are the main points that come to mind.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is really helpful, thank you! I'm not accustomed to writing in the specific style required for a Wikipedia article. I'll make these edits as soon as I have the chance. Please let me know if anything else comes to mind. Best, DragonParkTN DragonParkTN (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

An apology
I have read the message which you posted to me and then erased. I apologise for dealing with the matter in a way which was not as civil as it should have been, and I accept your criticism. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about, and my first post above, beginning "Please do not add commentary..." was intended not as criticism but as information to help you. My second post, however, was not so good. It was based on the belief that, even if you had not originally known that expressing a point of view in an article was not acceptable, once you had been told that it wasn't acceptable, it must be obvious that expressions such as those which I listed were examples of doing so. However, perhaps I was wrong; what seems obvious to me may not be so obvious to you. JBW (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying that, I really appreciate it. While I meant a lot of what I said in the erased message, part of the reason why I deleted it was because I realized that you were right in your first critiques and that your job as an editor is to give feedback. While the errors you pointed out were not obvious to me at first because that type of descriptive language is often required of me in the types of writing I am used to, I should've been more careful to review Wikipedia's policies on tone and impersonal writing in the first place. I'm going to keep editing this article to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia in line with your comments and those of DoubleGrazing given above. No hard feelings, DragonParkTN DragonParkTN (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fannie Mae Dees Park (April 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JBW 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fannie Mae Dees Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Fannie_Mae_Dees_Park Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Fannie_Mae_Dees_Park reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JBW (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:"Sea Serpent" by Pedro Silva
Hello, DragonParkTN. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:"Sea Serpent" by Pedro Silva, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)