User talk:Elizdonley

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Elizdonley. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Robert Donley, 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)



Help me!
Someone emailed Robert Donley, the artist whose page I'm creating, with the message below:

Robert Donley 8:19 AM (4 hours ago) to me fyi

Hi,

I checked your Wikipedia declined draft; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Donley

I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting.

Kindly reply for more details.

Regards, Tamsin

I don't know why this message was sent, as I have not submitted the page yet for publication. I have submitted image copyright information and I have not heard back on that yet. Can you help, please??

Please help me with...

Elizdonley (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I am taking a look at this and will update your answer shortly. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Any update on this? Elizdonley (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Donley (January 28)
 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:

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

Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... I have resubmitted the Robert Donley page for review, but have not heard anything for some time. When will that be reviewed?

Also, I noticed that the artist picture has been removed. I have sent in copyright permission from the photographer. Will that be re-added?

Elizdonley (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the image I have left a note at the talk page of the administrator who deleted it (again): commons:User talk:Jcb. Regarding the draft, the review process is currently severely backlogged, with almost 2,500 drafts awaiting review. It may take some time for your draft to be reviewed, but since drafts are not necessarily reviewed in chronological order, it's impossible to predict how much time, exactly, it will take. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... I'm still waiting on a review of the Robert Donley page and the reinstatement of the artist photo as copyright has been provided. Any idea how much longer this will take? Any way to expedite it?

Elizdonley (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Both the draft review process and the permission email queue are operated by volunteers, and both can be backlogged (there are currently more than 2,500 drafts awaiting review, for example). Please be patient. You can use the wait to further improve the draft and thereby improve the chances that it will be accepted; for example, some sections still are unreferenced, and for many of the references I have doubts whether they can be considered reliable and independent. Huon (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, lots of lack of response here.
 * A) the person who emailed your artist may be looking for money. If they are an experienced Wikipedia editor, as they say they are, they should know better than to make this sort of solicitation. Wikipedia editors should not be proposing to submit drafts to their subjects for review.
 * B) Copyright permissions for photos are handled by Wikimedia Commons, a separate-but-related organization. I don't have a lot of insight into their processes, but 3 months seems to be a long wait for something that should be strightforward. All of the images used in the draft are going to be affected by the need to provide a proper release.
 * C) I don't see that you ever responded to the message about conflict-of-interest; What I expected to see was that you had read the policy and provided a disclosure of your connection with Robert Donley on your userpage.
 * D) The draft still has biographical material that does not look like it is properly sourced, a concern raised by reviewer Legacypac. As long as that is true, other reviewers may pass on reviewing it again when it would just mean declining with a similar comment.
 * I'm not completely comfortable telling you to simply "wait". Without clarifications on copyright for the images, the images will likely be removed from the draft. A draft does not need images to be reviewed, they're strictly optional. Cutting all unsourced and opinion material from the draft might also make it more likely to be approved.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

Elizdonley (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) I have added conflict of interest information. I hope that is correct. In terms of opinion or incorrect sourcing, I'm not seeing that. I would appreciate more input on this if possible. I do know that there is no source citation for the following: His father left soon after he was born, and his mother was forced to move to Chicago to find work and leave him to be raised by his grandparents. When his grandmother died when he was 10, he moved to Chicago to live with his mother, Ann Donley, who worked as a commercial artist at Louis Cheskin's Color Research Institute. This was Donley's first exposure to the art world. His mother brought home color charts and worked on freelance art projects in their small apartment on west Buena Avenue. One project had her creating a map of Chicago with the sort of tiny buildings that would one day work their way into Donley's own art.

However, this info came from a personal interview with the artist.

For the photograph and other images, all have been submitted to Wikipedia Commons with copyright info. Should I resubmit?


 * Two entire sections don't cite sources. Personal interviews cannot be used on Wikipedia because there's no way for our readers to verify what the artist may have told you. If I claimed that Donley told me something different and changed the article, how could our readers tell that I'm wrong and you are right?
 * Regarding sourcing, take this lengthy part:
 * Under Donley's tenure, Donley hired art historians Elizabeth Lillehoj and Paul Jaskot and painter Bibiana Suarez. Donley also introduced graphic design and computer arts to the art program and expanded art history and studio art. In the 1980s, along with Simone Zurawski, Donley helped start the DePaul Art Gallery and later hired Louise Lincoln, who turned the gallery into the DePaul Art Museum (DPAM). Today, the museum has its own building on Fullerton Avenue and a permanent collection of more than 3,500 objects.
 * The source cited at the end is De Paul Art Museum's "about" page. Firstly, I doubt such "about" pages are subject to meaningful editorial oversight or have a reputation for fact-checking; they are not reliable sources for biographical content. Secondly, the source doesn't have any biographical information about Donley anyway; it doesn't mention him and thus cannot serve to verify any piece of information about Donley. We might use such a page if we were using it to write an article about the museum itself, but for an article on Donley it's useless.
 * Or take reference 29: "What Artists Have to Say about Nuclear War." Nexus Gallery. Atlanta, Georgia, May 13 – June 12, 1983. What is that, and how would I look it up? Is that actually the book of the same name? Then the citation should make that clear and, preferably, give a page number, maybe like this:
 * This was created with the following code:  The book doesn't seem to have an ISBN (which is kind of a red flag); otherwise I'd have added that, too. See also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. If the supposed source is not the 28-page booklet, then what is it? The exhibition itself? Our readers can't travel back in time and see it, so it's not a useful source. If it is that booklet, then something published by Nexus Press about Nexus Gallery would be a primary source; preferred are secondary sources. And just how strict were Nexus Press' editorial standards when they were writing about Nexus Gallery?
 * Another example is reference 13: That's a gallery's press release, definitely not a reliable source for biographical content. Reference 14 is the Huffington Post, a web publication, yet no link is provided, making it unnecessarily difficult for our readers to find the source. Furthermore, to me that specific HuffPo piece looks more like something written by one of the HuffPo-hosted bloggers, not something subject to HuffPo's editorial oversight (I might be wrong there).
 * These are some examples that I found easier to check. They are not an exhaustive list. They all are problematic in some way: It's unclear what's cited, the source might not be reliable, it might not be independent, or it doesn't actually confirm what it's cited for. I'd strongly advise you to go through the entire draft, top to bottom, and to double-check: Are the sources reliable and independent? And is the draft's content confirmed by the cited sources? If the answer to either question is "no", then there's work to be done. In total, I think there's a lot of work to be done. Huon (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These are some examples that I found easier to check. They are not an exhaustive list. They all are problematic in some way: It's unclear what's cited, the source might not be reliable, it might not be independent, or it doesn't actually confirm what it's cited for. I'd strongly advise you to go through the entire draft, top to bottom, and to double-check: Are the sources reliable and independent? And is the draft's content confirmed by the cited sources? If the answer to either question is "no", then there's work to be done. In total, I think there's a lot of work to be done. Huon (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Donley has been accepted
 Robert Donley, 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. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you! I'd like to know how I can work to remove the conflict of interest notifications at the top. Also, the artist photograph has also still been removed yet the copyright has been sent in. Any advice on how to get the photograph back in (and remain in)? Elizdonley (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Robert_Donley help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * I would suggest that you stop editing the article and only make suggestions on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)