User talk:Elttaruuu/2023/February

February 2023
Hello, I'm Innisfree987. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Malcolm London, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Hi again! Wanted to touch base as a few of your additions to articles have included primary and particularly self-published sources like personal blogs. Particularly for biographies of living people, WP has strict sourcing standards in order to avoid causing harm to real people. This means we aim to use fact-checked secondary sources whenever possible, and self-published sources can never be used for material about anyone but the person who wrote it. This can get tricky if another person is mentioned in someone’s biography: the rule applies even tho they may not be the subject of the entry. I know this is quite different from how sources are used in other kinds of writing, and takes some getting used to. Thanks in advance for your help upholding WP’s standards!'' Innisfree987 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Chrysanthemum Tran moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Chrysanthemum Tran, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Crystal Valentine moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Crystal Valentine, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Siaara Freeman moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Siaara Freeman, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oompa moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Innisfree987, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand the problem. This person has tons of citations from music newspapers, they have a contract with Pepsi Music labs. How much more notable can they get? Elttaruuu (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

They have references from the NBA and the Boston Globe????? Elttaruuu (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

They are not myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or financial and other relationships - they are an artist whose work I follow who deserves recognition for their accomplishments Elttaruuu (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia supposed to close major biographical race and gender gaps when it incubates articles that aren’t about white men? Elttaruuu (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There are places on Wikipedia to raise such subjects. This thread is about this specific page creation (Oompa), and how you might improve it to avoid its deletion. The quantity of the citations you have applied partially obscures the lack of quality of each the chosen sources. For the purposes of this discussion, if it's a bare mention, delete it. If it's a quote, delete it. If it's an interview, delete it. If it was produced by an involved party, delete it. If it's routine entertainment news, delete it. None of these sorts of sources are likely to count towards notability. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this response Elttaruuu (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your engagement. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a liberty here and extend: ideally, every article should spring from found reliable sources, not familiarity (which is subjective). Once notability is established, furnish the page any way you want. Your editing approach seems to start with a presumption of notability, since you are aware of them yourself. Not to chide, but that reflects its own unconscious bias. There are what, 8 billion people on the planet? We only have about a million biographies on en.Wikipedia and most of those subjects are historical. Not every musician is sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, heck not every sportsperson, celebrity or influencer is notable (and they get disproportionate routine coverage). I have friends who are notable and have articles about themselves. Those articles find themselves regularly out-of-date and in a poor state of completion. A badly conceived or out-of-date page about a living person makes a poor impression for the subject. Plus we see malefactors or non-neutral approaches. You yourself added material to a WP:BLP subject article which was redacted from Wikipedia because it was defamatory, improperly sourced and undue. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, it appears you uploaded at least one image to Commons which was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. So you have a place in how such figures are presented in this discussion. Your poor behaviors may end up reflecting badly on the living page subjects, as unfair as that may sound. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mary Reilly has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary Reilly. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello I’ve replied and added a message to your talk page Elttaruuu (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is nice work, and I agree with C.Fred's comments. The sources are clearly much stronger for this subject. One critique: when we're working from episodic sources, our Wikipedia biographies may tend to unduly resemble a list or a timeline. The benefit of utilizing book-length or comprehensive treatments of a subject is that such an author cares to make and source evaluative assertions (a nomenclature we may adopt, into which dates and names help illustrate the assertions made), where as wikipedians we don't have that discretion. We can't create our own synthetic characterization, even based on citation. But overall this article is much better than your previous work; you've avoided lots of extraneous minutia in sourcing, for example. It helps us the subject has received ample solid coverage.
 * I see you've adopted some of my language in talk page discussions. I'll take this as a compliment; we've discussed something you value. If you need to ask questions, don't be shy. BusterD (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Reilly (advocate) has been accepted
 Mary Reilly (advocate), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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  [//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=Mary_Reilly_(advocate) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you!!! Elttaruuu (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK
So now that you've got a mostly complete article (I'd love to hear more about her early life and what caused her to be such a do-gooder), you should consider applying the completed article to the main page at WP:DYK, once the draft is accepted. I'd accept it myself, but I'm an involved editor now, so I'd be acting the bad wikipedian if I were to cross that line. If you need help, I have a new friend for you to meet. BusterD (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Barbara McInnis
Okay, so I see a bunch of citations, but nothing significant and directly detailing. To my eyes what is missing is a statement which explains why McInnis is more notable than any other nurse. It's not the sourcing itself, which is meager but of good quality. The long quote is from an excellent resource, but since McInnis was O’Connell's mentor, he's considered a connected source, so doesn't contribute to notability. The best assertion of significance I'm seeing so far is the establishment of the Nurse's Clinic. I would find sources who discuss her role in the establishment of the clinic, especially in retrospect if available. This one may not make the finish line, Elttaruuu. Style-wise, we don't normally utilize an honorific like Judge or Dr. every time when referring to an individual; the first time is sufficient. BusterD (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's better. Still not sure your reviewer will pass it, but you took my feedback seriously. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me Polish the article. People who are marginalized appear marginal in history even when they have significant contributions. Elttaruuu (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. To your credit, you're taking on some pretty tough sourcing challenges and not shying away from them. Good for you. This is why we have WP:Women in red. Remember, there's no time limit; draftspace might be utilized almost forever, so long as you work on it occasionally. I don't normally utilize obits but McInnis's is quite good and not a typical one. Here's something else I found. I think the Barbara McInnis House is your search target. BusterD (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Elttaruuu (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow these are great, I really appreciate it. I will incorporate them Elttaruuu (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yep, definitely focus on BMHouse:, , , . Lots more where that came from. Because the subject is deceased and because the facility was named in her honor, even some sources connected to the house may be used. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Obits in academic journals are usually very useful: "American Journal of Nursing. Oct2003, Vol. 103 Issue 10, p26-26. 1p. 1 Color Photograph." Find it. I can show you how. Go to WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and ask someone to help you get a copy. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I encourage you to consider changing your auto archiving so that talk page conversations stay readable and editable for slightly longer. Think about changing the setting to seven days or three days. This allows conversations to mature before they become history. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is entirely an issue of style and choice, but when I'm making ref names, I find some way of easily identifying which of the sources I intend. This makes it easier for reviewers, other contributors and for my own rewrites. As opposed to numbers, I tend to use the author's last name (and publication date just in case I'm using different sources by the same author). You can use anything you like and any arbitrary word, number, or letter is satisfactory. I just prefer being able to differentiate citations at a glance, without referencing other parts of the page. Pages may get rather complex... BusterD (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources and encyclopedic significance
Hello and thank you for your message on draft:Chrysanthemum_Tran. I understand your interest is in increasing the coverage of underrepresented groups on Wikipedia. That is also mostly what I do on the project, which is how I encountered your contributions. To make sure your contributions stick though requires sourcing that satisfies Wikipedia’s standards. Right now that paragraph is entirely based on primary sources (things Tran wrote/said) and lacks secondary coverage discussing Tran’s views, which would tell us that they are significant enough to include in the encyclopedia. Simply asserting that something is notable is not enough, because people say and write things all the time and Wikipedia is not an WP:Indiscriminate collection of all of them; instead we rely on secondary coverage to tell us what’s important. I’m taking the time to write all this out because it seems like you are very motivated which is great to have on the project and I want to make sure your energy is put to good use, rather than having your time and others’ wasted on adding things that need to be removed. I hope it’s helpful. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Elttaruuu, and thank you for the biographies of women you have been creating. As in some cases you have faced difficulties with your new articles, it might be useful for you to become a member of Women in Red where we are trying to chip away at the gender gap. We could try to help you along whenever you encounter problems. You can join under "New registrations" on this page. In any case, I look forward to more of your women's biographies. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up on my suggestion and welcome to Women in Red. I think you might find it helpful to look at some of our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Moving drafts to mainspace
Hi there, I see you moved an earlier AfC draft on your own. You're absolutely right that you have the power to move it, and I don't think you should move it back, but I warn you not to do this in the future - this is something that really annoys a lot of AfC and NPP reviewers. You can make articles in draftspace or your userspace without using the AfC wizard and move them to mainspace directly, if you don't want to use AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the intel Elttaruuu (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chrysanthemum Tran has been accepted
 Chrysanthemum Tran, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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  [//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=Chrysanthemum_Tran help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! asilvering (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you asilvering! Elttaruuu (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to talk to a few other editors about your work to date, as an example of a new page creator
I've already shared with you that your edits have drawn attention. A week or so ago I was chatting with two of your reviewers about your work, and we were about to take impatient action when I saw your draft for Mary Reilly (advocate), how earnestly you worked with your reviewer, and my opinion of you as a wikipedian changed. Our new discussion (which is here) is not about you at all but about the challenges Wikipedia faces when dealing with brand-new editors who absolutely, positively MUST create a new article. We will be talking about your work dispassionately, so don't be surprised or dismayed. I find you as an example illustrative of lots of things. For the record I consider you an amazing new contributor, and not typical of what we normally see. I want to encourage you to edit boldly (as you seem to do naturally). Do not feel compelled to join us, but feel welcome to do so if you read something to which you may wish to add or comment. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi BusterD, thanks so much for your thoughts and feedback! As an aside, I have had a pretty tough day outside of wikipedia-land so it's nice to hear your encouragement and appreciation. I have definitely started to see a lot more of the reasoning behind why wikipedia editors react, edit, and comment the way they do and it has aided the quality of my work, though it can be a little startling at first, especially when I see the value in something that doesn't yet feel visible to others. Because I am having a hard day I may be slow to join or absent from the conversation but I look forward to reading when things are better. Elttaruuu (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. We are in no hurry. I'm very interested to hear what you've learned about what you're gradually understanding. I'm much more used to new users who aren't yet willing to learn the work, but from your first edits, it appeared you had a strong interest in specific sets of individuals and you stayed focussed on them. My work is primarily in the field of historical biographical storytelling so we work similarly. Living people are quite a challenge for a wikipedian, for the reasons I've previously explained (first do no harm, which sticks in many a craw). We are happy to have you. Learn this stuff at your own pace (an essay I wrote myself). BusterD (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If, as a new user, you were confronted with a new user entry training which resembled a game of some kind would you find that condescending? I'm thinking of a helper for a page creator (which I style as a sherpa, not a wizard), which challenges the new user and forces them to respond in order to "unlock" the keys to a new page creation. Is that silly? Might that have application with a subset of new users? Your opinion as a qualified newbie is much appreciated. Don't be shy, either. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi BusterD! I'll think about this and respond when I'm feeling better. Feel free to ping me Monday if you haven't heard from me yet. I appreciate your trying to make the site more accessible. I'm just going through it over here and it's hard to think my thoughts Elttaruuu (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel better. Don't feel alone. Call on me if I can be of any assistance. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The game sounds fun! I think it would come off better if it could get to users casually and not in reaction to something they did wrong / didn’t understand because they might feel defensive and not want to engage. Elttaruuu (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass and Cass
I feel so good about encouraging you lately. I'm so proud to see such strong important work from you. I mentioned a wikifriend who works with users at WP:DYK, User:theleekycauldron. You might consider applying Barbara McIniss for the front page as a DYK entry. You may have sufficiently improved Mass and Cass in order to qualify for DYK. I'd happy to help if you wish to try it. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * well, howdy there! also here to help, if you'd like it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you both so much! What do I do to apply? Elttaruuu (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You're gonna wanna navigate to Did you know/Create new nomination, and think up a snappy, <200-character-hook that entices users to click on your article! Here's an example: (did you know...)
 * ... that "The Supremes" was said to have foreseen the conflict following the death of Antonin Scalia, twelve years later?
 * Note the  surrounding the link on the displayed article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember our dedication to reliable sources. When you find your punchy hook, make sure you can identify at least one reliable source which supports it. So excited for you. BusterD (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just submitted my Aubri Esters article to DYK! Thanks for your encouragement! Elttaruuu (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aubri Esters
Hello! Your submission of Aubri Esters at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry I appreciate the effort you put in, but despite your recent edits, the Earwig score has only improved to 56% from 70%, which is still too high to qualify. You may refer Overquoting. Thanks RV (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback I cleaned it up. Let me know what you think Elttaruuu (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * really appreciate the rework. It looks good to me, so I'm marking it for a review. RV (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent thank you Elttaruuu (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV in Kat Kerwin
First off, good job on Kat Kerwin. However, in the policy section, phrases like "called out" and "used the moment…the importance of" are not in keeping with WP's standards for NPOV language. Since you seem to know what you're doing and are still newish (but properly stuck in, it seems!) I'll trust you can sort it out quickly and accurately. I might pop in to the page next week just to clean up or add what I can! Nice work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pbritti, this is very helpful! Elttaruuu (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Outstanding job getting right to work on that. I've removed the tag and wanted to thank you for your willingness to fix that minor issue right away! Great job on a very interesting article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yay thank you, I appreciate the feedback Elttaruuu (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)