User talk:Esauboeck

Draft:Anna Spitzmüller
Hi! Do you have more sources for Anna Spitzmüller? The article looks good and I'd like to help, but I'm not finding more sources. I imagine there must be more in German, but I'm not fluent. If you add more to the article and let me know, I can review it again. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Anna Spitzmüller has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Anna Spitzmüller. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Esauboeck


A tag has been placed on User:Esauboeck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cahk, there was no need to do this to a brand-new editor. Esauboeck, user pages aren't for resumes--one of their functions is to give other editors an indication of who you are and what your interests are. I suppose User:Mandarax is a kind of a resume, but it's a Wikipedia-related resume. User:GorillaWarfare is similar but more modest. User:kelapstick is incredibly boring, almost as boring as User: Tide rolls, but Tide rolls, as a person, has a maturity that kelapstick lacks. DON'T LOOK AT User:EEng; it's crazy. All of them, though, can lay claim to being Wikipedia-related. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Psst look at what I removed on your user page. I'm going to pretend I didn't see it: accounts are supposed to represent only one single person. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, for God's sake DO NOT look at my user page!  E Eng  01:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ..."but Tide rolls, as a person, has a maturity that kelapstick lacks." The maturity seems to fade in and out; it's really beyond my control. Oh, and apologies for butting in here, Esauboeck, but I've been responding to the Professor's pings for about seven years.  It's become quite reflexive.  Please do reconsider and make an effort to hang around and help us here.  Regards,  Tide  rolls  12:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You guys are just too much for me. I'm sorry I ever waded into this morass of pickiness. Henceforth I will desist from even trying to make entries on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esauboeck (talk • contribs)
 * ? I'm trying to help you. I criticized the editor who was way too strict. What do you want me to do? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. I appreciate your help. I am just baffled by all this stuff. I'm just a retired academic who wanted to put up a few articles about a few people who I thought needed some recognition on Wikipedia. But I really don't want to get into editorial squabbles about whether my posts are legitimate enough when I have spent many hours making sure that they are as well researched as an academic article would be, only to be told that they don't have enough "sources" to be on a site that includes winners of quiz games without a second thought. I don't think I want to play in this sandbox anymore.
 * I've written up many an academic--let me find you one. George Brown (scholar): not a great example, but it has secondary sources. There's a few more I can find for you but I got to run and take care of kids. Secondary sources is the name of the game. Oh: Rolf Bremmer. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be very rude and butt in here, in case I can offer some insight. You don't have to go through AfC; you could move the article to main space yourself. But the reason for using AfC is that the reviewers there are experienced Wikipedians who can advise you on getting the article ready so that it is unlikely to be nominated for deletion, and will likely survive if that does happen. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Wikipedia, we do get unsuitable articles, so we have to have a process to discuss whether they should be removed, and there are disagreements over what qualifies; I've participated in many deletion discussions, usually but not always trying to save the article.


 * The number of secondary sources is one of the indices we use to determine that a topic justifies having an article ("notability"). See this summary page. You mention dissertations—PhD dissertations would count toward that if they are published, as German and Austrian ones usually are. So yes, add those. I would say the talk to the Library of Congress would also be a point supporting her notability. But there's another reason for having references to sources, too: verifiability. English Wikipedia at least—others, such as German Wikipedia, seem to differ on this—have a strong preference for heavy referencing, above that prevalent in academic publishing and far above what's traditional in encyclopedias, because ideally, we want the reader to be theoretically able to verify everything in the article. No, the references don't have to be on-line, and they don't need to include newspapers and other popular material. It can be all sources that require access to a specialized library and/or private archives. But the principle is that the reader could verify every detail. You have a lot of unreferenced details in your draft; where are they from? I'm thinking mostly the oral history? The draft would look better to a reviewer if you added footnotes throughout to where you took the information from. (I would also suggest making the prose terser and less emotional, less like a good history book and more like a brief biographical sketch; but I'm told my articles tend to be written very briefly and drily, so go by what your reviewer(s) say on that. It does, however, make it easier to demonstrate that the cited sources support it all.)


 * I hope that's helpful and not just more depressing. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Esauboeck. I dropped in because I saw Drmies mentioned my jokingly above. Wikipedia takes some getting used to, but please persevere. Here are some good academic bios to give you an idea of appropriate style and tone: Andrew Gleason, Jean Berko Gleason, Harry R. Lewis. Those are very complete, and by no means do new articles need to be anywhere near as comprehensive. A new article can start our very short; the most important things are that it establish the subject's notability (see WP:ACADEMIC), and that it be sourced to reliable sources (SEE WP:VERIFIABILITY).


 * When you make comments here, please remember to end with ~, which automatically adds your name and a timestamp.  E Eng  02:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, but it may just be that I'm not cut out anymore to deal with all this kind of instruction. I DO have tons of silly little secondary references--that the subject gave a talk, that she was rewarded a medal, etc.--but I thought those were really unnecessary to include, given that I cited a major and significant 3-hour interview with the subject, as well as the only places where she is discussed at any length. And yes, most of the information I include is taken from my own knowledge and translation from her interview. The reason I wrote this--to the delight of her many, many devoted acolytes, students, and fellow academics--was because NOTHING has been written about her! But let's leave it. I retired from academe because I couldn't bear all this kind of pickiness. So maybe I'm just not suited to put up with it, at least not as enthusiastically as you venerable editors seem to be! Esauboeck (talk)

And to Yngvadottir: how do I put it on the mainframe without the editor's permission? Esauboeck (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not advise doing this, but you have been here long enough and made enough edits (I think it's 4 days and 10 edits, but I am terrible at numbers): you should see a "Move" button at the top of the draft page. You would click on that and when it asks what title to move the article to, you would type in simply Anna Spitzmüller. Then after that you would immediately remove the AfC material from the top of the article; I would use "Cleaning up after moving to mainspace myself" as the edit summary. But if you go that route, do please add more references. (Also the article should have a defaultsort added, and some categories. I think I am going to nip over there now and add that stuff in defanged form - removing the nowiki tags after it's mainspaced will make them do their jobs.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC) ... Ah, stop the presses. Another reviewer is working on it, so I shouldn't mess with it right now, and maybe they will accept it. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. You are all much more patient with these instructions than I am! Esauboeck (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! There are a lot of friendly people here, and many who are a lot better at using the templates than I am. The reviewer marked it as no longer under active review so I've now edited it a tiny bit, including making your book ref into a repeated reference (he only pity is that it's Books on Demand) and adding a couple more categories; the defaultsort and categories had already been set up, but when the article is moved to main space, the colons at the start of the categories need to be removed so that they will work. I've done some searching but don't have good enough access to sources; however, if Gunz is more than a death notice, that should also provide useful additional references. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but now is it ever going to be moved to the main space? How can that happen if the reviewer doesn't want to do it? Am I supposed to do it myself now? Or does Megalibrarygirl do it? Esauboeck (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do what your reviewer suggested and add more references (my advice would be both to add additional sources and to make more use of the ones you already have), then it will eventually be re-reviewed and hopefully passed. Or move it to main space yourself, but again, I would not advise that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Spitzmüller has been accepted
 Anna Spitzmüller, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (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=Anna_Spitzm%C3%BCller help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks to Megalibrarygirl for submitting this. I appreciate your tenacity. Esauboeck (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave it a copyedit. Please check me.  E Eng  01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)