User talk:Kathrynklos

Thomas Parker Sanborn
I can help. You're off to a good start. Are you aware of Wikisource? It's a sister project of Wikipedia which compiles public domain primary source documents (like poetry). It would be a good idea to set up a Wikisource "author page" for Sanborn. I can get it started for you if you like. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Perhaps I reply by going into the edit function... I appreciate your help with this project. Poked-around at Wikisource until my eyes glazed-over and would appreciate any assistance. I am the sort of person who dives-in and then reads the instructions, so a guiding-hand is nice to find.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Victor Channing Sanborn (October 4)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Victor&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 15:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Harvard Monthly
Hello, a few suggestions on your draft:


 * There are a ton of books on GoogleBooks that explore THM and its history. Your sourcing is kind of weak right now, but with just an hour or two of work you could really strengthen up your footnotes with strong citations to academic books, works of history, books on journalism's development, etc. We definitely need an article about the THM, so we might as well start it out strong.


 * Minor thing, but your image (presumably from GoogleBooks) has that highlighting on it. If you can go into that same book, undo the highlighting, and get a screencap of that it'd look cleaner.

Great start so far, just recommend you kick it up a notch so we can launch it with very little improvement needed. There's just so much good info out there about the mag, so plenty to work with. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Harvard Monthly was accepted
 The Harvard Monthly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-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! phoebe / (talk to me) 03:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Wentworth Higginson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Harvard Monthly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Reed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=587293801 your edit] to Witter Bynner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * to join the student literary magazine, The Advocate, by Wallace Stevens

Photo of John Hall Wheelock
It's me again. To educate myself I have looked into this some more. Perhaps the photo wasn't in the book at all. Maybe it was provided to the newspaper for publicity purposes so the question would become did the Baltimore Sun (or anyone else) publish it or not. Also, he looks rather younger than 50 there so maybe it wasn't a recent photo. Could it have been published earlier? Perhaps it has never been published at all? As for the book, I've found out how to check – it is still in copyright. I doubt you'll be able to prove the photo's copyright status.

However, I think you might be able to use the photograph under "fair use" provided you uploaded it to Wikipedia and not Commons. The allowance is at WP:NFCI, particularly item 10, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". I now see the eBay image is watermarked so you'd have to buy the photo and scan it yourself (and risk it being deleted at Wikipedia if it was eventually decided it was not fair use). You'd need to be able to provide as much detail as possible by also scanning and uploading the back of the photo. The biggest stumbling block might be at WP:NFCCP item 4, "Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia, by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". It'd be easier if you had an image that had definitely been legitimately published like this one which doesn't look as nice to me. You could ask in advance at WP:MCQ for advice. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you! I'll begin by asking for advice as you suggest and also looking for an image that might not be eventually deleted, and that won't cost me money to obtain. Not that I don't feel an attachment to this man. Amazing how this happens when one dives into researching a person. My Christmas present to myself is a volume of his poetry that I found while looking for his picture on eBay. Kathrynklos (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I developed an attachment for Sir Edward Peel after his article had been speedy deleted and I was determined to resurrect him! And this led to Big-game tunny fishing off Scarborough! I hadn't a clue about either subject. And Dog and Duck (tavern) emerged after a very acrimonious deletion discussion. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha! I tell people all the time that I have friends who died before I was born, and they teach me a lot... they lead me to things I never knew. I've been adding the names of the editorial staffs of The Harvard Monthly, which involves checking each name to see if the fellow has a biography I can link to. That's how I found Wheelock's to be in need of tweaking. It's been fascinating, overall, and I got some feedback the other day from someone who knew I was working on this, who said he hadn't known three of his favorite writers had worked on the Monthly, and he was happy to find some of their college writing. Similar to your discovery of the Dog and Duck, a friend of mine mentioned a house his parents nearly bought in Maine, and I found it in the Wikipedia and added a bit to that one after finding additional information. A fun new hobby. It fills my day and sometimes through the night! Kathrynklos (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff, re Sir Edward! I also use the term "resurrecting" when telling people what I'm doing... I say I resurrect the dead... dust off dead people nobody knows, and learn amazing things in the process! Kathrynklos (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Staff of the Harvard Monthly, 1888.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Staff of the Harvard Monthly, 1888.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Staff of the Harvard Monthly, 1900.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Staff of the Harvard Monthly, 1900.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Staff of The Harvard Monthly, 1902.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Staff of The Harvard Monthly, 1902.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Courtland Hector Hoppin was accepted
 Courtland Hector Hoppin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-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! LukeSurlt c 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A cookie for you!

 * Thank you! Kathrynklos (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kansas City Public Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"B.N. Morris Canoe Company" references
Hi Kathrynklos,

I see you're back working on B.N. Morris Canoe Company. I was looking at the article, particularly the references, and I think it might be a little better to use citation templates when citing sources. Citation templates make it easier to add more information about a particular source because there are so many different parameters available for use. Citation templates can also make it easier to prevent link rot by fixing broken or dead links; The more information an editor knows about a citation with formating problems, the better chance they have of fixing it. Moreover, the more information a reader knows about a particular source, the better chance they have of verifying the information elsewhere. Here is a specific example taken from the article so that you can see the difference between the two citation styles.

Source: History of Veazie, Maine by Jean Hamilton.


 * Without citation template (currently used style)"" which looks like this"The building was four stories high, with a different aspect of canoe construction completed on each floor."


 * With a citation template (citebook)"" which looks like this"The building was four stories high, with a different aspect of canoe construction completed on each floor."

At first glance, there seems to be no difference at all; the citation will pretty much look the same way in the article regardless of which style you use. However, if you look at the "references" section, the difference between the two styles is quite clear. Hopefully, you can see how the "citation template" version does make it a little easier to add more information about the source. You can, of course, add the same information to the other style, but it's a little tricky sometimes. Anyway, the style you used is fine per WP:CITESTYLE. Other editors are supposed to defer to it per WP:CITEVAR, but sometimes people don't always do what they're supposed to do. Many editors use templates whenever citing sources and do so without bothering to confirm the style being used. As a result, articles sometimes end up with a mix of different styles which can be problematic if there are lots of sources being cited. Using citation templates from the start can sometimes help to keep the citation style consistent. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just want to let you know that I've started a new section at Talk:B.N. Morris Canoe Company regarding the above. Please post all comments regarding this there to make it easier for others to follow along. Thanks - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing yourself
Hi again Kathrynklos.

I could've added to this to my previous post, but I thought it would be best to keep separate. I noticed that two of the cited sources for B.N. Morris Canoe Company are for sources written by a "Kathyrn Klos". I am assuming that is you, right? If it is, then I thought you should be aware of WP:SELFCITE and WP:SPS. It's OK within reason to cite stuff you may have written, but some editors view such sources with a bit of skepticism, especially when there is no link or ISDN number, etc. provided to aid in verification. Per WP:CS, a source does not need to be available online, but "it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context." If an editor feels that a such a source is unreliable because there is no reasonable way to verify it, then they may deem it to be form of self promotion and remove it from the article all together even if they feel the source has merit, they still may add a "citation by contributor template" to the article's talk page just to make other editors aware. Generally, the more information you can provide about a particular source, the better; More information does not guarantee that some editor will still not challenge a source, but it does make it easier to determine it's reliability. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested, I can send them copies of the journal articles that I cited. Not just copies of the articles, but ACTUAL JOURNALS-- published, and available on line and in libraries-- REAL things. I am not an idiot. If I was an idiot, I would not write articles about poets, historical figures and historic canoes, I would write about Justin Bieber and and Kardassians. Kathrynklos (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I am answering both your above post and the one you left on my talk page just to avoid discussing the same thing in two different places. Ideally concerns related to an article should be discussed on the article's talk page because it makes easier for other who may be watching the article follow along, so if you wish we can move the discussion there. My post about "Citing Oneself" was not an attempt to insult you or your work in anyway and I was not saying you were an"idiot". I was just trying to inform you of the relevant Wikipedia policy related to citing yourself or citing primary sources. As I stated above, Wikipedia does say that it is OK for an editor to cite materials that they themselves have written with in reason per WP:SELFCITE and WP:SPS. This does not mean that the editor is a bad writer or is adding information that is incorrect. It just means that other that for the exceptions listed in the both "WP:SELFCITE" and "WP:SPS", Wikipedia prefers that sources citing information in articles involving any kind of research or synthesis of information be from what it considers to be reliable third-party sources; In other words, sources that can be easily verified according to Wikipedia's standards.


 * Being an "expert" does not give you any type of special consideration when you write about an article; Creating an article does not mean you have an editorial control or ownership over it. The standards that apply to to "B.N. Morris Canoe Company" regarding reliable sources are the same ones that apply to articles about "Justin Bieber" and "The Kardashians". For what it's worth, a person is not an "idiot" just because they edit the "Bieber" and "Kardashian" articles. They are, for the most part, just trying to improve those articles in the same way you are trying to improve the "B.N. Morris" one. In Wikipedia's eyes that does not make them any better or worse than either any other editor.


 * There is no need to send anyone anything as proof that the sources you've cited exist, and doing so is not the way Wikipedia works. If the book you have written has not been published yet, then you should wait until it actually has been published before citing it. If information from the book has been include in actual journals and these journals satisfy Wikipedia's standards for reliability (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP that cite to that particular source instead. Wikipedia relies heavily on sources that have been published, not sources that will be published in the future. I simply suggested that it would be easier to for others to verify the existence of your books and thus their values as sources if you added information such as their ISBN numbers, the names of their respective publishing companies, the dates of their publication, etc. which is all according to what is stated here in "Wikipedia:Citing sources: Books". I would have asked the same things or any other editor, especially if they were citing a book that they wrote.


 * Once again, I was not trying to insult you. My post wasn't worded as such and wasn't meant to be interpreted as such. A key thing to remember about Wikipedia that editors are expected to always try and assume good faith. I did not say you were "self-promoting" yourself, with the implication being that you were trying to make money off of Wikipedia. I just said that If an editor feels that a such a source is unreliable because there is no reasonable way to verify it, then they may deem it to be form of self promotion. I was just trying to point out some potential problems with the sources you were using in accordance with "Wikipedia:Assume good faith-Good faith and newcomers". I certainly wasn't trying to discourage you from editing "B.N. Morris" any more. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time and energy you've taken to help me with this. I DO use the "talk" section and have learned that rarely does anyone read what I put there. I end up talking to myself. But I will continue to explain my plans/reasoning in that area. I DO need you to understand a couple things about me. I do not need nor do I want to be the only one writing on this or anything else. I would hate that. But in the case of this company, there are at least a dozen books with incorrect information, and I have spent ten years weeding out the bogus stuff. I did NOT cite anything from the book I am writing. I do meticulous research and work meticulously on Wikipedia articles. I do not know all the ins and outs of writing them (all the computer codes and such-- so it takes me a very long time), but I do know that when I write one sentence, I better have a citation to back it up. NONE of the information in the Morris article is cited to anything that is not published and available to anyone who wants to find it. My book will not be available until summer 2015 and perhaps after that time some of the information in it will make it into the article. And if anyone else adds information, this is what Wikipedia is all about-- I do know that. I was once taken to task by the author of a book for putting "her person" (a deceased 19th century man) in the Wikipedia and for using her book in a citation. I am a huge believer in collaboration and sharing. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Kathrynklos (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again Kathyrnklos. Some articles get lots of traffic because their subject matter is something that is controversial or something that has been recently in the news. The talk pages for those articles tend to be buzzing with activity, but in many cases more is not necessarily better; Often those talk pages turn into "rant" pages. "B.N. Morris" isn't certainly one of those types of articles, which is why it probably why it doesn't get as many page views or as much talk page activity as say Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. That talk page has been archived 17 times already and will probably only continue to grow.


 * Discussing edits in advance is not a prerequisite for editing; If you feel you a certain edit will be an improvement, then please by all means go ahead, be bold and make the change. If there's a problem with your edit, somebody will eventually come along and try to fix it. In some specific cases, it's often best to try and discuss things first, but it's not always necessary. The hard part, at least for me, is always remembering that anything and everything on Wikipedia that may be possibly challenge is considered to be "controversial". Information I add to an article, no matter how well cited or how accurate I feel it may be, can be challenged by another editor. Sometimes these challenges are nothing more than somebody trying to make trouble, but other times they raise serious concerns. Personally, I think you can usually tell the difference between the two by the tone of the post and whether actual Wikipedia policy is being cited. Even so, it is important to assume good faith regarding all challenges and try and discuss things as needed until a consensus is reached. Just my personal opinion and just meant as a neutral observation, but some of your posts on the "B.N. Morris" talk page seem to be a little "combative" in nature and made out of frustration; these could easily be considered to be an example of ownership behavior. How is another editor supposed to reply to Please do not delete this article while I am still working on it.... or STOP deleting what I am writing without discussing it first...? Some editors just avoid responding to such comments because they feel that's the best way to avoid unnecessary drama. Personally, I found editing became much easier to do after reading item 1 of "How to avoid abuse of talk pages", "Wikipedia: Staying cool when the editing gets hot" and Wikipedia: Writing for the opponent".


 * Wikipedia articles do not need to be perfect; Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't obligate those who create an article to serve as its caretaker for life. It's perfectly OK to create an article, work on it for a little while, and then move on to something else. Nobody wants leave something half finished, but there is really no deadline to meet and all articles will eventually evolve in some way or another over time: No article is ever "finished" on Wikipedia. If you make a proposal on the talk page and nobody responds in a reasonable amount of time, then go ahead and make the edit. On Wikipedia, silence is considered to be a form of consensus. If nobody complains when you edit something, then that means at least for the time being it is a "good" edit. I say "time being" because like anything else, a consensus may change over time. Something considered to be an "improvement" today, may be challenged tomorrow. Some bad edits last quite a long time before somebody notices them and fixes them, but they do get fixed eventually. Sorry for another long post. Good luck and have fun! - Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize for a long post-- I truly appreciate your time and your support. My comments in the talk section happened because it was late and I was tired and I just wanted to "get a start", but some of what I wrote was deleted right after I composed it, and an image I uploaded (a picture of my friend's canoe, taken with my own camera) was deleted for copyright violation (although I said I owned the picture)... so I felt thwarted. I'll delete those remarks I made.


 * Actually, I could write some things that are "known" about the Morris Company that some of my Canadian friends would take issue with. Morris hyped that he was first to do this and that, and other early builders did too... at this point, we can't verify who was first to build wood/canvas canoes, first to market them as a business, or first to market through dealerships... it is only known that Morris was among the first. So I know there are certain things I might say (which I have found in printed books) that might cause an argument.


 * Anyway, I find writing for Wikipedia is a great thing to do in my retirement. I started an article on Lidian Emerson because she didn't have one (and she was an amazing woman), and I still hope others will dive-in and add to that, as there's much more that could be said. Kathrynklos (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you know things about "B.N. Morris" that you feel will improve the article, i.e., make it more balanced, then it's OK to add it as long as it can be verified by reliable sources. Being neutral means that all perspectives need to be considered accordingly and added if they will bring more balance to the article, even if this may displease certain people. As long as you follow existing policies and guidelines, things should be fine. "Writing for the opponent" sounds kinda bad as if you're betraying someone or something, but it's a good way to practice writing with a neutral point of view.

I completely understand the feelings of frustrations you felt at having your hard work being undone by strangers for apparently no good reason at all. The problem, if you can really call it one, was that you immediately added to article to Wikipedia's mainspace. Once an article has been added to the mainspace, it's fair game for others to pick and poke at. It's not just fair game for other editors, but also for bots. For well developed articles that are in accordance with policy, going straight to mainspace is not a big deal. However, for basic outlines or really rough drafts, it can be cause serious problems. There is no really no deadline per se attached to Wikipedia articles, but editors will act quickly to correct mistakes they feel are harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. Sometimes this may mean simply adding a template to let other editors know about the problem; Other times, it may mean deleting certain information or the entire article itself immediately without discussion. This why a template was added by "Tchaliburton" (a person) with, the photo you added was removed by "Filedelinkerbot" (a bot) with , and why "Theroadislong" (a real person) removed what they considered to be promotional text with without discussing things on the talk page. Mainspace articles can be easily found through search engines like Google, etc. Therefore, anybody googling "B.N. Morris Canoe" would find your article no problem, but they might not fully understand that was still a work in progress. A small mistake may just cause somebody to say "What?", but a serious one could lead to some really bad things (e.g., legal troubles) happening.

This is why many editors recommend working on drafts for articles in the userspace, using "Articles for Creation" or using the "Article Wizard". Userspace drafts are not part of the encyclopedia and, therefore, they don't typically show up in google searches. Furthermore, other editors, etc. will pretty much leave them alone unless there is a really serious problem that needs immediate attention because they understand it is a work in progress and realize it is not in the encyclopedia yet.

Regarding Lidian Jackson Emerson, she may really be an interesting person, but she's probably not very well known. This may explain why not many editors are currently working on her article. If you want advice from other editors about ways to improve her article then you can try asking for advice at Wikipedia: Peer Review. There are experienced editors there who just love working on all kinds of stuff, so you may what they have to say to be very helpful. On the other hand, they may have criticisms as well which can sometimes be a tough pill to swallow. You might also try finding an appropriate WP:Wikiproject for her article. Editors with specific interests and skills tend to hang out at the corresponding Wikiprojects. Check the Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson for the Wikiprojects his article belongs to. They will probably be good places to start.

Let me close another long post with something else I've noticed about your talk page posts on "B.N. Morris" and "LJE" talk pages. On "LJE" you posted: "I decided Lidian really needed a Wikipedia biography and am hoping others will dive in."; and, on "B.N. Morris" you posted: "Just starting this. I noticed other canoe companies had their own articles (instead of being under the main canoe article) and needed to jump in with something on Morris." I commend you for your enthusiastic approach and desire to create these articles. However, (putting on my black hat) please just be aware that other stuff exists is not generally considered to be an acceptable reason for creating an article and that there are specific guidelines regarding notability, particularly for articles about real people, which determine whether a particular person or subject matter deserves to be in Wikipedia. Personally, I think the article's you've created are fine; they most likely would've been nominated for deletion a long time ago if they weren't. That type of phrasing, however, can make some editors, at least initially, a little skeptical regarding the reasons "why" an article was created. There's really no need to explain why you want to create an article unless you are requesting that it be created by another editor; If you believe it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements, then just roll the dice and see what happens. If it lasts, then great. If it doesn't, ask why, regroup and try again if you want. If you're interested in learning why certain articles end up being deleted, you might find "Article's for Deletion" interesting. You can actually read ongoing discussions about particular articles; Even though these discussions can sometimes get a little heated, it can be a good way to learn about various Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how they are being interpreted. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Wentworth Higginson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:John Hall Wheelock.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Hall Wheelock.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)