User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 2

Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts
– Ase1este t@lkc0ntribs 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I think I fixed this issue.  Can you confirm that the issue has been resolve. LorriBrown (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I made a mistake. I was supposed to type User talk:LorriBrown/sandbox in the list, but I typed User:LorriBrown/sandbox instead. Could you please check User talk:LorriBrown/sandbox instead? Thank you. – Ase1este t@lkc0ntribs 01:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ths issue has been resolved. Thank you. – Ase1este t@lkc0ntribs 14:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yorkton Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gazette ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Yorkton_Film_Festival check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Yorkton_Film_Festival?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is fixed now, I think. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!LorriBrown (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Aaron-Taylor (September 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:Susan Aaron-Taylor 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:Susan Aaron-Taylor, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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:Susan_Aaron-Taylor Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Susan_Aaron-Taylor reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2019
You are invited to WikiConference North America 2019 on November 8-11 in Boston. Deadline for Program Submissions and Scholarship Applications is September 20. Hope to see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Aaron-Taylor has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Aaron-Taylor. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Aaron-Taylor has been accepted
 Susan Aaron-Taylor, 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) 20:16, 17 September 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=Susan_Aaron-Taylor help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Thank you for approving the Susan Aaron-Taylor article! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Susan Aaron-Taylor
A bit saddened that the draft was declined, but glad to see that you are looking to remedy the weaknesses and resubmit. I don't think I have anything significant to add. Ms. Aaron-Taylor sent me PDFs of several articles about her, but all were already cited in the draft. David notMD (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Check out Susan Aaron-Taylor Theroadislong AfC approved her article. Yeah! I am so happy about this and thought you may also like to know that her article has been approved.  As for the detail on the piece in the permanent collection, I e-mailed the gallery and they sent this detail with a note that not all of the art work in their collection is digitized at this time. Best, LorriBrown (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I think SAT should be added to List of Cranbrook Academy of Art alumni and faculty.LorriBrown (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest letting the article lay fallow for a while. Happy to hear approved, especially as reviewer was same that had at first declined. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi there, I have answered your question at the Teahouse. Generally, archiving should be done with care. Although 2 months was a long time since the discussion had last been contributed to, it was important and relevant to the article so it could have been kept. I think it should have been archived, but please take extra care when archiving as discussion might still be relevant. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Auto Archiving
Hello, A while back you helped me with automatically archiving my talk page... but it doesn't seem to automatically archive anything anymore and I don't understand what I did to stop it. Do you mind helping me with this? Thank you!! LorriBrown (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Lorri! It is very good to see you are still around
 * The problem began when you removed the instructions for the bot in this edit. If you add back the removed code, it will soon start archiving. Let me know if you have further questions :) —usernamekiran (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , That is a very nice thing to say. :-) Thank you for your reply! I've added the code back in (I think) and am really unsure why I removed it.
 * I have another issue but am not sure if you could/would be able to help me. Another editor added instructions to automatically archive the talk page for the Kent Tate article but best I can tell it has never worked.  The editor did not use a User page but rather used and IP address to make the edits at the time to this article so I am unable to communicate with them about this.
 * This code was added added at the end of a rather unpleasant AfD discussion. I have a COI with this article and there are some really unpleasant statements cluttering up the article's talk page. It seems to be quite an intentional move and very mean spirited from my perspective. I've been rather shocked by the visceral hostility to COI editing.  Best I can tell from what I've read it is discouraged but not prohibited. Thru the process of creating this article I learned how/why this is an issue.  I reached out for support in the Teahouse, stated my COI on my User talk page, followed the advice, posted the article to AfC for review, after it was approved I avoided directly editing the article, I went on to create multiple additional articles and am still working on a rather large film festival awards project, I reached out for help to improve the article to multiple editors (to no avail) and when unsuccessful and much time had passed without improvements to the article, I attempted to improve the article through a series of edit requests which were meet with a jaundiced eye and much resistance and to my horror resulted in more content being disputed and removed from an article that already had been heavily edited thru the AfC process with much of the original content and references removed. I have been rather appalled with level of hostility aimed at this article and directed toward me as a COI editor. The subject of the article was very upset by the whole mess of it and attempted to get the article deleted which was not successful and the article is still not a very good article and even more poorly written than when I began to try to improve it.  It would be a great improvement if at least the talk page was cleared of the very unpleasant comment at the end.  Thank you and sorry for the wall of text and thank you again for your help with archiving my talk page! LorriBrown (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask you when it will start to auto archive again - or should I just move the posts manually to the archive page? Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is sort of a surprise for me, but not a big surprise. Wikipedia editors have always been somewhat annoyed(?) (I cant think of an accurate word) of paid editors; but not a lot by COI editors. But again, for a lot of editors the line is very thin between paid editors, and COI editors. I can assure you, if you spend more time editing in various field, the very same editors might come to respect you.
 * Regarding the auto archival, I have changed the settings on the article's talkpage in this edit. The bot does the archiving once in a day. So we should wait for around 40ish hours I think. Also, it does not archive the threads if the last comment does not have a signature. After the bot does the forst archiving, whatever threads remain, you can manually archive them. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , Awesome! Thank you for making the changes and for lending and ear.  I look forward to the pages looking more tidy. :-) LorriBrown (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The bot worked! Yay! I took the liberty to update the archive size from 250K to 150K, as 250K would be very big to navigate through later. I hope you dont mind. Also, you can add DNAU to the posts that you dont want to be archived. There is one conversation on my talkpage, "useful idiot", that I dont let get archived. You can also define how many threads should be left at your talkpage. With current settings, the bot will archive all the conversations that havent been edited in 7-8 days. You can set the minimum value by  parameter.
 * Please feel free to contact me anytime for any question regarding wikipedia, except if it is about content —usernamekiran (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The page is much easier to navigate now and looks better also. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

archiving
Hi. I recently realised you are not archiving your talkpage, but simply deleting the threads from it. Although archiving is not mandatory, it is highly recommended for a few different reasons. You can find more details at WP:ARCHIVE. Feel free to contact me if you need any help with setting up the automatic archive. Regards, — usernamekiran (talk)  10:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually I have archived my talkpage at User:LorriBrown/Archive. Obviously this is an unconventional way of doing it. Do please help me. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Simply copy-paste the following code at the top of your talkpage:

 You can change the "old" value to any number that you would like to. The bot will archive the thread after that many days. Also, you should move your current archive page to User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1. I can move that for you if you'd like. I enjoy moving pages :D — usernamekiran (talk)  14:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, Does this make the history accessible or will this code only start archiving from now? Thank you! Also does the code need to be placed at the very top of the page?LorriBrown (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The code will start archiving from now, to User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 2; the bot will create the page automatically. Thats why I suggested to move User talk:LorriBrown/Archive to User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1. talk header will include the list of archive pages, as it can be seen on my talk-page. It also gives a search bar. You can place the code anywhere above the first ==header==; i would suggest between the page tabs, and the forced TOC. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've moved the page and added the code but it doesn't quite look right. The archives lists don't show up on the side or at the top.  Can you help me add the menus?  Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some changes. I think you don't want to "welcome" thread to be archived, in that case; I've added DNAU to that thread, with a value of 365. That is, it won't get archived for 365 days from now. With the current settings, any thread that has not been edited in the past 30 days, will get archived. You can/should change number of days to the value that you prefer. — usernamekiran (talk)  04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the manual archive page that I had was overwritten with the automatic archive content. Can you help me retrieve the manual archive content and add the link to the talk page archive link 1 or 2 ?LorriBrown (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what exactly you are asking, but the manual archive page is still there at User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1, and the automatic is at User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 2. Links to both the pages is in your talkpage header (the talk header box added with archive bot settings). Are you editing from mobile? — usernamekiran (talk)  18:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh... my mistake I see that is still there if I click on the tab that I create. What had confused me is that I clicked inside the search box on Archive 1 and that took me to a blank page.  I imagine it does this because the manual page was created prior to the automatic archive being setup.  Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I see now what the problem is. The manual archive page I created is: User:LorriBrown/Archive 1; however, the automatic archive page that was created is pointing to: User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1. Would the solution to the link to Archive 1 on the User:LorriBrown talk page be to move User:LorriBrown/Archive 1 - to the page with the name - User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1? ... And if so can this be done if the page already exists? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry that I didn't observe it first. You should put Db-u1 at the top of User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1. It is a request to delete the userpage. Once it is deleted, you should move User:LorriBrown/Archive 1 to (now deleted/red link) User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1. This will preserve the page history. I apologise again. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you for the fix! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The page was deleted but when I attempted to move the page I received this error message: You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error. If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Do you understand what I am doing wrong? I tried twice... Thank you, LorriBrown (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * when you try to move any page, in target section, there is a drop-down menu consisting different spaces (user, usertalk, main, template, and so on). I think what you are doing is, you chose "user talk" in drop-down menu, and entered the target page title as "User talk:LorriBrown/Archive 1". You have to enter the target as "LorriBrown/Archive 1" — usernamekiran (talk)  05:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

SA-T Orphan tag
Hello, Thank you for fixing the SA-T article. I have this tag on several other articles and am not sure how to address them. I looked at the changes you made but don't really understand what did or what needs to be done to fix this issue. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The solution is creating Wikilinks in other articles that connect to the 'orphan' article. For S A-T I added her as a notable alum of Wayne State, A faculty member (retired) of Cranbrook, etc. David notMD (talk)

Expanding an article by adding lists and or tables of works, publications, and films to living person biographies
Hello, I want to improve some of the articles that I have written over the last little while. I want to expand these articles and add to or include applicable lists of works, publications, etc. I've had some trial and error experiences but still it unfortunately is unclear to me how much information should be included. Some artists have many accomplishments and I am unsure how/why the list should be limited - and what should be or should not be included. It would be very, very helpful to get expert(s) advice on this. If not here then maybe someone could point me in a different direction to find this information. I understand if too many works are included it can end up looking like a resume page or a promotional piece and that is problematic, especially if the article is one that I have a COI with (intend to prepare suggested improvements to be considered by another editor to add to the article). Any advice on this subject would be greatly appreciated! Also does anyone have an opinion regarding lists versus a tables as a means to display this information? Should the references be added as a regular reference or separated somehow and can they have their own column in a table? Thank you!!LorriBrown (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Examples:

Select exhibitions
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" ! scope="col" | Year ! scope="col" | Title ! scope="col" | Venue ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Works ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Reference ! scope="row" align="center" | Year ! scope="row" align="center" | Year
 * Title
 * Venue
 * Works
 * Reference
 * Title
 * Venue
 * Works
 * Reference

Filmography
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" ! scope="col" | Year ! scope="col" | Title ! scope="col" | Role ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Notes ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Reference ! scope="row" align="center" | Year ! scope="row" align="center" | Year
 * Title
 * Role
 * Notes
 * Reference
 * Title
 * Role
 * Notes
 * Reference

LorriBrown (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll make some suggestions, but leave the request open for others to respond.
 * When adding a list of publications or performances to a person's article, you can always choose to only include those books or films which are themselves notable and have their own article. In that case, there is no need to provide a separate reference. If you are including works that do not have their own article, then a column of the table containing a reference is certainly one way of supplying the required sources to substantiate the list.
 * It is generally not expected that a Wikipedia article will have an exhaustive list, so usually, somewhere like the External links section, there may be a link given to a more extensive list for readers who are interested in further exploring the person's works.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Do you know if tables are only used for film related lists i.e., filmography or film festival awards ONLY - or can they be used for publications, exhibitions, works etc.  I prefer the way tables look and that they can be used to sort the list.  Not sure if there a preferred use for either one. Do you know about this?  Also when you say exhaustive list what do you mean by that... Possibly might that mean every single thing that can be found that an artist/writer/film maker has done?  Or might that mean not over ____ number of entries. Some artists accomplishments can go on and on so a number would be most helpful to know where to draw the line so it doesn't appear to look like a resume. I'll need to be especially careful with suggested additions to an article I have COI with. Thanks again for any additional clarification you can provide!LorriBrown (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, by "exhaustive" I mean "every single thing". Nobody is likely to complain about a list that includes three of the most notable accomplishments. But a table with 50 entries, with only a few that can be considered notable, is going to look overlong and another editor may come along and trim it. Some particularly notable people have their awards, filmography or published works presented in a separate article; for example Judy Dench. This approach can make sense when a person's main article starts to get too long. But Katherine Hepburn has a complete list of films in the main article and a separate article with performances. As I said, there is no single way for handling this sort of list.
 * You can probably find examples of tables being used, bullet lists being used, and prose being used. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about how the information must be presented, it's up to the skills and tastes of the editor who is adding the information. The only rule I suggest observing is to match whatever methods are already in use in an article unless you can get consensus on the talk page first for a new approach.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 's advice is sound and excellent. No reason to leave the help request open any further. I'll watchlist this page as well, in case there are any further questions. Waggie (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be slow to respond. I have been very busy with off-Wikipedia obligations the last few days. Tables are commonplace for filmographies and discographies but far less common for artist exhibitions. I would suggest that you read featured articles and good articles about artists with similar careers. Personally, I prefer prose descriptions of exhibitions to either lists or tables. I really dislike long lists of exhibitions, especially when referenced to commercial galleries or the artist's website. I think it is far more useful to describe four or five major exhibitions that defined the artist's career, than to list dozens of exhibitions in a table. That's what an artist's website is for, not an encylopedia article. You might be interested in a Good article I wrote about a violinist and photographer, Cedric Wright. There are no tables or lists in that article. I relied on prose. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is terrific! Thank you, LorriBrown (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Further help with proposed changes to a (COI) page.
Hello, I wanted to ask you about the page I created User:LorriBrown/Draft page to host the changes I would like to propose for the Kent Tate article (COI). I've explained the changes on User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page. Does this make sense to you to do it like that or will it be too complicated to do the whole page at once like this? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, I'm not interested enough to spend the time to look through this. I suggest you put a new WP:Edit request on Talk:Kent Tate linking to that page. Then somebody who picks up the edit request can decide how to deal with your request. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Help request for a COI page?
Hello

Would you possibly have the time or the inclination to help me to improve the Kent Tate page I have a COI with? I've drafted a page for the proposed changes to the article User:LorriBrown/Draft page; however, it is still a work in progress. I have become somewhat frustrated with the process of making edit requests on the KT talk page. It has been quite exhaustive and not very fruitful... Just a thought. Thank you for your consideration! LorriBrown (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you stop attempts to add to the Kent Tate article. Accept what it is - a concise, compactly referenced article about an artist. In my opinion you have a tendency to over-reference and over-content articles. David notMD (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A simple no would have been much more appreciated. I am very tired of feeling bullied in this platform.LorriBrown (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many editors have suggested that you have a trend for over-editing and over-adding small details. My advice is that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to incorporate everything a person has done. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the facts here, I'd suggest it is always possible to relegate details to footnotes, as I have done on Dennis H. Carter for example. Or split articles where the information becomes list-y (awards) or very involved (legal cases, etc.) Improvement and reasonable should always be welcomed and not discouraged with a terse not to say curmudgeonly "it's fine as it is", as though there's no middle ground or room to grow. Talk pages on articles are for discussing how to improve things, and not to tell people to stop trying. We all have our strengths and play to them. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LorriBrown, I see from some of your recent comments that you are emotionally invested in this article, and that some of my comments a few days ago questioning the notability of this artist seemed to have upset you. I truly regret that, and want you to enjoy Wikipedia editing as a hobby. There is something about editing with a COI that often (though not always) causes editors to become upset when they are challenged by neutral, uninvolved editors. In my mind, that is a reason to minimize COI editing, and for editors with a COI to move on when other editors challenge and they start to feel upset. Just my opinion. Your comment "notable (AfC approved)" indicates a misunderstanding of the AfC process. Approval of an AfC draft only indicates the assessment by one experienced uninvolved editor that the new article will have a fighting chance of surviving a deletion discussion and that there are no egregious, glaring problems with the new article. Seeing AfC approval as a definitive endorsement of notability is an error. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kent Tate
There is technically WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force, but unfortunately it's not very active — of the 24 people who've signed up for it, there are only five or six who are still active editors at all, and two of those are you and me. (And then there's a third who does excellent work on Quebec film, but rarely gets involved on English stuff at all, and one non-Canadian who gets involved by helping to create the initial stubs on Canadian films that get announced as premiering at Cannes or Berlin as part of his work relating to those film festivals, but is rarely very knowledgeable about most Canadian films otherwise.) As a rule, you'd be better off going to the talk pages of either WikiProject Canada or WikiProject Film, or just directly coming to either me or User:ZarhanFastfire personally, because the task force that's specific to Canadian film doesn't actually see very much real activity and I haven't been able to drum up much wider interest in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bearcat's been at this Canadian film thing a lot longer than me, but yes, I may be of some help, particularly with non-English sources. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply! Can you or User:ZarhanFastfire help me or  with the Kent Tate article? This article has drawn the most criticism and has received the most heavy handed resistance of any article I've created in this platform.  I've come to the conclusion that it is my COI with the subject more than it is the question of notability of the subject that is at the core of the problem.


 * At this point my concern with the article is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything about the subject in any coherent way. Prior to making any edit requests, I constructed a page with some potential improvements/updates User:LorriBrown/Draft page. What concerned me was the response to a very minor edit request I made on the KT talk page, which resulted in even more content & references being removed from an already hollowed out article.


 * I think I need to have support from editors who are familiar with Canadian artist, venues and publications who would be willing to help make some updates. I know it is asking a lot but would you possibly be able to help at least with whether or not my draft is on the right track?  Thanks again!! LorriBrown (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the first third or so of the talk page of Kent Tate (all I have time for right now) and I can see what they mean about some things, though they could be a bit more explicit. It's true that awards for individual pieces of work, for example, don't belong on the artist's main page. If there are enough secondary sources concerning a piece of work such that it may have its own article, that's where you'd put it, even if the award wasn't wiki notable - provided it's a "real" award, which is another story (think the Simpsons episode where Kent Brockman tells Bart "this is the highest award that Del Monte gives" - there are some unscrupulous organizations out there). Given the COI and the difficulty in that sense of editing that page directly, what you might consider instead (for this kind of thing) is finding the relevant secondary sources for individual pieces (say five or more) to be able to produce at least a Start-class article on one those (vetting the article by someone w/o a COI), and then add summary sentences to the artist's main page based on the existence of that article. See the Daniel Cockburn article, recently assessed as B-class, and the four or five short films in the Filmography which have their own articles, assessed as C- or Start-. Note their awards aren't in the main article, but Cockburn's major awards are.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you want to have a look at the more recent parts of that talk page? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for taking the time to take a look at the KT talk page.  I appreciate what you've explained.  I did get what was pointed out by the editors eventually.


 * What I wonder now is if the subject is notable (AfC approved) then why can't the article be updated or improved? Why was a minor edit request responded to by removing more content? I've written about other artists and what I discovered about each subject was their unique style whether they were a painter or a filmmaker or a photographer. Always they had developed something very unique about their approach to their art practice.  My issue with this article is it doesn't tell anyone anything about the subject. I do accept responsibility for my inexperience but I think my COI is conflated with my intent.  I was further rattled by reaching out for help. One editor doubled down on my poor writing skills and the administrator questioned the notability of the subject so that conversation was not productive. I won't go on about the other boring details.  One editor was really very supportive which really helped to calm me down.  I guess I was looking for a way around the edit request process but there must not be any getting around it with a COI article.  I will try to get my head around how to incorporate what you've suggested above into the KT article.  I thank you for your patience and your gracious consideration. P.S. I've been having fun with the YFF awards pages... :-) Best,LorriBrown (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to that particular response to an edit request, and I really don't want to get to involved in other people's stuff at the moment, but you may be correct that your COI (whatever it is) may bias other editors in their assessments of your suggestions, which isn't fair, of course, but it's also to be expected. As for me, I can get very emotional when it comes to arguments on talk pages and I find it very draining and frustrating, so I'd rather not go looking for trouble. To the extent that I have become much more active on WP this last year, it is because it's been therapeutic to me to create new articles on overlooked subjects generally without "interference" from other editors (until someone nominated One Night (2009 film) for deletion, and thank God for on that occasion). That all being said, I can offer what advice I can. One is to point out WP:NORUSH. If there are few true WP:RS out there because the artist is relatively new, there really won't be much to expand on. For a general bio article even of a major artist, it can be difficult to find critical statements that take their oeuvre as a whole, providing an overview. (Hence my suggestion to start articles on individual works). I was only able to add as much critical material to Daniel Cockburn as I did because I did the four/five articles on his early short videos first. And to do those, I had to figure out which ones were prominent enough for there to be RS. When I found the anthology film, I thought, "aha, there must be at least a couple of articles worth of refs to be found for those." I've done a few bio articles of filmmakers now: Shelagh Carter, Antonio Padovan, Javier Chillon, and Benni Diez (these are all C-class I think; and some of them might have "too much" information about individual works as it is, but no-one's brought it up with me yet--doesn't mean they won't). I could only begin them after I'd done at least a couple of articles on their highly referenced films. So be patient, back up what you want to include with solid references (something else I haven't looked at in that talk page), and make sure they're genuinely WP:RS when they're expressing positive opinions about the subject, and don't suppress negative opinions by omiting them either. Another idea might be to ask for advice from those editors who have 'blocked' you, either get a better idea of what's wrong with the content and/or what would be more appropriate.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've now had a chance to start looking at the requests in detail, so I can give a bit of feedback. This is going to be kind of long, I apologize.
 * At one early point in the discussion, you mentioned that you looked to a variety of biographical articles for some feedback, and found them to be all over the place in terms of quality and formatting. Unfortunately that's the reality of Wikipedia: for a variety of reasons, not all of our articles are of equivalent quality in the first place. For example, there are lots of people who just have short stubs that address the basic reason why they qualify to have a Wikipedia article in the first place, but haven't been expanded very far beyond that yet — for example, Matthew Green and Lianne Rood are two of the new federal MPs who were just elected to Parliament for the first time a few weeks ago, so there's just not that much to say about them yet beyond the fact that they were elected as MPs, and their articles just aren't going to be as long yet as the articles about some of their colleagues are. And conversely, in some other fields a 15 year old article can also be of much worse quality than one that was created just a few weeks ago, because our notability and sourcing standards were very different 15 years ago than they are today but nobody's gotten around to improving the old article yet. So if you're looking to other biographical articles for guidance, the trick is not just to look at random ones: it's to look at articles that have high quality ratings, such as the A, B, FA or GA classes in.
 * But even if you do that, you'll still see some variability in how things are done, because there's not always only one correct way to do things. One of your edit requests pertained to how the page number was given in a book citation — but the format that the existing citation uses and the one you proposed to replace it with aren't wrong/right ways, they're just different ways of doing it that are each more suitable and appropriate in different circumstances. It actually depends to a much greater degree on how many times you need to cite that book as a reference, rather than on one way being preferred over the other as a matter of principle. For example, if the book were an actual biography of Kent Tate, so that you were going to cite many different pieces of information in the article to different pages of that book, then you would use the rp template outside the reference tag — that way, instead of creating separate full but mostly redundant footnotes for each individual page of the book, you're creating just one footnote for the book, and then using the rp template to specify which page is being referenced in each individual call of that same footnote. But if it's a book about a broad subject area which merely mentions Kent Tate on one page, so that you're not going to need to use any other page of that same book as a reference in a different part of the article, then you would just specify the page number directly inside the citation template rather than rp'ing it outside of the citation template.
 * And, when it comes to the OVERKILL advice you were given, it's important to understand that we don't necessarily always need two or three or five citations for each individual piece of information. If multiple citations just verify the same information, but none of them adds anything new, then instead of simply providing them all you should select the best citation and just use that. The OVERKILL essay contains some hints about how to select which sources to use and which ones to put aside, in its "how to trim excessive citations" section. As a general rule, however, we're not as focused on the number of footnotes present in the article as we are the quality of the footnotes present in the article: a reference that's just being added to augment the number of footnotes, but just reverifies content that already has a reference for it without adding anything new, isn't actually going to help boost his notability any higher. So if you want to add further references to the article, concentrate on references that supplement the article with new information that isn't already present at all, rather than references that reverify facts that are already referenced.
 * And on the "print version vs. web version" piece, the principle here is that while a web-accessible version of the reference is not a requirement that has to be met before a source can be used in the first place, we do strongly prioritize linking to the web-accessible version of the reference if one does exist. It makes it easier for readers and editors to consult the source right away if we need to, instead of having to dig into archiving databases or order a book interlibrary, so we should and do provide a convenience link to the web version whenever possible — if there isn't a web copy to use, then you can certainly still cite it print-only without a weblink, but if there is a web copy to use then you should link it. It doesn't actually pose the "but what if the web copy disappears?" problem that you worried about — precisely because we are still allowed to cite print-only content, if the weblink ever does die we can just strip the weblink and still have a valid citation anyway.
 * To be fair, sourcing an article about a person whose primary notability claim is as an artist is often a lot trickier than it is for politicians or writers or pop musicians or actors — artists tend to not get as much newspaper coverage as the more visible occupations do, and have to rely a lot more on specialist art magazines and journals that aren't nearly as widely read. I'm not an expert in locating or identifying the useful sources when writing about art-based notability claims, so I don't tackle artist BLPs very often at all. But I will suggest this: don't obsess over the formatting of the article, which is what some of your later edit requests seemed to pertain to: if you're not satisfied that the article is good enough in its current state, concentrate more on finding new content rather than the number of footnotes being used to support it or minor formatting adjustments.
 * Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything Bearcat said, and would add that responding to an edit request re: formatting if the existing format was fine as was (as opposed to adding sourced content, or challenging poorly sourced content) would be annoying to another editor. Doesn't apply so much of course to non-COI and low-traffic / non-contentious non-real time event articles, but even then you want to tread carefully before reformating a whole article where it's not blatantly wrong. I am a mad tinkerer myself, I often reformat pages I created when I discover some new way of doing things (quote boxes is a recent one) but only with pages I've created. I know it's not actually "my" article but no-one else is bothered either.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * &, Thank you both for taking the time to read through the KT talk page and provide some very helpful feedback. There is a lot packed in there and I'll have to spend some time reading and  pondering what you've both taken the time to break down for me.  I want you to know that I really very much appreciate both of your perspectives.  Let me know if you need help researching.  At least I am pretty good at that (I think)... perhaps to a fault at times. :-)  LorriBrown (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination of Kent Tate for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kent Tate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kent Tate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse edit
In you seem to have duplicated much of the content of the Teahouse page. I'm not sure how you did that, but I hope that I've managed to remove the duplication without removing any of the legitimate content. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * WOW ! That is very strange! Did that occur when I originally posted my help request?  I did get an edit conflict message and thought the original post was deleted but then discovered that it was indeed posted.  Whatever I did it was unintentional. Thank you for fixing it.  Really did not intend for that to occur...LorriBrown (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification of a couple of points
My relationship to the subject Kent Tate is disclosed on my User page. Can you explain why you are inquiring?
 * What is the connection between this account and the account ?
 * You have said that you have a conflict of interest in connection to Kent Tate. Are you willing to clarify the nature of your connection to him? JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A few things please....
I appreciated the fact that you initially approved this article for AfC but please explain what you mean by your comment on the AfD that the subject barely is notable. I thought notable meant notable. It didn't even dawn on me to imagine that within Wikipedia there may be tiers of notability. That might explain in part of why I've experienced so much resistance to my attempts to improve & expand the article.

The request for help was in response to the denial to add the filmography based on the sources I had provided. By the way there are newspaper articles that discuss two of the installations Movies for a Pulsing Earth (9 movies) and PENEPLAIN (10 movies) but they written in the context of an exhibition/installation not individual movies. There is support already for the two movies in the awards section. There are many, many BLP's with filmographies i have observed that are not supported at all with any sources. The argument I was trying to get help clarity with requires that if you are going to try to make any argument at all based on OtherStuffExists then it would have to at least be based on a Good Article and one that was approved prior to the policy being implemented which I have posted the clause. I don't know when that policy was implemented... Those that have Good Articles are not filmmakers making short experimental films they are involved in big money, big production value, full feature films. Not really a very fair comparison from my perspective in the notability scale. Also the person responding to my help request did not address the clarification I was attempting to sort out.

I also have been meaning to understand why you decided to post my COI on the article. I did not attempt to edit that page nor did I have any intention to directly edit the page. I feel it has been just a big red flag for any other editors that may have had an interest in contributing to this page. I say that because I have created other articles and the level of participation doesn't seem to match up. I've reached out and have been told by editors they don't care to get involved because of potential push back. Just curious why you decided to do that. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When accepting articles at WP:AFC we consider if they are likely to survive at an WP:AFD I thought that it possibly might so I accepted it, notability wasn't entirely clear, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "post my COI on the article" I merely added your user name on the talk page, as is required when there is a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.

I take issue with what you said...
JBW I take issue with what you've posted on the Articles for deletion/Kent Tate page. If you were to take the time for read and follow the conversations that have been linked it would not be too hard to understand the catalyst behind the subject wanting this page deleted. I made a sincere request for clarity on a response from and editor and look where you are going with it. It is true I have been frustrated in my efforts to improve this article. It is also true that probably one of the articles that you've mentioned in you comments was the original draft which I have likely lost track of and through my inexperience had written in a overly complementary language that was quickly corrected by fellow editors and much of that content was removed probably at least 60% of it. And a bit more by the approving AfC editor. After making COI edit requests (as has also been noted in the comments) additional content and sources were removed - much to my dismay. I have since been trying to re-add content through the edit request COI process and created a draft page connected to my User page. This is where I have been attempting to put together content best I am able, to then submit in my edit requests. I am not sure what you think you have discovered. Or what nefarious activities I might be up to but I can assure you I am up to nothing. I take issue with the implications that I have two single-purpose COI accounts! If you were to look a little further you would discover that over the past year I have created multiple articles for the Women in Red project in addition to several other film related articles. I was once quite excited to be a participant in Wikipedia. This heavy handed got ya attitude has really worn at my enthusiasm. I completely understand that Wikipedia does not want self-promotion but on the other hand Wikipedia should understand that BLP's don't want their page to misrepresent their art career either. If the page is there at all it should at the very least provide some information to the reader. It works both ways and I have tried to make a concerted effort in the subject that I have created pages for to be respectful to their art practice to the very best of my ability. I am not experienced in the legalize of Wikipedia so I often get frustrated with the application of the very highest standards to the article simply because I have a COI. I understand this is the policy of Wikipedia but it is not applied consistently. My point with my original question to you that has lead you to this tangent was simply to prove a point. Not to try to skirt around the rules and get away with something! Please correct what you have alleged about me and my intentions on the KT delete page. After this experience if the article is deleted the subject likely will never want a page on Wikipedia so please don't worry that these pages you think you've discovered will be posted. It has not been a pleasant rewarding experience it has been quite the contrary. And please don't just ignore me this time. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, Lorri, I'll try to answer some of the points you raise. I hope what I say may help to clarify some points for you.

I don't know whether any of this will be helpful to you in clarifying what I meant in earlier posts, but I hope so. Please let me know if there are any other details that you think I may be able to clarify. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, several of the things you have said indicate that you think I have accused you, either explicitly or implicitly, of bad faith. I assure you that was not my intention. I don't think, for example, that you are "up to" any "nefarious activities". I don't know what I said that gave you that impression, but whatever it was I didn't intend it that way. I have no reason at all to doubt that you are acting completely in good faith.
 * You refer to "the implications that [you] have two single-purpose COI accounts". Again, I don't know what I said that you took as an implication that both accounts were yours, and I don't think they are. However, having looked again at your editing history I see that your account is not a single-purpose one, although all, or almost all, of your recent editing has been about Kent Tate, and it seems that over your whole editing history far more of your edits relate to that subject than to any other. I apologise for the inaccuracy in my comment about that, and I shall correct it. The other account is, as far as I can see, a totally single-purpose account. It has made 726 edits, and I have not found any edits at all unrelated to Kent Tate among those 726.
 * You say that "Wikipedia should understand that BLP's don't want their page to misrepresent their art career", which is of course completely true. However, it is also true that in relation to oneself one can easily perceive as misrepresentation anything which does no comply with one's own perception of oneself, which may be different from how one is perceived by others. People who have a close connection with a subject often find it difficult to stand back and see that subject from an objective perspective, with the result that very often a subject of an article who sincerely believes that his or her concern is totally based on objective fact has a view of how an article should look which seems promotional or biased from the detached perspective of an independent observer. That is the main reason why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest discourages editing on a topic one has a close personal involvement with. Whether this applies in Kent Tate's case or not I absolutely don't know, but it applies so often that it is important to be aware of the possibility. Please note that this does not imply any bad faith or malicious intention: as I have said, it applies to people who sincerely see what they are doing as objective, but whose actions appear differently to outsiders.
 * You said "If you were to take the time for read and follow the conversations that have been linked it would not be too hard to understand the catalyst behind the subject wanting this page deleted." Naturally I would like to see those conversations, but I don't know where they are linked from. Can you link to them again, here, so that I can find them easily?
 * You said "please don't just ignore me this time". Have I ignored you before? I am not aware of having done so.
 * You asked why I asked about the nature of your conflict of interest. That was because a "conflict of interest" can take many forms, including being the person involved, being a friend or relative of that person, an employee of them, a contractor paid to edit Wikipedia for them, or any one of many other situations, and which one it is can make a great deal of difference to how relevant the "conflict of interest" may be, and in what way.
 * Courtesy link to the conversation by the article's subject Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to detail your perspective. I think I understand what 'two single-purpose accounts' means and from my perspective it is not a complement to my character or my intentions; even though that may not have been your intent. If you can delete the multiple draft pages - except the current page I've used for my resent edit requests - I'd be most appreciative. I am not sure even what you described that you've discovered but I am quite sure they would be inactive. Or if you can't do that perhaps you could help me to do that myself if that is possible.


 * It is accurate that recently I've spent a ridiculous amount of time to add back in some of the content that was removed by the responding editor to my COI edit requests. The removal of content and references was the result of a couple of very innocuous COI edit requests. Unfortunately, the responding editor decided to take this action which was very overwhelming to me. It resulted in a complete diversion of my attention from other articles to make feeble attempts to repair the article - only to get a couple lines of text added (and even more text removed!). I apparently had the false notion that once a subject was approved by AfC and notability was established - that a reasonable representation of the subject's career would be supported.


 * Unfortunately, I did not see your initial response as a response to my help request but rather a refute to the notion that I could challenge whether or not other articles have included filmographies not supported by sourcing. Perhaps that was not your intention but I concluded this because of the non response to the actual question for help that I had posed and the activity on the KT delete page.


 * I won't dwell on this any more than I have already done... The article will very likely be deleted and soon this conversation will be mute. Thank you however for your efforts!LorriBrown (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, just 3 more comments.
 * I am glad that it looks as though you and I may be able to finsih this incident on friendly terms, which at one time didn't seem likely.
 * Unfortunately many Wikipedia editors get the whole "conflict of interest" issue out of proportion, and they presume that almost any editing by anyone who is seen to have a COI must be untrustworthy. I actually don't know whether that has happened to you, and I think there are better things I can spend my time on than searching through editing history in order to find out, but if it has then I sympathise. Sometimes a person with a "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia's sense can make excellent contributions.
 * You ask me to delete the draft pages except the current page you've used for recent edit requests. Is one of User:LorriBrown/Draft page and User:LorriBrown/sandbox/Kent Tate the "current page" you don't want deleted? If so, let me know which, and I'll delete the other. If what you mean by the "current page" is some other page then I'll delete both of those. The other drafts that are still in existence are User:Cheri Brown/Draft of Kent Tate and User:Cheri Brown/sandbox. Both of those are currently blank pages, but old versions are preserved in their editing history. If Cheri Brown asks me to delete those I shall be happy to do so, but I could not justify deleting them just because you want me to. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be the User:LorriBrown/sandbox/Kent Tate I had long forgotten that, that page existed.  I would like to keep the User:LorriBrown/Draft page for now anyway.  Thank you again for your additional comments and willingness to help me with the deletion of this draft page.  Regards, :- )  LorriBrown (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 20:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I know you deleted your latest message to me, but I'll answer it anyway. I never suggested that you and Cheri Brown are the same person, just that there seemed to be some connection between you. That was because of striking similarities in your editing and hers. (I suppose the similarity in user names added to the impression a little, but the editing similarity was the real reason.) For all I know you may be the same person, but I think you probably aren't. I could delete her drafts, but I would have to appeal to Ignore All Rules, as I don't see any speedy deletion criterion that covers them. I don't see any problem urgent enough to justify an IAR deletion, especially considering that the pages have been blanked. If you do have a connection to Cheri, you could ask her to log into her account and request deletion. (Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question about a connection between the two accounts. You don't have to answer, of course, but you may like to clear that up.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe one contributor here has not yet read CLEANSTART, Messers Omniplex and Be..anyone advise me (in a mirror) that this is as easy as it can be, looking at their last + oldest contributions. The other contributor could visit the sister project externally linked at the top of this talk page, and use his imagination, e.g., Be..anyone loves their old gallery. –84.46.52.59 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Continuing to edit articles by a member of your family
Your recent edit to Kent Tate was marginally OK, as it simply corrected facts. However the recent Kent Tate AfD involved large amounts of time wasting involving you as a family member of Kent Tate, and Ken Tate himself. The article itself includes edits by a third family member. There were also incessant edit requests at the talk page for Kent Tate by you, a family member of Kent Tate.

During the AfD, I spent some considerable time fixing the article to correct all the COI editing that had been going on. I did not say it at the time, as I thought the Kent Tate family had gotten the point to stay away from the article, but if the whole Kent Tate family disruption act ramps up again I will go to ANI and ask that the editors causing it be banned from Kent Tate. A perfectly neutral editor would know to stay 60 miles (or 100km) away from an article about one of their family members. Just a heads up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Teahouse conversation. I regret that you've taken offence to my making these minor changes to this article. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I regret that you don;t know how to leave well enough alone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , policy allows COI editing. If you think you have a case against LB that ANI is likely to act on, please start that discussion. Otherwise, your fixation on one COI editor who has, as far as I can see, made every effort to comply with policy, is starting to get uncomfortably close to WP:HARRASSMENT. There is no dearth of undisclosed COI and PAID spammers around, where your wikidefending activities might be more productive. By now, you've made your position abundantly clear on this particular case, so it's time to find a permanent resolution in a venue you see fit or drop the matter. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah. I was just letting this editor know they should try to stay away from that page if possible, given the fact that they have particpated in a family effort to disrupt the page in the past, through the items mentioned above. A lot of neutral editor time was consumed by a family COI effort. I was just letting them know that the best way to avoid coi is to stay away from pages that they have a COI with. It's positive advice that benefits the wiki.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Correcting an edit?
There was an edit on the KT article by User:84.46.53.207 on January 11, 2020 where the editor added (among some other very minor changes) 'short films' to the info box. KT is (more accurately) known for 'experimental films'. He describes his work as experimental and the festivals he enters his work into are experimental film festivals. When he presented his work in the video installation PENEPLAIN the writer as well as the artist describes the films as experimental. It may seem somewhat trivial but there are important distinctions between short films and experimental films. It is difficult to communicate with this editor because they use an IP address. I wanted to ask you if you would think that the best why to correct this entry is by making an edit request? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry I didn't get your ping. Luckily, I noticed a new section header on my watchlist.
 * So, that is a significant enough change that you shouldn't make yourself. Edit request might therefore be best. I would do it for you except there doesn't seem to be such a description of his work in the article's prose. And I am not currently in a position to investigate the sources to try and fix it all. It may not be sufficient that that's how Tate describes his work though. Perhaps, he's known for video installations?
 * Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you .LorriBrown (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Merike Talve article
Hello again. I've been working on the Draft:Merike Talve article and have tried best as I can to incorporate your suggestions from the Teahouse conversation. I'm afraid perhaps that what I am trying to do with this article includes things that I am really not so expert on. Many of the articles for women I've worked on are from the Women in Red project so they more or less have been screened to likely meet the notability requirements. Talve's article is a bit more of a challenge. She was a curator/writer and not primarily an artist. I've discovered a quite a lot about her and have been attempting to convey her notability but am unsure of myself. I've ran into a few issues, one is I can only find her birth date on her death certificate but it doesn't seem appropriate to reference that. Another big concern for me is quoting. I've always gotten into trouble trying to do this but with Talve's article I think it is very important because there are no magazine articles, only a few newspaper articles and some books, that I've been able to locate that discuss her work. Bonet's book is available in Spanish online. I used google translator but it doesn't seem to be exactly right. I included the Spanish in the reference's quote section but used a portion of the translated section in her article. I am not sure how to make Bonet possessive when the Wikilink is to the Spanish version. These things I don't know if they are correct. The second quote I was able to access from a pdf of the book that a curator kindly sent to me when I inquired about Talve's article in the book "Vancouver Anthology: A Project of the Or Gallery". Also in this quote 'judgement' is spelled with the British version...? Also, is it wrong to include so much text in the source references? I am also unclear about when inline citations are requered. As you can see, I am a bit over my head with this article. P.S. I hope you are well. We are very concerned for everyone on the planet right now. Trying our best to self-isolate and support others. Take care.LorriBrown (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should pose these questions to the Teahouse or try to submit the article to AfC? What are youu thoughts please.  Thank you! Best, LorriBrown (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just logging in. Will check things and respond within a few hours. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , so,
 * As far as notability is concerned, I have nothing to add to what's laid out quite clearly IMO, at WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. There are upsides and downsides to submitting the draft as well as moving it yourself. AFC is a rough guide to what experienced editors might think of the subject/article but it still only gives one person's opinion. You seem to have put substantial amount of work into it already. It is likely that worst case, you will continue to put more work into it if it is declined at first, and because the subject's notability is within the range for reasonable Deletionism/Inclusionism disagreements within the project, someone might accept it if you submit it at least a few times, then another might take it to AFD. I don't see any glaring issues with the content and it is not SPAM. So, perhaps, submitting it to new page reviewers and the community directly would be less work for everybody. That's assuming, the reason you put work into this is because you believe the subject to be notable uncertain though you may be about whether other reasonable editors will agree. If you yourself are unsure, it would be unethical to move it directly to mainspace.
 * I don't see any policy reason that a death certificate would be inappropriate to cite for the birth-date, if it's publicly available for verification by other readers.
 * The first quote seems to about something else, Talve having been mentioned only to show that someone else (Talve) agrees with the author on whatever he's talking about. I can't parse that quote, so personally, I do not know what value, if any, it holds in enhancing the reader's understanding of Talve and her work/opinion. The second quote seems fine, at least to me. If you are translating the quote from the original language yourself, you have to say so explicitly in the article. It can not be that you quote the author in English, and the reader finds out the whole book is in Spanish when they try to verify. The spellings, even misspellings and grammatical errors, I prefer quoted sic. MOS:SIC has the actual Wikipedia advice on how to handle them.
 * The length of quotes in the references are unimportant quibbles that need not be worried about until someone actually cares to raise them.
 * Inline citations are ideally added to support each claim in the article, as close to the claim in question as practical. It is not compulsory to add inline citations to anything other than BLP-related claims and direct quotes in the article. You could use general references without a single inline citation in an article not dealing with quotes and BLP issues. Practically speaking, one inline citation per paragraph is the bare minimum to prevent getting bombed with tags.
 * Think that about covers it, lemme know if I missed something. I will try and make some small changes where I feel necessary. You are, of course, always welcome to ask about anything you are having trouble with, at the Teahouse.
 * Thank you for your concern, though it is more panic and paranoia than anything else where I live, as of now (expecting things to change fast in the next few days). You stay safe, too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I always very much appreciate your candid, thoughtful and comprehensive replies.  I reached out because although I enjoy writing articles - I get perplexed by the guidelines.  Some seem too general leaving lots open to interpretation.  I do believe that Talve meets the basic notability criteria - I am just unsure of how I am presenting the information. I'll do my best with the research I've been able to access so far and give it my best shot and see where it goes from there. All the best!  Regards, LorriBrown (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I always very much appreciate your candid, thoughtful and comprehensive replies.  I reached out because although I enjoy writing articles - I get perplexed by the guidelines.  Some seem too general leaving lots open to interpretation.  I do believe that Talve meets the basic notability criteria - I am just unsure of how I am presenting the information. I'll do my best with the research I've been able to access so far and give it my best shot and see where it goes from there. All the best!  Regards, LorriBrown (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)