User talk:MarsLovesDogs

Welcome!
Hello, MarsLovesDogs, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, University of Northern Iowa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At User:MarsLovesDogs/citing sources, your edit summary was "automatic post as part of sandbox guided tour". I've just spent 10 minutes reverting a bunch of unsourced stuff you added to Wikipedia after you took your tour on "citing sources".  Before you make any more edits, may I suggest a tutorial...Help:Referencing for beginners.  Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at University of Northern Iowa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Linking to the landing page of the university is not proper sourcing. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''With this edit you changed the wording of a quotation, removed the source cited, and then left a "citation needed" tag. '' Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Changing the content was a mistake, I am still learning. Instead of deleting the content I added for the documentary could you maybe help me find appropriate sources and add them because the information I added. It is indeed true. There is a lack of wikipedia articles on minorities because there is often a lack of reliable sources or very limited sources. How will we fix this gap if every article on minorities without a reliable source is deleted? Have you thought about leaving the information that was placed in the Shelley v. Kraemer article under the documentary tab and just adding the "needs citation" tag to it? It would mean a lot to not just me but many faculty at the university if you could help us out by finding reliable sources or simply adding the "needs citation" instead of deleting all of the information because I believe it is important that this documentary be added to the article as a reach to close the minority gap on wikipedia. I truly hope you understand. If there are other suggestions you have on how I could add this documentary to the page I would love answers. MarsLovesDogs (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and editing
Hi! I wanted to give a little feedback/explanation about the edits.

There were mainly two issues. The first is that as a student of the University of Northern Iowa, you would have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing anything related to the university, even as part of a class assignment. With conflicts of interest it's generally better to not directly edit articles or content about the university, however if you do edit you should make a note on the talk page stating that you're a student editing as part of a course and that you plan on adding information to the page, followed by a summary of what you plan to add and the sourcing you will be using. This way if someone contests the additions they can see your intent on the talk page and start a discussion there.

The second is the sourcing. When it comes to adding sourcing you need to make sure that the source clearly backs up the information that you want to add. The information should be easy to find, as the person shouldn't have to search for it on the page or site. For example, linking to the main article for the Panthers can be confusing as people are more likely to search within the body of the site rather than in the tabs. This is a better source for the information about the school's sports, as the athletics overview page lists the sports more clearly. It doesn't, however, list information about the cheerleading or dance team, which would need to be sourced with something else. Ideally though, there will be secondary, independent information about the university's athletic programs.

Now when it comes to adding information about a documentary to an article, you will definitely need coverage in independent secondary sources to show where the documentary is notable enough to warrant mentioning in the article. Primary sources would not suffice here, as they cannot show notability for the documentary. They can show that it exists and back up basic information, but that's generally about it. In this situation primary sources would include anything created by the documentary filmmaker, the university, or any organizations/people that are affiliated with him and/or the documentary. Local coverage should be treated with caution. The reason for this is that local papers are more likely to write about people who live in the area, which causes the source to be depreciated when it comes to showing notability. It's not something that I always agree with, but I can see why it's in place. Another thing to be careful of are things like nominations for awards or film festivals. With awards, only wins count towards notability. When it comes to film festivals, be careful of what the word "nominate" entails. The problem with Sundance is that anyone can nominate a film for consideration, which means that as far as Wikipedia considers it's not something that would show notability. Also, showing in a film festival by itself will rarely show notability unless it's selected for an extremely exclusive portion of a major film festival, like Un Certain Regard at the Cannes Film Festival.

Offhand the documentary doesn't really have a lot of independent coverage. The coverage that was added were mostly primary or trivial sources. Trivial sources are considered to be things like routine notifications events or brief mentions of the film in relation to something else. Here's a rundown of the sourcing, which includes the content added by another account:
 * The Courier. This is a secondary source, which is good, but it's also local. If it was a very major paper, like the New York Times, then it being local wouldn't really matter as much.
 * This, this, this, this, and this are routine notifications of a film showing. It does mention that it was part of an exhibit at the Missouri History Museum, which may count towards notability if the museum is seen to be major enough. I haven't looked deeply enough into this, but this is something that counts towards notability for artworks so it may cover films as well.
 * Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes behind Shelley v Kraemer is a primary source and not really one that needs to be in the article, as it doesn't directly pertain to the documentary per se. While the filmmaker did make this book and it's on the same topic, it doesn't have any true relevance to the documentary since it's a separate work entirely. This means that any coverage or notability the book has cannot be used for the documentary.
 * This is also a primary source, as it was written by a representative for the University.
 * This is technically a news article since it has an attributed author to the piece, but it's very short and also does not mention the documentary specifically. This is longer, but also doesn't mention the documentary. In order to really help show notability for the documentary we'd need something that specifically mentions the film.

Now when I looked for more coverage I noticed that the film is a short one, meaning that it's only about 14 minutes long. It's actually fairly difficult to find sourcing for short films since they're fairly regularly overlooked by the media. This means that there may not be coverage out there to really show notability for the film, unfortunately.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rihanna in the background of Fenty Beauty logo.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Rihanna in the background of Fenty Beauty logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majora (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi! The article you created, Fenty Beauty is up for deletion. What this means for you is that you need to find coverage to show where this cosmetics brand is independently notable outside of Rhianna, as it isn't automatically notable because of its association with her.

I noticed that on the talk page that you posted that the page needs more information, however the issue withbrathis is that as the article creator the responsibility lies on you to expand the article by adding this information yourself. Basically, do not assume that the next person who comes across the page will improve it - you've got to assume that you've got to do the work yourself. It's possible that the next person will, however it's also just as likely that they could argue for deletion, as is the case here. It's a lesson that I learned the hard way myself, to be honest.

I don't think that it'll be hard to find coverage to show notability and expand the article, offhand. Sure, it's originally known for being associated with a famous person, but it's expanded from there into a brand in its own right. You've got material like this and this, for example. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi both, now that the AfD is closed, I wanted to follow up on this (waited until after close to avoid appearance of canvassing.)
 * Bottom line is that Shalor's advice is right: in practice it falls to the entry's creator to demonstrate notability. In most cases, though, this is actually not Wikipedia policy: editors nominating for deletion are supposed to perform research described in WP:BEFORE, and if sufficient sources turn up, they should not nominate: AfD especially (in contrast to CSD) is supposed to depend on what sources exist in the world, not what sources have been used in the entry to date. Unfortunately, this policy is frequently ignored and it will fall to you to remind others of it, provide sources, and in last resort simply go through and dramatically expand the entry to make your case indisputable.
 * The silver lining is that this is often very much possible to accomplish, as you can see in the Fenty Beauty AfD. But I know from personal experience how discouraging it can be to have your work nominated for deletion, and how stressful to try to edit within the seven-day clock an AfD nomination starts. Collecting a good number of sources before you post your entry will go a long way to avoiding these difficulties. Even if you don't have time to incorporate all of them into the body of the entry right away, making a list on a talk page of potential sources (here's an example where I did so) will sometimes be enough to dissuade an overeager deletion nominator (although only if they take enough care to check the talk page for more information; but if they don't, you can at least begin your AfD response by pointing them to that list.)
 * Hope that's helpful in the future! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Deborah Smith-Shank


A tag has been placed on Deborah Smith-Shank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a friendly note that if you are working on an article, please consider making it a draft (e.g. Draft:My Article) or in your userspace (User:MarsLovesDogs\My Article). This way you can work on an article without placing things directly in to the encyclopedia, and move them in when you're done getting content and sources. Thanks! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sydney Walker (educator)


A tag has been placed on Sydney Walker (educator) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Ike1x (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonas Balan


The article Jonas Balan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. red dogsix (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Article deletions
Hi! I wanted to leave you a few notes about the deletions:

It looks like the main issues with the articles is one of notability. In order to establish notability you need to include enough independent, reliable sources to show where the person is notable. What you need are things like newspaper articles about the person or in-depth mentions in scholarly/academic texts or journals. Primary sources like staff bios or other things created by the person or someone affiliated with them can't show notability, although they can back up basic details. I do need to caution you that notability isn't inherited by someone working for a notable facility and publishing work in notable or major journals or publications. A good source would be something like this listing in a Who's Who book published by the University of Chicago's Intellect Press. This mention in a book published through Springer is also good.

Something else I noted is that some of these are only a sentence or two long. While being short isn't necessarily something that will automatically make an article something that should be deleted, it does make it harder to show where the person is notable. For example, one article just had "Deborah Smith-Shank graduated Midpark High School in 1968.", which doesn't give any information about her other than her high school. In general an article should be as complete as possible when you make it live. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should have enough information and sourcing to be able to stand on its own. You have to assume that your hands will be the only ones to really touch the article.

My recommendation would be to work on these in your sandbox and after building them up, move them live. I'd also recommend that you work on one article until it's complete before working on a new one - quality over quantity, basically. I do think your heart's in the right place, but just be careful when creating articles.

On a related side note, I'd definitely recommend sticking around afterwards - have you checked out Women in Red? It's a WikiProject devoted to coverage of women, which I think would definitely be of interest to you. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fenty Beauty
Hello again! Now that the hassle of AfD is behind us, I want to thank you for beginning this entry on an important topic in what is clearly an under-described area of the encyclopedia. In appreciation--and to help draw more attention to this area of the encyclopedia!--I have nominated the entry for inclusion on the "Did you know?" feature of Wikipedia main page, which typically attracts thousands of readers to selected entries. Processing the nomination will take at least a week, perhaps several, so if you're able to continue expanding the entry in the meantime, your contributions would be very useful! In particular I think discussing the brand's advertising campaign (models and themes used, etc.), as well as its gender inclusivity, are areas that could use more comment, if you need ideas! Thank you again for your contributions so far! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all of your contributions! It has been amazing to see how much has grown in just two weeks! I look forward to seeing where it ends up in the future!
 * MarsLovesDogs (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to give you an update that our nomination has been accepted! It should be featured on the English Wikipedia homepage in a week or so--you can watch its progress here if you like: Template:Did_you_know/Queue. In the meantime, if there's anything you want to add or brush up before it hits the big stage, go for it! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In case you're interested
I started a page for Beyoncé Coachella performance because there's so much good coverage to draw on--I've just gotten it started so if you see anything you want to add, the more the merrier! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yassss! I was just working on creating a headline for it underneath her career but an entire article is even better! Thank you, you're doing great my wiki bff!
 * MarsLovesDogs (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, SO glad you're on it too--I honestly was really shocked that no one had added it by the time I got there. I know there are restrictions on whether brand-new editors can make changes to her page because of vandalism, but it's really a shame, I feel like this is exactly the kind of time when people who are new to Wikipedia might notice something is missing and decide to try editing for the first time to add it--but find they can't. It frustrates me a lot, I feel like we're missing out on a lot of important additions! But all the more reason I really appreciate what you're adding to the project! Thank you!! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anything particular you're working on? I want to add information on the HBCU connection but if you're already working on that I can work on something else. MarsLovesDogs (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be such a good addition, go for it! I got distracted when I found out Howard Homecoming doesn't have an entry yet, and started a draft for that :) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hi there, I noticed you moved a bunch of articles to add the name of the artist and "song" into the title. Convention on Wikipedia is to not do this when there is a clear primary topic. For example, Drunk in Love clearly refers to the Beyoncé song, so there is no need for further disambiguation in brackets (parentheses). Adabow (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (Talk page stalker!) True! A good alternate option, if it might help the reader, is to create a "redirect" that will appear as a search term and point to the page without moving it (WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP). What if we revert but leave these dabs in place as redirects? That also helps avoid needing to correct anything that link to the involved entries. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Fenty Beauty
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Haley Eckerman


The article Haley Eckerman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Iffy★Chat -- 09:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April Events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging