User talk:Pocoecofem

Welcome!


Hello, Pocoecofem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! SarahSV (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * The Signpost, our newspaper.

Vegan studies
Hi again, I left a reply to you on my talk page here. You're welcome to reply there or here. I'll see it either way. Best, SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I really appreciate all of the advice and help. As I noted, I feel completely lost on Wikipedia. :) I'll work on the entry over my winter break. Thanks again.n LauraPocoecofem (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

My feedback is much the same as SarahSV's; this seems like a sufficiently notable term to warrant an article, but since you have a conflict of interest, it is best to leave it to others to develop. Your colleagues are incorrect that you 'need' to make a wikipedia page; if the field/term is important enough a wikipedia page will turn up eventually. Thanks for reaching out before engaging in questionable editing! KellenT 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Similar advice. It's fine for you to write the draft, and there'll likely be other editors along to help. Let one of them move it to main space, and realize that no one editor on WP owns an article, no matter how expert they are in that subject. When you see errors creep in, which you undoubtedly will, your best bet is to go to the article's talk page and ask for help. You'll be asked for sources that support your argument. Thank you for disclosing your COI. valereee (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I went in and fixed all the citations (at least I think that I did). I'm happy to let someone move the draft to main space -- or keep on working on it. Either way, I appreciate all the very kind help. Pocoecofem (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Pocoecofem, the draft needs more work before it can be moved. Someone from the Articles for creation team will decide whether it's ready once you've submitted it for review. In the meantime, you need to add this –  – to your user page at User:Pocoecofem. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Done.Pocoecofem (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SarahSV (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm just curious about the COI works,. As a woman/feminist scholar, I have real reservations about the ways that I (and women generally) get penalized for promoting/failing to promote our work. Is there a place on Wikipedia that deals with gender bias? If so, I'd love to see it. And thanks. Would it be better for me to ask questions in the teahouse? I feel that everyone has been really helpful and instructive, but I don't want to burden any of you. And you have all been so great. :) Thamks. Pocoecofem (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We have a couple of places. One is the Gender gap task force, which deals with gender bias on Wikipedia in general, although it's not very active at the moment. The other, WikiProject Women in red, is more active and deals with gender bias in articles; they're concerned mostly with creating articles about women. You can contact them on their talk page at WT:WIR. But the Teahouse is also a great place to ask questions. SarahSV (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Second the invitation to Women in Red. Currently only 17.77% of bios in WP are for women. The project develops articles about notable women (and women-related articles) currently missing from WP, checks articles about women that have been nominated for deletion so that project members can attempt to improve assertions of notability (the question of proving notability is the main reason an article will be nominated for deletion, and of course there's systemic historical bias in the coverage of women's activities), runs monthly editathons in various categories of subject (this month it's photographers, laureates, and women from countries beginning with 'I'), maintains lists of 'redlinked' women, etc. It's pretty cool. valereee (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

photo
Hey, Laura! I've just created an article Laura Wright (academic) and WP likes to include a photo as often as possible. One way to handle this is probably to have someone take a photo of you and upload it via UploadWizard. They'll have to release all rights, so they have to be the copyright holder. The other way this is generally handled is that some editor takes a photo of you and uploads it, so I always like to see if I can offer the article subject the opportunity to at least have a photo they like be the one that gets used rather than something someone snaps of you at a restaurant or in class or something. We can't unfortunately use a photo uploaded by anyone who isn't the originator of the photo. valereee (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Valeree, This is fantastic, and I can't thank you enough. I'll work on getting a photo added; I have several from past event where I have spoken that might work, but I'll check out how Upload Wizard works. Is it ok for me to edit eh entry about me? I thought I might add my other books for further reading? Again, thank you so much. I am loving this experience, and I now want to be more involved in helping with gender equality on WP. LW Pocoecofem (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Valeree, I uploaded two photos on UploadWizard. Either would work, I think. Again, thanks for your help. :) Pocoecofem (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Also, ignore my previous question; I see you listed my other books. Sorry about that.Pocoecofem (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Laura, under absolutely no circumstances should you edit the article about yourself, lol. It's the very definition of COI, and if other editors see you even correcting a typo there, it will draw intense scrutiny. If you have concerns, bring them up on the article's talk page (disclosing your COI) and ping me there. It's on my watch list but I sometimes miss things. I'll go take a look at the photos. valereee (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That selfie is exactly what we want, I've used it, thanks! You'd asked earlier about understanding COI as it applies to Wikipedia. There's a complete discussion at WP:COI but the basic idea is that if you have any connection to an article subject that might affect your objectivity about that subject, you probably shouldn't edit it. So editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves, their works, their employers, their friends and family, and even cautioned about editing anything about which they have very a strong opinion. (The exception would be anything defamatory or so seriously incorrect that it needs to be removed immediately, especially in a biography of a living person. You can remove that immediately from any article, including your own, then just disclose your COI/explain on the talk page.) valereee (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, for all the help. I've dumped a ton of time into working on the draft of the entry on Vegan Studies -- and doing so is teaching me so much. I was going to add a section on the history today, but your message above gives me caution. Will this entry get shot down, since I'm the one doing the writing for it? And I will absolutely stay away from the page that you created for me (which I love). Thanks. Pocoecofem (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine for you to add the section on the history -- you're likely to know more about it and where to find sources than anyone else, probably -- but just take care to source your assertions, especially any parts of the history that involve you. I wouldn't worry too much about the entry getting nominated for deletion, the subject is clearly notable, other editors are getting involved, and you won't be publishing the article yourself. You might want to take a look at WP:RELIABILITY and WP:ORIGINAL. Also I think there's a section in COI on citing yourself; not disallowed, just a caution about it. I'm glad you're happy with the article; after you've finished vegan studies, go pay it forward! Nothing's more fun than finding a missing woman -- especially one who isn't even redlinked! -- who is clearly notable. :) valereee (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for all of the advice above. I have, I think, finished this article, but I'm worried that I've cited myself too much... I'm not entirely sure how not to do that, though, considering it's my field... Anyway, would you suggest that I submit the draft for review? I'm kind of terrified to do that. :) Anyway, I hope you're having lovely holidays. Pocoecofem (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, Laura! Very cool that you've finished it. Don't worry too much about how much you've cited yourself. Another editor will likely look at the article very carefully to check for exactly those kinds of things. The result of citing yourself too much wouldn't be to reject the article, it would be to revise it. I think you can go ahead and submit it for review, but let's ping SarahSV as she's much more experienced than I and can give much better advice! valereee (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura and, I agree that there's too much self-reference and too many quotes. The second sentence leads into a long blockquote. Then we have the field being established by Wright, followed by another sentence about Wright, and a quote from Carol Adams, in the foreword of Wright's book, that doesn't really explain what "vegan studies" is, and the latter part of which was surely a joke (the sentence beginning "Thanks to this work"). Then there's another sentence, followed by a quote from Wright, followed by another quote from Wright, followed by a long blockquote from Wright. The history begins with the unsourced "Vegan Studies was officially established with the 2015 publication of Laura Wright's [book]", and it's not clear what "officially established" means. The sentence after that, offering some history, is good. In the next section, "Theoretical traditions", the second sentence mentions Wright then quotes her again. The next two sentences are fine, then there's another blockquote from Wright. The final paragraph is fine.


 * Whether the article will be rejected will depend on who reviews it, because this is borderline. There's a real possibility that the COI and self-reference will lead to a rejection. If I were writing this, I would rewrite it with a focus on presenting a disinterested account in which almost every claim is supported by an independent secondary source, with as little as possible supported only by Laura's work. Once that framework is established, it can be filled in later (by other editors) with more material from Laura's publications as appropriate. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're saying it's borderline for notability, but that a reviewing editor wouldn't want to do the work to fix the problems? valereee (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks borderline for notability because too much depends on one source who is repeatedly attributed in-text, and that source wrote the draft. That's a red flag for reviewers, who deal with COI a lot. No reviewing editor will do the work to rewrite the article. Whether it will be actually be rejected, I can't say. I'm saying only that it's a real possibility at this stage. Another possibility is that, if added to main space without a rewrite, someone might take it to WP:AfD. Therefore, I would focus on producing a very well-sourced, disinterested draft. SarahSV (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sarah. Laura, I've worked with editors before who have a COI, and this is the first time I've seen one come in and announce it first thing, so I'm willing to help. Let's go to the talk page for the draft and we can discuss. That also will notify any other editors who are watching that draft. valereee (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll rework. So much to learn. Pocoecofem (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hope you aren't fretting
Hey, Laura! I hope you aren't feeling discouraged! Despite having complete confidence in SV's powers of assessment, after having read the various sources (which I had to do in order to write the article about you) I am confident that the subject is clearly notable. It's just a matter of proving that to other editors' satisfaction, which I am truly not at all concerned about. It really is all about being willing to do the work. valereee (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Valeree. Trying not to be discouraged. :) I'm going to try to work on it for a bit this afternoon. Such a steep learning curve for me -- but I'm really enjoying learning so much about how this process works, and I really do appreciate your help and patience. Pocoecofem (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I was afraid you might be feeling that way. Yes, the learning curve is very steep, and most people don't start editing WP by creating an article from scratch. But I really do believe that in this case, it's really just a matter of plugging away. The fact you started the article is probably the biggest thing it has going against it (because it automatically raises suspicions), but it's still just a matter of showing notability (and as SV said, demonstrating that it's a thing in the first place.) Notability for WP is just finding significant enough mentions in reliable enough sources, and I think we have those. The question of whether it's an actual thing is also IMO provable from these same sources -- if enough other people are writing that it's a thing, which they are, then for purposes of WP it's a thing. A few people are writing that they aren't sure yet whether it's a thing, but that's just information that needs to be included in the article, not proof that it's not a thing. The fact people are writing in reliable sources about whether it's a thing or not yet actually helps make it a thing, for purposes of WP. valereee (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft article
Hi Pocoecofem, thanks for offering not to edit the draft anymore; I agree that it's a good idea for you to leave suggestions on the talk page instead.

A few points about the function and formatting of talk pages. These have two functions: first, to allow editors to communicate about content, and second, to allow people in future to read old discussions to see how the article developed. This means that talk pages need to be readable, and in particular it should be clear who said what and when. It's therefore important to follow the talk-page guidelines.

In particular, please sign all your posts with four tildes, which will give you a timestamp, and please indent your posts by adding an extra colon, depending on the level of post you're responding to. See this example from WP:THREAD:

Header
The first comment in a section has no colons before it. ~


 * The reply to the first comment is indented one level. ~
 * The reply to the second comment should be indented one more level. ~
 * Another reply to the second comment is also indented one more level. ~
 * A subsequent reply to the first comment is indented one level. ~

Please don't edit other people's posts by adding your comments inside theirs. Finally, I think you should remove the private message you posted, which looks like a privacy violation (see WP:EMAILPOST). Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what private message I sent, but I'm happy to delete it. I'm also not sure how to indent. Clearly, I suck at   this whole endeavor. I just tabbed over on this reply. Sorry, Sarah. Can you point me to the private message?Pocoecofem (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, you mean Renan. Will remove. Sorry. Pocoecofem (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Pocoecofem (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing that. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (Valereee, sorry for contradicting your indenting lesson! Laura, I added three colons here only to separate the post from Valereee's below.)


 * hahaha we'll get to the finer points in a future lesson valereee (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Laura, if you look at this in Edit source, as if you were getting ready to reply, you'll see you've got a single colon in front of your post. I have two in front of mine. That makes my quote indent one space further than yours is indented and shows other editors that I was intending to respond to you. If I'd been intending to respond to Sarah's earlier message instead, I would have put a single colon in front of my post to indent only one space, indicating my response (like yours) was to Sarah. So when you're adding a reply somewhere, you scroll up if needed to see how many colons are in front of the post you're replying to, and start yours with one more than that. I don't know what's up with tabbing over; my macbook on chrome just takes me to the edit summary when I hit tab from here.


 * By not "editing other people's posts by adding your comments inside theirs" she is referring to the comments you added while addressing her concerns in the Status section of the talk page -- when you wrote 'done' and 'changed' and 'citations added,' for instance. When someone does that (posts within someone else's post), they make it difficult for later editors to follow the conversational thread because it looks like Sarah wrote all of it. I did it myself when I edited the timeline to add stuff in, and got my hand smacked both on the talk page by Josh and on my own talk page by Sarah. :D Don't worry, these mistakes aren't a huge deal. You have a much better excuse than I! valereee (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Should I go back into the edit and delete all of the "done," "changed," etc. and make a definitive comment at the end of Sarah's list? Or should I just leave well enough alone at this point? LWPocoecofem (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely don't remove anything (we never delete things from talk pages except in very specific cases), but you could post a message at the bottom of the section to mention you'd added stuff, just to explain why the section might be confusing to reviewer/future editors. Otherwise I'd leave it alone, if Sarah or Josh think it's important they have the skills to make that change without breaking wikipedia lol valereee (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Navigating a talk page
Hey, Laura! It looks like you're finding navigation of the talk page confusing. Very understandable, it is confusing, especially on a long talk page where there are several conversations being added to simultaneously, new replies are getting inserted between old replies, and you need to keep track of all of it.

The reason we don't just take confusing discussions about an article to a user talk page is that the history of the discussion needs to be kept all in one place for future editors to see what's been discussed, and of course the article's talk page is always going to be the right place for that history to be preserved.

If you're finding navigating confusing and want to make sure you're seeing everything, what you could do is ask people to ping you every time they direct a question to you; that'll send you a message you've been mentioned and will also let you just search the page for pocoecofem to make sure you've seen everything directed at you. Most people don't ping like this because there's an assumption that an involved editor is watching the page and knows how to follow it, and many editors would find being pinged like this annoying. Fair warning: you might find it annoying. :D valereee (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I can handle it. I just realized that I'd missed Sarah's questions about the last paragraph. She pointed me in the right direction. :)Pocoecofem (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Plant (restaurant)
Laura, in your blog you mentioned your partner had a well-known vegan restaurant -- is this it? If so, they could upload photos, same instructions as above for the photo you uploaded of yourself: must be uploaded by the copyright holder, and upload using that same link. Could be photos of exterior, interior, food, chef, etc. Let me know if they do! valereee (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Val, thanks for this. I will get some photos uploaded by the end of the day. Pocoecofem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)LW


 * Great, thanks! valereee (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure where the best place to put this would be, but here's a new citation for The Vegan Studies Project. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kelly_Markowski/publication/330014790_If_I_became_a_vegan_my_family_and_friends_would_hate_me_Anticipating_vegan_stigma_as_a_barrier_to_plant-based_diets/links/5c40a3c5458515a4c72d2fdf/If-I-became-a-vegan-my-family-and-friends-would-hate-me-Anticipating-vegan-stigma-as-a-barrier-to-plant-based-diets.pdfPocoecofem (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll move it to the talk page of the userdraft. Feel free to add new refs there, I'll be keeping it in draft while I wait to see if it reaches notability.  It's at User:Valereee/The Vegan Studies Project. valereee (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I couldn't get any photos today, as both Facebook and Instagram have been down. Jason promises to send me some tomorrow, so I'll try again then! Thanks. LW Pocoecofem (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , remember that the uploads must be by the copyright holder. --valereee (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Jason and I put up a couple of photos. Thanks. Pocoecofem (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, wow, I missed this somehow, I'll go look! --valereee (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources citing my work
I wanted to create a place where I can document sources that cite me, as I get notifications whenever my work is cited by another scholar. Today, I received this one: http://www.whpress.co.uk/EV/papers/1632-Wrenn.pdf. Whenever someone else cites me, I'll note it here. LW Pocoecofem (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * New source: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1512
 * New source: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1510Pocoecofem (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * New source: Wrenn, Corey, "Atheism in the American Animal Rights Movement: An Invisible Majority," ''Environmental Values," 2019, https://www.academia.edu/39600906/Atheism_in_the_American_Animal_Rights_Movement_An_Invisible_Majority-Pocoecofem (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * New source: Aavik, Kadri, "Institutional resistance to veganism: Constructing vegan bodies as deviant in medical encounters in Estonia," Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 2019.Pocoecofem (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * New Source: Green, Leila, "Being a Bad Vegan," M/C Journal, 22.2 (2019).Pocoecofem (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Several new sources: 1. Marianna Koljonen, "Thinking and Caring Boys Go Vegan: Two European Books That Introduce Vegan Identity to Children," Bookbird: A Journal of International Children's Literature, Volume 57, Number 3, 2019, pp. 13-22. Quote: "According to Laura Wright, founder of vegan studies, veganism constitutes at once both an identity category, like race, sexual orientation, or gender, and a practice (6)." 2. Corey Wrenn, "The Vegan Society and social movement professionalization, 1944–2017," Food and Foodways: Explorations in the History and Culture of Human Nourishment, 2019, DOI: 10.1080/07409710.2019.1646484. Quote: "Some specialist sociologists and scholars of the humanities have been advancing vegan studies in spite of this disciplinary oversight, examining veganism as relevant to food politics (Twine 2017; Wright 2015)." Link: https://www.academia.edu/40220126/From_Seed_to_Fruition_A_Political_History_of_The_Vegan_Society_1944-2017 3. Marzena Kubisz, "Veganisation of the Academy and the New Humanities: Veganism in the Context of Literary and Cultural Studies," Er(r)got: Teoria–Literatura–Culture No. 38 (1/2019). Quote: "The essay explores the history of this interest and focuses on its climax marked by the publication of The Vegan Studies Project. Food, Animals and Gender in the Age of Terror by Laura Wright, the mono- graph which creates the foundations for vegan studies." Link: https://www.academia.edu/40272444/Weganizm_a_reduktarianizm_Er_r_go._Teoria_Literatura_Kultura_Nr_38_1_2019_ 4. Numerous citations in this book: https://www.routledge.com/Postcolonial-Animalities-1st-Edition/Sinha-Baishya/p/book/9780367236298, but I don't own it and haven't been able to access it online. I'm going to check it out from my library. Pocoecofem (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Routledge handbook
Hey, I saw the call for papers -- how did that go? --valereee (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, gosh, I totally missed this question. I have submitted the proposal to Routledge and am waiting to hear back from reviewers. So much interest from potential contributors that I'm a bit overwhelmed. I've also been contacted by Edinburgh University Press to edit the Handbook of Vegan Literature, so that will be the next thing. :) And I'm about to post four more secondary sources discussing Vegan Studies and The Vegan Studies Project. Pocoecofem (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)