User talk:Tmpncl

AfC notification: Draft:Gemma Anderson has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gemma Anderson. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thank you so much for your feedback. I have tried to address the points you raised, I hope you find that an improvement. I also tried to update the draft title, but I am not sure what is not working, because it does not seem to change (it would be better to be titled Gemma Anderson-Tempini. Do you know how I could do that? Thank you very much
 * N Tmpncl (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gemma Anderson (November 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gemma Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Gemma_Anderson Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiOriginal-9&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gemma_Anderson reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gemma Anderson (January 16)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Spinster300 were:

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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gemma Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Gemma_Anderson Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinster300&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gemma_Anderson reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Spinster300 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Some advice relating to the draft you have made
I am writing to give some information and advice relating to Wikipedia's style, policies, and guidelines, and how they relate to the draft article you have created. Unfortunately, much of what I am going to say will be unwelcome news to you, but I am offering it as advice in the hope that it will be helpful to you.

A Wikipedia article should be objective and written from a neutral point of view, and should not express any opinion, view, analysis, or evaluation of its subject. Draft:Gemma Anderson is largely an appraisal of the artist's work, with a good deal of personal analysis and commentary. That is exactly the kind of approach required for an academic paper or a review of her work, but it is not in line with Wikipedia's requirements. You have obviously put a good deal of work into creating and editing the draft, and telling you that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia will not be welcome news, but I actually think it will be more helpful to you to inform you of the situation than to leave you to put more work into the draft, without there being any realistic chance of it being accepted. The comments above from &  about the need for suitable references to establish notability are perfectly true, but I don't think they are the most helpful message to give you, because they are likely to give you the misleading impression that by providing better references you may make the draft acceptable, whereas in fact its whole character is so out of keeping with Wikipedia's standards that no amount of improving references will make it acceptable. Spinster300 has also told you that an article should be written from a neutral point of view, and that the draft you have written "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia", which is closer to what I am trying to convey to you, but may not really make it clear what the problems are. A Wikipedia article about a person should not tell its readers that she is "challenging conventional medicalization to capture human experiences", or that she "traversed [people's] public and private selves, unearthing intertwined narratives"; those are descriptions of a subjective appraisal of her work, not verifiable objective facts. Nor are these minor details which can easily be edited out: the whole draft is written in that spirit. Turning your draft into an acceptable article will, I'm afraid, require a substantial rewrite, not just a few changes to references.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, this is actually very helpful advice. I am rewriting the entry from the ground up and I am taking inspiration from the existing pages of other artists. The new page will be much more matter of fact and concise, I hope it will be acceptable. Thanks again. N Tmpncl (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did make some edits to other pages in the long past, but I am unsure whether I had a different account. At least once I remember editing anonymously, it was a long time ago. Tmpncl (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there, i have finished re-writing the page and I am confident you will notice substantial progress. I hope you will find it good enough for publication, thank you very much again for your help. Tmpncl (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)