User talk:Innisfree987/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2023
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Hi there: In November I added some information to the talk page for the article about Julie Lythcott-Haims election to the Palo Alto city council. Would you by any chance have a few minutes to review the content as an improvement to the article? Thank you for considering this request. Best, LeepKendall (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @LeepKendall, I have made (a revised version) of the change but this is the problem with biographies for hire; if there are no editors organically interested in working on an entry, then you end up pestering volunteers to do work you get paid for. Honestly it’s not right. Please don’t ping volunteers repeatedly and please don’t ask me again; as my header here indicates I have limited availability for WP at the moment. I’ll look in on the entry if/when I have time/interest. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
New editor User:Elttaruuu
I'm all about good faith, but this editor's contributions smell bad. We have a user with two weeks' tenure, almost 800 edits, multiple deletion procedures and user warnings, few of their page creations seem to possess reliable sources, and we have a user who has set auto archiving for one day so their user talk page stays clear. I have asked them point blank about paid editing and they denied it. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- First, "private discussion"? I wasn't even aware that that was possible. Second, yes, definitely problematic, definite COI/UPE indications. I've just been going over their contribs, and moved several articles to draft. The sheer volume makes me lean more UPE than COI. Onel5969 TT me 19:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I've noticed that Presshintsboston, a non-existent editor on WP is the author of several photos used by this editor, and while they say they were created several years ago, they were uploaded by this editor while they were creating the articles on the subject. Might be a sock.Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Preliminary discussion, perhaps. I'm thinking UPE too, despite denials. Take it to ANI? We're seeing disruptive contributions to Commons as well. I'm interested in what Innisfree987 has to say because this sort of material is more up their alley. I suspect we have a little paid article factory here and I don't want to more fully educate the offending person how to avoid future scrutiny. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's a previous username for this editor which drew attention at UAA and was changed per policy. BusterD (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- And the photos are perhaps the strongest evidence that this is UPE. Quite a coincidence that the user should have access to all these personal photos of geographically diverse subjects. IMHO several of these subjects are worthy semi-public figures who might one day deserve an article about them. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked at the uploaded images at Commons and it seems likely all these images have been modified somewhat; they avoid giving any details about from where they derived (camera, date, original settings). At least one of them already has been speedied as a copyright vio. BusterD (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @BusterD, @Onel5969, thanks for tagging me in. This is a headscratcher. I initially did not think this was UPE partly because the topics covered are really not traditionally remunerative, plus I have seen at least three instances where I strongly suspect the entry’s subject would not like the content added (and again, not in a way where anyone would likely have a countervailing financial interest.) Seemed like passion projects to me. However, several aspects raise red flags to me: the original username; the access to so many photos that mostly don’t appear on the internet at least by reverse Google Image search; the quantity/rapidity of edits (they are editing as if it’s a job); and the dexterity with wiki code (altho not policy) as a brand-new editor. I would hate to bite an enthusiastic new editor working in under-covered areas but…I do think this needs to be sorted out. Unfortunately I guess that means ANI, unless perhaps SPI? (The expertise at SPI could be useful.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Based on all the comments above, I would suggest SPI before ANI. If they are a sock, problem solved. If not, then it can be taken to ANI for behavioral issues. Onel5969 TT me 11:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. Unfortunately I am not able to be on wiki enough at the moment to initiate and see through the process but glad to support if either of you have the bandwidth. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Based on all the comments above, I would suggest SPI before ANI. If they are a sock, problem solved. If not, then it can be taken to ANI for behavioral issues. Onel5969 TT me 11:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @BusterD, @Onel5969, thanks for tagging me in. This is a headscratcher. I initially did not think this was UPE partly because the topics covered are really not traditionally remunerative, plus I have seen at least three instances where I strongly suspect the entry’s subject would not like the content added (and again, not in a way where anyone would likely have a countervailing financial interest.) Seemed like passion projects to me. However, several aspects raise red flags to me: the original username; the access to so many photos that mostly don’t appear on the internet at least by reverse Google Image search; the quantity/rapidity of edits (they are editing as if it’s a job); and the dexterity with wiki code (altho not policy) as a brand-new editor. I would hate to bite an enthusiastic new editor working in under-covered areas but…I do think this needs to be sorted out. Unfortunately I guess that means ANI, unless perhaps SPI? (The expertise at SPI could be useful.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked at the uploaded images at Commons and it seems likely all these images have been modified somewhat; they avoid giving any details about from where they derived (camera, date, original settings). At least one of them already has been speedied as a copyright vio. BusterD (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- And the photos are perhaps the strongest evidence that this is UPE. Quite a coincidence that the user should have access to all these personal photos of geographically diverse subjects. IMHO several of these subjects are worthy semi-public figures who might one day deserve an article about them. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's a previous username for this editor which drew attention at UAA and was changed per policy. BusterD (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Preliminary discussion, perhaps. I'm thinking UPE too, despite denials. Take it to ANI? We're seeing disruptive contributions to Commons as well. I'm interested in what Innisfree987 has to say because this sort of material is more up their alley. I suspect we have a little paid article factory here and I don't want to more fully educate the offending person how to avoid future scrutiny. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I've noticed that Presshintsboston, a non-existent editor on WP is the author of several photos used by this editor, and while they say they were created several years ago, they were uploaded by this editor while they were creating the articles on the subject. Might be a sock.Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I chose another path, AGFed, and tried to see how they reacted with feedback. I am now on their team, with issues. I hope I'm not wrong, but if you look at their most recent work, you'll see significant improvement. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BusterD, that seems reasonable to me. If the contributions are productive, that’s much less of an issue even if something unfortunate comes out later. Thanks for your efforts here, I appreciate it. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Kara Swisher
Why are direct quotes from transcripts of interviews with the source person not considered sufficient source material? Desktopkiwi (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Desktopkiwi, Wikipedia has a policy of WP:No original research; articles, especially biographies of living people, should be primarily based on what reliable secondary sources say about a person so that WP editors are not making personal judgments about whether something is significant. For example, if no secondary sources discuss “generational wealth”, it’s firmly against the original research policy to synthesize quotes you found in primary sources to insert that analysis yourself. Additionally, such sources should never be used if the claims involve others, as was the case here. I know these are different rules than most people expect for sourcing; let me reiterate my request that you please slow down (make smaller changes in a given edit) and review these policies. It will help a lot to avoid wasting work that gets reverted. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- To respond to your example, the quotes regarding wealth were backed by the linked PDF-transcripts from a reliable publishers podcast. Kara Swisher states in the source-material - interview that her family is wealthy and elaborates on how that has impacted her life. Inherited wealth is by definition generational, it requires no synthesis to reach that conclusion? Had I attached or linked other statements from members of the Swisher family regarding their wealth, would the section be deemed acceptable according to WP:BLPSELFPUB standards?
- I used the edit and publish tool in a very newbie-manner, granted. But all my edits are surely not necessary to withdraw for that reason and the one stated in your example only? Desktopkiwi (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Desktopkiwi, interviews in podcasts are primary sources, hence the issues I described. What’s needed are fact-checked secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Separately, Find A Grave is crowd-sourced and consequently unreliable. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Secondary sources. The particular Find A Grave-site is listed as maintained by Kara Swisher, so I figured it could work. Desktopkiwi (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Even when the podcast publishers are Vox Media, Pivot, New York Times, CNET - publications with a responsibility for libel etc.? I understand the argument for self-published source primary-source material, but not when there are major and reliable publishers involved. Desktopkiwi (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is that in print or on audio, interviews are not routinely fact-checked and don’t contain secondary analysis that we could rely on to indicate that a given topic has encyclopedic significance, instead of making that judgment ourselves. In theory I can picture a reported podcast that might be an acceptable secondary source for a BLP; I have not looked up their fact-checking policy but Serial (podcast), with its extensive reporting on and analysis of primary material, might be an example. “Chatcasts” are the primary material tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does this mean I’m not allowed to undo any of your deletions? Desktopkiwi (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Desktopkiwi, Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus—absent consensus in support of contested material (see WP:ONUS), you should not restore it. That would be WP:Edit warring, which is considered disruptive and can draw a block. You can start a discussion on the article’s talk page if you think there could be a consensus in favor of the material despite the objections I’ve raised. Meanwhile, I don’t object to you adding back material based on reliable secondary sources, but it would be really helpful if you made the changes one at a time (in separate edits I mean) so that anyone reviewing them can easily change any given one as necessary; making many changes in one fell swoop is more likely to be entirely reverted if there are further issues. Hope that’s helpful. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does this mean I’m not allowed to undo any of your deletions? Desktopkiwi (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is that in print or on audio, interviews are not routinely fact-checked and don’t contain secondary analysis that we could rely on to indicate that a given topic has encyclopedic significance, instead of making that judgment ourselves. In theory I can picture a reported podcast that might be an acceptable secondary source for a BLP; I have not looked up their fact-checking policy but Serial (podcast), with its extensive reporting on and analysis of primary material, might be an example. “Chatcasts” are the primary material tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Separately, Find A Grave is crowd-sourced and consequently unreliable. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Desktopkiwi, interviews in podcasts are primary sources, hence the issues I described. What’s needed are fact-checked secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Temu flag fixes
Hi, I have posted Talk:Temu (company)#Request for more clean up and removing flag to ask for fixes to the page about Temu (company), the most downloaded app in the United States the last few months. [1] These tiny fixes address the last issues needed to remove the flag. . I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Temu and I would very much appreciate it if you might have time to take a look. Since you are a member of the WikiProject for Internet Culture, I thought you might possibly be interested in this internet cultural moment. [2], [3]. This page is in need of careful expansion in compliance with Wikipedia policy (and there is plenty of press coverage) but getting rid of the last tiny policy violations is a good place to start.
Thanks in advance for your consideration! Snowy2000 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Snowy2000, thank you for disclosing your COI. I’m sorry I significantly disagree with your evaluation of the page. I have added an additional tag; I have no further time available to work on it at present. In the future, please do not ping large numbers of volunteer editors, it’s awfully close to spamming. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Lorenz comment
On the whole I think you're right. She very clearly meets NBASIC, and any AfD on this would fail. But check out the contribs count for the other registered editor. They're new, so they might not know how that sort of thing works. And while an AfD could be seen as POINTy, sometimes editors need to make that mistake before they can improve. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th, it’s because they’re new that I thought it wasn’t fair to set them up for failure by offering AfD when it wasn’t suitable. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi... and thanks!
Hi Innisfree987! Thanks for the heads-up! I have nothing against folks wandering aimlessly around Wikipedia; in fact, it's a great way to get in some copy-editing, and I would therefore encourage it (unfortunately, many editors, IPs or otherwise, just keep an eye on those pages that interest them most, and seem blissfully unaware that there's loadsa stuff out there that needs doing), but from there to letting drop random thoughts on talk pages... And thank you for your work. See you around! --Technopat (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Khader Adnan
On 3 May 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Khader Adnan, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Fabrizio Freda updates
Hi Innisfree987, I work for Fabrizio Freda and have a declared COI. I came across your activity on the Jo Malone London article, and since Jo Malone London is an Estee Lauder brand, I was hoping you might be willing to help with my pending edit request on the Talk page for Estee Lauder’s CEO. I'd like to expand and update the article and I would appreciate your input. Thank you! Sophie-esteelauder (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for adhering to the COI policy @Sophie-esteelauder. I’m sorry I don’t have time to help. You’re in the queue for review tho so someone will come by eventually. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled across this person while looking at the NY Evening Post for 200 years ago today, and she seems to be quite notable, so I started an article. She appears to have an entry in Dictionary of Women Worldwide, a reference work I see you've done a lot of worth with. Is there a way I can get access to view her entry in that work, that you know of? Thanks!--- Milowent • hasspoken 13:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Milowent, great question, delighted to have more people make use of the DoWW! Yes, it can be accessed through the Wikipedia WP:Library bundle, which includes Gale resources, and DoWW is one of the Gale eBooks—the search tool works well and brought up Ann Carson right away. Also tho, often these entries are reproduced on Encyclopedia.com and that’s the case here which makes it easier! Let me know if I can assist in any other way. In the meantime happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah I belatedly noticed you’ve already seen the Encyclopedia.com entry. Yes unfortunately that’s as much as the DoWW has. But if you’re interested in exploring resources, I would hazard to guess Newspapers.com might turn up more? And that’s also available through the Library, if you don’t have access already. It’s not included in the bundle but it’s easy to request! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Confirming that the encylopedia.com entry is the same at DoWW is a great help, thanks! I will definitely dig around, there seems to be a fair amount of academic writing about the person at least in the past 15 or so years. Will be fun to work on this one.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah I belatedly noticed you’ve already seen the Encyclopedia.com entry. Yes unfortunately that’s as much as the DoWW has. But if you’re interested in exploring resources, I would hazard to guess Newspapers.com might turn up more? And that’s also available through the Library, if you don’t have access already. It’s not included in the bundle but it’s easy to request! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A piece of cake for you!
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| A piece of cake for you! Thank you for participating. |
WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for everything you do for this community @WomenArtistUpdates! It’s a much more engaged group thanks to you and your beautiful work. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Latisha Chong
Hello, Innisfree987. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Latisha Chong".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Dealing with an unreported divorce
Hello there, I came across a comment you had made at WT:BLP late last year in relation to the Emily St. John Mandel case. I think you were the first to make the case that "though a divorce court record cannot be cited in an article ... it would have been a reasonable basis to remove the marriage information since it indicated that was not accurate".
I have what I think is a similar situation, and wanted to see what you make of it. Recently at BLP/N I have been raising a similar question on behalf of the semi-retired venture capitalist Jim Goetz—whom, I should make clear, I am representing in a professional capacity. The article currently states that he is married, based on a source published in 2020. I happen to know that he is no longer married. Publicly, there has been no reporting, only a court record. Mr. Goetz would prefer not to have to generate media attention for this to be corrected.
However, the editors in that thread argued that Forbes should change the information or I should take it to VRT. Before I do that, I just wanted to see if you think this is the same thing, whether a wider group of editors might be more likely to agree the answer is simple removal, or whether you'd recommend another course of action. Thanks, in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WWB Too, in the future please state your COI at the top so you don’t take up my time. As my note at the top indicates, my on-wiki availability is very limited and I’m not at all interested in spending it doing unpaid PR work for a venture capitalist. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to have offended. I always make sure to state my COI, and I was simply interested in your opinion. No problem if you're not interested in answering. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WWB Too, you were interested in free help for work you do for pay. You need to state that before you give me links to follow. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to have offended. I always make sure to state my COI, and I was simply interested in your opinion. No problem if you're not interested in answering. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Samantha Woll
Hello. About you revert "This is considered WP:SPS, I’m afraid" of my change. The source p.74 that I gave is indeed apparently an SPS (probably a paid ad) by Hillel Day School about its graduates. However, I propose that the school's information about who and when graduated it must be considered reliable, i.e. the school is an established subject-matter expert regarding the graduation dates of its former students.
Also, this ad is part of the annual "Cap & Gown" editorial section by Alan Hitsky, associate editor, in the same issue of the newspaper, that runs on p.p. 3, 75 - 91. It starts on p.3 with words "annual Cap & Gown section begins on page 75. It is our eagerly awaited, annual tribute to graduating high school seniors, etc." On p. 91 this editorial has another mention of Samantha Woll "SAMANTHA WOLL / Cranbrook Kingswood / Woll graduated Hillel Day School, etc" with her photo.
I am going to restore my change and add that editorial (p.91) as another source. Best regards - Yamfri (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Yamfri, sorry that’s my mistake—I looked at the wrong footnote and thought the details were sourced to the SPS obituary which unfortunately tend to be very unreliable. I agree the school is likely reliable for edu details, but in any case much better if a non-paid source is available. Thanks for your note. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Ady Barkan
On 2 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ady Barkan, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Linda Hirshman
On 12 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Linda Hirshman, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Brittany Luse
Hello, Innisfree987. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brittany Luse".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Maria Gomes-Solecki
Hello, Innisfree987. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maria Gomes-Solecki, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
- The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
ITN recognition for Refaat Alareer
On 11 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Refaat Alareer, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Julie Lythcott-Haims running for congress
Hi User:Innisfree987: Julie Lythcott-Haims announced this week she will run for congress in California. I put a request on her talk page to add this edit to the article about her. If you have a few minutes in the next week or so, I was wondering if you would mind checking it out? Thank you for your time! LeepKendall (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @LeepKendall, I am asking you once again not to take up my time with paid editing requests. I have never taken someone to ANI but if you can’t respect this, I will. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:Innisfree987. My sincerest apologies. I completely missed your previous response asking me not to contact you. I would never have written to you again had I seen it. Sincerely, LeepKendall (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @LeepKendall, thanks, I appreciate it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:Innisfree987. My sincerest apologies. I completely missed your previous response asking me not to contact you. I would never have written to you again had I seen it. Sincerely, LeepKendall (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt, thank you so much, I had just been thinking of you! I hope you are having a lovely holiday season. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: My draft for Charis Cotter
Hi Innisfree987! Thanks for looking over my draft and for your helpful comments. I took your suggestions and improved my citations, deleted all GoodReads references, and hope that the article is now ready to be moved to the mainspace. Amelialife (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for this quick work @Amelialife! The entry is in great shape so I went ahead and promoted the draft. There are two more places in need of citation—one because we can’t use a self-published source like the subject’s own website to verify self-serving claims like awards—but you can continue working in mainspace. Thanks for your contribution! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Innisfree987! I added two new and improved citations. Thanks again for your help and speedy review. Amelialife (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to help @Amelialife! There’s still one sentence I couldn’t reference so removed for now, as something like the writer’s union bio is usually written by the subject themselves and my searches couldn’t turn up an independent source. But if you find one, feel free to add it back. And don’t hesitate if ever you need a hand in the future—I’ll do my best to assist! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987 You're right, unfortunately there isn't a better source for it so I'm going to leave as-is. Thanks again! Amelialife (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to help @Amelialife! There’s still one sentence I couldn’t reference so removed for now, as something like the writer’s union bio is usually written by the subject themselves and my searches couldn’t turn up an independent source. But if you find one, feel free to add it back. And don’t hesitate if ever you need a hand in the future—I’ll do my best to assist! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Innisfree987! I added two new and improved citations. Thanks again for your help and speedy review. Amelialife (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)