User talk:JayDivine
Talk:Carol Sklenicka
[edit]Please don't remove the WikiProject banners and other templates from the top of Talk:Carol Sklenicka; those templates still have reference value for those looking at the article. You should also not remove article talk page posts made by others without a really good policy based reason for doing so. When talk pages get too long, they can be set up to be WP:ARCHIVEd, but that page is nowhere close to needing to be archived. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sincere apologies! I thought the banneres were outdated and no longer relevant. I have learned a valuable lesson here. Can you replace the banners? Thank you! JayDivine (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- There's no need to replace the banners since they don't ever really become outdated. There are maintenance templates sometimes added to the tops of or within articles, and these can be removed when the reasons they were added have been addressed. Those, however, are different from the templates you find at the tops of article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red
[edit]Hi there, JayDivine, and thank you for the two detailed biographies of women you have created, one back in 2010 and the other very recently. If you intend to continue writing articles about women, you might be interested in becoming a member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to chip away at the gender gap. If you are interested, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. In any case, I look forward to your future contributions. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for signing up and welcome to the project. You might like to take a look at some of our essays, perhaps starting with the Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ian, thanks for the invitation! I'm accepting and displaying the banner. WIR looks interesting and worthwhile. I am in total sympathy with WIR objectives and I'll look for opportunities to pitch in. My son and I are tentatively planning on doing some touring of Ireland this coming spring. What part of the island do you live on? We have forebears JayDivine (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Ipigott (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ian,
- Thank you so well for your favorable review and validation of my Naomi Lebowitx article. My last three Wikipedia articlea have been about strong and independent professional women> My last two Wikipedia articles have been about strong and independent professional women and I feel like I've been getting some JayDivine (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ian, I'm somehow hitting send before I finish and get a chance to edit these replies to you. I was starting to say that I've gotten a lot of pushback from our revered Wikipedia administration on my last two articles about women. They're posting delete warnings on two pics of the subject's book covers in my Carol Sklenicka article. And you saw the suggestion from marchjune that my new Naomi Lebowitz article is too long and needs cuttng. I'm wondering if there is any gender bias element in all of this, or if I am just hitting tripwires associated with Wikipedia's tightening regulations in so many areas. Do you have any insight or advice? Thanks again! JayDivine (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you are running into trouble with the Carol Sklenicka article. I'm no expert on book covers but in general they are used in connection with articles about books themselves rather than on the author's biography. In my opinion, you have made considerable improvements to the page but interviews with the subject are not considered to be reliable secondary sources and should therefore be avoided. You could, nevertheless, include a link to the interview under External links. You will find useful guidance about sources in our essays. I realize that as you work on your first few biographies, it might appear reviewers are being over-critical but as you become more familiar with what is acceptable, you will be able to improve the quality of your work. In general, I don't believe biographies of women suffer unduly from gender bias. Many new contributors experience difficulties, whether they write about men or women. I hope you will continue to write informative biographies and let me know if you run into further difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ian, this perspective is clarifying. Thanks for talking me down! JayDivine (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you are running into trouble with the Carol Sklenicka article. I'm no expert on book covers but in general they are used in connection with articles about books themselves rather than on the author's biography. In my opinion, you have made considerable improvements to the page but interviews with the subject are not considered to be reliable secondary sources and should therefore be avoided. You could, nevertheless, include a link to the interview under External links. You will find useful guidance about sources in our essays. I realize that as you work on your first few biographies, it might appear reviewers are being over-critical but as you become more familiar with what is acceptable, you will be able to improve the quality of your work. In general, I don't believe biographies of women suffer unduly from gender bias. Many new contributors experience difficulties, whether they write about men or women. I hope you will continue to write informative biographies and let me know if you run into further difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Book cover files in Carol Sklenicka
[edit]Hi JayDivine. Are you able to provide citations to reliable sources to support the addition content you added about the Adams and Carver book in Carol Sklenicka? Critical interpretation of a literary work needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources for verification purposes. Ideally, such sources should be available online to make verification easier, but you should try and provide as much information as possible about the source to aid those trying to verify it if it's not accessible online. Content like what you've added can be removed as original research if not properly supported by citations to reliable sources. Even if you know the content to be true, it's still needs to be verifiable for it to not be considered original research. Moreover, if the books themselves have been the subject of sourced critical and significant coverage in reliable sources that meets WP:NBOOK, then it might be possible to create separate stand-alone articles about each book.
As for the content you added about the books cover art, this too is unsourced which still means that it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per WP:NFC#CS. It's generally not considered enough to simply add content about the book or about its cover art; it needs to be reliably sourced critical commentary that is preferably not WP:UNDUE in the sense that it's relying on a single source's interpretation. If you're able to expand the content about the books' covers to include more sourced critical commentary about them from reliable sources, then that might make a stronger case for using the two files as you're trying to do. If things remain as is, it's unlikely a consensus will be established in favor of the files' non-free uses in the article if discussed at WP:FFD. For reference, a file may only be prodded for deletion once, but it can be nominated for further discussion at FFD when de-prodded if there are still concerns about its use.
Finally, regarding the two file names you chose when uploading the file. Whether publishing company has made the file available for free download isn't really relevant for Wikipedia's purposes because that doesn't mean the file is free from copyright protection. If the company has released the two book cover images under one of these free licenses, then that would be important to know because it means the files don't need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. If that's not the case, I suggest the file name be changed to remove ", made available to the public for free downloading by the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster" from each file's name. Files with extremely long names can be hard to use because a single mistake or syntax error in the name will cause the file to not be properly displayed. So, the shorter name will not only make easier it for others to possibly use and reference in discussion, it will also avoid any possible confusion due to the "free downloading" bit. Only certain Wikipedia users can change the name of an existing file. You can find out more about how to request a file name change at Wikipedia:File mover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, this is very helpful! Thanks so much for the clarity and detail of your coaching. I anm working on a citation to a very respectable source for the descriptions of how the publisher's book design teams did their work and why. I expect to have this complete and cited in the next few days. And I will certainly look into shortening those cumbersome file names. JayDivine (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Are the sources you're adding about these books WP:PUBLISHED? Personal correspondance between two individuals are not typically considered to be reliable sources, unless perhaps they are published in book-form (like something in Category:Correspondences) or in some other way by a reputable publishing company known for excercisng vigorous editorial control. Relevant Wikipedia policies requires that reliable sources be published and somewhat accessible in addtion to their being reliable. Sources need not be avilable online, but there needs to be some reasonable way of accessing them. How are you accessing the sources you're citing if they're not available online? Are you finding them in some archive? Do you have copies of them in your possession? Have you been sent copies by Sklenicka or her representatives? If there no real way for others to verify what a source has said, it has very little value for Wikipedia purposes. In addition, what's needed about the book cover are things said third-parties (e.g. book reviewers) that show the cover received critical commentary in and of itself. What the author says about the cover is interesting perhaps, but it's not really going to be sufficient to justify non-free use (at least not in my opinion). If the book and its cover have received significant coverage per WP:NBOOK, it might be better to create a separate article about the book than to try and add excesive content about either to an article about the book's author. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for these questions, Marchjuly. My source citation for the points about book-design in the Carol Sklenicka article is Colin Harrison, vice president and editor-in-chief at Scribner Publishing. He personally served as Ms. Sklenicka's editor for the Raymond Carver biography and worked closely with Scribner Senior Editor Sarah Goldberg, who was the editor of the Alice Adams biography. In terms of his availability and accessibilty online, Mr. Harrison is prominently featured at https://www.simonandschusterpublishing.com/scribner/team.html as one of three senior Scribner people to interface with atop the prominent Scribner Publishing online authors page. His picture and a brief description of his editorial experience are included. Yes, I am in possession of rudimentary personal correspondence with Mr. Harrison regarding the points covered in the article and it is based on my own questions, provided to Mr. Harrison in writing. I have emphatically not been provided by Ms. Sklenicka or her representatives copies of anything related to this disscussion. Nor should a single word in the article be construed as "what the author says about the cover." I believe I understand Wikipedia's appropriate concerns with respect to the presence of non-free use book cover photos. In this case, however, because the article is measurably much more focused on the two biographies than on the author, I have considered the two book cover photos to be approriately organic to the content. And I am puzzled by the perspective that this is not itself "an article about the books." More of the column inches and by far the preponderance of source citations, for example, pertain to the books and not to the author. Having said all this, I of course will bow to Wikipedia's decision on whether to delete the two photos. Thanks once again for taking the time to explain some of the finer points of Wikipedia policy. JayDivine (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The way you describe these "sources" as
rudimentary correspondence
does not really seem to indicate that it would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Personal correspondance between two individuals is generally considered to be user generated content that is not really suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. What needs to be published and accessible is not background history about Harrison and others at Scribbner publishing, but the actual correspondence itself. i'm sure there's lots of internal exchanges that take place between publishers and authors when it comes to selecting book cover art, but this isn't really useful for Wikipedia purposes if it never gets beyond the "internal exchange" stage. If some of this correspondence was published separately or as part of a review of the book given by noted book reviewers, then it probably could be used in some way. Otherwise, it's not much use for justifying the non-free use of the covers in the article. As for my comment about the article not being about the books, what I mean is that the primary topic of the article is Carol Sklenicka and the claim that she is Wikipedia notable per WP:BIO. That is the intended focus of the article. Of course, important works of hers can be mentioned in the article, but they shouldn't become the focus of the article per se. If there's enough content about each of these books and enough coverage of them to justify stand-alone articles about them per WP:NBOOK, the sections about them can possibly be WP:SPLIT of into separate Wikipedia articles about each book. The can still be subsections about the books in the Sklenicka article, but there might also be able to be more detailed stand-alone articles about each book. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The way you describe these "sources" as
- Thanks for these questions, Marchjuly. My source citation for the points about book-design in the Carol Sklenicka article is Colin Harrison, vice president and editor-in-chief at Scribner Publishing. He personally served as Ms. Sklenicka's editor for the Raymond Carver biography and worked closely with Scribner Senior Editor Sarah Goldberg, who was the editor of the Alice Adams biography. In terms of his availability and accessibilty online, Mr. Harrison is prominently featured at https://www.simonandschusterpublishing.com/scribner/team.html as one of three senior Scribner people to interface with atop the prominent Scribner Publishing online authors page. His picture and a brief description of his editorial experience are included. Yes, I am in possession of rudimentary personal correspondence with Mr. Harrison regarding the points covered in the article and it is based on my own questions, provided to Mr. Harrison in writing. I have emphatically not been provided by Ms. Sklenicka or her representatives copies of anything related to this disscussion. Nor should a single word in the article be construed as "what the author says about the cover." I believe I understand Wikipedia's appropriate concerns with respect to the presence of non-free use book cover photos. In this case, however, because the article is measurably much more focused on the two biographies than on the author, I have considered the two book cover photos to be approriately organic to the content. And I am puzzled by the perspective that this is not itself "an article about the books." More of the column inches and by far the preponderance of source citations, for example, pertain to the books and not to the author. Having said all this, I of course will bow to Wikipedia's decision on whether to delete the two photos. Thanks once again for taking the time to explain some of the finer points of Wikipedia policy. JayDivine (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Are the sources you're adding about these books WP:PUBLISHED? Personal correspondance between two individuals are not typically considered to be reliable sources, unless perhaps they are published in book-form (like something in Category:Correspondences) or in some other way by a reputable publishing company known for excercisng vigorous editorial control. Relevant Wikipedia policies requires that reliable sources be published and somewhat accessible in addtion to their being reliable. Sources need not be avilable online, but there needs to be some reasonable way of accessing them. How are you accessing the sources you're citing if they're not available online? Are you finding them in some archive? Do you have copies of them in your possession? Have you been sent copies by Sklenicka or her representatives? If there no real way for others to verify what a source has said, it has very little value for Wikipedia purposes. In addition, what's needed about the book cover are things said third-parties (e.g. book reviewers) that show the cover received critical commentary in and of itself. What the author says about the cover is interesting perhaps, but it's not really going to be sufficient to justify non-free use (at least not in my opinion). If the book and its cover have received significant coverage per WP:NBOOK, it might be better to create a separate article about the book than to try and add excesive content about either to an article about the book's author. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
[edit]|
|
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
- Good work, WIR! Keep it up! JayDivine (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons files
[edit]Hi JayDivine. Some of your Commons uploads from back in the day have issues that need resolving. There's more information about this on your Commons user talk page, but the discussion can be found at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by JayDivine. The main issue is that you've upload files either as your "own work" when they clearly aren't or with claims of permission which need to be verified. There's a good chance that many of the uploads can be kept as long as the original copyright holder's consent can be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
- Thanks for the WIR update. I've recently been checking out WIR resources like the Facebook page and Primer. Both are helpful. I am impressed. JayDivine (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Files listed for discussion
[edit]
Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 22 if you are interested in preserving their usage.
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I concede that the two files under discussion should be deleted. JayDivine (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
September 2023 at Women in Red
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2023
[edit]
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023
[edit]
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
[edit] 
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red February 2024
[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024
[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024
[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red June 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2024 at Women in Red
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging