User talk:Millipede

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David T. Killion.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 02:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Millipede, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

David T. Killion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Killion concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Killion, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Killion

Hello Millipede. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David Killion".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Killion}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anton Miller (January 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Abelmoschus Esculentus were:  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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anton Miller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anton Miller, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... I'm working on a draft article about American violist and arranger Rita Porfiris, and before I either submit the draft for review (or publish it directly as a new page), I would appreciate whatever guidance anyone is willing to offer, to help make this as good a Wikipedia article as it can be. Thanks.

Millipede (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Before you submit it for a review you'd like us to review it? I'd strongly advise against publishing the page directly. There are several issues:

• The formatting needs work, particular the section headings (currently they're what, sub-sub-subsection headings?). Trivial issue, easily done.
• Multiple references don't say what they're cited for and often don't even mention Rita Porfiris. Critical issue, needs fixing before this becomes a live article.
• Those independent sources that do mention Rita Porfiris often only do so in passing. When browsing the sources, I didn't see a single independent source that spent so much as a single sentence on Porfiris. If there are reliable third-party sources that discuss her in some detail, they appear to be hidden in all those passing mentions and non-mentions. That's another critical issue that needs fixing; we need more than passing mentions to establish notability.

Please note that this was not a full review and that there may be other issues. Huon (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

If the heading formatting can be easily fixed, I would appreciate advice on how to do it, and then I can focus on the references.Millipede (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

So, what is the best way to fix the headings? Millipede (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

About improving the references, I want to learn how to do it right, so let's take an example. Below are two sentences under the "Career" heading in the Draft: Rita Porfiris article,

In 1997 she won second prize at the Primrose International Viola Competition and joined the faculty at the University of Houston Moores School of Music. She remained at the Houston Symphony and Moores School until 2009, when she joined the faculty of The Hartt School at the University of Hartford, where she now serves as Associate Professor of Viola and Chair of Chamber Music. She has also been on the faculty of New York University.

References

The internal Wikipedia link to the Primrose International Viola Competition verifies that Rita Porfiris won the second prize in 1997, although the reader has to scroll down to the history of awards section in the Wikipedia article to find this verification. So, I thought it would be helpful to link also to the official Primrose Competition webpage, which also shows that Rita Porfiris won the second prize in 1997. Can you give me an idea about what is defective in those citations, and how I could improve them? The second sentence links to the Faculty page at Hartt Music School, to verify the title Rita Porfiris holds at that University. Is there something wrong about that citation? If so, how could I improve it? Thanks in advance for your help.Millipede (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the somewhat slow response; real life interfered. Regarding the layout issues, I have fixed them (mostly). There are several changes beyond the section headings; if any of them are unclear, I'll gladly explain them.

For your sample sentence, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source; it should not be used as a reference. The reason is that everybody can edit Wikipedia articles at any time; if we accepted Wikipedia articles as sources, someone could add a (possibly false!) snippet of information to one article and then cite that as a source in another article - and then maybe even cite the second article as a source for the first! Instead, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources such as articles about the subject written by newspapers or reputable magazines. If the Primrose Competition article gave such a source for the list of winners we could re-use it for the Porfiris article, but the competition article's only sources are the websites of the competition itself and of the American Viola Society which sponsors it - both primary sources. (Part of the reason we want secondary and not primary sources is that they help us to assess significance - I would assume that the Primrose Competition is a prominent and reputable music competition, but if no newspaper, no music magazine, nobody bothers to report on it, then maybe that assumption is wrong and it's really just a few people who meet in some school, fiddle a little, give themselves some great-sounding prize and who have a good web designer? Is this really a significant award if the only ones taking note of it are the organizations bestowing the award and sponsoring it?) If, say, the LA Times had reported on the 1997 Primrose Competition, that would be a good source (though maybe difficult to find). The second sentence is even more problematic: Not only is it based on yet another primary source (her employer), but the source doesn't even confirm what it's cited for. Yes, it does say that Porfiris is an Associate Professor at the Hartt School, but it doesn't say when she got that position. How do you know that it was in 2009? Not from that source. Maybe the Hartford Courant has something on this aspect of her career? That might be worth a look. Huon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Danke vielmals! Thanks very much for fixing the section headings. I'll look carefully at your coding to learn the correct style.

I appreciate (and share) the skeptical approach that calls for documentation. Not all readers would know that the Primrose International Viola Competition is a highly prominent, reputable, and internationally recognized competition, so, in addition to the primary sourcing to the American Viola Society, I have also added an additional reference to a report in the periodical Strad about the 1997 viola competition results. That journal is accessible electronically through proprietary databases, but I wasn't sure whether Wikipedia encourages (or discourages) including a reference link that requires a subscription to access. Do you have any advice about that? Is there a Wikipedia guideline about this? I have also added documentation of the fact that the appointment of Rita Porfiris at Hartt was in 2009; I've given an electronically accessible link to what appears to be a republication of the announcement or press release issued by the Hartt School about the appointment of Rita Porfiris. Would it be better to link to the original Hartt press release if I can find it online? Thanks again for your help.Millipede (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the questions above (e.g., does Wikipedia encourage or discourage including a reference link that requires a subscription to access?), I'm also wondering whether there is some commonly understood notion as to the point at which documentation risks becoming over-documentation. Are there clear guidelines about this that are fairly simple to apply, or is this ultimately a matter of editorial discretion?Millipede (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume "Strad" is The Strad, the British-based music magazine? That's an excellent source. Even if the August 1997 edition cannot be found online, or only behind a paywall, I would expect that sufficiently well-equipped libraries - say, the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, the British Library, libraries of music schools, and so on - will carry back issues. Sources for Wikipedia articles don't have to be available online (though of course a link to an online version is more convenient for our readers). They also don't have to be available for free; subscription-only sources are also acceptable (though a free source of course is again more convenient for our readers).

The other source is much more problematic. I agree that it's a re-published press release. Finding the original would be better than the re-published version (particularly because that claims to have been written "by BWW News Desk", which is misleading; I found an alternative version, but not the original), but even the original is still a press release issued by the university that just hired Porfiris - still a primary source, and a rather promotional one at that ("The Hartt School is the comprehensive performing arts conservatory of the University of Hartford that offers innovative degree programs..."). There's also a reliability issue: While I wouldn't expect the Hartt School to outright lie, press releases such as this one aren't quite known for being subject to fact-checking or editorial oversight. That's why I suggested the Hartford Courant instead.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "over-documentation". There's generally no need to add multiple sources to confirm the same statement when one already does so (though that might be different for particularly controversial statements; the worst case I know of cites six textbooks written by different academics and scholars that all confirm the statement, and it still sometimes is disputed by editors). If you mean, "what statements need sources and what don't?", then there's indeed an easy-to-apply answer: All content must be based on reliable published sources (and we should cite those sources). This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. Content without a source may be removed whenever and wherever it's encountered (though trying to find a source and adding that source might be more helpful). Huon (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

I'm not sure how to follow up. One Wikipedian already helpfully replied to my request for help and said that the draft article needs to be improved. I'm grateful to get a response, but I'm not sure what is the best way to improve the formatting of the headings (which is supposed to be easy), nor am I sure I understand how to improve the references. I offered as an example some references from the draft article that looked okay to me, and I asked what I should do to improve them. Any help will be appreciated.

Please help me with... improving a draft article

Millipede (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Huon is normally available on IRC. Our helpers may be able to assist you better there. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Huon is aware of your request and should be in touch in time. You can use {{ping|Huon}} to reply next time and just post it in the same thread with a colon at the start to tab it in. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Millipede! You created a thread called trying in Draft "Anton Miller" violinist article (in Engish) to fix link to Italian Wikipedia article on Franco Gulli at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Miller-Porfiris Duo) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Miller-Porfiris Duo.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

While I am approving this article for the encyclopedia, you should be aware of two issues:

1. Citations should be separated into separate footnotes––the way they are currently merged together is incredibly difficult to read

2. It seems like the only sources referring to the subject as "Miller-Porfiris Duo" are press releases and concert announcements. Now, this subject does meet WP:NBAND criterion #6, but given the lack of independent content about the subject as a duo, it may be more useful for readers to have this page redirect to either Anton Miller or Rita Porfiris, and include a hatnote at the top of the article explaining the redirect and offering a link to the other musician.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rita Porfiris

Hello, Millipede. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rita Porfiris".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Millipede. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Rita Porfiris, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)