User talk:LisaMLane
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, LisaMLane, 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:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
OER inquiry
[edit]Hi LisaMLane, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Article massive open online course title
[edit]Hi, You have done a great job in the article massive open online course. Would you come to discuss the title of the article? :)
Link to discussion: Talk:Massive_open_online_course#Requested_move_5_April_2022 --Avoinlähde (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Lisa Lane (disambiguation)
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lisa Lane (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Silikonz💬 19:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]
Hello, LisaMLane. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Before the Time Machine, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello - I am the author of the book, and am entering it (and my collection of HG Wells articles) for the purpose of connecting it for Wellsian scholars. I certainly was not trying to spam anyone. It is logical that I should post it since I have the synopsis. If this is not allowed, I'm sorry. LisaMLane (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I go into a bit more below (I did not see this reply before posting that section), with links to some relevant polices. Writing about yourself is not per se forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged and there are policies and guidelines to follow. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Before the Time Machine moved to draft space and other concerns
[edit]I have moved your article Before the Time Machine to draft space. There were two main issues with it. First, the page was not shown to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Second, there were no references to independent and reliable sources. The only reference on the page was to a website owned by yourself, the book's author, and so is not an independent source and is self-published, and therefore not reliable per Wikipedia's standards. Please note that writing about yourself as an author and your books may be considered as a form of advertising or promotion, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. See also the conflict of interest guidelines linked in the message above. Finally, see this page on why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have edited the page and hope that helps! LisaMLane (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- You have not followed the guidance in the COI warning above. Take this as a final warning, since otherwise i will block you next time you violate our spamming and COI rules Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize if I have broken rules -- any COI or other violation was unintentional. But I request an apology from you. My communications have been cordial and open, but this message causes me distress. I have been a supporter of Wikipedia since its inception, encouraging use by my students and colleagues. I have donated funds in response to Jimmy's emails. I defended Wikipedia's open practices in a webinar only yesterday. I have educated college students for 33 years in appropriate citation and usage as a historian. I have never been accused of nefarious practice nor threatened with blocking from any website anywhere. I thought I was being educated, not warned. I take exception to the tone of your reply and the threat. It seems unkind and unnecessary. I can only assume you are having a bad day, and I hope things get better for you. By all means delete my contributions, as you have done with my factual notation on the Wells page, if it helps. The power is yours. LisaMLane (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- To offer a milder take, unfortunately administrators have to deal with people writing about themselves or their own work on a regular basis and patience on such matters can wear thin. As it is, writing about your books here may still be considered promotional even if it is not for seeking monetary gain but the natural desire to see the products of your labor succeed. Eeven well-intentioned edits may be considered disruptive. I have found that there is some tendency for Wikipedia to be unfriendly to inexperienced editors (I can see from your history of edits that you've had your account for a while, but other than additions to one page about 11 years ago, you don't have a lot of edits under your belt). While I might have put it in kinder terms, I do concur that it is inadvisable to continue writing about your work here. Because the page was deleted I cannot see what work you did on the draft since our last communication, though I did see the changed source. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Much appreciated. LisaMLane (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- LisaMLane, I won't automatically see a message on this page, unless you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert. It's just chance that I came back here. I often block users creating articles on topics in which they have a financial interest that they haven't declared (using the paid template) immediately. I actually warned you instead because you were engaging constructively with TornadoLGS. My message may have been brusque, but I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding. Note that in any case, there are problems: Your book article has no independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the author or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the author claims or interviewing them. Having your publisher as the only reference is pretty promotional in itself, hardly an independent third-party source. Similarly with your autobiography, inappropriate sourcing and no verifiable evidence how you meet notability for writers. Just writing books isn't enough. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- On the alternative Wells Society source, I can't see the text, but if it is just mentioning or reviewing your book, that isn't necessarily enough. Notability for a book doesn't depend on whether people like it or not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- LisaMLane, I won't automatically see a message on this page, unless you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert. It's just chance that I came back here. I often block users creating articles on topics in which they have a financial interest that they haven't declared (using the paid template) immediately. I actually warned you instead because you were engaging constructively with TornadoLGS. My message may have been brusque, but I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding. Note that in any case, there are problems: Your book article has no independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the author or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the author claims or interviewing them. Having your publisher as the only reference is pretty promotional in itself, hardly an independent third-party source. Similarly with your autobiography, inappropriate sourcing and no verifiable evidence how you meet notability for writers. Just writing books isn't enough. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Much appreciated. LisaMLane (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- To offer a milder take, unfortunately administrators have to deal with people writing about themselves or their own work on a regular basis and patience on such matters can wear thin. As it is, writing about your books here may still be considered promotional even if it is not for seeking monetary gain but the natural desire to see the products of your labor succeed. Eeven well-intentioned edits may be considered disruptive. I have found that there is some tendency for Wikipedia to be unfriendly to inexperienced editors (I can see from your history of edits that you've had your account for a while, but other than additions to one page about 11 years ago, you don't have a lot of edits under your belt). While I might have put it in kinder terms, I do concur that it is inadvisable to continue writing about your work here. Because the page was deleted I cannot see what work you did on the draft since our last communication, though I did see the changed source. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize if I have broken rules -- any COI or other violation was unintentional. But I request an apology from you. My communications have been cordial and open, but this message causes me distress. I have been a supporter of Wikipedia since its inception, encouraging use by my students and colleagues. I have donated funds in response to Jimmy's emails. I defended Wikipedia's open practices in a webinar only yesterday. I have educated college students for 33 years in appropriate citation and usage as a historian. I have never been accused of nefarious practice nor threatened with blocking from any website anywhere. I thought I was being educated, not warned. I take exception to the tone of your reply and the threat. It seems unkind and unnecessary. I can only assume you are having a bad day, and I hope things get better for you. By all means delete my contributions, as you have done with my factual notation on the Wells page, if it helps. The power is yours. LisaMLane (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- You have not followed the guidance in the COI warning above. Take this as a final warning, since otherwise i will block you next time you violate our spamming and COI rules Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)