User talk:Thegracekelly
Welcome!
Hello, Thegracekelly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Matt Bostrom, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Matt Bostrom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non notable local official. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello[edit]
Hello. I'm sorry your introduction to Wikipedia seems to have been a little rough. Glad to see you're hanging in there and learning as you go. I'll look over the article more carefully as I have time. Obviously it still needs some work (and learning the Wikipedia house style takes time) but I think it's heading in the right direction. I hope you keep adding to the Matt Bostrom article and go on to work on more articles.
A trick for the future that makes creating new articles less stressful is to use something called a sandbox. Basicly that's just a page connected to your user page that you use for practicing, notes, or rough drafts. To start your own just click on User:Thegracekelly/sandbox and make a page. While there are some rules about what can be in a sandbox, there is a lot more leeway than there is for mainspace articles. Just remember to put a note at the top of the page saying something like "This is not an article. This is a practice space."
If you are in the Minneapolis/St Paul area you also might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#Wikipedia loves libraries. Cloveapple (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Cloveapple[edit]
It is nice to get real feedback. It is nice to really have a conversation.
I used the sandbox to test my article, it looked fine. I read all of the guidelines.
My problem is the wiki idea of good sourcing vs good sourcing in citizen journalism
1) The best online proof that someone is sheriff is a listing on government online site that you can only be on if you are sheriff and is also protected by law. I used that cite on the line that says the person is sheriff. Wiki objects to this because the person being written about can control content. That is a fair objection if I was not using it to proved this guy is the sheriff of this county only.
2) The best source of elections results is the county elections page that is the official depository of election results. The election official whose job it is to produce and verify the election results does it here. Every other source quotes from here.
3) The newspaper sources that you best like roll off their articles in two weeks, so a subscription or special access is needed to gain those articles. Also note that I do many articles on the errors in these newspapers so I find it hilarious that you lean on something we consider as data to be verified, not absolutely reliable.
4) The TV stations also roll off their coverage so even though it happened, one can only prove that by again - special access.
5) All of the other content is multiple sources in nearly every cited article.
On the libel issue, why is that constantly listed? I cannot cite the target's own website because of wiki third party rules but he says that same information on his own websites then it can't be libel. I ran this content past the target - Matt Bostrom and he approved it as accurate. Is there a form to fill out? In the area we are writing about there is absolutely no controversy about these facts, everyone agrees. What is in this article that causes the libel warning to come up?
On the notable issue. I have written extensively on the Matt Bostrom website. In so many ways, Matt Bostrom is notable. I remember how frustrated I was when I first encountered the name, Matt Bostrom and tried to look him up in wiki.
So I think that I have complied with wiki rules guidelines (no matter how strange I think they are), how do I get rid of wiki boxes and how do I know if my article is still not scheduled for deletion?
Thanks for all your help and being a real person instead of wikibox!Thegracekelly (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as reading the guidelines, you're actually very clued in for somebody with your number of edits. I can tell you have spent effort on figuring out Wikipedia. I'll agree that the conventions of Wikipedia can seem odd. Sometimes they make sense when you take into account that the conventions are partly there to coordinate the actions of thousands of volunteers all over the world. I'll try to take your questions one numbered point at a time. Do remember though that I'm just one volunteer and someone else might give slightly different answers. Cloveapple (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, point 1: First of all all references on the article are doing double duty. They are backing up a specific point but they are 'also proving Wikipedia's concept of notability. A source connected to the subject doesn't help prove notability.
- Also Wikipedia is an international platform. A specific law of Minnesota or the United States may mandate what information is posted on county websites there, but Wikipedia needs to run on general principles that can apply to topics anywhere in the world and that can be applied by editors that live all over the world. Keeping up with laws in all the possible jurisdictions would be a nightmare. I understand your impulse to use a county source. It makes sense. It's just not best practice on Wikipedia. Cloveapple (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Point 2: I don't think I said to take this source down? It's probably ok, I just suggested adding a second reference. One advantage of citing a newspaper article written on dead trees is that that reference will always be verifiable. (Unsourced material can be challenged and deleted.) Also, just as in the previous point, the reference is doing double duty. Cloveapple (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Point 3: A source doesn't ever have to be online. No wonder you were frustrated if you thought that was a rule! Feel free to use dead trees as references. It's nice for readers when a source is conveniently online but it's not required. I've certainly used sources that somebody would have to go to a library or newspaper database to read. Check out WP:REFSTART and it shows how to cite both online and offline sources.
- Wikipedia doesn't do original reporting that looks at primary sources the way a reporter would. It doesn't analyze raw facts or form an opinion the way a reporter would. It's a tertiary source whose mission is to reflect secondary sources. So it tries to base articles on sources that have fact checking staff and that have a mission to analyse subjects. Then clearly it indicates what each source is so people can go to the sources for more. Sure sometimes those sources get it wrong. Yes, newspapers have errors. So do books. So do websites. I doubt any editor here would deny that. Cloveapple (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Point 4: I agree that linking to TV websites tends to be a bad idea. There's no knowing when a web page or video will be pulled. If you really want to cite a newscast transcript there are ways to do that but honestly I think that would usually be more trouble than it's worth. If you really really want to cite a transcript there are databases you can get transcipts from. (For example Hennepin Country library patrons can use their library cards to access Twin Cities Metro News Collection.) Cloveapple (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Point 5: Don't worry. The article has some good references. It's a short baby article right now (what Wikipedia calls a "stub," but many articles start that way. Cloveapple (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- As to the rest. It might be best not to remove the boxes yet. I am going to read through everything (sources too) and will probably be pulling the boxes if nobody else does. (Technically you could remove them, but since that's been an issue with other editors I'd suggest for diplomacy's sake that you not be the one to remove them.) Don't worry about libel, though I see why that tag made you worry. And the word "notability" has a technical meaning on Wikipedia.
- Got to run. Will look at article again later. Cloveapple (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I went over the list of sources and looked at each one more carefully. (See article talk page.) More of them were primary sources than I'd realized. So I'm leaving the tags (boxes) for right now. Once again do not worry about libel. The first tag is not saying there is libel involved. It's all about the sources. If my explanations about sources haven't made sense to you feel free to ask.
- The other thing I discovered was that he had written two articles not two books. (The italic formatting in the article made me think they were books. I'll fix that.) That makes things a little harder. If he'd written two books there would likely be coverage of the books. (If there are any reviews or coverage of his two articles they would help.)
Cloveapple (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again to Cloveapple[edit]
Deletion: If you look further up this same page, you will see that Matt Bostrom was put on a seven day deletion list. I don't know how to tell if it was ever taken off the seven day deletion list.
I will add lots of dead tree citations, it will just have be later when I have more time.
Grace Kelly Thegracekelly (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is not up for deletion right now. If a new deletion process began it would take 7 days during which you could speak in the official proceedings and continue to improve the article. I wouldn't reccommend it for deletion in its current state but even if somebody did start that process I think it would have a very good chance of surviving.
- Some good dead trees to seek out might be any reviews or commentary about his book. Just be sure not to cherry pick only good reviews if there are mixed ones.
- I think this is going to turn out to be an interesting bio. Cloveapple (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Better explanation of why WP uses independent reliable secondary sources[edit]
I think I dropped the ball when I tried to explain why some of the primary sources weren't preferred. So here's a better explanation.
Secondary sources put facts in a context. Secondary sources have already analyzed and synthesized.
A problem with using primary sources (election results, birth certificates, court documents, etc...) for Wikipedia is that then the writers of the article have to interpret these things, decide how they fit in the larger picture, and decide what weight to give them.
What if five editors disagree on how to interpret a document or how much weight to give different facts? What if the diferent editors bring different values and beliefs to the table? How can they join together to write a single coherent article if they don't agree on how to interpret the facts or even which facts to include?
So another reason Wikipedia favors independent secondary sources is that it uses these sources to decide how much emphasis to give different views of a subject. For example let's say you survey reliable sources that discuss the moon and thirty sources say the moon is made of green cheese while ten sources say it is made of white chocolate. In that case the article would give more space to the green cheese idea.
WP:NOR and WP:RELY are two pages that might help you understand how WP handles sources. Cloveapple (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
ANI notice[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cloveapple (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Libraries event[edit]
In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.
Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.
There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.
Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012
For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. —innotata 22:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Upcoming Wikipedia meetups[edit]
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetups.
To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!
Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.
Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
Dates: Saturday, June 1
Saturday, July 6
Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+
For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Great American Wiknic[edit]
In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.
Place: north of Minnehaha Falls in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, June 22, 2012
Time: 12–4 pm
- Accessible from the Minnehaha Park METRO station, bus, walk, bike, or car
- If driving, free parking available on 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
- Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!
For more, and to sign up (encouraged, not required) go to the meetup talk page.
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup on August 3[edit]
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota monthly meetup on August 3.
Place: Lavvu Coffee House
813 4th St SE, Minneapolis 55414
Date: Saturday, August 3
Time: 1:00pm-3:00pm+
For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.
—innotata 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Meetup on January 18[edit]
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetup in commemoration of Wikipedia Day.
- Place: Seward Cafe
- 2129 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55404
- Date: Saturday, January 18, 2014
- Time: noon
- Place: Seward Cafe
For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art[edit]
| Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
 |
|
Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center[edit]
| The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
 |
|
- We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo + c 23:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Invite to Wiki Loves Pride MN![edit]
| Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016 | |
|---|---|
 |
|
- We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, RachelWex Talk c 21:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!