User talk:NadiadeKock

This is NadiadeKock's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zelda Bezuidenhout (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MicrobiologyMarcus were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zelda Bezuidenhout and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NadiadeKock! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarcusMicrobiology,

I am going to have one more stab at it before I reach out to you.

Kind regards,

Nadia NadiadeKock (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zelda Bezuidenhout (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zelda Bezuidenhout and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zelda Bezuidenhout (August 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No external links in the body; Wikipedia should not be used as a way to advertise one's work. Focus only on the information that has been significantly covered by reliable sources in the article.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zelda Bezuidenhout and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zelda Bezuidenhout (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Why has this been resubmitted? A single (close primary) source, once cited, is nowhere near enough to establish notability of any flavour, or even to verify the vast majority of the draft content.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zelda Bezuidenhout and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Thanks for your view on a site like Wikitia. I think 'dubious' is putting it mildly.

Regarding the feedback on the Zelda Bezuidenhout article: I had more reliable sources in, mainly to Bezuidenhout's publishers' websites, or internal Wikipedia links. I removed the external ones because these were in the body of the article, which was a reason for a previous rejection. I also referred to a movie that is based on Bezuidenhout's one adult novel, but the website of the movie festival is available only in Afrikaans, and after a rejection I removed it thinking this could possibly cause the source to be unreliable on the English Wikipedia.

DoubleGrazing, I realise Wikipedia editors are extremely busy people. I don't wish to waste your time and start a debate going. I'm going to give this up as a bad job. (I've already spent too much valuable time on a favour :)) Thanks for your time and the chat.

Keep well,

Nadia NadiadeKock (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Look, it's obviously entirely your call whether you want to continue with this draft or drop it. But FWIW, my gut feel is this could actually have merit. You've just reminded me of the film based on her novel, and as long as that claim can be verified, that could already satisfy the notability criterion in WP:AUTHOR #3.

Verification is important, though, not just in what comes to this film, but everything – we need to know where the information in this draft came from, and by 'where' I mean what published sources (as unpublished ones, such as private correspondence etc. cannot be used). This is a core requirement for all articles, but especially ones on living people, for obvious privacy etc. reasons.

And speaking of verifying, Afrikaans and other non-English sources are absolutely fine, as long as they otherwise meet the requirements in terms of reliability, independence, etc.

In the same vein I'll also mention that sources don't have to be online (although in this case they probably would be, as we're talking about a contemporary author).

Anyway, you have time, so don't need to rush into deciding now. Drafts get automatically deleted only when it has been six months from the last (human) edit, but you get a warning a month before that happens. And in theory at least, as long as you make even a small edit every <6 months, you could keep the draft more or less indefinitely. So take your time, if you want, there's no hurry.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've placed a 'promising draft' tag on this, which should hopefully protect it beyond the usual six-month-deletion, in case you need more time than that (I realise not everyone spends all their free time on Wikipedia!). If you need any help at any point, feel free to pop by my talk page or ping me from here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NadiadeKock. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Zelda Bezuidenhout, 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 article subjects 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 {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for the swift response. I must confess I had second thoughts on this endeavour after all the edits I had to do!

I have no conflicts of interest with Zelda Bezuidenhout. She is a friend of a friend, she is an author whom I've met briefly at a writers' cocktail function. Our communal friend told her I work in IT and should be able to help her with a Wikipedia page. I also thought it would be easy (having edited our company's internal wiki!) ... little did I know.

Anyway, I have no conflict of interest and I'm not getting paid for this. I've done it as a favour for my friend since everyone knows how little money Afrikaans authors make.

(I have my own Wikipedia page from my days as an Afrikaans author - that was done years ago by my publisher).

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Nadia NadiadeKock (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding to my query so promptly, this is appreciated. On the basis of what you say, I'm happy to accept that you seem to have no COI that would need disclosing.

I'm sorry to hear you've found it tough going, although I can't say I'm surprised. Creating an article, especially one that will stay published without challenges, is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, if not the most difficult. I would normally advise spending weeks or even months observing things, making small edits to existing articles, taking part in some deletion discussions, etc. before even attempting article creation. I think I did that for several years before drafting my first article, but then I am a slow learner... :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that one of my earlier attempts has ended up on Wikitia. I haven't submitted it (in fact, I wasn't aware of the website) and I thought it fairly unethical to use Wikipedia submissions for their purposes. Have you any idea on how this was possible?

Thanks,

Nadia NadiadeKock (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Wikitia myself, other than by name, but I know that there are any number of websites which mirror Wikipedia contents, ie. as soon as an article is published here, a copy of it appears there as well. This is a curious business model, IMHO, but a perfectly legitimate one, since Wikipedia contents are automatically released into the public domain.

There are also many sites that publish Wikipedia drafts (which aren't strictly speaking published in our encyclopaedia, but is nevertheless made publicly available on the internet), including some content that we delete as inappropriate or worse, copies of which then remain available elsewhere. Personally, I find this dubious, but my views carry little weight.

Whether Wikitia is of the former type or the latter, or something else entirely, I don't know. But this is probably in broad terms the mechanism by which your draft ended up there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]