Talk:James H. Evans

Conflict of interest May 2024

I'm working on the WikiProject Orphanage, as to be expected I'll run into a lot of problematic articles. User:James Houston Evans has consistently edited the article. It seems like this article is being used for CV/resumé or an 'about page' on an official website. Adding lines of text like It was featured in Texas Monthly and 2018 Evans is currently working on two books, to be announced, read to me as being promotional, and the whole article seems to violate WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTPROMO. Might be relevant for this discussion to mention that upon my research, this article may not pass the threshold for WP:GNG, as all sources I found seem to be self-published or hyper-local. I would put this on AfD, but I already have one running. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a new Wikipedia editor and this article came up in my newcomer feed. I'm a professional writer and editor, and have a special knowledge of photography, so I was thinking of taking on this article from an comprehensive copy editing standpoint. I can see all the problems with it that you point out--it's obviously a vanity page, but on the other hand, the guy may pass the "notability" test for his work with Texas Monthly, which is a prominent magazine. He has some references to prove that. What I would do is a major (and I do mean major) restructuring of the information that is there, make it non-promotional and non-autobiographical. I don't know if that is appropriate for Wikipedia editors at my level, but I know I could do it and make this much more Wikipedia-friendly, while also respecting the subject's accomplishments. He might not like it, because there are some things that would need to be deleted, such as descriptions of his more commercial work that has no chance of being cited/referenced, in spite of its interestingness, but at least he'd have a non-BS article in Wikipedia. Otherwise this is an article that really doesn't belong on the site. If he is editing it himself, can he not be sent a message that he should work on the citations and references or it will be deleted? I don't know if this kind of thing is done, being a Wikipedia editor newbie. All the best, JGJGlennny (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! As a new user, you're expected to enhance these articles on Wikipedia to ensure they adhere to Wikipedia's core principles. This is a great opportunity to contribute to a vast community of knowledge, refine your research and writing skills, and make a lasting impact by providing accurate and well-sourced information for readers worldwide. ProfilePerfectionist (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming message. However, it appears to be a generic auto-reply, rather than specifically responding to my previous message. Still looking for a response regarding whether I should take on this article like the lost puppy that it is. Thanks, JGJGlennny (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey JGlennny, hope you're well. I'm a newbie too. So my newbie advice would be to first check if it passes the threshold for WP:GNG. If you believe it does, then go ahead and start writing it. If you read the small text at the end of my original post, my research suggests that it doesn't meet the threshold (as my research returned self-published or hyper-local news coverage). As such, I plan to put this article up for AfD. I already have one running and I don't like the idea me running multiple at a time, as this might come across as over-working the community. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry to take so long to respond. Life intervenes... Anyway, the only reason I think this guy has a chance to be "notable" is because he claims to have been a regular contributor to Texas Monthly magazine, which is surely a notable magazine. Its name notwithstanding, it's not a local yokel rag, it's a national magazine that has won many awards. When I have time, I will try to do a little research and see whether this claim can be substantiated. If not, then I think it indeed falls into the articles for deletion category, although it is hardly the worst offender in Wikipedia, but as I understand, this purging of articles such as this has become a priority for Wikipedia. I'll let you know how I progress. Best, JGJGlennny (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(new username) No need to apologise. Have you read-up on the policy and essays? They've been of great help to me, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE. Life does indeed intervene. I plan to spend a couple of hours on some days in a library (when I've got a few things sorted) to work on Wikipedia, as I have the feeling it will take over because the project looks enjoyable to work on. Also I'd highly recommend contacting some admins through EmailUser for a few queries (don't spam them!). They'll give you the real advice on how things work, which may not be reflected in the letter of policy. I think having a good understanding will avoid a lot of issues for editors, which is why I've prioritised it.

Thought I'd add one more thing, have a read of WP:CANVASS if you haven't already. I'm not too sure about the extent of it... yet. If I've said I'd vote delete and you reply that you'd also delete, I don't think it would violate the policy. I think it only applies if someone runs a deletion then notifies people based on their expressed opinion. So if you run the deletion, don't notify me as I've expressed how I would vote. Svampesky (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Svampesky, Thanks for your note. I read the Wikipedia policy notices that you linked to, thank you. However, I must say, while I appreciate the necessity of things like that, they are very general and are hard to apply in specific cases (read: not all that helpful, tbh). This, I assume, is the reason for the reliance on consensus, which seems like a good way to resolve things in their specificities. The purpose of my previous post was to let BlueSharkLagoon know that I'm still thinking about this article and do intend to do some work on it. I'm not experienced enough to mark any article for deletion at this point. I'm a great copy editor and general editor, if I do say so myself, and I thought by doing some Wikipedia work, I could keep my pencil sharp and have some fun, since I like doing it. I rather resent Wikipedia's relegation of copy editing to the "easy" category. It's only easy if you can do it, and most people really can't with any degree of style, let alone élan and good judgment. I'm not a trained researcher, and that is really boring and hard to me, so I will probably stay with copy editing. But I saw this photographer and had some pity on his miserable little article, so I thought I would re-do it if I can establish his notability, as described above. I cannot follow the last paragraph of your note, but don't worry about it--it looks like it's way above my pay grade, if you will. Best regards, JGJGlennny (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am BlueSharkLagoon... well I was. I changed my username. It was just three random words and I didn't like it.

Have a read of the guideline 'WP:DONTBITE the newcomers'. It was sent to me and was a massive relief. Whilst we're still new, we don't have to worry about making little mistakes here and there. I was worried that I was missing some policy with every single thing I did. If we miss a policy but it's clear we acted in good faith, other editors will (hopefully) politely tell us the policy we should have followed.

If you don't want to copyedit, come join us over at the Orphanage. Click the button at the top and it will send you to a random page that has no incoming links. All you have to do find another article to link to it (and then remove the 'orphan' template from the original article when done). Svampesky (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I read the DontBite thing and it was reassuring, and pretty much what I was thinking the situation is. I've been a Wikipedia user and financial contributor for a very long time and it's fun to be on the other side of the curtain. I'll check out the Orphanage. I was saying that I do like copy editing, just that I find that it being valued as "easy" is short-sighted and just wrong. I mean, spelling, punctuation, and basic grammar are relatively easy, but correcting for "encyclopedia-style tone" is neither easy nor intuitive. But this kind of editing is more than just "copy editing," it is general editing for style, structure, and usage, as well as encyclopedic tone. In most of the "copy edit easy" tasks I've done, I work on the beginning of the article, like one does with a newspaper inverted pyramid-style: you have to get the lead right and that is a relatively rare talent, I've found in my professional life, hence my side-eyed view of calling this kind of editing "easy." That's all. I'll still do it.

And I'll still eventually get around to seeing whether James H. Evans is sufficiently notable. Thanks and best regards, JGJGlennny (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)