Mailperson

Enlightenment scholar, SF based

Welcome!

Hello, Mailperson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! This is a pre-formatted template; I apologize for the parts that sound like you’ve done something wrong—you’re asking all the right questions and I’m sending this just because it has so many useful links about the questions you asked all in one place. Hope those may be helpful! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech tips to streamline life on WP

Hey! I was thinking, since you had no problem setting up a sandbox, adding a few scripts (extra optional coding that’s not required but widely used to make editing easier) might also come easily to you! I have two to suggest:

1. A script to install scripts! Just follow these instructions and then in the future, any script you want to add, adding will only require a single click.
2. Then use that to add User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js, which automatically threads (indents) discussions on talk pages and gives you a pre-formatted ping to the user you’re replying to. It’s makes participating in discussion so much less cumbersome!

None of this is required and it won’t affect anyone else’s editing, so if it sounds like too much of a hassle, don’t worry about it. I was just amazed that you got the sandbox in order so fast so thought you might like some more of Wikipedia’s optional-but-useful tools. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OMG Innisfree987 this is so helpful thank you! I am appreciative! I'll be doing more in the next few days. Mailperson (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure! And no rush. Whenever you check it out, feel free to let me know if you have any questions, or if this is all just a snap and you want to know what else is out there! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick question Innisfree987 for finishing the page up (for adding the descriptive paragraphs from earlier versions now that the citations are out of the way). Plus I'll get another secondary source. Should I expand the paragraphs on my sandbox for you to import? Mailperson (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mailperson, yes, if I’m understanding correctly, that’s def the kind of thing you’d want someone else to check and insert instead of doing yourself. I can do it. What would be terrifically helpful, so that I can identify which are the changes and don’t overlook any, would be to write up individual sentences/passages you want added, and then indicate where each should go—you could work them up in your sandbox but then use Template:Request edit on the talk page to specify each change, and then I’ll go add. Also a good chance to familiarize yourself with that process so that you don’t have to rely on any one editor or cold-calling others (I will be the one responding this time but using it brings the first available editor who has volunteered for this task). Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987 I'm not sure I did this correctly but I just cut and pasted what you had done into my sandbox and worked on the Career section. That's the only part that's new. I changed the order of the paragraphs you had so they flow in chronological order. Will that be easy to see?Mailperson (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thing Innisfree987 I noted that two of the books I wrote with Henry Louis Gates were reviewed in prestigious places and I included the reviews. I'm not sure I cited them directly but you can see them there. Does this help? I am very very appreciative of your doing this correctly instead of me so there is no conflict of interest. Mailperson (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mailperson, I did add the section about those books, citing the secondary sources; beyond that I wasn’t totally clear on what changes you wanted? If you’re could use the {{request edit}} option I mentioned, that would really help a great deal, so that I’m not having to hunt for what’s different about your version versus what’s already in the entry. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987 I'm practically in tears because I don't know how to do this. I added the text in the version in my sandbox and when I look at the text in the sandbox and the version in the entry it seems obvious to me but I don't know how to make it more obvious to you. I changed the order of the paragraphs too so that you can see when you read the version in the sandbox that it makes more logical sense as a description of a career. I am seriously frustrated I don't know how to do this.Mailperson (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition Innisfree987 I see what you did and thank you! But unless you go to the footnote the entry doesn't say that the book was reviewed in notable places, which is the point of adding the reviews. I can't add what I put in my sandbox entry because of COI but how do I make it easy for you?Mailperson (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh gosh I’m so sorry for the frustration Mailperson. Let me try to explain.

• About the book reviews. There are exceptions but as a rule, we expect every author and academic who qualifies for an entry to have been reviewed in some of the top publications in their field; it’s so standard we just make it a footnote. What would be good, but unfortunately you should not do this yourself, would be if an uninvolved editor read those reviews and incorporated some material from them into the entry. But that’s just not within the bounds of what you can write about yourself. From the WP perspective, the sources are still very useful though, because the entry doesn’t have many secondary source references, and ideally should be based almost entirely on them.
  
• For the other changes, please use {{Edit request}}. You will go to the entry’s talk page, add that template, and then describe exactly the change you want and where it should go. You can do this more than once if there’s more than one change you’d like. I will respond one by one either by doing it or letting you know why I can’t (some of the differences I noticed in your sandbox were things I already edited out when I moved from your sandbox to the entry previously, to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines—eg, we try not to say “currently” because the page is there whether or not anyone keeps it current.)

Is that doable? Innisfree987 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 I think I just did what you asked by cutting and pasting but it is just not intuitive to me. When I see the finished paragraph it doesn't cut and paste well. I don't think I can do it this way. Does it make sense what I did? I see your point about the word 'currently' but not about the assumption about books being reviewed. Almost no books get reviewed in The New Yorker so that is important in the body of the text. Thank you for your help!Mailperson (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mailperson, you did it! Just delete the “nowiki” tags next time, as I did here. I’m sorry it’s not intuitive; I am afraid I don’t have much else to offer because if you would like a different editor’s opinion on the NYer question, the way to get it would be to fill out another edit request like that and I will let someone else field it to see if they have a different take. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Innisfree987 thank you I think I'm getting it! I just added another edit request and got rid of superfluous language. Also I have more reviews to add -- how many until the tag at the top, about needing more secondary sources, can be removed? Mailperson (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mailperson, so happy it’s getting easier—this is a good tool to have in the future in case I’m not around. For now, I have replied there.
As for secondary sources, there’s no hard and fast rule. Ideally almost everything would be based on a secondary source, but there is awareness that academics may not have much written about their lives by third-parties. But we try to make up for it with as many citations as possible to reviews of work, or other independent secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great Innisfree987 and thank you. Could I just put them in the sandbox? There are three that are about my work (in newspapers or on the web) that supplement the primary sources, and would three be enough? Mailperson (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mailperson, for me it would help a lot to use the edit request so you can leave a note explaining each rather than my trying to suss it out. This would also be great because other editors might pitch in which I would appreciate, since originally my plan was to help correct errors and that seems complete. I will still help when available but broadening the base of responses for more changes you want would be great.
Secondary sources. Three more is a good start, I will have to see what they say and how much we can replace some primary source refs. Really the ideal number of primary sources in the body of an entry is zero (different for end matter like lists of works, external links, etc.) But for the body we are quite far off. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great Innisfree987 thank you!!! May take a couple of weeks but thank you!Mailperson (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)