Paula F Warren

Betsy Cohen moved to draftspace

It appears that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of Betsy Cohen, and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process. Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest concerning the subject. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies, as well as our notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. This process is encouraged, but optional. If you choose not to participate in it, you can remove the AfC template and move the article back to mainspace. You should also consider reaching out to the Teahouse for additional feedback and aid from experienced editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Rosguill: I don't know why you thought I have a conflict of interest - I don't. And I am not receiving compensation. Some mystery person created this page and it was outdated. The subject, who I know personally, asked if I could fix the inaccuracies. I simply tried to make the page factual. Now it seems the page has disappeared. Paula F Warren (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Knowing the article subject personally is a conflict of interest. Please read through the relevant guideline carefully. In addition to my original COI concern, the article has neutrality issues and does not have sufficient references to establish that the subject merits the creation of a Wikipedia article. This would ideally have been flagged after it was first created, but because we are an all-volunteer project articles sometimes slip through the cracks, as this one had prior to today. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Rosguill: I appreciate your guidance but I admit I don't understand why or how someone who doesn't know the subject would create a page about her. As for the citations, is it the news coverage that makes her worthy of a page vs her actual accomplishments? I can add links to articles in major publications and TV but does that go in the body of Article? Adding news articles to a bio just feels extraneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula F Warren (talk • contribs)

As an encyclopedia our goal is to compile articles about subjects that are important enough that independent individuals will still be motivated to write them. As for demonstrating notability, what we need is multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. So, news pieces, academic papers, and magazine articles would all be admissible references for establishing notability, provided that the sources have a reputation for reliability, that they do not have any connection to Cohen, and that the coverage of Cohen is significant (i.e. paragraphs or more describing Cohen's life or career contributions in detail). You can read more about our relevant guidelines at WP:N, although the information I've already given you should be sufficient for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Betsy Cohen (December 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tagishsimon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Betsy Cohen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Betsy Cohen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Paula F Warren! Having an article 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! Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Betsy Cohen has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Betsy Cohen. Thanks! versacespacetalk to me 02:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Betsy Cohen (March 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by -noah- was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Betsy Cohen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Betsy Cohen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Noah ^💬 18:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Betsy Z. Cohen has been accepted

Betsy Z. Cohen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah ^💬 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Betsy Z. Cohen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Betsy Z. Cohen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Z. Cohen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fiddle Faddle 19:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your user page statement on WP:COI

I am taking issue with your user page statement I have received no compensation to publish any article on Wikipedia and have no conflicts of interest with any Page or article. Earlier on this talk page you stated to Rosguill that Betsy Z Cohen is known to you personally. That is not congruent with the quoted statement. We construe WP:COI very broadly. I request that you consider this statement and make whatever corrections are necessary, please Fiddle Faddle 19:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that out. Loads of info for you now on my talk page in response to your plea for help. BTW, no need for a new section for every message, unless it's a totally diverged topic. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, we are back in business

Cohen is back in Draft at Draft:Betsy Z. Cohen and you can work in it freely. I really don't want to analyse all these references in depth. What I can say is that the great majority are inadequate. If you really want me to then I will, but it will take me quite some time, about five minutes per existing reference. We do have that luxury of time, now. Fiddle Faddle 06:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I promised to offer you continued guidance. You've probably worked out that I am teaching you to fish, not giving you fish.

The draft on Cohen needs a dramatic re-plan, and this essay is designed to give folk good pointers. As you can see on the draft talk page I've done the reference analysis of the current references. I hope that lets you know certainly how I view them and there is a 0.95 probability that a nonsense of Wikipedia editors will agree with 90% of my analysis. The best thing about it, and it didn't take as long as I feared because many were clear cut decisions, is that it starts to give you the full toolkit for assessing the references you discover for this and other articles.

What you need to aim for now is the bare bones that get this over the line. Précis and cut are your tools now.

Let me show you an example. Elsie Reasoner Ralph is genuinely notable, yet there is very little said about her. There is sufficient the article to assert and verify her notability, but it is brief as brief can be. I have some hopes that other editors will expand it, but does it matter if they do not?

Don't be afraid, then, to use big scissors on the existing draft Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Teaching me to fish

THANK YOU, Timtrent Fiddle Faddle!! Sorry for my late reply - it's taken me all day in between working at my real job to figure out how to reply within the conversation - I hope this works (please confirm)! Thank you for teaching me to fish, and for spending so much time analyzing the references, and most importantly for getting the article back in Draft! You have given me loads of great guidance and I truly appreciate your time and expertise--I am sorry you had to spend so much time on the references, but I do now have a better understanding of what is acceptable. I plan to tackle the references and the rewrite this weekend. It's a lot to digest and reconfigure. (I'm still having trouble just navigating between all the talk and content pages :). I will take all your comments to heart and do my best to produce something that abides by all the guidelines. Again, many thanks Paula F Warren (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What will make replying easier is if you go to the top of this page and click "Beta" and then enable discussion tools. A little [ reply ] thing appears after a signature then.

It was important to spend time on the references because the pictorial representation shows what I was describing in words so clearly. When you sit down to rewrite, may I suggest that you do a full rewrite, using the scoreboard method? This way you will only create verifiable prose.

One point is important. We may only record what is in reliable sources, so cannot create new narrative ourselves. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for this great Beta-Reply tip! SO much easier for newbies like me!

So one question regarding "we may only record what is in reliable sources"? In one of my previous versions I had included a direct, cited quote from The Motley Fool, but then I received an editor comment that it sounded like a press release (it wasn't) and I should remove words that might be construed as "peacocking." So is it ever OK to quote an article? For example, the Wall St. Journal recently did a big bylined profile on Betsy--strictly traditional journalism. Would it be OK to quote any piece of that and cite the reference? Or it better to restate a fact or statement from the article and cite it with a footnote to the reference?

And last question: the source for the birthdate was that first interview reference that you said is not acceptable since it's a primary source (funny, I was thinking that the subject would be the best person to have on record for his/her birthdate, but after you mentioned the problem with primary sources I realized someone could lie about their age). So where do you typically find a reliable, acceptable source for a birthdate since that is typically not included in a business news story? Paula F Warren (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

People do lie about birthdates, but it is generally considered acceptable to take a person's statement about it. A birthdate is a 'simple fact' and generally not susceptible to potential challenge.

We may quote articles. Cite templates even have a "''|quote=''" parameter to allow it. I prefer to quote inside the citation. We must use judgement about the article we quote and the length of the snippet we quote. Your analysis of the WSJ by-lined article sounds eminently reasonable. Have a look at Keith White (yachtsman) in some of the later references. Alsop note that at least one of these is a direct reported quote from the subject of the article. Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! I will definitely check out Keith White. So just to recap, does that mean I could use the Temple University interview as a reference for her birthdate only? Paula F Warren (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Temple University may be used with care to verify simple facts. I suggest sparing use

BTW, with Keith White, I started out meeting him during the course of my job, no knowledge of him, and wrote an article on him because he interested me. Subsequently we became friends and I declared a COI and stepped away from the article Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edward Upcott has a substantial quantity of quotes in the citations. Yup, me again Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You are so generous with your time and your feedback is so constructive and helpful. I hope other editors use you as a mentor (some can be harsh on newbies who have good intentions but finding their way). You're a great teacher! Paula F Warren (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I take folk as I find them. I am direct as you know, and willing to help any editor who edits here as an amateur. All I need is them to walk towards me as you have done Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Direct is good, I'm all for direct. Knowing you are a volunteer makes your generosity of spirit and time all the more valuable. I've seen others take a tone that is more patronizing or condescending, or comes from a position that somehow the newbie editor is trying to sneak something in or has nefarious intentions when in fact we're just clueless. I'm sure it would make editors' lives easier if newbies read all the instructional content before embarking on this journey, but there's so much of it that it is overwhelming. And for non-coders it can be a bit intimidating, even with the visual editor. It's been a very interesting learning experience--I feel lucky to have found you (or you found me) and I hope the next round of this article will show me to be a good student! Paula F Warren (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bola Tinubu#Age Controversy shows a man who is untruthful about his age Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha, nothing new under the sun. Speaking of age, in his The Breakdown podcast, the host Nathaniel Hawthorne recently interviewed Betsy and in his intro to the podcast described her as "a 79-year old badass who proves that age is no excuse for not understanding how the world is changing." I think it's a great quote, although I'm afraid some might perceive it as peacocking--even though it's his words, not mine--so I did not use it. But since that was an intro to a podcast (that is available online), it it even an acceptable source? Would a quote or reference like that get flagged for some reason? Paula F Warren (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd use that quote! Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wonderful, thanks! Glad you agree :) Paula F Warren (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. I'm offline for the day. Good luck with the planning. I will not review the new draft. I am now involved with it and cannot be unbiased. I will, however, continue to advise you when you need me to Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a good evening! Paula F Warren (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Betsy Z. Cohen has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Betsy Z. Cohen. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Betsy Z. Cohen has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Betsy Z. Cohen. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Betsy Z. Cohen has been accepted

Betsy Z. Cohen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)