Egraver

Elizabeth Graver

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Elizabeth Graver, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://elizabethgraver.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Graver

Please could you have a look at WP:COI and see if you have a conflict of interest in your editing of this article? If you do, you are under an obligation to declare the conflict, and you should not be editing the article directly, but instead should request edits using the article's talk page. Please do respond to this message and confirm that you have no conflict if you don't; otherwise please declare it as described in the guidance. Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ememimele,

Thanks for reaching out. I was indeed editing a page about myself because my publishers linked to it (I have a new book coming out) and when I followed their link, I realized it had some out of date material/broken links, and I wanted to make sure it was all accurate. I didn't realize that was an issue, but I should have. If someone else is able to go in and verify links and information, I would be grateful. It would also be great if the content/warning messages, etc. could be removed once someone has verified that the information is accurate so that the page is clearly reliable and up to date. Please let me know if I need to do anything at this point on my end. All best,

Elizabeth Graver Egraver (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. You should probably add the following text to your user-page (it doesn't exist yet, but you'll see a red link at the top of Wikipedia; in my case, on a web-browser, it's got an icon of a person on one side, and a bell on the other. Click on that, and it will create your user page. To this you should add the text {{UserboxCOI|1=Elizabeth Graver}}

If I've got that right, it will add a little box declaring that you have a conflict of interest, which will help to avoid grumpiness with other editors in future.

The issue with Wikipedia is that it doesn't exist to promote or sell things; it is just a dry and boring, very neutral encyclopaedia, interested only in what independent sources say about people. The article is in much better shape than many that have been written by someone connected to the subject, but I am a little uncomfortable with the books being linked to external sites, and with the current level of supporting sources. If you can point us at any more sources like the New York Times book review, they would be very valuable in supporting the information in the article.

It would also be correct not to mention Kantika until it has been published, or someone independent has written something significant about the fact it's going to be published. I know this is disappointing, but it fits with Wikipedia's role: we are not a newspaper; we are the last to arrive on the scene when anything happens, and we simply summarise what everyone else has said about it. Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elemimele,

That's helpful--thanks. I actually ADDED some of those links because of the box at the top that said there were not enough sources. How about if I go in and take away the links to my personal author's page and to the publisher's sites (I have plenty of other sites like reviews, and someone else at some point added quite a lot of the links I think). I would prefer not to have the conflict of interest box as it kind of negates the page (and I am genuinely not interested in using it as a platform--I just saw that my publisher linked to it and wanted to spruce it up; I may ask them to unlink in fact). If I take away a bunch of links (my website and anything that could lead to commerce) it seems like it would be more nuts and bolts. What do you think? There are also a lot of links to my work on places like JSTOR, but I couldn't figure out how to link to them because I need a password to get in (I get in through the university where I teach). Thanks again for taking the time to walk me through this!

Best,

Elizabeth Egraver (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm worried I'll misadvise you as I'm no expert on these things. I'd say keep the link to your own website. It's in the external links section, so it's quite obvious what it is, and it's genuinely helpful to any Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about you and your books. If you've got independent reviews of your work, then they're useful. You can post simple links here, to anything that's not already in the external links section, and someone (possibly even me!) can translate the into references in the article.

And this is always a knotty dilemma: should we have general external links, or proper citations in the reference section? I believe we're not supposed to be biased against articles with general external links as supporting information, but in practice, most people seem to want to see each statement in an article backed up by some sort of proper citation. I would be inclined to go for more stuff like the NYT citation in the references, and less "external links". Some of the external links may be appropriate as citations; I need to eat at the moment, but will have a look a bit later and see if I can move a few! I think it was the lack of such referencing that prompted one of the boxes at the top of the article.

If you've got articles written by people independent of you, that can be accessed via JSTOR, and describe you and your work in more than passing reference, then they're potentially useful. You don't need a lot, a handful of good ones is better than a multitude of minor ones. Elemimele (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is taking up so much of your time! I'm grateful for your help. I simplified the site and removed a bunch of stuff, including references to forthcoming book. I can't figure out how to get the references into the reference section (someone else must have done that the first time), but I did add live links to two more NY Times Reviews in the actual bio. If you have time and know how to add those as links in the reference section (with numbered footnotes leading to them) and think they belong there, I'd be grateful if you could add them. Here they are:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/09/05/reviews/990905.05webert.html

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/17/reviews/970817.17demott.html

And here are few more links from reputable sources:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2013/03/02/book-review-the-end-the-point-elizabeth-graver/m62bwqdcJa2iwfJYqoDOZL/story.html

https://www.nationalbook.org/people/elizabeth-graver/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1999-09-12-9909120086-story.html

NO RUSH! And many thanks! Once this is done, do you think those tags/warning messages could be removed! I will stay away from the page after this; I truly had no idea how it all worked (my fault for not reading closely...). Best, Elizabeth Egraver (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And some references from Jstor (again, I don't know what to do with these in terms of where they should go (external links?) but if you do and have time, that would be amazing--or let me know where to put them-but it seems maybe like I should not be adding things?):

reviews of my work...

--Flower, Dean, et al. “Invasions of Privacy.” The Hudson Review, vol. 45, no. 2, 1992, pp. 331–338. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3852259. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--Langston, Caroline, and Elizabeth Graver. Ploughshares, vol. 23, no. 4, 1997, pp. 215–217. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40352367. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

Short stories I wrote...

--Graver, Elizabeth. “A Place Not There.” Columbia: A Journal of Literature and Art, no. 27, 1996, pp. 141–49, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41807354. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--Graver, Elizabeth. “The Mourning Door.” Ploughshares, vol. 26, no. 2/3, 2000, pp. 80–89, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40352815. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--Graver, Elizabeth. “Scavenger Bird.” Ploughshares, vol. 21, no. 1, 1995, pp. 94–108, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40351919. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--GRAVER, ELIZABETH. “What Kind Of Boy.” Southwest Review, vol. 80, no. 2/3, 1995, pp. 260–71, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43470616. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--GRAVER, ELIZABETH. “Impossible Math.” Harvard Review, no. 50, 2017, pp. 125–27, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45210632. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

--Graver, Elizabeth. “1991: HAVE YOU SEEN ME?” 20: Twenty Best Of Drue Heinz Literature Prize, edited by Richard Ford and John Edgar Wideman, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001, pp. 210–25, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrdj2.14. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022. Egraver (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)