Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

how did you become so big so fast in wikipedia? how did you do all that? they have declined all my requests everywhere please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has had most of edits reversed, has been warned on Talk, has had a draft declined several times but then main-spaced it anyway (since draftified and then Speedy deleted), pestered editors on their Talk pages to help with that same article, asked for Extended confirmed only days after registering as an editor, and most recently applied to be a Pending changes reviewer despite showing no experience to justify that. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Thanks for the detailed explanation. @Alvin kipchumba kosgei: In response to your question, the best way to contribute on Wikipedia is to start slow, developing your own articles bit by bit, being sure to comply with our policies including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Asking for permissions before you have demonstrated a good track record of article development is not likely to be successful. You don't need advanced permissions to contribute to Wikipedia: all you need is a keyboard and some reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wow that is a very detailed explanation of me. okay i will start slow and stop misusing wikipedia thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) i love the art of never giving up could i ask you questions in the future about things that i do not know in wikipediaAlvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, I'd be happy to answer questions. To get a faster response from a wider variety of editors, I'd suggest visiting The Teahouse, which is designed to help editors early in their Wikipedia careers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support154.154.88.131 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am mostly a wikipedian in swahili and i kind of saw that they did not have 'methali' in english proverbs could there be a way to open up a knew sister for wikipedia for showing language expressions not only for proverbs but also for various language expressions that will help a lot of people who are writing or reading essays, articles and even makes them understand it much more better.Alvin kipchumba (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvin kipchumba: I'm a little confused. Are you referring to sw:Methali? It looks like it's an equivalent of the English article proverb. If I'm mistaken, and methali is a specific Swahili proverb, you're free to create the article. A proverb would have to meet WP:GNG in order to remain on Wikipedia. In order to show that your article meets GNG, you'd need to include two or three reliable sources to support specific claims in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ooh yeah! i`ve seen it in english but not in swahili, but dont you think that there should be a seperate side for language expressionsAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Still not sure what you mean. If you think there should be an article titled, for example, List of Swahili proverbs, you are free to create it, provided that you have reliable sources to support the claims made and provided that the list meets WP:LISTN. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you think the whole of wikipedia should be updatedAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, that's the point of Wikipedia. If you have specific, constructive questions to ask, please ask me or the Teahouse. I am not interested in responding to general, speculative queries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks a lot for your helpAlvin kipchumba (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Hello, I am following up with the issue. We can discuss it on my talk page. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey, if you still remember about the swahili wiktionary i have a problem in it there is no special user access granted such as extended confirmed users , administrators or even burueacats so that means that there is no maintanance in it because you cannot delete articles that are not relevant to swahiliAlvin kipchumba (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Please stop messaging me. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia or receive advice. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the competitions in wikipedia are true? Alvin kipchumba (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on D. Narcisa de Villar. Always a pleasure to see such well sourced articles in the new pages queue. Have you considered applying for New Page Reviewer permissions? From what I've seen, your content creation and AfD work is excellent, and we could always use more active reviewers :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke: Thanks—you're too kind! Re: NPP, I may apply at some point, but I just applied for and got autopatrolled rights so I was thinking I'd take a bit of a break from applying for things for now. Actually, I'm a little confused as to why my articles are still in the queue—I guess autopatrolling isn't retroactive? In any event, glad you enjoyed my little article :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the articles you created before you were autopatrolled will still show up in the queue. And no pressure regarding NPP—just something to consider if you're so inclined. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, Just wanted to let you know that I've taken the plunge into NPP! Please let me know if you have any helpful hints about how to do the job well :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Thanks so much! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing a number of my articles! Juan de Bolas Talk 19:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juan de Bolas: Aw, thanks :) I appreciate it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Your old user page still says that the account's an admin. I'd forgot the Phantom Tollbooth character; time to re-read that excellent book. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlackcurrantTea, Ah, thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the welcome back :) It's good to be editing up a storm once again. I just struck that bit on my old page, as it hasn't been true for … over a decade? Better late correcting it than never, I suppose. Thanks for your note. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The third source is undoubtedly the most reliable but the other two are consistent with it. I rejected other sources that were largely repetitious but more or less consistent. The first source is a website that is a project from the Portuguese Association of Women in Science, so I believe that can also be regarded as reliable.Roundtheworld (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roundtheworld, Thanks! I appreciate your letting me know :) With respect to the first ref, I was probably judging the book by its cover too much, as the website didn't look that "official". My bad on that one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added few verifiable sources to the shakti plastic industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhananjayrv (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhananjayrv: You have added one reliable source, namely [1]. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines for companies, and follow the articles for creation review process for the potential recreation of your article. Please also ensure that the article complies with our manual of style. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your proposals for the deletions of the articles Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 and Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th, I will say the following. I have been through a deletion process before, and merely "let it go" (with the outcome of the deletion process being that the article that I created and put a lot of hard work on got deleted), and this was regardless of the numerous violations of Wikipedia standards that the various critics of that article (and critics of me) made. I have kept a record of this in case I need it. Already, in this case, you have violated core Wikipedia tenets by not first conversing or offering help about the albums or making any suggestions whatsoever. You went straight to a deletion proposal. That is *not* how the process is supposed to start.

I had never heard of the WP:NALBUM protocol before, so I went ahead and consulted it. I can see how the two articles I created might fail at least some of the notability standards articulated therein, but a thorough review has not yet been done with respect to all those standards, and you certainly didn't get into specifics yourself before your *hasty* deletion proposal. I would also like to ask you why you singled out those articles (that I just created earlier today) for deletion, whereas multiple other of the "Live Albums" on that category in her discography would also probably fail those same WP:NALBUM standards seeing as there is no mention of any charting positions for any of them, nor are any reviews posted of them (2 of the standards articulated in the WP:NALBUM protocol), and those articles have been up there for *years*.

Please be helpful and be more specific (step up your game), or I will report you to several other admins and we shall see where that goes.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuakerIlK, I "singled out" the articles because you created them without including any reliable sources, and they showed up on the new pages queue. You are of course free to remove the prod template if you think there are reliable sources that support notability. Yes, perhaps I should have looked for some sources before proposing deletion. But, in fairness, you should also look for reliable sources before you create articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Why didn't you include the issue of reliable sources in your original deletion proposal, especially if that is what your are citing now as your leading rationale? If I make improvements towards these articles in question that mitigate the broad, unspecific rationale you originally provided, are you going to look for *new* reasons to hastily propose deletion again? As to reliability of sources, again, yes, I could easily include "Amazon" as a source as was used on other articles in that area (that have not been challenged or at least deleted) that I specified. Would you care to point me to something *specific* that outlines what a reliable source of information is for this particular subject? Also, these articles in question are *official* releases by a Grammy-nominated (and, adjunctly, a Grammy-winning) singer who also has RIAA-awarded albums (one gold, one platinum), and singles (one gold). They're not just "obscure" albums created by somebody from a shoestring budget without any corporate backing whatsoever.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuakerIlK, A reliable source that would establish notability for an album would be, for instance, a review of it in a mainstream publication. I'm not disputing that Suzanne Vega is notable—of course she is. I'm disputing that these particular albums are notable, because they appear to be obscure live recordings. Not every album by a notable artist is notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED. And WP:NALBUM does explain what I've just said. The first criterion states that an album will be notable if it [h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. And no, I'm not going to hound you by proposing deletion again. I can assure, though, that if you don't add reliable sources to those articles that establish notability for each album in particular, someone else will probably nominate them for deletion for the same reasons I'm citing now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderingsI have already added Amazon as a source for the Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th article, and if you are to get really specific about the reliability of Amazon as a source of information, it is acceptable to refer to it as a source for release dates as per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites ( "As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates." ) Also, among the several criteria listed in the WP:NALBUM criteria, *only one* is necessary for any album to meet that criteria, except in certain specific cases of criteria #5 being the only applicable one. In this particular article, not only is criteria #5 applicable (the album was featured in Sessions at West 54th, but also #1 - it has an official AllMusic rating. Additionally, several other artists have released their Sessions at West 54th albums, if you were to consult Amazon and look. Also, I have *NO IDEA* why you proposed the deletion of Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 in the first place, because in the WP:NALBUM criteria, it *clearly* meets criteria #2 absolutely and unequivocally, and this was stated on her main discography page before I ever even created the article, and the source for it was already provided. Her main discography page links to that article.QuakerIlK (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For nominating a draft for speedy deletion because it duplicates an article, which is neither a speedy deletion reason nor a reason to delete a draft.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Haha, thanks. What should we do with it, then? Do drafts just stick around indefinitely even if they have corresponding articles in mainspace? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the draft to the article. The article will stay in mainspace indefinitely. If an AFC reviewer accepts the draft, they move the draft to article space, which automatically creates a redirect. If a reviewer finds that there is a draft and there already is an article, either they redirect the draft to the article, or they tag the draft to be merged into the article if it has additional information. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you deleted as "entirely uninformative" was a sentence that I had included that was later edited by another user to remove relevant information for some reason and appeared to be out of context. This has been added back in its entirety. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

Imho the Revision of 15:13, October 9, 2020 by AleatoryPonderings ("→‎Criticisms: rm essay-like and thinly sourced content, consolidate") takes out several value-added points, and makes the article read like a press release on behalf of WFP. The criticisms deleted touch on serious issues that are worth raising.JCJC777 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in detecting and removing copyvios, and for asking for revision deletions. I have declined your request for revision deletion in relation to Canadian Cancer Society because the violation was relatively minor, was not one that the society would likely have objected to, had been in the article for ten years and I thought came under the "large-scale use" exception mentioned here. Don't let me put you off from asking for RDs in the future, because I am relatively new at this and may be wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, Thanks for your note! That makes sense; I was unclear about whether it was worth requesting that myself. I'm also new at this, so I was probably the one who got it wrong :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AleatoryPonderings: I was wonder if you plan to add an image to the book article, The Politics of Evangelical Identity? scope_creep^Talk 00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I wasn't planning on it, as it didn't seem like having a cover would add that much to the article. Should I? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: Yip, why not. Most other book, tends to have the cover eventually. It completes the article and it looks reasonably decent. There is a way of doing to ensure it stays up, by positing its a book cover. You see these huge rationales that cover it very carefully. It is specific example of that type of rationale. I only came across them quite recently and it is quite cool that way it is done. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, Done :) It's actually a pretty cool cover, now that I think of it, so thanks for the suggestion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 — Newslinger talk 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, Ah, because of Special:Diff/983094869? I just like to archive controversial articles like this, given that they tend to be sourced to online sources that are prone to link rot. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it was automated, that edit added quite a few characters, which made your username show up in the XTools report as one of the top editors of the page. But, don't worry – this is just an informational notice, and not a warning. — Newslinger talk 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Dairy in India (prior candidate for deletion at: WP:Articles for deletion/Dairy in India) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Roller26 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roller26! This was a fun project to work on. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following this the problem is like I described in Interplay of UPE , Sockpuppetry & Advanced User Rights, most Nigerian UPE editors are master minds & know how to mix their UPE with legit productive good work such as this Yemi Blaq scenario & it may take honest volunteers involved in WP:WikiProject Nigeria such as I,HandsomeBoy & Versace1608 to say “nahh this is blatant UPE” or to say “too bad the creator was a UPE but this actually doesn't appear to be UPE & is on a notable subject” I haven’t checked all the articles created by them, probably technical editors like DannyS712 might have, but I certainly haven’t, but if you have, & aren’t sure of something or might want to confirm anything you can definitely ask me. Thanks for taking on this daunting task of weeding out what you may consider thrash as it certainly is a difficult one. Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, Appreciate your taking the time to explain. Will definitely ask you in the future if I'm unsure about how to distinguish legit work from spam. Would certainly be a more productive use of all our time than starting apparently incorrect AfDs like that for Yemi Blaq! Thanks again. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice words Celestina007, it always motivates me to continue to do the little I can. There are still a lot of cleanup that needs to be done. Sometimes I wonder why anyone will want to collect [undisclosed] money to write a Wikipedia article, that has never crossed my mind. Sounds like blood money to me! HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Drinking fountains in Philadelphia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wilson Cary Swann organized the construction of several drinking fountains in Philadelphia, in part to stop people from drinking alcohol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Drinking fountains in Philadelphia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wilson Cary Swann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wilson Cary Swann organized the construction of several drinking fountains in Philadelphia, in part to stop people from drinking alcohol? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wilson Cary Swann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did my first NPP today at Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church if you have any suggestions/corrections, please let me know. Just making sure I'm on the right track. Hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  14:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, Yes, this looks good to me! To be honest, I usually just avoid the ones that would require tags to pass as reviewed, so kudos to you for taking on a more challenging one. Tags look reasonable and the topic looks notable so I'd say that's a good pass. Hope all is well with you too! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, hope you are doing well. I am currently working on creating a new article in my sandbox on Dr. Zlatko Tesanovic, and just wanted to take your opinion regarding copyrights before creating the article? Please notice that there's a section dedicated to quotes in the article, which may appear as a copyright violations! What do you think? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations? Thanks in advance for any help you are able to provide.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheEagle107, This tool suggests that the only concerning aspects of the draft from a copyright perspective are the quotes. I'd encourage you to think about which (if any) are genuinely useful or helpful, since it's generally not a great idea to include copyrighted material—even if attributed—without a clear purpose. Otherwise, looks good to me from a copyright perspective. If you're concerned about copyright issues in future, you can use the tool yourself—just drop in the name of the article and click "submit". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt response, kind attention and thoughtful advice on this. I have already used this tool, before asking you about your opinion. But I was concerned, and wanted to make sure that there is no problem. Anyway, thanks again and best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've started editing recently on Wikipedia, but, despite my effort to respect the criterias, I had my page Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Piero Atchugarry Gallery deleted a few days go. I would like to know if it will be possible to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement. And also, what are your advise to get the article approuved ? What I should change, delete or add ? Thank you so much for any help you could give. All my best Donà Anna (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, If you would like to request a copy of the article, you can go to WP:REFUND and submit a request. As for ways to improve, the article was deleted as promotional material under criterion WP:G11. The best way to avoid that in the future is to steer clear of a promotional tone, and simply state the facts about the subject you're writing about. When I'm writing articles, it helps me me to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: try to emulate the tone of an encyclopedia as much as possible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advices and your explications :AleatoryPonderings. I'll try to follow more strictly the "encyclopedia" rule for the future. As so, this page could be a good exemple ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_Perrotin

Moreover, it would be possible for me to edit the article in the right way ? Should I automatically ask for an editor review ?

Thank you again for all your help !Donà Anna (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, Galerie Perrotin is OK, but I think Serpentine Galleries is a better example of a neutrally worded article on a gallery (although it's not perfect either). (Forgive the ping, Vexations, but Vexations probably knows more about this than I do.) As far as requesting a WP:REFUND goes, I think you can request a refund to your userspace or to draftspace at any time, but I am not familiar with the details of the policy. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Thank you for your help and to adresse me to Vexation ! This conversation is very useful for me.

Indeed I can't submit my request in WP:REFUND. Here what is mentioned "Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here. Requests for the undeletion of pages deleted under criteria G11 these criteria will not be accepted here. Please check the deletion reason by going to the page before posting here. If you feel that an article deleted under any of these criteria was deleted in error, please contact the deleting administrator."

Can I recreate the article with the same title and in the proper way by myself ? Donà Anna (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Donà Anna I've been watching the Atchugarry article for quite a while, but I don't think I've ever made an edit. I was kind of curious where it would go. My take on art galleries' notability is a bit different from most editors, so please don't take it as representative of consensus. Some art galleries play an essential role in the "Artworld", ( I'm borrowing that term from Arthur Danto). Others are merely retail establishments. The amount of promotionalism, even among "respected", galleries is staggering, and incredibly frustrating to deal with. I've written or contributed to articles about galleries that I regret getting involved with because the galleries won't take the hint that you should not write about yourself or pay someone to do so. My own criterion for inclusion is in fact not the WP:GNG (although you can't argue with it; if something meets the GNG it's notable, but it is just too easy to buy the necessary publicity), but the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". That's difficult to quantify, but what I look for is work in the primary market, their artists' representation in museum collections, which publications discuss their shows and who takes them seriously. If I can't find a full review of a solo show for (almost) every artist they rep and not at least 2/3 of their artists already have articles (not written by the same folks, obviously) it's probably not worth the effort. You can request a refund, and I'll take a better look, if there is no conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, thank you for your opinion and your (plus Arthur Santo) words. I understand and - indeed - I mostly agree on all your points, it pushes me to reflect about what criterias define "the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". For my opinion (and without any conflit of interest), I was/am interested by Atchugarry activity for the way it invests natural environment, for the cultural connections creating by external exhibition programs, for the artistic research concerning space and architecture which involves established artists on the primary market. For now the page refund is not possible. I would like to rewrite the article and I will be grateful if you could take a better look on it. Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, Thanks for that thorough exposition. I think the general idea that galleries (or, indeed, profit-making enterprises) ought to be subject to a higher standard than GNG or even WP:NCORP is probably right. NCORP goes in the right direction, but it's quite inconsistently applied at AfD and so I'm not clear how useful it is. I think the "artworld" impact is probably more helpful in this area. Donà Anna I wasn't aware of that restriction on WP:REFUNDs. You could recreate the article in mainspace, but be very, very careful about it. Editors and administrators get suspicious when content is recreated, especially so soon after deletion. Probably best to sit on it for a while or go through WP:AFC instead. AfC is probably the best route. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings yes, I think I'll go for the AFC option first, thank you. Concerning the WP:REFUND, as deleting administrator, could you possibly do something on this way ? (Checking my last chance). Thank you(again)! Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, I am not an administrator. I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. As for AFC, there's nothing I or an administrator can really do to help it along in the process. Subject to Vexations' cautionary note below about whether it's really a good idea to try and recreate this, all you have to do is write up a draft of the article and submit it for approval at AfC. There aren't any shortcuts as far as I'm aware. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that the article was speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, so refund doesn't apply. I managed to grab a google cache, and had another look at the sources. They're not great. Anything that begins with "... is pleased to present" is a press release. The New York times piece about Punta del Este is a nice start, but it is not specifically about the gallery. Other sources are too close to the subject, like garzonsculpturepark.com. My advice: Forget the deleted article, and do not try to recreate that. Anything that resembles the deleted version too closely will likely be deleted again. Wait until you have significantly better sources, and then write something that accurately summarizes what those sources say. Avoid prose like "an international platform threading together ... cultural fabric", "fully integrated experience", "different mediums that question the spatial and material limits of our reality", "a considerable number". There was a lot of that. Do not list exhibitions unless reviewed. And then there is this: This business is just a few years old. It's basically a start-up. With rare exceptions, an artist with less than a 15-year track record is an emerging artist. We should not write about emerging artists because they are not yet established artists with a body of work that we can write about. The same is true for galleries. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings ok thank you, I'll go with the draft.

Vexations Note everything, I'll work on it for the new version. Thank you again

Donà Anna (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christoph Hartmut Bluth, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoph Hartmut Bluth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning. Wanted to check one thing with you. This DYK thing still seems super elusive to me. I think I might have a shot with this one here Template:Did_you_know_nominations/J._Michael_Lane. But, then, I think I will fall short on the QPQ thingie. That one seems super complex. Have you encountered a dummy-fied tool or instructions to complete the QPQ? Also, if you see anything that can be edited in my submission, let me know, or definitely feel free to directly make those edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Hey! You probably don't need to do the QPQ if you're relatively new to DYK, since you only need to do one if you've had 5+ DYKs. Doing a QPQ just means reviewing another person's DYK submission according to the criteria, so it's fairly straightforward. So long as the WP:ITNRD issue isn't prohibitive, you should be good on this one. I copyedited the first book a teensy bit, but otherwise things look good to me. You might want to find a synonym for "trek" since that's what's used in the source—maybe "took a cross-country hiking trip"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking that I hadn't seen the particular image licence on the suggested photo before, but it looks reasonable—maybe just double check that? I've gotten dinged for weird image licensing before on DYK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Thanks much as always! That image was a cropped image from this one. Will have a look. Hope you are having a restful weekend! Hard to believe but darn time flies by so quick and Monday is going to be here in no time! Ktin (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lee Kun-hee, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected the G 12 for Alessandro Sette. I believe the source of the text is a federal government agency and therefore public domain. You think I misread it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]