For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for User talk:Vexations/Archive 17.

User talk:Vexations/Archive 17

Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arts West (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Domdeparis 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.
Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Mduvekot, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Domdeparis Was that really necessary? I did not submit that draft for review, so I reverted. It had fallen off my watchlist so I never noticed that Legacpac had submitted it despite the fact that is was incomplete. Articles on art magazines are helpful to establish context for sources about subjects that we cover at edit-a-thons. They tend to be difficult to source, so I leave them open for people to work on if they like, and in case something shows up on my google alerts. Thanks for bringing it to my (renewed) attention. Next time please try to avoid templating the regulars and just ask me what's going on if you come across something like that. Mduvekot (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't take it personally it was one of the articles that is on the list for review.if it was submitted I presumed someone wanted it reviewed so I reviewed it. In all logic an article creator is informed of submissions on his watchlist so I naturally presumed that you had seen this. So no it wasn't necessary and a waste of my time because the submission had not been removed in a timely fashion. I hadn't recognised your name and maybe if i had I would have removed the submission. There are nearly 2000 ages to go through and it's a shame to have to waste time reviewing articles that are not ready. Domdeparis (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Forrest Bess article

Hello Mduvekot, I am writing for guidance.

The process for the Terrell James article left me thinking about contents of articles generally. So I looked at the page for Forrest Bess (with whose research James was quite involved), and found some distortions. Question is, What to do?

Essentially, the Bess article incorrectly attributes his 1980s re-emergence to the efforts of only two entities - Barbara Haskell at the Whitney, and Hirschl & Adler Modern - when in fact the story is more complicated. First, Bess had been discovered as an important research focus by the Texas Project of the Archives of American Art prior to Haskell's involvement (in fact she gleaned a number of items for the Whitney show from her 1980 visit to the Archives' Houston office), and the 1988 Hirschl & Adler show not only followed a 1986 exhibition at Hiram Butler Gallery (Houston), but largely consisted of works bought out of the Butler show.

I'm sure I could find other assertions in need of revision, but... is this the kind of thing a rank beginner should tangle with? And is this level of information of meaningful value Wikipedia-wise? I doubt my standing as any kind of editor, for good reason. And I have no interest in mangling entries. What to do?


Camo1955 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Camo1955 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The Haskell visit to the Archives is not something I could footnote, but the info about the Hiram Butler show of 1986 and its relation to the later Hirschl & Adler exhibition could be documented. All of this would be lots of work, hence another reason for my question... is this something I should just drop?

Camo1955 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Camo1955 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Camo1955 I suggest that you raise this at the talk page of Forrest Bess. I'm not suffiently familiar with the topic to offer you any meaningful guidance with regards to this specifics of who discovered who when and where, so I'll try to answer you question in a somewhat more general manner. You're only a beginner in two senses. One is that you may not yet be familar with the all the policies and guidelines, and that can take a while. By now, most of it makes sense to me, but I am still occasionally baffeled by the sometimes contradictory guidelines and what has emerged as consensus over the years. I think there is a process of enculturation at work in becoming a Wikipedian. It takes some time before the wiki-way feels natural. And I say that as someone who has used wikis professionally before becoming involved with Wikipedia. The other is that you may not yet know how to use the technical features of the mediawiki software. That should be the least of your worries. Great people are available at the help desk or at the teahouse to help you. So your lack of policy knowledge and its hermeneutics are what might trip you up. My advice is to not enagage in wikilawyering.
Now, to your question. Is this the kind of thing a beginner should tangle with? The way you phrase it makes it sound like you think that the discovery of Bess might be controversial. I would generally suggest to stay away from from controversy. New editors are councilled to stay out of areas of conflict, because they are subject to dscretionary sanctions. I pretty sure that the Bess article comes nowhere close to any of those. Is there an issue with the sources for your proposed change? If you cannot provide a reliable source for the claim that you're going to make, then you should not attempt it. If you're not sure if your source is reliable, check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I'm happy to help as well.
One way to approach a change to a page is to be bold, make the change and see if anyone objects. If they do, they will revert your edit, and you then start a discussion on the talk page with the goal of achieving consensus on what is written in the article. This is known as bold, revert, discuss. Whatever you do, do not get into an edit war by overriding an other editor when they revert you edits. The talk page is the place to resolve such disagreements. The other way would be to propose the change on the talk page and wait for feedback. I generally prefer taking it to the talk page if the change is potentially controversial, but it only works if enough people have the article on their watchlist to have a discussion with. Curently ther are less than 30 people who do. Your question may not receive much attention. I suggest you go for it and make the change. Please keep in mind that if you are in any way involved with, paid or employed by or have a relationship with any person or organization mentioned in the article, you ought to disclose that, as it may create a conflict of interest. You can do that on your userpage or on the talk page of the article that you are editing. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate your attention. My feeling is to proceed slowly and carefully.

Regards, Camo1955

Camo1955 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for stepping in to help with the Brabble issue - much appreciated S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I second this! I very much appreciate all of your assistance with the Brabble page. I'll get right on getting the requested changes made, and I'll make sure to utilize the proper channels for article editing/publishing in the future! Again, thank you so much for your help, feedback and edits. Ralum23 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #281

Barings Redirect

Hi Mduvekot,

I am apart of the Digital Marketing team within Barings and we would like to make some changes to our Wikipedia page. Last year Barings Asset Management merged with several other companies and is now known as "Barings".

The content that is shown on Baring Asset Management is extremely out of date and it needs to be updated as soon as possible. We will also have to redirect the old name that is no longer being used from Baring Asset Management to Barings. The new Barings page should not redirect users back to the Barings Bank page. You should be able to find additional information supporting the changes on the Barings - About Us Page

Thanks, ((paid|employer=Barings|article=Barings))

Dr.300stryon A couple of things:
  1. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit any articles related to Barings yourself. You can however make suggestions on the talk page.
  2. The article you wrote has only Barings itself as a source. That is not acceptable. An article must be based on substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources.
  3. There cannot be two articles on the same subject. You can make suggestions on the page that needs updating, but you also pointed out that the title was no longer correct. I can see two solutions:
    1. With your suggestions, and based on independent, reliable sources, we rewrite Baring Asset Management and rename it to Barings after deleting your version to make room. This involves a so-called requested move.
    2. I can suggest that the two articles be merged and suggest which title is to be preferred. That also requires a discussion with the community. Sorting that out is somewhat complicated, because we must retain the edit history of all pages to be merged. Please do not attempt that yourself, as doing it correctly requires advanced administrative permissions that you do not have. Whatever you do, please do not copy paste content from one article to another.
In the mean time, if you could work on a version that is based on coverage in independent, reliable sources, then we can have sort it all out and have an article that is up to date and meets our sourcing requirements. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot I updated all of the sources on the Baring Asset Management Talk Page and I proposed new content on that page as well. Please take a look at your earliest convenience. The Baring Asset Management name has legally changed to Barings. This is why I originally tried to take the redirect off from Barings. All of the new content should live on Barings instead of Baring Asset Management. Is it possible to keep the existing Baring Asset Management but still create the new page to reflect its name change to Barings? This will allow users to still view the old page with all of its history and the new page as well.

This is also how another firm has their pages setup after their rebrand. Take a look at the pages below:

Dr.300stryon, I honestly can't tell what you want changed. If you can format your suggestions in a way that facilitates a discussion about what changes to implement, that would be helpful. As it stands, I'm not clear on what you asking us to do. I'll make attempt at summarizing what I think you're trying to do. Currently, we have
You are proposing that
Is that correct? Mduvekot (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


All of the content that I posted on the Baring Asset Management Talk Page is new but it reflects the new brand.
Dr.300stryon, Let's look at what pages you think should exist first, and then look at what they should say. I'm afraid that the content you proposed is so promotional it would be deleted instantly. Mduvekot (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Mduvekot I think that Baring Asset Management should be redirected to Barings. If we cannot go that route, I think the Barings page should have the content suggested on the Baring Asset Management Talk Page. What can we do to adjust the wording so it does not come across as "Promotional"? Dr.300stryon (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Followup from last event

I think there are three sandbox articles under creation, as listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/Performance_Art_and_Experimental_Film_(October_4,_2017)#Articles_created_or_in_progress. Have been in conversation with to support, but have not heard from other authors. Is it poor etiquette if I e.g. add citations to sandbox articles or should we attempt to get them to draft space first? the artchivist (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Artchivist1 I think that a user who is still working on an article in user space should have the opportunity to do so undisturbed. But if they're no longer working on it, and it looks ready, can we email them to ask what they want? The editor who worked on User:Pet hop sus/sandbox was adamant that she didn't want to "own" the article for example. Mduvekot (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Diplôme d'études supérieures techniques, Mduvekot.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Sorry to unreview this article but it needs some serious work on it. the first sentence contains a basic error. It is not a secondary school diploma but an defunct masters degree level diploma.

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Domdeparis Thanks for pointing that out. It should have said tertiary. I fixed that. Mduvekot (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome but there's quite a lot of things wrong with the article. If I have the time I'll try and improve it. Domdeparis (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arnold H. Wagner has been accepted

Arnold H. Wagner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Smmurphy(Talk) 20:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Please comment on Talk:Family Guy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Family Guy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons.

New: The Women in Red World Contest

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Vexations, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Galerie Arte now at Afd

I found the article to be encyclopedic in tone and was uncomfortable treating it as a speedy, particularly given that the article's author had gone to the trouble to upload and relicense some suitable images. I'm not sure whether it's notable. Overall a borderline case for keeping, at best -- no criticism of your tag intended. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #283

Wikidata weekly summary #282

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

hi @Mduvekot! This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... the list deserves to have its own page just like List of former Star Magic artists or List of current Star Magic artists. This list is different from List of GMA Artist Center talents and List of current GMA Network talents mainly because there are artists who are previously worked on GMA Network that are not signed under GMA Artist Center (e.g. Joseph Marco, German Moreno, Ellen Adarna, Aljur Abrenica, Isabelle Daza, Louise delos Reyes, etc.) The difference between the three lists is that the first one is composed of artists who are a contract star of GMA Artist Center while the second list is a roster of celebrities who are working on GMA Network, and lastly those who are previously worked on the above-mentioned TV network, in which several are not signed to their talent agency. --RenRen070193 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #284

{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
User talk:Vexations/Archive 17
Listen to this article

This browser is not supported by Wikiwand :(
Wikiwand requires a browser with modern capabilities in order to provide you with the best reading experience.
Please download and use one of the following browsers:

This article was just edited, click to reload
This article has been deleted on Wikipedia (Why?)

Back to homepage

Please click Add in the dialog above
Please click Allow in the top-left corner,
then click Install Now in the dialog
Please click Open in the download dialog,
then click Install
Please click the "Downloads" icon in the Safari toolbar, open the first download in the list,
then click Install

Install Wikiwand

Install on Chrome Install on Firefox
Don't forget to rate us

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Gmail Facebook Twitter Link

Enjoying Wikiwand?

Tell your friends and spread the love:
Share on Gmail Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Buffer

Our magic isn't perfect

You can help our automatic cover photo selection by reporting an unsuitable photo.

This photo is visually disturbing This photo is not a good choice

Thank you for helping!

Your input will affect cover photo selection, along with input from other users.


Get ready for Wikiwand 2.0 ๐ŸŽ‰! the new version arrives on September 1st! Don't want to wait?