For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for User talk:Vexations/Archive 24.

User talk:Vexations/Archive 24

Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Growth team newsletter 14

09:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Zvi sever

Hello vexations, what do you think ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.189.248 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think I have much to offer on that subject. I am not a expert in his field(s). What I notice in the article is that it relies much on the subject himself as a source. 11 references to slideshare.net/zevsev/, and almost all the other sources are either by him or closely associated with him. I see very little independent coverage. I haven't looked for sources in Hebrew, because I can't read the language without using machine translation. Perhaps such sources exist, but I'm afraid I'm not much use in looking for them. Vexations (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Vexations. I think the editor אור פ is an undisclosed paying editor. its look like by the pattern of his writing and behaviour and also because some of the paralel hebrew entries are payed. He was asked several times by you and others and deny it, but i'm not convinced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.209.2 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #15

10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I'm getting a good laugh out of "disrespectful" contributions being excluded from a talk page so dedicated to ~~exposing censorship~~. Ahh well, you tried. He's entitled to his views, but if nothing else he's certainly wrong when he said that "anyone who comes here looking for something interesting is sure to be disappointed". Alyo (chat·edits) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Alyo I've noticed only 20% of the folks that post here have watchlisted this page. I apologize for being so boring. Vexations (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That % appears to go up dramatically if you treat your talk page as a blog/screed directed at the community and then get upset at the community for reading said blog. Perhaps try that? Alyo (chat·edits) 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Commonwealth and Council

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Commonwealth and Council".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kai Kaljo

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kai Kaljo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Aina Šmid

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aina Šmid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Annie Nash

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Annie Nash".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mare Tralla

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mare Tralla".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Vexations/Archive 24,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Fascists without authoritarianism or dictatorial control

Interesting, the Proud Boys are factually incorrectly called fascist in the first sentence on the actual page. It has been suggested Reilly would be useful to provide empirical data from his research that this group is 10-20percent people of color and not white supremacist(the domain expert language specific SLPC and ADL do not label this group white supremacist). Both points of which do not require any knowledge of fascism. Reilly's empirical work on the social grievance industry has been tested extensively and proven reliable.

Although immaterial as to whether Reilly should be used for the 10-20 percent POC and not white supremacists. the following significantly more respected than the current RS academic press being cited for the neo fascist label currently on the page, could be whom he was referring to by our if not his own assistants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Martin_Lipset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Louis_Horowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wolin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas. They all refer to a form of left-wing fascism similarly as Reilly did in that quote and they are not only reliable they are noted, lauded and have contributed to their field's, academic scholars. Lipset was called "one of the most influential social scientists of the past half century". Their work has not been wholly indicted because exception was taken to their categorizing fascism or some fascism as leftist. Reilly is a lot more reliable than some of the RS currently cited on the page. RS cited on the page Vitolo-Haddad, CV is a white woman recently caught lying about being black for personal gain or is of zero trustworthiness and hence reliability.(This has been pointed out along with RS citation confirming it five times and yet she is still being cited). The ADL and SLPC are the language specific standard bearer for labeling US right wing hate groups. Any publicly held source deviating from their description of right-wing hate groups is always minority POV (the SLPC and ADL represent the informed majority) and are not reliable. SLPC and ADL work hand in hand with law enforcement, US intelligence, think tanks and government agencies. Reliability on this topic means congruence with the SLPC and ADL. They don't label this group fascist. Can we agree to not use such fringe definitions of fascism to "prove", with "logic" like (for example) fascism is defined despite said group having no stated or implied, desired or practiced dictatorial or extreme authoritarian control concerning itself, the means of local, state, national or global governance? Which is not merely unreliable it is an unheard definition of fascism beyond FRINGE. This is also as fascism is currently being defined to label this group and is taking place on the current page in the first sentence. Failure to explicitly address this factually wrong fascist label at least two dozen times on this talk page, washing it away with RS says(they are not reliable if they cannot be corroborated or conflict with the undisputed language specific domain experts) so therefore it shall be, grossly ignoring WP/BESTSOURCES is unreliable, not credible, unacceptable and intellectual destitution at its finest. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for improving an article, make it at the relevant talk page and support it with citations to reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ArtAndFeminism2017 draft

Template:ArtAndFeminism2017 draft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you say your opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzahi_(Zack)_Weisfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.141.84 (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think I have much to contribute. My first thought when I read “So-and-so is a serial entrepreneur” is that the poor guy probably bought himself a Wikipedia article, but if he’s smart he bought some sources too. It’s so obviously a CV and utterly depressing that anyone would think there’s anything encyclopedic about it. Vexations (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi ... I’m new to this and note you deleted a sentence had added on Alexis Hunter that informed of her gallery. We (trustees of her estate) and her twin sister Alyson (on WP) thought this would be essential information to any interested party as the gallery is a source of deep knowledge about the artist’s work, but your comment is ‘promotional’. Noting you are highly experienced, I’m therefore asking advice ... is there a way we can provide this information within the rules? Cheers WP WhitespacePhil (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

WhitespacePhil, What someone with a conflict of interest considers "essential information" is promotion to some editors. This is subjective, of course. External links in the article are discouraged per WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links); the links should not normally be placed in the body of an article." There is no valid reason to link to richardsaltoun, that I can think of.
There are reasons to have external links in a separate section, and those are typically that an online source contains material that cannot be included in an article. That may be the case here. http://www.alexishunter-paintings.co.uk/ is a dead link, so should be removed. It is not clear to me if http://www.alexishunter.co.uk/ is her official website, something we typically include, we even have a template for it: ((official website)). Now, if https://www.alexishuntertrust.org/photos for example provides much better quality and more images of her work than http://www.alexishunter.co.uk/radical_feminist_art_photo_hunter-2.html and http://www.alexishunter.co.uk isn't going to get updated, it might be better to alexishuntertrust.org the official website. That can be changed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4721464. Vexations (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vexations ... first on old websites etc, ... indeed ah.co.uk was the subject's personal site and is therefore now forever dormant.... as a recent trustee I am working to replace information there with our live trust.org site, which already has details from the defunct site I do think it’s necessary to update WP, and showing the trust as the legal ‘guardian’ of her art legacy is a good start. Perhaps the best way forward is that when more suggestions are ready after discussions with trustees/family, I ask your opinion/advice. As for the gallery, I’ll mull over what you say ... may get back to you on that too. Cheers WhitespacePhil (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #16

14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Vexations,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Igor Dublenco

((Old prod|2ndreason=Mythological surrealism — is author’s style and it has right to exist even if it's not global. Paintings are stored in the fund of National Museum of History of Moldova.|con=Nina Buimestru)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Buimestru (talkcontribs) 14:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Nina Buimestru, if work by Igor Dublenco is in the collection of the National Museum of History of Moldova, then that would help to establish Dublenco's notability. Let's discuss that at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Igor_Dublenco. Vexations (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

"Everything is Going to be Alright" artwork, Christchurch Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand
Everything is Going to be Alright, Martin Creed, 2015.
Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. I wish you a happy holiday and good health!
Possibly (talk)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Happy holidays

Luminarias
Luminarias
Happy Holidays!

Hi Vexations, May your holidays be merry and bright,
and hope you have a happy and healthy 2021

Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Project Veritas

Looks like you forgot to sign? [3] Just FYI. :) IHateAccounts (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, I ALWAYS forget to. Sig(h) Vexations (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

sources

Hi, I entered the various links the first time and was told to remove them. now I am being asked to enter them again. I have inserted the sources, but I can insert other links. i insert them all at the bottom, like the link to my official participation in the cuban pavilion at the venice biennale.

all best, Desiderio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coocuyo (talkcontribs) 20:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Coocuyo, I'm not sure what you were told exactly. Statements ought to be verifiable. You might benefit from reading WP:CITE and WP:AUTOBIO. Vexations (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vexations I can post links to all the events, but then I get the message that it is promotional material. what can I do?

You appear to be adding external links to websites that are not independent, reliable sources, in stead of footnotes. You're also ignoring the advice that you've been given to not write an autobiography. If you're going to continue, you will find it extraordinarily difficult to provide sources that are acceptable to other Wikipedians and write with a neutral point of view. Such efforts typically meet with considerable opposition. Removing maintenance templates, as you have, generally makes that opposition worse and may lead to your getting blocked. My advice: Stop, read the material at the links you've been given. Then, if you decide that you still want to try this, collect all the sources and carefully summarize what they say. Provide an inline citation (footnote) for every statement that could possibly be challenged. Submit that as a draft via the Wikipedia:Article_wizard so that it can be reviewed by someone who is unconnected to you, per Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rush

My apologies for the article mania! I’ll slow down and do a better job from now on. Best, Thriley (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Golif

I finally came back to my article about the artist "Golif". I hope it is okay now. Once it is on WP I will ask a native speaker to smooth out the text.

Draft:Speedy deletion nomination

here my answer (still without feedback) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Kowalski#January_2021 I very rarely write on Wikipedia and have never received any compensation or had any other benefit from it - not even for the recently deleted article. The article is an almost verbatim translation from the German Wikipedia, where it has never been objected to. The software has relevance - thousands of accountants work with it every day, also in the USA. I don't find it overdone in promotional language, it has many references. How can I improve it so that it is accepted? Maybe remove the links to the xsuite website?

Best Regards, Alex Alex Kowalski (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Alex Kowalski (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex Kowalski, you wrote the German article, didn't you? Vexations (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and a good friend translated it for me (hopefully not for nothing)Alex Kowalski (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
c, do you have any connection to xSuite Group GmbH? Vexations (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, except that my girlfriend sits in front of this tool all day;-)
Alex Kowalski, I'll give you one example of unambiguous promotion, from the lead, nota bene: Mit Hilfe digitaler Workflows für alle Prüf-, Freigabe- und Vervollständigungsschritte zielt die Unternehmenssoftware auf eine deutliche Reduzierung der Durchlaufzeit einer Rechnung. is very close paraphrasing of https://www.xsuite.com/leistungen-und-loesungen/rechnungsbearbeitung/, which says: Mit Hilfe digitaler Workflows für alle Prüf-, Freigabe- und Vervollständigungsschritte reduzieren Sie die Durchlaufzeit einer Rechnung um mindestens 50%. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, then maybe you should express it differently, but basically this ("Reduzierung der Durchlaufzeit") is the purpose of the software.
Could I re-post the English article with enhancements and avoidance of promotional language? Or can you reactivate the deleted article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Kowalski (talkcontribs) 21:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how we could without violating our policy on what Wikipedia is not. We don't accept advertising copy as encyclopedic content. Vexations (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
But that was not an advertising copy - please read it again! Perhaps the opening sentence is not an encyclopedic standard (this can be improved), all the rest are facts, all proven with references. There are many other articles available at Business Software > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_software Can't see a big difference or or are no new articles desired on the topic? Alex Kowalski (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Alex Kowalski, you copied that text from the subject's own website. If not advertising, what do you think it is? Independent reporting? With regards to other artilces, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The only good articles on business software that I know of are Smartsheet (and that was paid for), Salesforce Marketing Cloud and Microsoft Office XP, which was reviewed as GA 7 years after extended support ended, which shows that it can take a while before we can see through the hype and see what impact a product really had. A word about sources: Except https://e-3.de/aus-wmd-group/, https://it-onlinemagazin.de/wmd-group-und-datavard-gewinnen-ia4sp-award-2018/, https://www.it-zoom.de/dv-dialog/e/der-neue-xsuite-invoice-cube-26609/ all the sources you used were primary, so do not establish notability and even those three do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP; there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. To be very clear: Not a single source in the article establishes that the subject is notable. German Wikipedia's policies vary from ours, sometimes significantly.

Deletetion of Fatima Assad Shahin

Hi , i am ShewanKara (who created page of Fatima Assad Shahin) .

In order to prove the authenticity of the flag of Kurdistan, I needed to create this page, and the only source available on this subject was this free site, the source of which I mentioned.There is only one Kurdish source in English that has been found and no longer exists.Please remove the option to delete it so that I can follow up on this issue for another ten days ShewanKara (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ShewanKara, you can cite that article but you can't copy and past copyrighted materials. Vexations (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

how can i know about it copyright ?ShewanKara (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

beacuse thats free i thinkShewanKara (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ShewanKara, look for Copyright © Kurdistan Memory Programme, 2008 – 2021. All rights reserved. at the bottom of https://kurdistanmemoryprogramme.com/i-didnt-know-the-flag-i-made-for-the-kurds-would-be-so-important/ Vexations (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks > if they give me right to imporve this page > it do not will be delete ?ShewanKara (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ShewanKara, they would have to release it under a suitable license to everybody, not just you. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials Vexations (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wellendorff

Hi Vexations, saw that you were editing on Wellendorff yesterday, while I was contributing to the Talk-Page. Would you have a look at Talk:Wellendorff and maybe review & merge the udates to the main article? Regards and greetings from Germany, --Wedo1893 (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wedo1893, I stopped reading when I noticed that https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/wellendorff-wahre-werte-sind-bleibende-wertel is a dead link. If you can't get the sourcing right for your proposal, I'm not wasting my time fixing an ad you're trying to insert into Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Wedo1893, by the way, if you sincerely want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and put your expertise to good use, there are a large number of jewellery-related articles that need improvements: Bag charm, Bail (jewelry), Byzantine chain, Estate jewelry, Figaro chain, French wire, Handmade jewelry, Link Lock, Omega chain, Parfilage, Rope chain, Shirt stud, Trilogy ring, Watch strap for example. Cord (sewing), the thing your company claims to be known for is also in dire shape. Or you might explain that "the glistening, colourful Wellendorff cold enamel" is actually a pigmented synthetic resin, in stead of merely "shock-resistant and extremely durable" In stead of making claims about how good your are at doing something, you could help by explaining how such objects are made. That way you would be contributing actual knowledge in stead of PR. Vexations (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Vexations, sorry for the dead link. It has a typo at the end, https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/wellendorff-wahre-werte-sind-bleibende-werte is correct and as soon as I get feedback concerning my disclosure on User_talk:Wedo1893#February_2021 I will fix that. I also had a look on some of the articles that need improvements and started to check where I can help with my expertise in the future. --Wedo1893 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You may or may not find this one interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Thanks, I support renaming pretty much anything with "controversy" in the title. Adding that term sensationalizes topics in a way that is un-encyclopedic, in my opionion. Vexations (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #17

16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Xabier AfD

Hello! I collapsed out discussion with the Gorriako sock over at the AfD. I hope that is OK. Gorriako got globally locked after a Commons CU request.--- Possibly (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, of course that's OK. Let's hope this is the end of it. Vexations (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Neil Krug, Primary Sources

Can you explain why you flagged the sources as primary, when some of them were created by journalist that doesn't appear to be involved with Neil Krug's work and were involved in external publications. Additionally, the sourced information was written in a factual manner, and did occur as part of his career. I also added WorldCat as a source. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: I started a COIN thread about this user's edits, in case you have anything to add.--- Possibly (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Jacobmcpherson, when I used a template such as ((Primary source inline)), I generally fill in the reason parameter. In Krugs case, we have an interview, an interview, his publisher's website, his publisher, an interview, promo text, critical commentary in a reliable source, an interview, a somewhat rewritten press release, a press release, a photo credit,a brief mention, an interview. Should I go on? There rest of the sources aren't much better, and enerally not accepted, like Vimeo, Youtube and Discogs. That's a lot of Krug talking about himself and very little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Nechvatal. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Keep in mind you're not an uninvolved party. Given that you've left this for me, I believe one for you would be appropriate as well. Please also keep WP:ONUS in mind. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, the accusation is false. I made ONE revert. WP:BRD applies. Vexations (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
When it was first removed, it wasn't cited. at all, you re-inserted it as "citation needed", but per WP:V things can be removed without question if uncited. You provided source, but I didn't agree with the addition, so per WP:ONUS, it falls on YOU to establish consensus to insert. My reverts were nowhere near hitting 3RR or even clsoe to be seen as gaming it Graywalls (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, Do not revert my reverts of your bold edits, but discuss the change you want to make on the talk page. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vexations:, I argued that it was undue. You did not start a discussion to establish consensus per WP:ONUS before reinserting it. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, you argued that it was "An interview with Joseph Nechvatal by some random dude Peter Macsovszky is not a due inclusion". I responded by demonstrating that Peter Macsovszky is not "some random dude". You could, and ought to have, researched Peter Macsovszky and come to the same conclusion I did, that he is not just "some random dude". At [4] you referred to Anthony-Masterson (a pair of documentary filmmakers) as "some random dude Anthony-Masterson". Your lack of due diligence is concerning. Vexations (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm finding no compelling evidence that Anthony and Masterson are more than just ordinary people produce film. They have not been recognized substantially in independent reliable sources or have established reputation such that interviews they conducted with Nechvetal somehow makes it more inclusion worthy than someone off the street who has a camera interviewing Nechvatal. Your and my standards of inclusion are not in agreement, and Wikipedia guidelines don't appear to be in favor of inclusion based on source such as one of gazillion independent film makers that are just literally everywhere. Graywalls (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyberarts

I've honestly never heard of "cyberart(s)" as a distinct field of academic or aesthetic study (aside from some commercial material related to transhumanism and possibly Burning Man projects from the 90s), but the Wiktionary definiton [5] appears to be synonymous with the other terms and is clearly a recent neologism. A single article from a French journal may a good starting point for adding content, but there have to be other reliable sources that back this up to justify an article, otherwise this data belongs somewhere like Cybernetics#In art or Cyborg#In art. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. Are there sufficient reliable sources to justify a proper article? Mansheimer (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
Mansheimer, following me around? Have fun with that. WP:HOUNDING is a blockable offence, but I'll offer you a deal: You may follow me around, and check all my edits (please follow WP:BRD IF you agree to let me do the same to you. Vexations (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm responding to your comment on my talk page. Mansheimer (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This was your comment: [6]. Do you not remember this? Mansheimer (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Mansheimer, sorry, wrong person. My bad. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Mansheimer (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Mansheimer, I was looking at the number items under Neo-conceptual_art#See_also, that's how I got to Cyberarts. There are a number of issues with that: The list is (long) long, it is not clear how they are connected to neo-conceptualism (we're not even sure how to describe the topic of the article itself, the articles are sometimes about very similar topics, and lastly, some of the articles linked are not very good. All of them could do with a complete rewrite. Cyberarts is a particularly painful example. The term has been used to describe pretty much anything to do with computers and art. I've seen it in use since at least the mid-80s. For me, the question is if it has since become a term with a fixed meaning that is agreed upon by experts (such as art historians). A good guide is the Art and Architecture thesaurus, which, for example, helpfully distinguishes between concept art and conceptual art. So I tend to defer to such a structured vocabulary. The AAT doesn't have an entry for Cyberarts, (the hierarchy for computer art is rather sparse). A definition in a glossary that is listed under the ELs, is particularly unhelpful: "Artwork that is produced with the help of computer hardware and software that can be two-dimensional works or three-dimensional works that are interactive, multimedia, and/or virtual reality (see below for definitions)". Maybe in the 1980s doing something "with a computer" was remarkable, but by now, we do almost everything that way. We're having a conversation that is facilitated by computer hardware and software, and nobody calls that a cyberconversation. So I think that aspect of the article is badly out of date Maybe we can turn Cyberart into a disambiguation page, address the historical use of the term and link to Cyborg#In art, and move whatever is salvageable there. If you want to do that, I'd support that change. Vexations (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Arthur Guy Memorial Painting Prize

Information icon Hello, Vexations. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arthur Guy Memorial Painting Prize, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Growth Newsletter #18

15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
User talk:Vexations/Archive 24
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
{{::$root.activation.text}}

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.

X

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