Jump to content

User talk:Artslettersperson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Artslettersperson and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! PrairieKid (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Disruptive editing

[edit]

Hello! your recent edits at David Bierk are downright disruptive. I just spent twenty minutes adding proper sources to the early life section (we do not call it "biography" as the whole article is the biography) and you summarily seem to have deleted them. As you seem to have just arrived on Wikipedia a month ago, you should know that removing sources is considered to be quite a bad thing to do. I am going to restore my sourced content. If you have any problems with that, take it to the talk page of the article. Deleting sources that people have worked to find is not going to make you popular here, to put it plainly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would allow me a half hour or so of editing, I could greatly assist in condensing this article, while increasing its readability. I would suggest merging the death and personal life sections into what is now the early life section so that his entire life can be read about in one stretch rather than breaking it up into sections of one or two sentences. Additionally, I suggest merging the lists into a section about Bierk’s career as an artist, where everything can be structured in narrative form for increased readability.

What are your thoughts? Artslettersperson (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

[edit]

Hello, I'm Info-Screen. I noticed that in this edit to David Bierk, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Info-Screen::Talk 02:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a disaster. There is no place in an encyclopedia article for long lists. If you would allow me to condense the article in proper narrative form consistent with that of other notable artists, you will see the results rather than disrupting my edits mid-progress. Artslettersperson (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A sincere welcome to Wikipedia. I don't agree that it is a "disaster". Once you have more than your current 70 edits you will be able to better assess the quality of articles. We have a particular way of doing things here, and it takes time to learn. It is true that the page needs work, and the first problem is that it needs sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I have been a member of Wikipedia nearly since its inception and have created and edited many hundreds of articles. I am quite familiar with the proper format of Wikipedia articles and encyclopedia articles in general. Unfortunately due to a malfunction I was unable to access my former account and had to create a new account. If you would like, I would be more than happy to perform extensive work on this article in providing additional sources. I’m not going to waste my time, however, if you’re going to change my work in real time before I can even complete it. Artslettersperson (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I saw was an edit without an edit summary, that deleted a list in an Article. I didn't saw a reason for removing the list from the Article. If you wan't to work in the information into text, I would consider that an Improvement to the Article. I would recommend removing the list at the same time, when integrating the inforamtion into the text. And always providing an edit summary, so others know the reasoning for a specific change, it definetly wasn't obvious with this edit. --Info-Screen::Talk 02:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s evident that we both admire this artist. He’s a significant artist who is deserving of a page consistent with that of his peers in the art world. Perhaps it would help for you to visit the pages of Bierk’s contemporaries Richard Estes, Ian Hornak, or Chuck Close to see articles that are a bit more effectively structured. Narrative is always more effective than lists, of properly structured. Artslettersperson (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those pages. My advice to you would be to: not delete sections with false edit summary saying you are going to "merge it", not delete sources other editors have tracked down and as above, not delete an entire section without an edit summary as to why. These are varying forms of disruptive editing. If you seek credibility, this is not the way to get it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of merging the sections as you were in the process of undoing my work in real-time. Artslettersperson (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in between your edits the page is in a worse state, that before. And I also don't see a reason, to remove the old version, before the new version is available. --Info-Screen::Talk 03:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s evident that you’re interested in being the sole editor of this page. Clearly you have a very personal attachment to this subject. Are you a family member? Artslettersperson (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to indent your replies, as mentioned below. I am not related, no connection. It's possible I may have met him once at Artspace in Peterborough around 30 years ago, but I cannot remember. I am not really a fan of his paintings; I do not find them interesting. What I am is a fan of good coverage for Canadian artists. I rend to agree that narrative can be better for lists in some cases, but in this case there are so many entries that it just turns into an illegible text blob in paragraph form. I do not disagree with some of what you are saying, but they way you are going about it is disruptive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a discussion style we like here. Please refrain from Personal Attacks like accusing an editor that he or she wants to own an Article without evidence. --Info-Screen::Talk 03:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in having seen the pages of Bierk’s contemporaries, why has there not been an effort to make his page more consistent with those of notable artists on Wikipedia? Artslettersperson (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can learn how to indent I am going to stop replying.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it would make you happier, I will do the edits in sandbox and post as one overall edit. I’m doing this on my phone, therefore, it’s less than convenient to do it in that manner. My objective is to bring this page to something that’s more consistent with Wikipedia standards. Artslettersperson (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, as a new user with 70 edits you probably need to slow down and learn the conventions of Wikipedia before doing a whole page. You have been asked twice now to properly indent and cannot be bothered to do so. Re notability, if you really had created and edited many hundreds of articles you would know that all individuals who have an article on Wikipedia are considered notable. Notability is a core principle of Wikipedia. I would suggest you try first some basic editing challenges rather than trying to rewrite an entire article. Good night. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About replies on Talk pages

[edit]

When using Talk pages we generally use colons (:) to indent our messages. This creates a thread like structure. Multiple colons for multiple levels of indention. See Help:Talk pages and especially Help:Talk pages#Replying to an existing thread. --Info-Screen::Talk 03:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Independent notability not established. See message from Robert.
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.
Sulfurboy (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Artslettersperson! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William and Margot Kessler House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Artslettersperson, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Oakland University have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hornak Estate

[edit]

I'm not sure that I understand the situation, but I think you might: Does Rosemary's son Eric conviction for selling forgeries using fabricated provenance have any impact on the value of the "largest collection in the world" of Nesbits? Has this collection been re-evaluated since his conviction? Vexations (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Kirwin moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Frederick Kirwin, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 TT me 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Frederick Kirwin

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Artslettersperson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Frederick Kirwin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Frederick Kirwin

[edit]

Hello, Artslettersperson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frederick Kirwin".

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. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Artslettersperson&oldid=1187232709"