User talk:Beatnut88

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Free_Bear (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Topher385 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Beatnut88 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit the main section? there is no edit button. Beatnut88 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)beatnut88[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Kim Carpenter

Hello Beatnut88. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Kim Carpenter.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter

Hello Beatnut88. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Kim Carpenter".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Carpenter}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kim Carpenter AM

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kim Carpenter AM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

If you can't get an article up to the required standard - that is, showing notability at WP:BIO with a reference or two that pass WP:RS without taking time over it, then you should create it at User:Beatnut88/DRAFT in your userspace. Things in article space need to be able to stand by themselves, but you get more time in userspace to get things organised. To compare with the theatre, you wouldn't be impressed by a production where the flats were still being painted after the curtain rose on the first night. We don't want articles that aren't fit for purpose in article space where people can see them. Behind the scenes is where the work of construction should be done. If this is deleted, on request I can move it into your user space for you to work on. At the moment, it doesn't look good in terms of future. Peridon (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no idea what you are telling me. I am stuggling even to understand what the problem is. I don't even know if this is the correct way to reply. I think I'll give up. If I don't know what the mistake is I can't correct it.Beatnut88 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put your comment right. To reply in a thread, type one or more : at the start of the line depending on how many the post above has - the next post down from this should have ::: at the start. OK. For there to be an article on someone, there has to be notability - by our definition of notability contained in WP:BIO (for people). This notability has to be referenced and the details of that are in WP:RS. What I'm offering to do is restore your article so you can work on it more in your userspace (which is a work area behind your user page and user talk page. The problem is that so far you haven't shown that your subject is notable. Read through those policies, and do a bit of Googling of your subject and see what comes up. The RS requirement is that references for showing notability must be reliable and independent. That rules out a site belong to the subject (may be reliable, ain't independent), and The National Enquirer (independent, but sure as hell not reliable). If I'm not being clear enough here, tell me. I can get someone else to explain it. Peridon (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still flummoxed though. The article on notability talks about ways of verifying the notability of the subject but not what I have to do to establish it. Who do I tell what I know? There are plenty of external references in my article but for reasons I can't fathom these don't satisfy the criteria - if that is what is used to judge notability. I have to admit as a first time user but someone who who is very tech savvy I still cannot make head or tail of how this all works. The more I read the wiki help articles the less I know and the more confused I end up becoming. Is this all to do with citing? What does that mean?

Is it that the article itself cannot contain text the contributor creates but only text plagiarised from copyrighted sources? As you can see I can't get my head around that either. That would appear to infringe copyright so I guess that can't be the case. The question then is what is wiki looking for? I mean, contributors are volunteers (hey I'm busy). Surely there is some way of streamlining the whole thing so we aren't wasting time creating stuff that is unacceptable. As it stands, I still don't know why the article is unacceptable. If you can tell me what to take out that will allow it thru all the barriers that would be the simplest thing. Otherwise I will just have to give up. My job means I really don't have much more time to dedicate to this - and it appears it will go on and on. I would imagine your time is just as precious so I hesitate in asking for further assistance because it will just be a real drag for you as well. Beatnut88 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, copyright. We need things to be written in the editor's words rather than copied from anywhere else - even if they actually wrote the words somewhere else first. (That's a matter involving our licensing - complicated stuff, just stick to text that hasn't been copied.) What you know doesn't count for notability. It's what anyone reading the article can look up in either print or online form that counts. If it's in a human memory, it's not easily accessible to anyone else. And if the human gets run over by a bus, it's dead with them. It's not what's IN the article that's unacceptable. It's what ISN'T there that's the problem. You need to get past the "So what?" barrier. Examples: BloggsCo is a large company making own-brand canned foods for supermarkets. Turnover is millions. No-one outside their suppliers, their clients, their employees, and the Infernal Revenoo has heard of them. Result: no coverage in the press. "They sell millions of tins daily" - "So what? Never heard of 'em.". (Based on a real article that was posted.) A rapper has dropped two mixtapes. He is 13. "So what?" (Based on frequent cases - I sometimes begin to think that the majority of young people between 9 and 29 are rappers, and to wonder why I've never met one...) I'll ping @MelanieN: to have a look here if she's around. (Both of us vanish at times to different parts of our respective countries and sometimes find getting online as problem.) BTW We are volunteers. The only professional posts here are people with (WMF) after their username (who are employed doing arcane things for the Wikimedia Foundation and are speaking officially - they often have other accounts for volunteer work too), or people who are editing on behalf of an organisation and who have declared this (undeclared ones usually get caught and blocked because they are recognisable...). Peridon (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK but I still don't know how to prove to wiki that for instance Kim Carpenter has an order of australia. I assume it is a citation but now when I go into edit the article and add a citations and try to save it I get a message that wiki cannot be used for promotional purposes and the edit (i.e. adding the citation presumably, as it is the only change I made) and the change has activated a filter. But it doesn't tell me what it is that has activated the filter so I can neither save it nor remove whatever is activating the filter because I don't know what it is. Either way I am lost.Beatnut88 (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset that ping to Melanie (wrong brackets...). Just hang on for now. Peridon (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Peridon. OK, first let me see what we are talking about. Looks like we are talking about the deleted article Kim Carpenter (formerly Kim Carpenter AM). Beatnut88 wants to know why it was deleted, and whether it can be restored. I took a look at it (I realize that Beatnut88 cannot do unless they kept a copy). Here is what I see: an article about someone who is the artistic director of his own theatre company, Theatre of Image. Some links are provided; not properly cited references, but that can be fixed. But the links are not helpful. The links are: the website of Theatre of Image; a link to the Atelier de Segueret (no mention of Carpenter); and a link to the Australian Production Design Guild's award to someone named George Liddle (no mention of Carpenter). The rest of the article is just a resumé with no sources. "Sources" means independent publications that support what the article says; if a subject has enough of them, the subject may be regarded as notable and able to have an article here. Since this article has no such sources, and thus no evidence to support anything in the article, it was deleted.

Wait, don't give up! I did a search to see if I could find any independent sources. Of course there were things like Facebook and LinkedIn and the company's own website; these don't count because they are not independent, they are written by the subject himself so they don't prove anything. But I did find an independent source, from ABC Australia: Creative visionary Kim Carpenter returns to NIDA in the role of director. That article gives quite a bit of information about him so that is one source that helps to establish notability. Here is another, from the Sydney Morning Herald: Theatre of Image's Kim Carpenter displays body of work in new exhibition. It describes him as "one of the country's most esteemed theatre practitioners". And here is something from the Daily Telegraph confirming the Order of Australia: [1]. Bottom line: I think this person probably is notable enough for an article. User:Peridon, I suggest you restore the article to draftspace or Beatnut's userspace. I will help them format it into a proper article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now at User:Beatnut88/Kim Carpenter. I think this is the best version I could find. I've taken the AM off, as so far as I am aware, we only put decorations and degrees into titles where it's needed to separate different people with the same name (that's called 'disambiguation' on Wikipedia - lots of odd words to be found here including 'userfication' which is what I just did by moving the article into user space). Thanks, Melanie. Peridon (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peridon. Beatnut, let me know when you read this and are ready to get to work. (You can reply here, I will see it.) I will try to talk you through what needs to be done to make this into a proper Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Read it. Beatnut88 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. You can now edit and improve the article; it is at User:Beatnut88/Kim Carpenter. I think the first thing you should do is learn how to cite references. Let's practice with the one I linked above, the Daily Telegraph article that says he got the Order of Australia. You can read Help:Referencing for beginners. Or if that doesn't make sense to you, just do this: Have that Daily Telegraph article and the draft available in separate windows. At the draft, go to "edit". You will see a row of buttons above the editing window. Click on "cite". Then click on "news". Fill in the blanks: the url; the title; the date of publication; and "daily Telegraph." Then put your cursor at the end of the sentence that says he got the Order, and click "add citation". That's important! If you don't click "add citation" you will lose it and have to do it over. If you have done it right, you will see the reference cited immediately after that sentence, and when you save the changes, it will be cited as a footnote. Try it! --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - have put in the citations. May have gone overboard. Better safe than sorry! What's next?Beatnut88 (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. No response at all. What to do? The saga continues....Beatnut88 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given up expecting a response. Went to the Wiki help page on requesting peer review. put in the This template should be substituted on the article talk page. in the talk page as per instructions and nothing has happened as per the further instructions. Flummoxed completely now. Guess time to give up ever getting an article in Wiki!!Beatnut88 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]