User talk:George-Amherst

This is George-Amherst's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:George-Amherst/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:George-Amherst/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George-Amherst! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires inline citations - see WP:REFB

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:George-Amherst/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:George-Amherst/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Le Musée royal (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:

needs to be made much clearer what the actual topic is please

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Le Musée royal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Le Musée royal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Musée royal

I have done a lot of editing to the draft, based on how I understood the content of the first two references, but if I wrongly understood what those presented, I leave it to you to make the necessary corrections. Were any volumes published during the perion of Le Musée Napoléon? David notMD (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this where to dialogue? In case it is, let me thank you for your interest and your attention. There's not much about this software that I understand. I hope the following "Wall of words" is not regarded as argumentative, as I clearly need your assistance.

I'm OK with everything here. But would prefer removing the heading "Creation History." The publication's somewhat generic title "Musee francais" needs the association with Pierre Laurent for identification -- consequently, I need to propose the title "'Le Musee francais' by Pierre Laurent" and clarify his association in an opening paragraph. Isthere any eason why you have eliminatedthe links from his name and Robillard de Peronville to Wikipedia.fr? I'm hoping to edit both of those article if this one is posted.

Secondly, there's a lot more to be said on the subject of the origin and production of the publcation, which I'm hoping to add to this stub if it is posted, under headings such as "Origin" and "Production". The heading "Creation History" is redundant to these.

Your modification of Henri Laurent's title is very well meaning, but not appropriate as it implies that he was director of the Museum's office La Chalcographie -- which was NOT the case -- so I'm changing it back; the additional wording is merely pomp for director of this publication.

Also, your note of volumes and publication dates is incorrect, despite its basis in RA cataloging. The publication (both of the 2 series) did not appear in volumes but rather in fascicles -- each fascicle contained 4 plates each of which was intended to appear in a separate volume, with the consequence that the 4th volume was not complete until the last fascicle was issued, repectively, spring of 1812 and Feb. 1824. George-Amherst (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your Talk page to reply to me, the article's talk page if there ends up being comments from other editors there. Making a comment on someone's Talk page gets their attention automatically. If on your own Talk page or the article's, then 'ping' them by putting u|their user name inside double curley brackets {{ }}. Please correct everything I got wrong. My knowledge of things France consists of one business trip to Paris. Yes, short paragraphs help. As for their names, in English Wikipedia they showed up as red Wikilinks, meaning that an English article did not exist. If articles exist about them at Wikipedia.fr, there is a means to indicate that. But it's not essential to getting your English draft approved. Question: The RA references specifically refer to volumes and years. If you intend to change that, will need reliable source references. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source references for correcting the RA cataloging are not hard to come by -- but rather voluminous: contemporary news postings; McKee's thesis has them in an appendix extending over 7 pp., which could be referenced here, but it has already been discredited by reviewers. However, the RA cataloging references it(!) What the RA cataloguing records is title pages, not actual issue; librarians have to record what's on title pages, because this is what is cited in practice to identify a work, and that what librarians do. In any case, the work in question is bound in volumes with title pages, but it was issued in fascicles. Binding was subsequent to issue. The subject is a can of worms. I think there's a copy of McKee'sthesis on Proquest.

Remove text

The following sentence appears to be your own thinking. If so, it has no reason to be in the article. "Today, they offer an opportunity to appreciate and compare the diversity of styles of engraving, with and without the assistance of etching and stipple, employed to represent in print the finest examples of narrative painting, portrature and landscape -- and also classical sculpture -- in the historical era preceeding the invention of photography."

Good luck with the next reviewer. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your interest. While I disagree with your comment, I have modified the text to try to clarify that I am merely indicating the nature of the contents. Please check it out. Also, I've provided an additional reference to documentation of the dates of publication of the individual fascicles, responding to your concern on this subject. George-Amherst (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This "The engravings were very admired when they appeared and show a diversity of styles, with and without the assistance of etching and stipple, used to represent in print the finest examples of narrative painting, portrature and landscape -- and also classical sculpture -- in the historical era preceeding the invention of photography." is still an unreferenced sentence that in my opinion risks the draft being Declined again. David notMD (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is today's clarification an improvement? George-Amherst (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Le Musée royal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Le Musée royal. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing for admiration of the engravings is the subject of the following paragraph -- perhaps, its relationship with thisbasicdescription would be a reason not to separate the following paragraph with a separate heading. Thanks for your interest ...

In my opinion, removing the heading that I added to make clear that the positive commentary was contemporary to the publication increases the likelihood that this will be Declined again. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the heading clarifies the presentation ... thanks for suggesting it.

AfC notification: Draft:Le Musée royal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Le Musée royal. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Le Musée royal (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Le Musée royal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Le Musée royal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Le Musée français of Pierre Laurent has been accepted

Le Musée français of Pierre Laurent, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work

I wanted to thank you for your work on the article Le Musée français of Pierre Laurent. I however do wish to ask you to please not link the french articles inside of the article text. The reason for this is we don't want the English readers to be confused on why they have begun reading an English article all of sudden have been shifted to a French one. This is laid out in WP:IWL McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the assistance I've received. To understand more clearly what you've said ... you do not want active links in the text to non-English information. Presumably, then, I would cite this information in footnotes ...

Btw I don't understand the note that the article needs "additional or more specific categories." I have more information to add.

I have only just discovered via a Google search that the engravings consist of "tableaux, statues and bas-reliefs", the article does not make this clear at all, perhaps you would be able to add some detail about the actual engravings subject matter. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what reproductive engravings are ... depictions of paintings and sculptures. I'll try to find a way to clarify this, but I believe the opening line of the second section states it explicitly. To post some examples would clarify this. How may I proceed to do this George-Amherst (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-François Laurent

I have just created a stub for Pierre-François Laurent and thought you would most likely be able to add to it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give this some thought. Is anything needed in the next several weeks? Don't you think it would be more appropriate to add to the article in Wikipedia.fr? This has been my plan, eventually.— Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Amherst (talk • contribs)

You can add to the French article but it would do no good for the English readers that are on the English Wikipedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add an image to the Pierre Laurent page ... George-Amherst (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Le Musée français, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Overlooked doing this George-Amherst (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, George-Amherst, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Practice2learn (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this question on Practice2learn Talk page. There has been no effort to deceive. The second account was set up by a friend to assist in posting the table. Is this forbidden? Am I being persecuted? George-Amherst (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, George-Amherst. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Le Musée français, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Citing your own work is rather frowned upon here Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest with the subject of this article. It is not about me or anyone I know. And I have no institutional affliations whatsoever, being unemplyed and not seeking employment. And by the way, I'm not in trade or trying to sell something, either. I have, on the other hand, written extensively on the subject in authoritative research journals. Also, I am trying to utilize a widely cited Masters thesis, which seems to acceptable to authorities at the V&A, the Bibliotheque nationale de France and the Fondation Custodia in Paris -- in view of this, why is my use of the thesis repeatedly questioned by the editors at Wikipedia? George-Amherst (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:SELFCITE it is considered self promotion and spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my use of my previous publications is within reason ... "allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work". George-Amherst (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi George-Amherst! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Charles Clément Balvay, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Charles Clément Balvay. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to crate a new page?

There is a page in my Sandbox which has been posted. How do I create a new page? I.e., how do I clear the sandbox?George-Amherst (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the re-direct in your sandbox for you. User:George-Amherst/sandbox. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi George-Amherst! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Advice on the addition of documentation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:The Engravings of ''Le Musée français'' and ''Le Musée royal'', from its old location at User:George-Amherst/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this in October. I've been contacting the draft through the link you provided when you moved it. However, I'm not able to go to it directly. I do not find the button for retrieving drafts on the Advanced Search page. Can you assist ? George-Amherst (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Draft:The Engravings of ''Le Musée français'' and ''Le Musée royal''—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

?? -- I'm trying to make links to images on WikiCommons. I've also removed some external links because I was informed they are not acceptable. I don't even know what you're referring to ... George-Amherst (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This "draft" was removed from the sandbox by one of your colleagues because it was said to be inappropriate for the sandbox. I was told to remove the external links which you have restored. Obviously, your contradiction of the action of other editors is a cause for question. Shall I just send it to the Teahouse in these terms? George-Amherst (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia links

Before you spend hours creating Wiki links please note we only link once to an article (the first mention) we don't link multiple times. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rule doesn'tmake a lot of sense with a table, such as I am editing, where the instances or mentions are encountered independently of one another. May one suppose that rules such as this will be applied with common sense? George-Amherst (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]