User talk:Kyrichips

June 2020

Hello Kyrichips. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Catherine Ugwu, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Kyrichips. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kyrichips|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 11:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scope Creep, thank you for reviewing the page I have been working on of late (Catherine Ugwu). Your COI fears are mistaken, though I thank you for considering my recent work on Wikipedia to be of such a level as to be considered "paid". I'm excited to be editing again after a number of years away.

Re: the changes made to the page itself, I do not consider the sourced references to major performance artists commissioned, curated and supported by Ugwu in the 1990s to be "puff", but rather relevant to the notability of Ugwu as a professional, and to the importance of her work for the British arts scene, that is acknowledged in the literature. I would also suggest Ugwu's editing and writing on Black live arts is sufficiently notable for inclusion, again as acknowledged in the literature, though perhaps would be better incorporated into the "live arts" section, as opposed to sitting into a section of its own (I feel this will address your concerns about Ugwu being "not an author") – I will make the change.

Just as a heads up, I have also been working offline on an entry for a pop artist (Σtella), and am also researching the bibliography of the writer Anne Carson which is currently incomplete, in the hope that I can contribute further. Again, no paid advocacy, just working where I feel my own personal interests and knowledge can enrich the Wikipedia project.

Thanks again for your time. Kyrichips (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.scope_creep^Talk 13:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ugwu

Hi @Kyrichips: How are you? The article has been reviewed as part of WP:NPP. The section around the books, is non-notable and promotional. Writing part of an exhibition and pushing of a non-notable book, is promotion. You second section is heavily promotional and its junk. Things like Frank Cottrell-Boyce, the writer of the Opening Ceremony, revealed that the London 2012 cauldron designed by Thomas Heatherwick was codenamed “Betty” after Ugwu's dog, in order to maintain secrecy'. Danny Boyle (Artistic Director of the Olympic Opening Ceremony). Ugwu served once more as Director of Ceremonies for??? Lots of name drops of people tangentially linked to the subject, makes it promotional. You either take it out, or I will. scope_creep^Talk 13:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep: (I hope that formatting works, and pings you…!), I'm doing okay, I hope you're well too. Thanks again for your time. Please know that I'm happy this page is being reviewed, was looking forward to input, and only want to make positive contributions. I wouldn't want my work to be considered junk (I've invested lockdown time over the last few weeks in trying to do this right), and value your experience.

To explain, on this particular page, I included information I felt was interesting, unusual and notable, that I found during my research online before I began writing. Re: the cauldron being codenamed "Betty", I felt it was an interesting fact about the London 2012 Opening Ceremony that also already appears in the Wikipedia entry on the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics cauldron, which mentions Ugwu. I felt it also linked nicely to the appearance of Ugwu's dog in her National Portrait Gallery collection photo (which you can see in its supporting reference), and by extension explained the naming of her production company that is mentioned immediately after. Name-dropping and/or promotion was not my intention here. Ugwu quite simply did work with Cottrell-Boyce, Boyle, and Daldry on London 2012, and her name appears alongside theirs in the secondary sources. Ugwu's work on London 2012 is, I think, the most notable of her career (cf the MBE), and its higher visibility as a project meant that more has been written about it than other projects, references to which you found more promotional or tangential – there were simply fewer secondary sources to go on. I was trying to be encyclopaedic in my approach to the available resources.

Re: Ugwu writings, I would still argue for the notability of "Let's Get It On" for UK live arts in the 1990s, particularly black live arts (with contributions by writers such as bell hooks and Paul Gilroy) – this assessment of notability is not personal opinion, but appears in the secondary literature (please note the supporting references), which is why I decided to include it. I feel you are right that a separate section gave this activity more prominence than perhaps appropriate (giving the impression that Ugwu's writing was a more major facet of her work), but I still feel it is pertinent to Ugwu's 1990s work in the live arts and could be included in the "Live arts" section – I have already made the proposed change, for you to consider. In addition, I understand your concerns about writings such as conference papers lacking notability. As such, I would suggest removing reference to Performance: The Project Papers and Global Encounters in the World of Arts: Collisions of Tradition and Modernity (which I added in for the sake of encyclopaedic completeness, once I found references to them online), but would suggest keeping the references to Mirage: Enigmas of Race, Difference and Desire (on the work of Frantz Fanon) and the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture as notable contributions to black culture in the UK.

Please, there's no need to say things like "You either take it out, or I will" – this is a collaborative endeavour, you're obviously free to make the changes you deem necessary, and I will try to respond as seriously and as appropriately as I can, always and only arguing for things I feel meet Wikipedia standards as I understand them, and make sense for each particular article.

I have far less experience on Wikipedia than you do, and want to learn and work with others. I hope laying out my reasoning for certain decisions above is helpful. Please let me know if this is the appropriate place for outlining my thoughts on possible edits to this particular page.

Thanks again, Kyrichips (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, your right. Apologies. It is not content, largely, that is not the problem, although there is bits that are promotional need removed. It is the formatting more so. I would like you to do a decent copyedit, if you can do it. She is certainly notable, so it would benefit from it. Even quite large article aren't going to lose anything, because they expand slowly over time, anyway. The perceived wisdom of the cognoscenti and men of letters, is that less is always more, and has been like that for centuries. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Scope Creep, thank you. (Excited to learn how to tab my replies in!) I went ahead and made those changes I suggested (removing the conference papers, and combining/shortening the text dealing with Ugwu's writings into one paragraph under the "Live arts" section) – I hope this helps make the article better. I'll keep studying good articles, and try to apply the things I learn to this page, especially re: formatting, as best I can. I believe Ugwu is notable too, I find her contributions across two very distinct cultural fields (live arts, and ceremonies) very impressive. I hope in time I can make other appropriate additions to Wikipedia – I'll keep working on it. Thanks again for your time, review, and input. Kyrichips (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar for edits to Anne Carson

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar award is to thank you for your work on Anne Carson's page! It's nice to see so many slow and steady improvements going in! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 01:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oulfis: You're really very kind to take the time. Thank you for the Carson courage, I'll keep at it (as best I can…!).

Thanks too for creating the Red Doc> page. Much appreciated!

Kyrichips (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]