User talk:Redgramsci
Same frequency
[edit]Thank you! Your comment on Mbisanz is like reading my own words 2 months ago. The article of Errol Sawyer, [1], was deleted because the server of Pf magazine (link) was not working fast enough so they could not find it. Everything goes very superficial and quick in Wikipedia, it seems. As it is important for Errol Sawyer to be in Wiki I persevere but I can assure you it has not been a pleasure so far. If you want to know more you can write me at mathildefischer@dds.nl
I am a architect/building engineer who is a guest professor at Technical University Delft, Netherlands. I also studied Art History for one year and I have know the artist Errol Sawyer since 1977.
--82.95.185.119 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be glad to, but please keep in mind that it might be deleted again under the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Good luck and thanks for asking. This will only take a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- All set. I remember that the Warhol photo seemed a bit out of place and that's what prompted me to delete the article as an experiment. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Libby Booth has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): img\.photobucket\.com/.*\.(?:jpg|jpeg|gif|png|svg) (links: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/redgramsci/xl2newyorknights-1.jpg). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Redgramsci, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find useful:
Introduction- 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help
Tips
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. I look forward to your contributions. Again, welcome!
Hi and thank you for your request at Images for Upload! The image has been uploaded. You can find it at Image:Libby Booth.jpg. Regards, Matt (Talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Libby Booth do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://fullspectrumcollective.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Libby Booth article nominated for deletion
[edit]Hi, just to let you know, I have nominated the Libby Booth article for deletion because I doubt her notability. (Sorry - I do realise you've put a fair amount of work into it.) You can argue your case here if you think it should remain in Wikipedia.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the above, I will look into this case. I normally do a quick search before discussing, closing, or affecting a deletion of an article. I dread deleting anything, and keep a list of all my deletions on a separete page.
A few pointers, first: please add all discussion points on the bottom of each talk page. If you hit the tab labled "new section" on a user's discussion page, the software will do it for you. Always sign your comments on talk or discussion pages with four tildes (the shift + accent on a keyboard) thusly: ~~~~ . When responding directly to others, indent your comments with a colon, thusly: :My response is.... . This website are referred to as "site", not a "sight". You may also wish to create your own user page at User:Redgramsci. There are lots of scholars who are Wikipedians; don't be ashamed to share. A New York Times essay this past Sunday discussed how Wikipedia and cities share many characteristics.
Now to answer your request: Whether Booth rates a article on Wikipedia is determined by our rules about notability at this page here. Wikipedia determines everything by whether it can be cited or "verified" -- not by whether something is famous or someone is talented. Virtually every sentence in an article must have a citation, which must be a reliable, independent source, preferably a secondary source. You can always appeal a deletion at this page. There are, generally, no deadlines for appeal and consensus can change. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Follow up: I recalled my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Booth. I can't change my mind with this one: she is not yet notable. Has Booth been in any news articles? Has her work been reviewed by professional art historians, critics or journalists? I can always "userfy" the article here, if you wish. Please get back to me. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I did it. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Basically I endorse everything User:Bearian has said and done in your behalf...chances are until she basically gets more national recognition the article is probably not yet encyclopedic material...Modernist (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Sorry for butting in) Red, if she's as important as you say, surely she's been mentioned in newspapers, trade publications, journal articles, etc? (Even if not national ones, local ones.) In addition to google hits, these are the kinds of things that prove that the subject of an article is notable (i.e., worth having an article on). Can you please provide some for Ms. Booth? Raul654 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Basically I endorse everything User:Bearian has said and done in your behalf...chances are until she basically gets more national recognition the article is probably not yet encyclopedic material...Modernist (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Lewis, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Sorry, I only saw your message today.) Probably the others here that have replied have said the same things I was going to but I might add more later when I have the time.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Libby Booth
[edit]It is a pleasure to have a professor such as yourself on Wikipedia. I know many of our ways may seem haphazard (why is one article worth keeping, but another similar article deleted?), but at the bird's eye view level, things do begin to make sense. Even if Libby doesn't have google hits (I know not all things are covered on google), does she have other coverage? Local newspapers, trade publications, etc are great places to source content to and would establish the level of verifiability that Wikipedia is looking for. Best. MBisanz talk 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to reply to you (though I do say I'm busy in real life so not always on the Wikipedia), though I see other editors have aready done so, and more or less said what I would have done, the reason I gave for Delete was lack of references etc. I don't always go with google, but for lack of any other reference, then the internet has to be used and only indepenent websites taken into account. Don't let it put you off and anyway you will find the editors here are a damn good bunch. Cheers --Artypants, Babble 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)