User talk:Rwelean

This is Rwelean's talk page.

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ARCH-HIVE moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The ARCH-HIVE, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, what about the article does not fulfill general notability guideline? The collective's work is covered in Provo Music Magazine and 15 Bytes, both of which are independent, reliable sources. Their zines won an award from the Association for Mormon Letters. I think an art collective is similar to an artist, and under WP:ARTIST, winning an award qualifies it under "(c) won significant critical attention." I do use primary sources on the page, but they are not used to establish notability. Self-published sources are allowed as a source about the subject material under WP:ABOUTSELF. Rwelean (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- hello there, I have drafitified chiefly because of a possible conflict of interest editing, if this isn’t the case please I need you to expressly refute this, in your response. Secondly, if you claim no COI, there is a major problem of the (article) reading like a “page” as opposed to an encyclopedic article, please see WP:TONE, Also, I note excessive WP:PROMO, not speedy deletion worthy, but far from WP:NPOV. I think You may need to pass this article through WP:AFC, this article in its current state can not be on mainspace. I note you know policy, so I hope you understand me when I say this isn’t mainspace worthy, I encourage you once mor, to use the AFC method of submission. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page. Rwelean (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid the message you got first is auto generated, it is a template message for anyone who has their articles moved to draft. The second message is me explaining the reason personally & not a bot. I never mentioned anything about being paid or not, I refereed to a possible COI. Unfortunately I am afraid the promotional material is very much there. I am afraid I am still of the opinion that the article passes through AFC. Furthermore I’m seeing something from some tools I use in nabbing possible spam and I’m quite concerned, please I need you to confirm this, have you by any chance used more than one account to edit Wikipedia? or are you currently using more than one account simultaneously? Tools can be faulty so I need an express reply on this. Celestina007 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on my user page I mention my other account, Rachel Helps (BYU), which I use for the Wikipedia editing I do for my job. Could you tell me in a little more detail what the promotional material is that you're referring to? Rwelean (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was too busy to check your UP, I’m sorry I heavily multi task, I was preoccupied so much so that I hadn’t the time to check if you openly declared that you had a second account and had to rely on public tools(your first edit with this account) to make an educated guess that it is plausible you had other accounts. Self trout right there, having said, I still believe AFC isn’t a bad idea or Are you in a haste? The whole article reads like a resumé of the organization, the sources you optimize are WP:COISOURCE, WP:PRIMARY & not WP:IS. On Wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE per se. You see, all you need do is submit the article and it would be reviewed accordingly. See WP:TONE & WP:NPOV, ensure to get rid of all WP:LARD. I’m sorry I wouldn’t be replying anymore. As I already have too much on my plate. To write better worded articles see WP:BETTER except you are in a hurry, I don’t know what the haste is. Peace Profound. Celestina007 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular rush... I just thought it would be more efficient to deal with the person who made the original complaint against the article, so I could address the specific issues you had. thanks for the reply. Rwelean (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arch-Hive (February 22)

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

Sources appear to be mostly Primary. Need independent secondary sourcing

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:Arch-Hive 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:Arch-Hive, 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.

Slywriter (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwelean! 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! Slywriter (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Archkeeper wikipedia 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Archkeeper wikipedia 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per this ANI discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :(

I am irredeemably late to the ANI discussion, having only just stumbled upon it by way of stumbling upon an old Wikipediocracy thread. I am so sorry for originally digging up your Arch-Hive draft and mistakenly assuming it was mostly a notability issue that could be helped with new sources. I also should have asked on-wiki about whether I could help with the draft rather than on twitter, and I should have phrased my confusion differently about the original COI claims. From what I could see in the back and forth above, it seemed to me that the COI was maybe a perceived one based on the article's sourcing or how you wrote about it? Which is why I assumed a second editor with fresh eyes could be helpful and then those concerns could be the laid to rest type of buried not hidden or obfuscated, which was never my intention. I am sorry my naivete and assumptions made things worse for you. I have asymmetrical knowledge concerning Wikipedia, knowing a lot about the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies and knowing less about how I can personally be a good volunteer without relying on the patience and help of the good volunteers around me.

I still stand by my first tweet to you last year: "If I'd known we had a Wikipedian-in-residence at BYU, I think that could have helped my volunteer trajectory! I'd rabbit hole too much in how-to/policy pages rather than edit, perfectionism rather than being bold? Experienced editors around to say things are good enough helps" — I'll add that finding you on twitter (an experienced Wikipedia editor with similar background!) was immensely encouraging. Late on all accounts, but thank you for existing. MossAlbatross (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it makes sense that you assumed it was a notability issue, because that is the reason the other editor gave for moving it to the draftspace. I should have disclosed my COI more directly. I support the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon, I have contributed several articles to their blog, and I have contributed amateur art pieces to two of their zines. I should have known that even if I don't make money from my contributions to the ARCH-HIVE, it is still a COI. Please don't feel responsible for anything that happened surrounding my topic ban. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the page comes up in the future, I just want it to be clear that you received unsolicited/uninformed encouragement from me to post the article the second time. From the time that had passed, it looked like you were going to leave it as a draft and I thought that was a shame due to the media coverage I had seen on their scrupulosity show. If it does come up again and my context might be helpful, please link this explanation and if further clarifications are warranted, please @ or emailthisuser me (I am only sporadically logged in, so emails are best to flag timely on-wiki discussions). Sorry again for my original meddling and then disappearing act. I hope you have fair winds and following seas as you continue your editing journey following the topic ban. MossAlbatross (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]