Deadchildstar
Welcome! edit
|
Visarts deletions edit
OK, so I did the one. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts and click on the "edit this page" link. Just place the article at the top of the list using the same format as the others, {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}. After saving, make sure you use the deletion sorting tag, {{subst:delsort|Visual arts}}<small>—~~~~</small> which is placed at the bottom of the AfD discussion page, after the last comment, if any. Any new comments should then be added after the deletion sorting tag. freshacconci talktalk 12:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi edit
I understand you're really new. I am not. So when I say that stubs don't need tags requesting citations, please do listen; stubs inherently require citations and no tag requesting it is necessary. In addition, please familiarise yourself with Ms Bursey-Sabourin's employer, which addresses your notability concerns. I'll be removing the tags again as they are unnecessary. → ROUX ₪ 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Stubs edit
Per request on my talk page to comment. WP:Verifiability is a core policy:
- Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.
There is no exception for stubs, which should be referenced like any other material. Placing a tag {{unreferenced}} on a stub is perfectly legitimate, and it should not be removed until the problem is addressed. Likewise {{notable}} is also valid if notability is not beyond doubt. It is up to the editor who wishes to retain material to establish that it meets wikipedia criteria.
There is no bar on creating stubs. They are the seeds of future articles. However, a stub should clearly show what makes the subject notable, and the material in it should be substantiated by sound references. Otherwise it is likely to become a candidate for WP:SPEEDY.
Ty 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is actually incorrect. I don't have time to find the relevant page, but stubs inherently need references, and thus tagging them as unreferenced is redundant. → ROUX ₪ 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- All material on wikipedia inherently needs references. Above, I've quoted WP:Verifiability, which is a core, non-negotiable policy. If material isn't referenced, and an editor thinks it needs to be, they are perfectly entitled to tag it as such. If you want to improve your stub-writing, check out Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal stub article: "Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia. Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to enhance it." (my emphasis). References are even more important with BLP. Otherwise anyone can write anything, and say that it's only a stub, so it doesn't need to be substantiated.
- Re. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin: is the individual holding the office of Fraser Herald notable by definition? It seems a fairly minor post in the scheme of things. That needs to be established, not assumed, or it will move towards deletion, or more likely merging.
- Ty 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Differing opinions edit
Check out WP:DR, or boards such as WP:BLPN, as well as wikiprojects. Ty 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. 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. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Marion Harding edit
The Sources, references et al are all bona fide and verifiable. Please look carefully at the ramifications of tagging article regarding biographies of living persons. Hence tags removed.Ernstblumberg (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said on the article talk page, do not threaten other editors. A comment such as "look carefully at the ramifications of tagging article regarding biographies of living persons" is perilously close to a legal threat. This is unacceptable. freshacconci talktalk 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As you've changed your !vote, you should strike the earlier delete to avoid it being assessed, i.e. code in edit box <s>Delete</s>. I have incorporated/properly formatted extra references, as you say. Ty 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We're recruiting art lovers! edit
| Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |