Hesperian Nguyen

Koekkoek

Thanks to your edits at shibboleth, I went looking around, and found numerous painters named Koekkoek. Pretty sure that picture's caption now names the right one. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Just plain Bill! I saw the discrepancy but didn't have time to fix it. Really important to credit artists but also in this case just to note it is a painting. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive header

I moved the archive so it has a capital "A". It left a redirect, which is probably harmless; if it bothers you, requesting speedy deletion will prompt an admin to take care of it. Sorry for all the backing and forthing; hope it wasn't too intrusive of me. Be well! Just plain Bill (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, no prob. Couldn't figure it out myself. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

License tagging for File:126 logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:126 logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Hesperian Nguyen

Thank you for creating 126 Artist-run Gallery.

User:Joseywales1961, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Maybe say in the lead where the gallery is located (now) in Galway

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JW 1961 Talk 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ryder Ripps

Hi— you removed a lot of content from Ryder Ripps’ page, citing “puffery”. Everything was true, factual and cited.

Can you please further explain why it’s puffery before I reinstate the initial entry? Exaltedmoon (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Exaltedmoon Thanks for taking to talk. I am going to ask you first off if there is a WP:COI based on your limited activity exclusive to Ryder Ripps. Also, re-reverting edits or threatening to do so is very unproductive, and fairly out of line as well, let's avoid an edit war.

I re-removed content from the page that you had restored from some time ago. The material removed is of trivial significance with non-mainstream sources WP:RELIABILITY and generally not encyclopedic or notable. It is clear Ripps is notable, but it is not important that every activity of this person be included, it is not the place for a CV like listing. I hope that is clear. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what would be really useful for Ryder Ripps? If someone could use Wikimedia Commons to upload (legally) photos of his work. Big advocate of this for visual artists/information. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi— Thank you for responding. I’m happily asking about your edits and am not trying to incite. I don’t understand why you are now threatening me with an edit war.

Re WP:COI, there is no conflict as I am not paid nor do I know Ryder personally in any capacity. Although this is the only entry I’ve currently contributed, it does not automatically revert to a conflict.

I’m unsure what you mean by non-mainstream sources. Unless it’s Ryder’s personal work, all sources are from legitimate news agencies and sources.

I’m also not understanding how you have taken on the authority to determine what is trivial to this persons career and what is not. The career is a culmination of all efforts and not just those that you as a sole entity deem fit.

Thank you for the tip regarding images.

Thank you for reverting some of the text. As far as reliability and conflict of interest, I see you as being both an unreliable source of edits and a conflict of interest since you clearly have some personal vendetta and have a low contribution count on Wikipedia that seems to target select (possibly paid) edits. Exaltedmoon (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the COI Exaltedmoon. I get that you're frustrated, but I'm making standard edits to an art related page. That's what I mainly do here.

Before making controversial edits, suggest proposed changes on his talk page. That's the process. Third or 4th opinions sound good. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, please make further points, criticisms, suggests on the artists talk page. It will be a lot more useful and accessible to improving that page down the road. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion Dispute Resolution

Hi -

This weekend, I will provide an updated article for Ryder Ripps page. I am asking that we go to a third opinion dispute resolution before you make edits. WP:DRR/3 Exaltedmoon (talk)

You'll need to make this request on the talk page for the page in question. "Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place". Also you can sign your comments with 4 of these: ~ Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephanie Syjuco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Point.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SF-Frontlines.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SF-Frontlines.jpg. 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) 03:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Oriel Gallery shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Callanecc I am systematically reverting vandalism by User: Guydebordgame which is a pretty clear sockpuppet. They are reverting a number of my sourced, neutral edits as a sort of harassment vandalism campaign for my edits to the Ryder Ripps page. They've sprinkled a couple of real edits in the mix today, but I am reverting *everything* petty as best I can. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

this is an unfounded claim. if you look at this user's history it is clear they create articles for their friends, crediting their own photograph on articles they start and then they make edits to artists whom they do not like. their bias is toward female irish artists. Guydebordgame (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc Besides being a clear case of sockpuppetry (visible today on Sarah Browne as he is attempting to differentiate between his puppets), Guydebordgame is starting up again with systematic vandalism, silly claims, and/or totally useless edits to pages I've edited and created. Can we get this block up again? He's a pest. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen Why are you assuming my gender? Callanecc please have a look on the talk page of Jaki Irvine to see how this user is unwilling to allow for open discussion on this platform.

Hesperian Nguyen, what are the sock accounts you're referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a sock for a bunch of 'anonymous' Ip editors from the same place that have only edited the suspected culprit's page - Ryder Ripps. You can see this user tried to start pages for himself, his businesses and projects, and his father. Honestly the main issues here were disruptive editing via deletions of undesirable information and adding weekly minutiae about his career. However, now I see: one day an angry vandalism campaign against my edits, then the next attempts to make neutral edits to reestablish credibility while simultaneously accusing me of this or that bias. Obviously I welcome the positive contributions, but he is being, at the minimum, a pest. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

silly accusations. you claim everyone who edits the Ryder Ripps page besides you is a sock puppet without any proof, yet you are the sole editor on many pages you have started and are constantly blanking the talk pages to allow for any other sources besides yourself. you create pages for your friends on this platform, as seen by attributing CC photos to yourself on pages you start. I am not affiliated with the subjects of my writing, are you? You are correct, i have been trying to clean up your pages, as i have discovered your systematic editing practices of whiddling down entries of people you don't like while creating onesided articles for your friends who have debatable note, often times you are the sole editor in these entries. Guydebordgame (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, the best defense is offense. Attack your accuser. etc. Yes, I make edits in things I'm interested in, well spotted. I do not however make disruptive edits, nor harass editors and vandalise pages. WP:DEADHORSE and g'day. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Post Script (to unsupported claims before I archive): Do I think every person that edits that page is a sockpuppet? Absolutely not. But when the facts present themselves, I'm going to speak the truth. Further, it has been vandalised and I've reverted. Whittling down pages? Yes, I can't stand puffery and love concision. Do I blank pages? No, I reverted every last edit from this user's vandalism spree which principally targeted well sourced, reviewed articles on notable women. My track record speaks for itself: I'm not perfect, but I've improved a bunch of articles and started a few. My bias? I edit pages I am interested in. My interests are listed on my user page.

More importantly, what I think is that Ryder Ripps uses Guydebordgame (he started his page, his dad's page, and pages for his businesses with this account) and exaltedmoon before, coupled with numerous mobile phone edits with 'IP users' (all from LA, most from Beverly Hills, where he lives and works) to create sense of a consensus, and to try to derail people who want to follow the rules of Wikipedia (e.g. not using social media as citations, which he does *all the time*). This is classic Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing covered up only by his persistent baseless and condescending accusations (e.g. that I uploaded a creative commons photo of a notable artist therefore I am that person, or that I create pages for notable artists only because they are my friends). The guy is a little prince demanding full access to edit his page whenever and however he likes. He's a net artist and a programmer of sorts so is well versed at obfuscating his online trail. Why does it matter? It doesn't that much, but he's a pest – and in my ever so humble opinion an egomaniac – that continues to engage in unprincipled behaviour that runs against Wikipedias standards to meet his own ends. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eyes on Russia.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eyes on Russia.jpeg. 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) 17:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eyes on Russia.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eyes on Russia.jpeg. 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) 02:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PhotoIreland logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PhotoIreland logo.jpeg. 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) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:DublinContemporary2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DublinContemporary2011.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dublin Contemporary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Patrick Hamilton and James Coleman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— Wug·a·po·des​ 22:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 14 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

Thank you. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Irish slaves myth Breaker Boys meme.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Account association

Hesperian Nguyen, could you please explain your connection to the account Guard Dog One?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You can email me if your response includes private information.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ponyo It is someone here in the same studio as me. I checked his edits just now and they don't strike me as disruptive/vandalism, but maybe I'm wrong? I often am. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As they're editing the same articles as you've edited extensively, I would advise adding a shared-IP userbox to your userpage per WP:SHARED.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I can do that. It was just this morning I was asked for 'Wikipedia advice', but didn't think much of it. I mean those aren't edits I would make or I would have made them myself. I'm not an expert in street art, he is. I am however a lot more interested in the Wikipedia project and what I can contribute to it. I can advise further, but would prefer to let people 'do their thang'. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This person 'has left the building'... Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Revenge

Pest Control

Hey there, Sorry for the unsolicited message! I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia on the contributor side of things, but this appeared the only way to reach out. I'm reaching out because of some back and forth I see you've had with other contributing accounts, specifically from around April of last year. I was wondering if you could share some info. I'm deliberately not mentioning the name in case they receive some kind of alert or something (I really don't understand this side of Wikipedia!). If you're able, find me on Reddit under the same username and things should make sense. Apologies again for the random message, but going off the tone in your messages I thought you might be interested in some pest removal. All the best. 0scanned0rubric (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I looked and I get what you're referring to, but not sure what you're suggesting or looking for? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. Sorry for bringing it back up to you, I was wondering if you remember coming across any other suspected Ripps-related users on Wikipedia, or could point me in the direction to potentially identify more?

I've lost count of the number of accounts I've tied to Ripps at this point, many of them found in the edit history of female artists who've apparently crossed Ripps path in past. The intention is to put out a piece on this aspect of Ripps' past as it relates to his current disinformation campaign.

At the moment the back-and-forth between you two is featured, and I quote your final messages from the 'edit war' section above. Of course, anyone can easily find or view this page but if you'd like me hide your username or anything, I can do that. Cheers! 0scanned0rubric (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I took it to a sock puppet complaint as most were mobile phone IP's. Was told to call for a temporary block on the pages in question as it is faster, nothing much came of it. However there is no doubt in my mind it is him. Amazing to me he thinks he's fooling anyone just cause he's getting away with it. And yes, clear misogynistic tendencies... He came after only the pages I have started for women and vandalised them for a few days until temporarily blocked. Fairly sick individual imo. Good luck. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seapunk-Ultrademon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seapunk-Ultrademon.jpg. 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) 17:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seapunk-Ultrademon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seapunk-Ultrademon.jpg. 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) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gort

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gort, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg. 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) 18:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Ballagh article

Hi! I see we've both worked on arts articles, and that you have a stated interest, and are active in the field yourself. I aim to bring more articles on uncovered artists (most recently, Rachel Ballagh) but I also do improvement work. I have recently significantly expanded the article on Ballagh, often mentioned as one of Ireland's most prominent living contemporary artists; it was in dire need, as it previously managed to not even discuss his primary art form, painting, in the body (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ballagh&oldid=1182624920). It is still just a sketch of a long career (I consulted the substantial bio- and autobiographical works, which together run to hundreds of pages) but I think gives at least solid coverage of highlights and some themes. Now, I noticed that you cut the leading section from around 10 lines to ca. 2, and I am a little puzzled - it was, perhaps appropriately, 2 lines *before* the expansion, but with the article now around 120 lines, it needs something more substantial now. I plan to restore some detail, and I hope that if you have material concerns about something I include, we could discuss. As the Manual of Style observes, many readers only take in the lede, so it is vital that it summarises a good range of important points from the body. As you may be aware, the article will feature on the main page of Wikipedia soon, which tends to draw a lot of readers new to a topic, so this is particularly important at this time. SeoR (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ok, thanks for contacting me. I'll be direct: believe the article is a bit over the top. It includes a lot. I mean if you look at other artists articles, say household name level, they might not even have the same word count. If you read through the article and actually remove unnecessary (i.e. non-encyclopedic) descriptions and details, then you'd be really trimming it. Which I think it needs. I firmly believe a well written article, that is concise, is better than a long article. So expanding an article for the sake of expanding it isn't the way to make a better Wikipedia entry. In regards to the lead, the style guide suggests that it is a summary of key points of the article, not repeating the content of the article. I believe I did a good job in making it more readable, even acting as a hook to read further. I'd be happy to discuss specific points on his talk page, but you may be flirting with WP:PUFF. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've read through the old version you sent me and frankly think it is a better article. Although in need of some detail. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Always happy to discuss any issue. I don't get the time to do many new articles or major expansions, so I do try to put a good effort in when I do. With regard to your last comment, we perhaps just have different perspectives - I bumped into that article on a routine sweep (I'm going over every artist in Aosdana over time; I do a lot of article reviewing), and I found it so lacking it actually stuck in my mind, and I came back days later to try to sort it out. In all seriousness, an article on someone famous for decades for their painting, that does not discuss that art form past the lede??? And Ballagh is a household name, as multiple sources also assert. I did not expand for expansion's sake - I really do have better things to do, and not being familiar with any detail of this figure, it was a bit of work - but rather to try to capture a reasonable sample of the massive materials available after a long and prominent career. I like your point about hooking people in with the lede, and I wish all visitors read the texts through - but I'm afraid that from many discussions over >15 years here, that's just not how it works for most readers. I also agree 100% that the leading material should summarise, but to my mind, that will reasonably require 5-10% of the article length for more detailed articles. And while yes, the revised article is not short (4.4-4.5k words, I believe), it does not even reach the threshold for considering a split, for example (6k words), never mind the other thresholds of WP:SIZE, and is comparable to a moderate journal bio, one of the benchmarks we use. Anyway, let's indeed discuss further over on the article's Talk page. Ciao, SeoR (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed you did a bit of a patrol of some other pages I've worked on. I do find that a bit odd. I won't take it personally but it seems a bit petty tbh... like a tit for tat. I hope it isn't the case. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! I actually pulled in to reply to this, as my other half noticed it and it risks getting personal. So, to stop any wrong interpretation in its tracks right now, it is indeed not the case, and there is nothing like that at work here. I make, as you can easily see, hundreds of edits a month, and much of that work is going through Ireland-related articles in waves (airports of Ireland, members of Aosdana, castles of Ireland, etc.), making sure they are included in WikiProject Ireland, with ratings, and applying small fixes. Quite simply, I saw a list of articles on your User page, thought "I don't remember seeing some of those" and visited (as it happens, I had passed some of them before). I am grateful for the opportunity, as several were, for example, not in WikiProject Ireland. If you look at the edits I made, I hope you'd agree they were constructive in intent - mostly tiny tweaks, or some structuring, etc. No one owns an article, but at the same time, I always look to respect prior work, and build on it. On two, I see you were not sure about my edits, so let me clarify. On defining Aosdana inline, I added a few words because the term is meaningless to most English-language readers, and not every reader has access to "rollover" or "pop-up" info, or wants to leave their read to follow a link. Obviously you and I know what the entity is, but I wonder how this question would fly even on the streets of Dublin? This is especially important in the ledes (where official guidance is to minimise use of non-English terms) but also matters lower down. And on Sarah Browne, I was following the source - the point was, apparently, that at that Venice Biennale, she exhibited both solo and in collaboration, in parallel, which is unusual, hence the specific phrasing (I actually hope you'd agree to go with it there, as I think this point is material, but I leave that with you).

Overall, I feel a slight issue with WP:AGF in this conversation. I've not had a discussion like this in over 12 years - in general fellow editors seem to see where I'm coming from, even if we have different approaches. There is so much to do, and so many articles not yet begun, that I really hope we can all just build things up. However, I noticed that you commented on a sometimes aspect of Wikipedia culture on your page, so perhaps you've met a different kind of editor at times. Anyway, I wish no dispute, and I am keeping my fingers away from the Ballagh article as I suggested we might do ahead of DYK appearance (I'm not even going to look) and I trust we can discuss it further later in the week. In peace, SeoR (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I find your writing style a bit wordy. So if you don't mind I might try to cut it back a bit. I think the thing about Kennedy Brown is a good example of that... IMO you made it confusing and convoluted, not clearer. Perhaps later in the article? Or how does she describe her role? Or maybe it doesn't matter? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this. As far as I'm concerned, cut away, and then we'll see if I have ideas to develop the artistic coverage later; I will not touch the personal life aspects further. I had little dealing with the Ballagh article before this November, and may not have much more to do with it again; I enjoyed working on it but have lots of other things on the to-do list since. Incidentally, if access to any of the sources I used would be helpful in your work, please ping and if I have a scan handy, I'm happy to share.

As to Kennedy Brown (and indeed, that double act seems to be the most prominent way either of the artists appears), it may be a case where I elaborated, and yet too briefly. Let me look at it again, and see if I can offer a tight but clear wording on the point. It is nothing critical, but it was apparently unusual and so worth a few words, if it can be expressed briefly (respecting WP:UNDUE). SeoR (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

And just to note that I have completed the referencing review requested by the folk on the Did You Know page, and taken on board some of your points while editing. I leave further editing of this article, save for possible image addition, with yourself and others after the Main Page appearance. See you 'round, SeoR (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)