Hello, Archiemartin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Seraphimblade22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Suz Andreasen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Seraphimblade22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Suz Andreasen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Suz Andreasen is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Suz Andreasen saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Seraphimblade23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, strictly speaking, I didn't delete the article-I tagged it with a speedy deletion tag, which requests an administrator to review the article for deletion. An administrator then agreed that the article should be deleted, you can see who that was by looking at the page's deletion log.
The reason I tagged the article, however, was that it addressed the subject in quite superlative tones ("famous" and the like), but provided very little source material on her (much of it was on her parents and mentioned her only in passing). The article would have to be written in a neutral tone and show how the subject is notable by the biography notability guidelines. If you have some reliable sources which address her more in depth, I can have a look at it and help you in writing an article if one is warranted. Seraphimblade23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great - now we are getting somewhere. So - the removal of famous is not difficult to do - however, if you would like more source material that is better than a. Wilkepedia on her Mother, and NY Times on her Father, what would you like? There are hundreds of links to her publications. Do you want these? There are links to her work but these are commercial so I thought better not to post these. When you say reliable sources, I ask - what is more reliable than the NY Times? Please be more specific. Because of her geniology, I could list hundreds of source and I just don't want to waste my time or yours.
I removed the speedy tag; when whether or not an article claims significance is in dispute, it's best to at least have a fuller debate, so that may happen, but I'm not nominating it right now. I think, in all honesty, if you can just give the basics of why she's a significant artist, that would help. Right now, the references are bad, because they basically don't back up anything in the article: the NYT link, for instance, only establishes who her father is, and Wikipedia articles are generally not considered reliable sources. But then, articles don't have to be perfect right away.Mangojuicetalk23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times would be a great source-however, all the NY Times piece verifies is, basically, that she exists, and who her parents were. That's not enough for someone to be notable biographically. If she's published a good deal of work, that would go a long way toward establishing notability, but the best way to establish it is to find good sources which are about her, and not by her or someone associated by her. Those are the sources we can build good articles from. Seraphimblade23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't focus so much on who her parents are. Basically, even very famous children (Suri Cruise comes to mind) are typically covered only in their parents' articles, and are usually just worth a mention. If this person is a notable artist in her own right, that's what needs to be established, and it would be good if you could find reliable sources that establish it. What I mean by notability is basically outlined at either WP:BIO or possibly WP:PROF (artists are kind of like academics). One thing that would be good would be to find a list of her exhibitions, people can judge from that whether she's an important artist or a typical struggling one. What I mean by "reliable sources" is outlined at WP:RS, but roughly, we're looking for something someone has written for a print publication, or an online one that has dedicated writers and a good reputation. We're also looking for sources to be independent, so something like her personal website is not a good source. To back up that she has exhibited in various places you might try to find mentions on the websites of the galleries or museums; that would be considered reliable. The best thing, though, would be if you could find articles written specifically about her in reliable press. I wouldn't ask for the deletion debate to occur, though, until you're ready to present your best evidence. Mangojuicetalk23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one quick point, which is that since Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source, articles should not be based on primary sources (most of the time, at least -- see WP:RS, where this is discussed). An article thoroughly based on primary sources would be original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer some friendly advice -- one user making very extensive comments at an AfD tends to draw out those who like to see articles deleted. You've made your points as well as possible, now let everyone else have their chance. Mangojuicetalk20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. JuJube00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing maintenance notices from articles when the required changes have not been made. If you continue to disrupt maintenance processes you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JuJube00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI - yes, this fits. However, I wonder how much this effects the American usage. The word Jewelry is mainly spelled Jewelry in most common publications. The German and English ones spell it the way it is spelled here. Your thoughts?
Also - how can I look into being an editor for this topic?
Thanks
Archie Martin
02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Archiemartin
Hello there. Please answer in my talk page if necessary. Apparently, Category:Jewelry was deleted according to a discussion. And it seems everything was moved to Jewellery. No idea why, you can ask around at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to see if anyone there knows. Since I am not English, but instead Spanish native, I don't really care about it :-) I guess it has to do with the fact most spelling here is US oriented. As for editor, just click the "edit this page" tab in articles you want to contribute, add the information you want and save the page. With time, you will be able to see who are the ones who contribute there the most, ask them if there is some WikiProject or similar related to Jewels, and get to know more about those topics. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is great news. I will go after that area and see what I can find out.
IN the meantime -- do you think you could nominate me to be an administrator?
It appears the page is again flagged for deletion. I do not support this, as work is ongoing, but as I did not place the tag and am not an administrator I am not permitted to remove it. I have saved the talk page discussion in my userspace here so that it can be continued in the event the page is deleted. (By the way, if you stick around I'll watch you for a possible admin nomination at some point, but you wouldn't have a chance yet. Most users want to see several months' experience and several thousand edits in a variety of areas of the encyclopedia and discussions on its policies, as well as the ability to remain civil at all times. (Note: I do not mean to imply you haven't been civil so far, as you have, just that everyone likes to make sure you can do it long term!) Seraphimblade07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I am trying to edit about two dozen of these articles. The Jewellery Category is not well filled in.I am a doctoral student at Bard and this is my area of study. Can you tell me how I can speak with the admin who tagged it?
Thanks
Archie
If you type four tilde characters (~) as per ~~~~, the server automagically translates it to your username, a link to your user page, and the timestamp. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Archiemartin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just to let you know, I placed the {{prod}} tag for deletion on Jewelry designer which had the content "This caregory should be added, Category: Jewelry designer, Category Jewelry." The main article space on Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to write suggestions. That is what The Village Pump is for. Good luck in getting the category renamed! I am impressed by your motivation. By the way, you might want to try posting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Hope this helps! —Brim06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Jewelry design, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Onorem14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to me to google her. That material must find its way into the article itself. This is not a judgement on HER, it is a judgement on the ARTICLE. You see? And please try to moderate the tone of your comments. You will find you get a lot more cooperation if you do so, and people will cut you a lot more slack if you have built up a good reputation.--Filll15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that and that is exactly my point. I think the article is well written and versed on the topic. My tone is firm nothing more and nothing at all personal. I build my reputation on what I know - not what I don't know. Hope this helps you understand
ArchiemartinArchiemartin15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP procedure is a little complicated.
The article was first nominated for speedy deletion. It should not have been, as that process is supposed to be used only for obviously uncontroversal items. Problem is that there are only a few hours to contest it, which creates problems if people abuse it.You caught it with hangon, and that is sufficient. But if it ever does get deleted, you can request undeletion--the speedy explains how. For any article so see there other than your own, you can remove the tag yourself and give an explanation.
In AfD the procedure takes 5 days, but if within a day or two everyone has voted the same way, it can be closed early. If too few people vote in the 5 days, the discussion is usually continued another 5. (And the decision can be appealed, but that starts getting complicated and really cumbersome.) It should end tonight.
I'm glad you kept with it. DGG20:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - thanks for the heads up. I am hoping that this gets kept tonight. I really want to focus my energies on writing more articles in this category. My next subject, Dorie Nossiter is dead, so I am hoping that will not be as much of a headache as this one has been. I want this kept. I will keep with it, but it would really be nice to get this finalized. Since I kisy looked at it is after midnight, does this mean, I have to just keep on waiting and checking? Also - since I counted more keeps, (albeit a few were "weak keeps" that I rebutted, I do see consensus. Thanks, ArchiemartinArchiemartin05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to be appreciated but the only way to avoid too much emotional investment in an article is to work on several at a time. Sometimes one will not work out. (PS, it's not measured by GMC or other clock time, but when someone gets to do it. There's a day or two variation. ) And it is only necessary to reply on your page or my page, not both. WP is confusing enough as it is. DGG05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Archie. I noticed that you had created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/archiemartin. At the moment it's not actually listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (there are a couple more steps needed to do that). However, I have to say that there really isn't much likelihood of an RfA succeeding so early on. You can, of course, go ahead. There's nothing to stop you. But if you take a look at the Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship page, you can get an idea of the experience that successful (and unsuccessful) candidates have. If you do want to go ahead the page needs to be moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/archiemartin to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archiemartin and you'd then need to add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archiemartin}} to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll try to answer them. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Sock puppet (internet) may help, but the definition on Wikipedia is a bit broader than the one on usenet. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry says: "Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else." The second sentence, strictly speaking, is describing "meat puppetry". Wikipedia is indeed full to the brim with jargon, but the internet as a whole tends to be like that, it's just different jargon in different places.
As far as a new article goes, I usually write mine in a sandbox. Not the Wikipedia:Sandbox, but a page under my user page. So, for example, you can write an article on Dorrie Nossiter, and see how it looks as you go along, by putting it at User:Archiemartin/Dorrie Nossiter, or by creating a new page at User:Archiemartin/Sandbox and reuse it for all your work in progress. The only difference with a sandbox is that you don't add categories (like Category:American jewellers or whatever). Any templates, or images, or formatting, looks just the same. I link all of mine from my user page (you can see that on User:Angusmclellan) so that I remember what I'm working on. An example sandbox would be User:Angusmclellan/Queen Victoria Jubilee Institute for Nurses. As you can see, I didn't get very far with that!
If you have any other questions, or I missed one that you asked, please let me know. Art and design, like everything else on Wikipedia, needs work. Thanks for your help! Best wishes, Angus McLellan(Talk)16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily say I have any issues with you. I just had noticed what I thought appeared to be odd behavior and wanted to get outside input on how it should be handled. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to directly accuse someone of sockpuppetry without trying to verify it first or not.
Basically, sockpuppetry is editing under multiple accounts for any variety of reasons, in this case...for the purpose of voting and other shows of support.
If I'm not mistaken, you created and used accounts (Drregus, Bernardola) and your IP address (207.237.49.43 claiming the name jamjam) to add more "votes" on the AfD for Suz Andreasen. This is generally frowned upon, by some much more so than others.
Anyway...the AfD would have passed in either case, but I wanted someone else to look into the votes.
It looks like you are motivated and educated. I think you have a lot to offer Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure you continued on the right foot.
Hi again.
It took me a while to figure out what you meant. I try to avoid acronyms just because of situations like this, so I didn't remember using that term on User talk:Angusmclellan.
IMO is just an acronym for "in my opinion". --Onorem16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
You've added a fair use license, so the image is now licensed. However, the use of an image under fair use requires a fair use rationale and information on why it's not replaceable. Also, the image must be used on Wikipedia, as fair use orphans can be deleted ("Use it or lose it") -- this is because orphanbot removed it from an article. You can restore it to that article. I've removed the no license tags and marked the other problem that now exist. Also, you said this is from the artist's spouse? Why can't the artist license the image themself? How are you related to them? Ideally, we want freely licensed images here at Wikipedia. If possible, the artist should be willing to license it under a free license. I use CC-BY-SA-2.5 myself, but there are many others, including the GFDL and just releasing into the public domain. Good luck! --MECU≈talk18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "these images are in the public domain", but just because they're on a website, doesn't make them in the public domain. For this image, the website you provided as source specifically says "Copyright 2006, 2007, all rights reserved" which means it can't be in the public domain, so fair use is the only route to go here. I think your rationale should provide something about if these jewelry pieces are available in a museum? Are they only sold on the internet? Are they only held privately and not worn by public figures? You seem to be saying that this jewelry peice is just to show an example of their work, is it possible to find/create an image of any of their work to be fine? If you answer all these, I would be fine with your removal of the tag (or you can contact me to do it).
As for the other images, if you're getting them from a website, that doesn't mean they're public domain. If the images were taken/published before 1922 in the US, then they may already be public domain. However, I would assume they weren't. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission may by of some use to this direction. If not, the fair use route would still apply, and this would be an easier sell than the jewelry pieces since she has died. Good luck, and ask me if you need more help or have more questions. --MECU≈talk23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you uploaded another copy of this image with a tag saying that the image is public domain when it obviously isn't, so I deleted it. The truth is, we just may not be able to use that image on Wikipedia. Too bad, but there it is. If you really want some decoration for that article, you'll have to find a legitimately free image. If you can, maybe you could take your own picture of some of Suz Andreasen's work and upload that? Or if you can't, you could write to Suz Andreasen (or her website) and ask them to agree to give Wikipedia some images under a free license? You can look at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for some sample emails if you want somewhere to start. Mangojuicetalk02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think asking for the image to be released freely is the best option. If you get permission, forward it to the address on Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission and re-upload the image saying permission granted to release into GFDL (or whatever free license), and the OTRS folks will post that permission was received to license the image under that license. An image in a "public" catalog may still be copyrighted. When asking for permission, be sure to link to where it will be used (ie, in an article about the artist) so they may be flattered enough to agree. Sure sure to mention that an image of their work (jewelry) cannot begin to impede on their work, as the digital medium cannot compare to the 3D world (or something along the lines). I'd give a few weeks for a reply before giving up and we can try something else, such as you taking a picture, like Mango mentioned. Good luck! --MECU≈talk16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since English is only my second (third actually) language and I use a bastardized version of it, I see no inconvenient to respell it the american way, my only concern per WP:ENGVAR was the inconsistancy between the title of the article and the body of the text.
Now that it's said, it is customary to follow the spelling of the first main contributor and if you perused the article's talk page, you saw that the question came before and no consensus was reached... I suggest, if it isn't done yet, to bring back the subject there before changing anything, see if it would upset some users and discuss the changes in depth with them. Cheers - Myanw20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to adopt you. I completely understand the image licensing issue is very complex and so I'd be happy to assist in any way. However, other than images, please answer the following questions so I can help you better:
What you want to get out of adoption?
What you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia?
What you like to do here on Wikipedia?
What are your problems at Wikipedia?
If you have any specific problems or questions I can answer now.
Also, please contact me at anytime for any reason. You can't possible bug me enough. Even if you think it's minor and the 1000th time you've asked me the same question already on the same day, please ask if you are confused or need help. If I don't know the answer, I know people who will. I look forward to working with you. --MECU≈talk20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really seeking someone to help me learn the ropes more on WP. I am a pretty good editor, writer, researcher but my weak areas as you know are image copyright rule as well as the vast areas within WP and how to find them.
What you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia?
I would like to edit and write many articles for the Jewelry category, help implement the needed growth in the category of jewelry, art history and perhaps become and administrator.
I think that is more than enough goals for now!:)
What you like to do here on Wikipedia?
I enjoy editing and also learning more.
What are your problems at Wikipedia?
English vs. American spelling and also just getting a response from posts in large public areas.
If you have any specific problems or questions I can answer now.
None now - but I am sure I will have more in the future!
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Couture awards, by Useight, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Couture awards is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Couture awards, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Couture awards itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 219:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Dorrie Nossiter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. T Van Wormer00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please ignore the above. I've removed the speedy deletion tag which claimed that there was no context. There is and while I think the article could use some references to establish some notability, I think it looks like a perfectly decent subject for an article. Pascal.Tesson03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you come back! First, to link to another item on Wikipedia you just put it in two square brackets, like this: [[Fire & Ice (Retail)]] which will look like this: Fire & Ice (Retail) instead of like this (which is what you did on my talk page, which is fine for external links, but not wikilinks): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Fire_&_Ice_(Retail) . Next, the Fire & Ice article is already nominated for deletion (see the tag at the top of the page), where you can follow a link there to the deletion discussion at articles for deletion and even participate (!) by voicing your suggestion of what you think needs to happen to this article. AFD is not just a vote, so please give an explanation for your suggestion.
As for the other article, I think the category is fine, since it's under "Jewelers" and you said it's about making jewelery. While it may not be a person, it seems okay. You could look in the category and see if there are sub categories that are for companies perhaps.
Lastly, being an administrator is no big deal. That is, admins aren't special and only have extra tools to help keep Wikipedia clean. Users have all the same rights, just less tools (like deletion). So, if you think something is wrong, fix it! Be bold! and do what you think is right. If you think an article should be deleted, then nominate it for deletion (also look into WP:PROD). If you think an item is not categorized correctly, change the category. If you think something is vandalism, remove it. As long as you think what you are doing is the right thing to do, then you'll be fine. You may make mistakes (I do all the time!), but that's the good thing: nothing is permanent and can't be un-done. Welcome back, please don't hesitate to ask me more questions. MECU≈talk20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Category:Jewellery making this category may be better for that article. To link to images and categories, you just put a colon after the first set of brackets, like this: [[:Category:Jewellery making]] and it will appear like before. MECU≈talk20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Also, when starting a new subject on a talk page, you should click the "+" at the top of the page so that you can start a new section, and not click the last edit on the page. One subtle reason not to do this, is that like you did on my talk page, it looks like you were editing the last section when you were adding a new section, which can confuse people looking in the history, but more importantly, it's easier! Also, when you sign your name, you just need to put the four ~'s. It looks like you typed Mecu~~~~ (for example) when you signed my talk page. The four ~'s automatically include the date and your name, called your signature which you can edit from the default one (like mine, to included color or other links). See WP:SIG if you're interested in that. MECU≈talk16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I had seen it already and taken care of it anyways, but thank you for putting it back. Yet another reason to use the +. MECU≈talk16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Archiemartin. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez223:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was uploaded your iamge Render4.jpg in Wikipedia to the Wikimedia Commos Proyect (right here: [1]) for use it in the Jewwllery Design article of Spansish Wikipedia ([2]). I put in the information field, your name (Author), date and licence specifications. If you have any question or you don't agree, please leave a message in my user discussion page in Spanish Wikipedia ([3]). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.62.28 (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of important Wikipedia policy pages you need to read.
First of all, when you submit an article to Wikipedia, you agree with the following (it's by the "submit" button):
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Our policy at Wikipedia is that nobody owns any page here. You can read that policy here. Please do not tell other editors not to edit "your" pages. The etiquette of Wikipedia, and all true wikis, is that anyone can edit anything and we encourage people to edit freely.
The second page you need to read is the rather long but important Manual of Style. Wikipedia encyclopedia articles have a certain form and layout. One of these is about the placement of pictures. We don't place pictures to the top left of an article. It spoils the flow of the text and looks poor. We place relevant images to the right (for the first image). Please do not keep puttin your image in the wrong place - it will be moved each and every time.
Finally, when you are communicating with other editors on Wikipedia via talk pages, you need to type four tildes at the end of your message - ~~~~
This automatically expands into a link to your username and the date and time - important for archiving and bot edits. You can read more about this at this page.
Hi adoptee! Long time no see, or talk, or anything. Anyways, Redvers (above) left a message for me to talk to you since you seem to be claiming ownership of the article and requiring all editors to go through you for changes to the article amongst other things. This isn't how Wikipedia works. While we all have areas of interest and knowledge (mine certainly isn't jewelry), no one owns any article. It doesn't matter if you created it or are a world-class subject matter expert. The policy is fairly clear on this and you should definitely read through it (WP:OWN). While I'm sure you have the best interests of the article and subject in mind, other editors can help you get this to be a great article if you would let them. I haven't read through the entire talk page, but fully agree with the position and view of Redvers. Please work with people to resolve problems with articles and don't think that you know best so your way should be it. I've thought that before but found out I didn't and others knew better or had better ideas. Lastly, we have a policy about the limit of number of times one can revert (change back to previous state) an article in 24 hours. The point is not to reach the 3-limit per day, but to encourage discussion on the talk page (which you are doing, that's great!) without dragging the article in endless "this edit is better" - "no, this edit!" and so on. You can read the policy here: WP:3RR. I hope you can learn to let others help you and the article. Wikipedia will be better for it in the long run. MECU≈talk22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six people expressed an opinion on the article over six days of discussion.
Five were in favour of keeping the article.
The article was declared "kept" by another admin [4]
A permanent record of what happened has been placed on the talk page
If you still want this article deleting, you have several options.
If you believe the administrator who closed the AfD did so against consensus (they didn't), you can take it up with them.
If you believe the AfD process in this case was flawed (it wasn't), you can take it to deletion review.
If you think that the situation has changed and other information has come to light, you can create a newdeletion discussion.
For reference, please don't "CC" me or others into discussions you are having by copy-and-pasting the discussion. This starts forest fires. If you need others to see a discussion, you can provide them with a diff pointing to the discussion. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should start at WP:INFOBOX. But also think about Wikiprojects that might involve the subject (look on the talk page to see if any have claimed it). Using them is really simple, and most describe how to use them and what the fields are for. If you have any problems, let me know. MECU≈talk00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My summer is going pretty good. I hope all is well with you as well. References are typically done "in-line", meaning that and editor adds the reference at the location it should be at. So when you see the [1] (or whatever number), that's where the reference is (there is one exception to this I'll cover in a second). So, if you edit the main body of the Suz Andreasen article at [5], you'll see things like <ref> blah blah </ref>. These are the references. The software tracks these throughout the article and then with the reflist you saw will output them there. Makes it look pretty cool. In order to edit the reference, then just edit the things between the ref tags. You can just put an external link in there (like that article), but a better way is to use {{cite web}} for references (there are other cites, so use the appropriate one, but cite web generally fits most refs).
Now, let's say you have a reference that you want to use over and over, in that the reference would be identical. Sure, you could just copy the same ref tag over and over, but it'll just make the reference list look worse when it's all really the same reference. In this case, you can name the reference like this: <ref name="myawesomename1"> and then when you want to reuse the same reference, just call it by: "<ref name="myawesomename1" />" (without the outside quotes) and it will know it's the same reference and have the same [1] (or whatever number) as before and output them all linked to their correct spot. It's really quite cool. The only rule is the ref filled out *must* be before the other refs in the article using just the name. So, if you want to edit that reference, the actual spot you edit it is higher in the article.
This is just a starter. Read through Wikipedia:Citing sources and you can learn lots more. Taking a look at FAs or GAs and see their reference styles will probably help as well. (You should know how to find some of those by now. If not, here's a hint: main page.)
The deletion of an article you created, Tweener Generation, has been proposed for the following reason:
No reference attesting to widespread usage of this term.
You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thanks for uploading File:Tigerliliysuite2.gif, which you've sourced to Suz Andreasen. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
![[1]](/wiki/Image:Render4.jpg){kind=link}
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
