Hello, Egrabczewski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an
edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be
quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferencesย โ
Editingย โ Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!
๐๐๐ฝ (
talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Your additions all looks credible but that is not good enough to meet the Wikipedia policy WP: verifiability. You need to cite a WP:reliable source in support of what you write.
I hope that this makes sense but please ask at the WP:Teahouse if you need a better explanation. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Egrabczewski! Your additions to
RubinsteinโTaybi syndrome have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added
copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the
public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a
suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent
copyright and
plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. โ Diannaa ( talk) 20:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Egrabczewski. Thank you for your work on British Constructivists. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
โ SunDawn โ (contact) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoplasticism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Letter, Sonority and Fourth dimension.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that draftspace pages such as Draft:New Visualization are not allowed to be filed in mainspace categories as if they were already finished articles. Categories must stay off the page while it's in draft, and may be added only if and when the page is actually approved for moving to mainspace. Since I've already had to remove the page from categories three times today alone, please do not readd it to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 19:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
... that I noticed when editing Neoplasticism.
location=
in {{
cite book}} is the city where published, not the archive.url=
. But if you feel it deserves a mention (like the International Dada Archive, for example), you can use via=
access-date=
for books, as they may reasonably assumed to be static.Just in case it needs to be said, it is entirely valid to use the <ref>...</ref> citation method. I prefer the {{ sfnp}} technique because produces a more professional "finish" but best of all it makes the 'source' much easier to scan. The content of a 'ref tag' can be very long and if there are many of them, it can be difficult to find the reader-visible material in a hurry. If you want to know more about the sfnp technique, I recommend User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates. I tend to start with ref/ref but move to sfnp for complex of potential GA articles. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You may of course use your real name might want to read the advice at WP:REALNAME. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Whoops sorry, I thought you had finished. Can you check if anything needs to be reinstated?
I tried to resolve a confusion between "visual means" and "visual media", which you seemed to be using interchangeably. We need to choose one and 'visual means' seems to me to be the better term, though it will always have to be in single quotes lest we get confused about what means means! ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have submitted the article for GA review. Three months wait for someone to take it up is fairly typical, six months is not rare.
BTW, I said I would give you first credit: I misremembered the process. After GA is awarded, we have the option to submit a "surprising fact" to WP:Did you know which, if accepted, will appear on the front page for a day. It is at that point the proposer lists the contributing editors and it is at that point the editors are listed in whatever way they choose (IMO, in order of greatest contribution): see for example Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#Did you know nomination. So your next task is to identify the "surprising fact" (also called a "hook", since its purpose is to entice people to read the article). We get three "goes" at a nomination. NB that there is no obligation to propose a DYK, it is independent of the GA process. In the case of my last GA ( Robert Hooke) it was the GA reviewer who suggest it when I said I was stumped for an idea. As I say, you have about three months to think about it. -- ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
By 1936, writing in English for the Nicholson, Gabo and Martin book Circle, An International survey of Constructive Art, Mondrian affirmed the intentionality of the word 'plastic' in an essay he called "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art".at the end of the section: I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we should but that earlier or make more of it. The only thing that is making me hesitate is that it is important to recognise the reader's likely preconceived ideas first, and only then overturn them. Though I wonder if Overy meant that they should have written "the new plastic art"? Let's leave it for now, though.
... was a DDOS attack. See Multi-day DDoS storm batters Internet Archive. Sad people. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Just fyi, the practice of giving a hyperlinked page number via page=[https://example.com/example-book/example-page 123]
is just as a courtesy to readers: the norm is page=123
. The reason to do it is that some sources (particularly Google Books, sometimes OpenLibrary?) will return a specific page in response to a specific url but it won't give you the whole book so that you can read it for free until you get to page 123. Otherwise, beg, borrow or buy the book.
If the source is a web page then the page=
should be omitted unless it is clearly paginated.
๐๐๐ฝ (
talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Egrabczewski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an
edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be
quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferencesย โ
Editingย โ Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!
๐๐๐ฝ (
talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Your additions all looks credible but that is not good enough to meet the Wikipedia policy WP: verifiability. You need to cite a WP:reliable source in support of what you write.
I hope that this makes sense but please ask at the WP:Teahouse if you need a better explanation. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Egrabczewski! Your additions to
RubinsteinโTaybi syndrome have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added
copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the
public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a
suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent
copyright and
plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. โ Diannaa ( talk) 20:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Egrabczewski. Thank you for your work on British Constructivists. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
โ SunDawn โ (contact) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoplasticism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Letter, Sonority and Fourth dimension.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that draftspace pages such as Draft:New Visualization are not allowed to be filed in mainspace categories as if they were already finished articles. Categories must stay off the page while it's in draft, and may be added only if and when the page is actually approved for moving to mainspace. Since I've already had to remove the page from categories three times today alone, please do not readd it to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 19:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
... that I noticed when editing Neoplasticism.
location=
in {{
cite book}} is the city where published, not the archive.url=
. But if you feel it deserves a mention (like the International Dada Archive, for example), you can use via=
access-date=
for books, as they may reasonably assumed to be static.Just in case it needs to be said, it is entirely valid to use the <ref>...</ref> citation method. I prefer the {{ sfnp}} technique because produces a more professional "finish" but best of all it makes the 'source' much easier to scan. The content of a 'ref tag' can be very long and if there are many of them, it can be difficult to find the reader-visible material in a hurry. If you want to know more about the sfnp technique, I recommend User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates. I tend to start with ref/ref but move to sfnp for complex of potential GA articles. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You may of course use your real name might want to read the advice at WP:REALNAME. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Whoops sorry, I thought you had finished. Can you check if anything needs to be reinstated?
I tried to resolve a confusion between "visual means" and "visual media", which you seemed to be using interchangeably. We need to choose one and 'visual means' seems to me to be the better term, though it will always have to be in single quotes lest we get confused about what means means! ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have submitted the article for GA review. Three months wait for someone to take it up is fairly typical, six months is not rare.
BTW, I said I would give you first credit: I misremembered the process. After GA is awarded, we have the option to submit a "surprising fact" to WP:Did you know which, if accepted, will appear on the front page for a day. It is at that point the proposer lists the contributing editors and it is at that point the editors are listed in whatever way they choose (IMO, in order of greatest contribution): see for example Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#Did you know nomination. So your next task is to identify the "surprising fact" (also called a "hook", since its purpose is to entice people to read the article). We get three "goes" at a nomination. NB that there is no obligation to propose a DYK, it is independent of the GA process. In the case of my last GA ( Robert Hooke) it was the GA reviewer who suggest it when I said I was stumped for an idea. As I say, you have about three months to think about it. -- ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
By 1936, writing in English for the Nicholson, Gabo and Martin book Circle, An International survey of Constructive Art, Mondrian affirmed the intentionality of the word 'plastic' in an essay he called "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art".at the end of the section: I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we should but that earlier or make more of it. The only thing that is making me hesitate is that it is important to recognise the reader's likely preconceived ideas first, and only then overturn them. Though I wonder if Overy meant that they should have written "the new plastic art"? Let's leave it for now, though.
... was a DDOS attack. See Multi-day DDoS storm batters Internet Archive. Sad people. ๐๐๐ฝ ( talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Just fyi, the practice of giving a hyperlinked page number via page=[https://example.com/example-book/example-page 123]
is just as a courtesy to readers: the norm is page=123
. The reason to do it is that some sources (particularly Google Books, sometimes OpenLibrary?) will return a specific page in response to a specific url but it won't give you the whole book so that you can read it for free until you get to page 123. Otherwise, beg, borrow or buy the book.
If the source is a web page then the page=
should be omitted unless it is clearly paginated.
๐๐๐ฝ (
talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)