Hello, Aquariusveritas, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Michael Mao, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The article Michael Mao has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Aquariusveritas. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of
conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
neutral point of view and
what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a
black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the
talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the
articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:Aquariusveritas. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aquariusveritas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 14:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Joya Powell, Aquariusveritas!
Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Year of birth missing
To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's
mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the
Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at
User:Aquariusveritas, and the template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aquariusveritas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not a paid editor with a conflict of interest. My interest in Kenyon Farrow comes from the fact that he helped me in dealing with my HIV. I take a lot of time in making sure that every entry that I add is well cited and sourced and includes every single citation that I can find. Can you please explain to me what makes you think that I am a paid contributor? Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 23:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kenyon Farrow
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kenyon Farrow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Citrivescence ( talk) 06:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kenyon Farrow, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/ https://www.centerforthehumanities.org/programming/participants/kenyon-farrow http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?conference-speaker=kenyon-farrow, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Kenyon Farrow and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Kenyon Farrow, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kenyon Farrow. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Kenyon Farrow with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Kenyon Farrow saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the rules of Wikipedia listed above, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." A page for the writer/activist Kenyon Farrow that I created was flagged by Justlettersandnumbers for copyright infringement and then deleted. I wrote a thoroughly researched article with proper attributions and links. Justlettersandnumbers's claim that I made use of copyrighted materials appears thusly: This article appears to contain work copied from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/ https://www.centerforthehumanities.org/programming/participants/kenyon-farrow http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?conference-speaker=kenyon-farrow
None of the information that I used on Kenyon Farrow that I wrote came from the Ubuntu Biography Project because I did not think it met the criteria for a distinguished reporting. In citing this claim of copyright infringement against my writing, Justlettersandnumbers failed to to list anything that came from Ubuntu. This article on Farrow used over 95 web sources, meaning I was able to write about Farrow without referencing or using any material from Ubuntu. I write this to indicate that I did not use nor did I need to use any information from Ubuntu's page. The main reason for this is timing, much of what I found on Ubuntu's page appeared in earlier articles from NYTimes, Advocate, The Nation, BET, or The Body.com. This information was properly sourced/attributed and rewritten as per the rules of Wikipedia.
As to the information listed on the Center for Humanities and CUNY Hunter Roosevelt House, that information was Farrow's biography information listed on the website announcement that he was slated to lecture and speak at the schools. The same information is listed at every school/institution where Farrow spoke, from Harvard to Barnard to Penn State to Yale. I cited that information appropriately and used other direct sources listed in the biography instead of relying upon the biography alone because I know that some biographies are embellished, out of date, or simply incorrect. For instance, one biography listed that Farrow had graduated from CUNY's School of Journalism with an MA; unable to find a corroborating source for this information, I contacted the school directly and the school informed me that Farrow had not graduated yet.
Again, all of the information listed on Ubuntu or Hunter came from earlier and more reputable sources which were cited; the information from those sources were then rewritten according to Wikipedia's standard, a standard that is always honoured in my writing. I have written many articles for Wikipedia. This is the first time that I have had a charge of Copyright infringement leveled against me. The charge of copyright infringement was incorrect. More troubling to me however, particularly considering my track record for Content creation and editing, particularly on dance and theatrical related entries, is why Justlettersandnumbers did not list the material in question or, as per the nature of this living encyclopedia, simply correct and edit the material in question.
How is this to be rectified and corrected? Please advise.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Aquariusveritas, your information is inaccurate – I first declined a G12 speedy deletion nomination, blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. Three weeks later I deleted it as no viable rewrite had been proposed, citing the copyright violations of https://kenyonfarrow.com/ in my deletion rationale (see here for what I mean). I've now restored the page. You can work on a rewrite at this special page. Please let me know (here is fine) once it is complete, and I'll move it into place. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I do not believe that my information is not inaccurate. If it is I would like for you to look at my statements and then tell me precisely how my information registers as faulty.
A review of what you have listed regarding your rationale: Looking at how you used Earwig's Copyvio Detector, this sentence was listed as copyrighted information: "executive director of Queers for Economic Justice". That is an actual fact that I cited using a document from Queers for Economic Justice itself.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector also claims that this is copyrighted information: "He is the co-editor of Letters from Young Activists: Today's Rebels Speak Out" and then "appeared in the anthologies Spirited: Affirming the Soul of Black Lesbian and Gay Identity, Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Same-Sex Marriage, For Colored Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When The Rainbow Is Still Not Enough, We Have Not Been Moved: Resisting Racism and Militarism in 21st Century America, and Black Gay Genius: Answering Joseph Beam's Call."
I wrote that paragraph by doing an internet search for books that Farrow either edited or wrote and then linked them one by one to their bibliographical call number. I can see that my listing was similar to Hunter's, however this specific listing occurred in my original article because it followed the progress of each publication date. I painstakingly wrote and rewrote this particular list so that any reader would be able to understand the development of Farrow's work over the course of time. I do the same thing when I list a dancer's repertoire; I start with the date of their first acclaimed performance and then move forward from there.
To the point: I never make use of organizational biographies in my research, except to prove that an entity worked at a specific place. As I wrote before, the reason is that these biographies are frequently unreliable or are written in a way that does not meet Wikipedia's standard from neutrality. However I have edited ballet dancer entries which were directly air lifted by others from website biographies. When I edit those entries, instead of citing a copyright issue, I search for proof that a dancer appeared in said ballet and then cite it appropriately - usually through a NYTimes dance review.
Finally, in Farrow's accolades you will again see that Copyvio Detector listed the following information as having been lifted from Hunter College: "was named one of Out magazine's Out 100 for 2008, The Advocate magazine's “40 Under 40” LGBT Leaders in the United States for 2010, one of Black Entertainment Television’s “Modern Black History Heroes” for 2011," and then "received the Community Activist award at Chicago Black Pride's Esteem Awards in 2013," with a final copyright claim against "he 2016 Sexual Freedom Award by the Woodhull Institute,". Again, you will see that these accolades are listed in order of date, particularly when we focus on what was not included in Copyvio Detector's copyright infringement claim: "one of The Root's 20 Black LGBT Movers and Shakers for 2012," and " and was an honoree of Black, Gifted & Whole Foundation's 2017 Gala." These awards came from my own cited research.
I am making this point to show that no organization can copyright historical facts that are part of the easily sourced historical record. I put an incredibly amount of time into crafting every entry that I contribute to Wikipedia because I want to present a full picture of what each individual has contributed to the world. If I wrote that "George Washington served as the first president of The United States of America", Copyvio Detector would claim that I lifted the datum directly from many different sources even though I just came up with that sentence off the top of my head.
I was hit by a car in early January which is why I stopped making contributions to Wikipedia. My concussion made it impossible for me to look at screens. Signing back into Wikipedia and reading your message and erasure of my work was very upsetting because, as I've taken great pains to show, I did not use copyrighted information, nor have I ever relied upon any one else's writing in my content generation. As a contributor yourself, you are aware of how mind numbing it is to fill in all of the details on Wikipedia's citation boxes. I am meticulous in my endeavours because I want future editors to see a solid outline and have an easy time of checking or editing the work that was put forward.
I appreciate your responding to me and hope that I do not across as self righteous. Looking back at your original note in my talk page what I fail to see is the information you provided me through Copyvio Detector. I do not think that this standard is sufficient when considering the publication dates which Copyvio Detector accused me of lifting. I think when looking to apply this standard one must follow the patterns; for instance, if I had done a reverse order of publication date, I do not think that the Copyvio Detector would have triggered its alert. Is this the way one should write an article, or is the historical listing of published work unsuitable?
I have followed your suggestion about re-working Farrow's page. If you find that something looks copyrighted in any of my future writing, please inform me how you came to that conclusion and make a suggestion about how to fix it, particularly in the case of date progressions.
Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 05:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Jack Van Antwerp.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for your new article on Jack Van Antwerp.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've marked this article as being written in too promotional a style. Please rewrite it to avoid phrase like "cuytting-edge" and similar jargon. Don't quote laudatory comments in the text; use the m as references--and make sure that the quotes you do use are representative, and from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Dabney moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Stephanie Dabney, is too promotional written to remain published.We do not build a WP article from a tring of reviews. , but use the reviews to show the importance of her work, . . I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
DGG (
talk ) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The subject Stephanie Dabney certainly meets all guidelines of notability. Reading the direct quotes about her contribution to dance in listed sources that include NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, and Dance Magazine, as well as the fact that she performed at The 1984 Summer Olympics proves that she is more than worthy. I just attempted to edit an article of someone based in Trinidad. Though I have family from Trinidad, I could find no one who knew of her. Even then I researched the entry and could not find any substantial information about that subject. Instead of slapping a notability charge against that entry, I wrote a note in the page's talk space asking another editor to take a look at the work to see if the subject met notability. I want to ask if you have bias against my work? I ask because the Stephanie Dabney, like all people that I write about, is a notable subject with numerous verified sources.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I repeat the question asked of you previously: the nature of your work seems to indicate that you might be a paid editor. You gave above a reason for the article of KF that he had helped you with a medical problem, but I don't se that this is relevantto the other two articles.
It also seems from the style very likerly that rather than writing the text of these articles yourself, that you have composed it by assembling pieces from reviews and other sources. This is not permitted. . Unless you prommptly deal with these problem, and make the appropriate WP:COI and WP:PAID declarations, it's going to leave us with two choices 1)delete the articles, and wait unti lsomeone writes a proper article or 2) stubbify the article, since the people do seem to be notable , reducing it to the basic biogrpahic information needed to show notability, andwait for some other editor to do it properly. As an administrator here, I have the responsibility of making sure WP is free of copyvio and of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
1) I'll repeat my previous assertion. I am not a paid editor. If you look at the bulk of my articles, they are dance related. I am currently writing a series of entries about dancers. As you can see from my most recent edits, I am a fan of dance and work to fix faulty entries. As an editor, you can see that the notability of the subject Stephanie Dabney cannot possibly be questioned particularly when the numerous high quality news articles that I used to compile her entry are taken into account. You do not care for my style of writing, that however does not mean that my style is flawed, and it certainly does not call for an accusation that I am a paid editor. An example of my most recent edits on other existing dance files: Kevin McKenzie, a flawed file without proper adequate sources until I completely rewrote it: /info/en/?search=Kevin_McKenzie_(dancer)
Geoffrey Holder, a poorly written entry that I started rewriting though it will take additional work to fix all that is wrong with it: /info/en/?search=Geoffrey_Holder
John Tara, another flawed entry that requires additional rewriting though it is now with proper attributions: /info/en/?search=John_Taras
Prior to that I edited and fixed the entries of: /info/en/?search=Yuriko_Kajiya /info/en/?search=Xiomara_Reyes /info/en/?search=Gillian_Murphy and /info/en/?search=Sascha_Radetsky
What all of these entrants have in common is that they are dancers and that I have added information to them that previously did not exist. I have not been paid for this work.
2) What makes Stephanie Dabney relevant at least to me is that she suffered horribly because of her HIV complications and yet she has continued to speak about her condition and the progress that she is not making, even though she is committed to continuing to fight. I cannot include that information in her entry because it has not been covered by a news source. All of that aside, accusing me of being a paid writer particularly after all of the hard work I've put into all of my files is inappropriate. I think I wrote this before: if I was paid for my work, I would mention it. Instead I write about the subjects that I care about and the people I admire.
3) As to review quotes not being used in articles, this is news to me as I see it done in articles of movies, tv, and music stars every day. For example, in Madonna's entry, /info/en/?search=Madonna_(entertainer): In 1978, Madonna dropped out of college and relocated to New York City.[20] She had little money while working as a waitress at Dunkin' Donuts and with modern dance troupes, taking classes at the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and eventually performing with Pearl Lang Dance Theater.[21][18][22] Madonna said of her move to New York, "It was the first time I'd ever taken a plane, the first time I'd ever gotten a taxi cab. I came here with $35 in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done."[23] She started to work as a backup dancer for other established artists. One night, while returning from a rehearsal, a pair of men held her at knifepoint and forced her to perform fellatio. She later found the incident to be "a taste of my weakness, it showed me that I still could not save myself in spite of all the strong-girl show. I could never forget it."[24]
Now my question is, in my revising, should I go about removing all of these quotes and moving the pages to draft mode because of the substantial quotes that are in place?
Or Judy Garland, /info/en/?search=Judy_Garland.
I think that I ought to tell the folks that it was I who named Judy Garland, Judy Garland. Not that it would have made any difference – you couldn't have hid[den] that great talent if you'd called her "Tel Aviv Windsor Shell", you know, but her name when I first met her was Frances Gumm and it wasn't the kind of a name that so sensitive a great actress like that should have; ... and so we called her Judy Garland, and I think she's a combination of Helen Hayes and Al Jolson, and maybe Jenny Lind and Sarah Bernhardt.[17]
If this is a rule, I will apply it across the board in my edits and my writing.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just read your article on how you work listed on your Talk page.
"On a page totally new to me, I'll ask before I edit to any radical extent--if nobody responds, then I will go ahead. I generally wait a week. If the editors there do not like what I do, I sometimes go elsewhere. WP:OWN is a good policy, but hard to enforce. WP:BRD when used for major changes seems mainly designed to increase the work at the Arbitration Committee."
You did not employ this rule with me, rather you made an unfounded accusation. I would like an apology. I would also like for you to now go to arbitration any time you feel that there is something inappropriate about my work. I do not feel that you have behaved properly with me. Moving forward I think we could both benefit from an outside eye monitoring any future interactions we might have.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kevin McKenzie (dancer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcelo Gomes ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this note. I have corrected the issue and pointed Marcelo Gomes disambiguation to Marcelo Gomes (dancer).
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 01:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Dabney moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Stephanie Dabney, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 23:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephanie Dabney has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for writing Stephanie Dabney. I enjoyed reading your article and learning about her! Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! She was REALLY incredible and when I saw that she didn't have a page on Wikipedia, I knew I had to do something about that. If you ever get a chance to see footage of her performing as The Firebird, your jaw will drop! Writing about her has inspired me to add articles about more amazing ballerinas who changed or improved the world in ways that people don't even realize. Thank you again for this feedback!
- Aquariusveritas,I see that you (and others) worked on the article further, and I see MJL quite reasonably accepted it. The present article Stephanie Dabney shows notability clearly enough, and is otherwise altogether OK . DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
|
| 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 |
Hello, Aquariusveritas, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Michael Mao, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The article Michael Mao has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Aquariusveritas. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of
conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
neutral point of view and
what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a
black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the
talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the
articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:Aquariusveritas. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aquariusveritas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 14:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Joya Powell, Aquariusveritas!
Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Year of birth missing
To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aquariusveritas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's
mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the
Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at
User:Aquariusveritas, and the template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aquariusveritas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not a paid editor with a conflict of interest. My interest in Kenyon Farrow comes from the fact that he helped me in dealing with my HIV. I take a lot of time in making sure that every entry that I add is well cited and sourced and includes every single citation that I can find. Can you please explain to me what makes you think that I am a paid contributor? Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 23:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kenyon Farrow
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kenyon Farrow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Citrivescence ( talk) 06:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kenyon Farrow, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/ https://www.centerforthehumanities.org/programming/participants/kenyon-farrow http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?conference-speaker=kenyon-farrow, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Kenyon Farrow and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Kenyon Farrow, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kenyon Farrow. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Kenyon Farrow with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Kenyon Farrow saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the rules of Wikipedia listed above, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." A page for the writer/activist Kenyon Farrow that I created was flagged by Justlettersandnumbers for copyright infringement and then deleted. I wrote a thoroughly researched article with proper attributions and links. Justlettersandnumbers's claim that I made use of copyrighted materials appears thusly: This article appears to contain work copied from https://ubuntubiographyproject.com/2017/11/13/kenyon-farrow/ https://www.centerforthehumanities.org/programming/participants/kenyon-farrow http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?conference-speaker=kenyon-farrow
None of the information that I used on Kenyon Farrow that I wrote came from the Ubuntu Biography Project because I did not think it met the criteria for a distinguished reporting. In citing this claim of copyright infringement against my writing, Justlettersandnumbers failed to to list anything that came from Ubuntu. This article on Farrow used over 95 web sources, meaning I was able to write about Farrow without referencing or using any material from Ubuntu. I write this to indicate that I did not use nor did I need to use any information from Ubuntu's page. The main reason for this is timing, much of what I found on Ubuntu's page appeared in earlier articles from NYTimes, Advocate, The Nation, BET, or The Body.com. This information was properly sourced/attributed and rewritten as per the rules of Wikipedia.
As to the information listed on the Center for Humanities and CUNY Hunter Roosevelt House, that information was Farrow's biography information listed on the website announcement that he was slated to lecture and speak at the schools. The same information is listed at every school/institution where Farrow spoke, from Harvard to Barnard to Penn State to Yale. I cited that information appropriately and used other direct sources listed in the biography instead of relying upon the biography alone because I know that some biographies are embellished, out of date, or simply incorrect. For instance, one biography listed that Farrow had graduated from CUNY's School of Journalism with an MA; unable to find a corroborating source for this information, I contacted the school directly and the school informed me that Farrow had not graduated yet.
Again, all of the information listed on Ubuntu or Hunter came from earlier and more reputable sources which were cited; the information from those sources were then rewritten according to Wikipedia's standard, a standard that is always honoured in my writing. I have written many articles for Wikipedia. This is the first time that I have had a charge of Copyright infringement leveled against me. The charge of copyright infringement was incorrect. More troubling to me however, particularly considering my track record for Content creation and editing, particularly on dance and theatrical related entries, is why Justlettersandnumbers did not list the material in question or, as per the nature of this living encyclopedia, simply correct and edit the material in question.
How is this to be rectified and corrected? Please advise.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Aquariusveritas, your information is inaccurate – I first declined a G12 speedy deletion nomination, blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. Three weeks later I deleted it as no viable rewrite had been proposed, citing the copyright violations of https://kenyonfarrow.com/ in my deletion rationale (see here for what I mean). I've now restored the page. You can work on a rewrite at this special page. Please let me know (here is fine) once it is complete, and I'll move it into place. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I do not believe that my information is not inaccurate. If it is I would like for you to look at my statements and then tell me precisely how my information registers as faulty.
A review of what you have listed regarding your rationale: Looking at how you used Earwig's Copyvio Detector, this sentence was listed as copyrighted information: "executive director of Queers for Economic Justice". That is an actual fact that I cited using a document from Queers for Economic Justice itself.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector also claims that this is copyrighted information: "He is the co-editor of Letters from Young Activists: Today's Rebels Speak Out" and then "appeared in the anthologies Spirited: Affirming the Soul of Black Lesbian and Gay Identity, Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Same-Sex Marriage, For Colored Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When The Rainbow Is Still Not Enough, We Have Not Been Moved: Resisting Racism and Militarism in 21st Century America, and Black Gay Genius: Answering Joseph Beam's Call."
I wrote that paragraph by doing an internet search for books that Farrow either edited or wrote and then linked them one by one to their bibliographical call number. I can see that my listing was similar to Hunter's, however this specific listing occurred in my original article because it followed the progress of each publication date. I painstakingly wrote and rewrote this particular list so that any reader would be able to understand the development of Farrow's work over the course of time. I do the same thing when I list a dancer's repertoire; I start with the date of their first acclaimed performance and then move forward from there.
To the point: I never make use of organizational biographies in my research, except to prove that an entity worked at a specific place. As I wrote before, the reason is that these biographies are frequently unreliable or are written in a way that does not meet Wikipedia's standard from neutrality. However I have edited ballet dancer entries which were directly air lifted by others from website biographies. When I edit those entries, instead of citing a copyright issue, I search for proof that a dancer appeared in said ballet and then cite it appropriately - usually through a NYTimes dance review.
Finally, in Farrow's accolades you will again see that Copyvio Detector listed the following information as having been lifted from Hunter College: "was named one of Out magazine's Out 100 for 2008, The Advocate magazine's “40 Under 40” LGBT Leaders in the United States for 2010, one of Black Entertainment Television’s “Modern Black History Heroes” for 2011," and then "received the Community Activist award at Chicago Black Pride's Esteem Awards in 2013," with a final copyright claim against "he 2016 Sexual Freedom Award by the Woodhull Institute,". Again, you will see that these accolades are listed in order of date, particularly when we focus on what was not included in Copyvio Detector's copyright infringement claim: "one of The Root's 20 Black LGBT Movers and Shakers for 2012," and " and was an honoree of Black, Gifted & Whole Foundation's 2017 Gala." These awards came from my own cited research.
I am making this point to show that no organization can copyright historical facts that are part of the easily sourced historical record. I put an incredibly amount of time into crafting every entry that I contribute to Wikipedia because I want to present a full picture of what each individual has contributed to the world. If I wrote that "George Washington served as the first president of The United States of America", Copyvio Detector would claim that I lifted the datum directly from many different sources even though I just came up with that sentence off the top of my head.
I was hit by a car in early January which is why I stopped making contributions to Wikipedia. My concussion made it impossible for me to look at screens. Signing back into Wikipedia and reading your message and erasure of my work was very upsetting because, as I've taken great pains to show, I did not use copyrighted information, nor have I ever relied upon any one else's writing in my content generation. As a contributor yourself, you are aware of how mind numbing it is to fill in all of the details on Wikipedia's citation boxes. I am meticulous in my endeavours because I want future editors to see a solid outline and have an easy time of checking or editing the work that was put forward.
I appreciate your responding to me and hope that I do not across as self righteous. Looking back at your original note in my talk page what I fail to see is the information you provided me through Copyvio Detector. I do not think that this standard is sufficient when considering the publication dates which Copyvio Detector accused me of lifting. I think when looking to apply this standard one must follow the patterns; for instance, if I had done a reverse order of publication date, I do not think that the Copyvio Detector would have triggered its alert. Is this the way one should write an article, or is the historical listing of published work unsuitable?
I have followed your suggestion about re-working Farrow's page. If you find that something looks copyrighted in any of my future writing, please inform me how you came to that conclusion and make a suggestion about how to fix it, particularly in the case of date progressions.
Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 05:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Jack Van Antwerp.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for your new article on Jack Van Antwerp.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've marked this article as being written in too promotional a style. Please rewrite it to avoid phrase like "cuytting-edge" and similar jargon. Don't quote laudatory comments in the text; use the m as references--and make sure that the quotes you do use are representative, and from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Dabney moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Stephanie Dabney, is too promotional written to remain published.We do not build a WP article from a tring of reviews. , but use the reviews to show the importance of her work, . . I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
DGG (
talk ) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The subject Stephanie Dabney certainly meets all guidelines of notability. Reading the direct quotes about her contribution to dance in listed sources that include NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, and Dance Magazine, as well as the fact that she performed at The 1984 Summer Olympics proves that she is more than worthy. I just attempted to edit an article of someone based in Trinidad. Though I have family from Trinidad, I could find no one who knew of her. Even then I researched the entry and could not find any substantial information about that subject. Instead of slapping a notability charge against that entry, I wrote a note in the page's talk space asking another editor to take a look at the work to see if the subject met notability. I want to ask if you have bias against my work? I ask because the Stephanie Dabney, like all people that I write about, is a notable subject with numerous verified sources.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I repeat the question asked of you previously: the nature of your work seems to indicate that you might be a paid editor. You gave above a reason for the article of KF that he had helped you with a medical problem, but I don't se that this is relevantto the other two articles.
It also seems from the style very likerly that rather than writing the text of these articles yourself, that you have composed it by assembling pieces from reviews and other sources. This is not permitted. . Unless you prommptly deal with these problem, and make the appropriate WP:COI and WP:PAID declarations, it's going to leave us with two choices 1)delete the articles, and wait unti lsomeone writes a proper article or 2) stubbify the article, since the people do seem to be notable , reducing it to the basic biogrpahic information needed to show notability, andwait for some other editor to do it properly. As an administrator here, I have the responsibility of making sure WP is free of copyvio and of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
1) I'll repeat my previous assertion. I am not a paid editor. If you look at the bulk of my articles, they are dance related. I am currently writing a series of entries about dancers. As you can see from my most recent edits, I am a fan of dance and work to fix faulty entries. As an editor, you can see that the notability of the subject Stephanie Dabney cannot possibly be questioned particularly when the numerous high quality news articles that I used to compile her entry are taken into account. You do not care for my style of writing, that however does not mean that my style is flawed, and it certainly does not call for an accusation that I am a paid editor. An example of my most recent edits on other existing dance files: Kevin McKenzie, a flawed file without proper adequate sources until I completely rewrote it: /info/en/?search=Kevin_McKenzie_(dancer)
Geoffrey Holder, a poorly written entry that I started rewriting though it will take additional work to fix all that is wrong with it: /info/en/?search=Geoffrey_Holder
John Tara, another flawed entry that requires additional rewriting though it is now with proper attributions: /info/en/?search=John_Taras
Prior to that I edited and fixed the entries of: /info/en/?search=Yuriko_Kajiya /info/en/?search=Xiomara_Reyes /info/en/?search=Gillian_Murphy and /info/en/?search=Sascha_Radetsky
What all of these entrants have in common is that they are dancers and that I have added information to them that previously did not exist. I have not been paid for this work.
2) What makes Stephanie Dabney relevant at least to me is that she suffered horribly because of her HIV complications and yet she has continued to speak about her condition and the progress that she is not making, even though she is committed to continuing to fight. I cannot include that information in her entry because it has not been covered by a news source. All of that aside, accusing me of being a paid writer particularly after all of the hard work I've put into all of my files is inappropriate. I think I wrote this before: if I was paid for my work, I would mention it. Instead I write about the subjects that I care about and the people I admire.
3) As to review quotes not being used in articles, this is news to me as I see it done in articles of movies, tv, and music stars every day. For example, in Madonna's entry, /info/en/?search=Madonna_(entertainer): In 1978, Madonna dropped out of college and relocated to New York City.[20] She had little money while working as a waitress at Dunkin' Donuts and with modern dance troupes, taking classes at the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and eventually performing with Pearl Lang Dance Theater.[21][18][22] Madonna said of her move to New York, "It was the first time I'd ever taken a plane, the first time I'd ever gotten a taxi cab. I came here with $35 in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done."[23] She started to work as a backup dancer for other established artists. One night, while returning from a rehearsal, a pair of men held her at knifepoint and forced her to perform fellatio. She later found the incident to be "a taste of my weakness, it showed me that I still could not save myself in spite of all the strong-girl show. I could never forget it."[24]
Now my question is, in my revising, should I go about removing all of these quotes and moving the pages to draft mode because of the substantial quotes that are in place?
Or Judy Garland, /info/en/?search=Judy_Garland.
I think that I ought to tell the folks that it was I who named Judy Garland, Judy Garland. Not that it would have made any difference – you couldn't have hid[den] that great talent if you'd called her "Tel Aviv Windsor Shell", you know, but her name when I first met her was Frances Gumm and it wasn't the kind of a name that so sensitive a great actress like that should have; ... and so we called her Judy Garland, and I think she's a combination of Helen Hayes and Al Jolson, and maybe Jenny Lind and Sarah Bernhardt.[17]
If this is a rule, I will apply it across the board in my edits and my writing.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just read your article on how you work listed on your Talk page.
"On a page totally new to me, I'll ask before I edit to any radical extent--if nobody responds, then I will go ahead. I generally wait a week. If the editors there do not like what I do, I sometimes go elsewhere. WP:OWN is a good policy, but hard to enforce. WP:BRD when used for major changes seems mainly designed to increase the work at the Arbitration Committee."
You did not employ this rule with me, rather you made an unfounded accusation. I would like an apology. I would also like for you to now go to arbitration any time you feel that there is something inappropriate about my work. I do not feel that you have behaved properly with me. Moving forward I think we could both benefit from an outside eye monitoring any future interactions we might have.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kevin McKenzie (dancer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcelo Gomes ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this note. I have corrected the issue and pointed Marcelo Gomes disambiguation to Marcelo Gomes (dancer).
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 01:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Dabney moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Stephanie Dabney, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 23:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephanie Dabney has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for writing Stephanie Dabney. I enjoyed reading your article and learning about her! Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! She was REALLY incredible and when I saw that she didn't have a page on Wikipedia, I knew I had to do something about that. If you ever get a chance to see footage of her performing as The Firebird, your jaw will drop! Writing about her has inspired me to add articles about more amazing ballerinas who changed or improved the world in ways that people don't even realize. Thank you again for this feedback!
- Aquariusveritas,I see that you (and others) worked on the article further, and I see MJL quite reasonably accepted it. The present article Stephanie Dabney shows notability clearly enough, and is otherwise altogether OK . DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
|
| 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 |