 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
User:Roganjosh3, feedback
Wow.(Could you have possibly handled the situation any worse?!) IHTS ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent contributions to my article Alberto Gómez Gómez
Thanks (!) for your invaluable input. Because of what you (and a handful of others) have contributed, I'm gaining a deeper understanding of the forms that attach to my newly found vocation. (I'm beginning think I'm grateful that Wikipedia isn't more user friendly -- most especially not for publicists and self promoters.) My most important question at this moment is: Do I have any slack within which to make my changes? The original text did not bear directly on the images I'm now using. This is unsurprising because I'm rewriting and as I rewrite; the images in the articles at the moment are a better choice in the first place to support the points I'm making. I am simultaneously digging up the proper avenues to verify the citations which amply support the new text, retrofitting the new images to re-submit them, and responding to Arch Monarch's objections to material I was quite certain I'd supported numerous times in the existing text. All this takes place after returning from my day job and this is getting dizzying. Is this article in danger of being deleted? Thanks again, Rmark1030 ( talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Rmark1030. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by
Do I have any slack within which to make my changes?
, but it sounds as if you are asking whether time limits are imposed regarding certain edits. The simple answer is no as explained in the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Once an article has been added to the mainspace, it's essentially there for anyone to edit however and whenever they choose. In most cases, articles are improved gradually over time through edits made by a variety of different editors. Such edits are typically not reverted unless they are blatantly contrary to some Wikipedia policy or guideline, (e.g., WP:VAN, WP:DE, WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:EP#Problems that may justify removal, etc.), but rather improved upon by other editors. Therefore, any edits you make to the article will probably be left alone unless another editor "challenges" them or "improves" upon them. Disagreements over content (i.e., what to leave in, what to leave out) occasionally happen between editors and are usually best resolved through discussion on the article's talk page and trying to reach a consensus. Right now, the images being used in the article are licensed as "free" on Wikimedia Commons. If at some point they are deleted from Commons for copyright reasons, then an another editor or a bot will remove them from the article. If another removes the images for contextual reasons, then the best thing to do would to try and discuss things with this editor on the article's talk page. As for the article itself being in danger of deletion, only those with very serious problems which cannot be fixed are deleted by administrators without discussion ( WP:SPEEDY). An article can be prodded for deletion, but this can be challenged by any editor. I don't think the Gomez article is in danger of either speedy deletion or prodded deletion, but any article can be nominated for deletion at any time using WP:AFD. If that happens, then there will be a discussion about the article in which any editor can participate and the community at large will decide what to do. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, but spurious nominations tend to be quickly discredited. As long as Gomez is considered notable per WP:BIO#Creative professionals and WP:GNG, I do not think the article is in danger of being deleted anytime soon.
- From the Gomez's article history, it is easy to see you've been spending a lot of time on it. From your contribution record, it's also clear that this is pretty much the only article you've been working on. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but single purpose accounts tend focus so much of their time and energy on a single article or niche that they end up putting lots of pressure on themselves. They also tend to get upset when somebody comes along and undoes their "hard work". Try and remember that none of us own the articles we create or edit and anything that we do can be pretty much undone by another with a single click of the mouse. Sometimes the best thing to do after creating an article is to take a step back (perhaps go work on improving other articles) and let others work on it for awhile to see what happens. Another editor may improve the article in a way that you didn't even consider. There's no reason to stress out too much about Wikipedia. Most editors are really here to help build an encyclopedia, so they will not purposely try to "harm" the Gomez article. All editors make mistakes and Wikipedia is not intended to be perfect, but most of the time these are mistakes made in good faith and things that can be quickly fixed by another editor. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
User:Roganjosh3, feedback
Wow.(Could you have possibly handled the situation any worse?!) IHTS ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent contributions to my article Alberto Gómez Gómez
Thanks (!) for your invaluable input. Because of what you (and a handful of others) have contributed, I'm gaining a deeper understanding of the forms that attach to my newly found vocation. (I'm beginning think I'm grateful that Wikipedia isn't more user friendly -- most especially not for publicists and self promoters.) My most important question at this moment is: Do I have any slack within which to make my changes? The original text did not bear directly on the images I'm now using. This is unsurprising because I'm rewriting and as I rewrite; the images in the articles at the moment are a better choice in the first place to support the points I'm making. I am simultaneously digging up the proper avenues to verify the citations which amply support the new text, retrofitting the new images to re-submit them, and responding to Arch Monarch's objections to material I was quite certain I'd supported numerous times in the existing text. All this takes place after returning from my day job and this is getting dizzying. Is this article in danger of being deleted? Thanks again, Rmark1030 ( talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Rmark1030. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by
Do I have any slack within which to make my changes?
, but it sounds as if you are asking whether time limits are imposed regarding certain edits. The simple answer is no as explained in the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Once an article has been added to the mainspace, it's essentially there for anyone to edit however and whenever they choose. In most cases, articles are improved gradually over time through edits made by a variety of different editors. Such edits are typically not reverted unless they are blatantly contrary to some Wikipedia policy or guideline, (e.g., WP:VAN, WP:DE, WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:EP#Problems that may justify removal, etc.), but rather improved upon by other editors. Therefore, any edits you make to the article will probably be left alone unless another editor "challenges" them or "improves" upon them. Disagreements over content (i.e., what to leave in, what to leave out) occasionally happen between editors and are usually best resolved through discussion on the article's talk page and trying to reach a consensus. Right now, the images being used in the article are licensed as "free" on Wikimedia Commons. If at some point they are deleted from Commons for copyright reasons, then an another editor or a bot will remove them from the article. If another removes the images for contextual reasons, then the best thing to do would to try and discuss things with this editor on the article's talk page. As for the article itself being in danger of deletion, only those with very serious problems which cannot be fixed are deleted by administrators without discussion ( WP:SPEEDY). An article can be prodded for deletion, but this can be challenged by any editor. I don't think the Gomez article is in danger of either speedy deletion or prodded deletion, but any article can be nominated for deletion at any time using WP:AFD. If that happens, then there will be a discussion about the article in which any editor can participate and the community at large will decide what to do. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, but spurious nominations tend to be quickly discredited. As long as Gomez is considered notable per WP:BIO#Creative professionals and WP:GNG, I do not think the article is in danger of being deleted anytime soon.
- From the Gomez's article history, it is easy to see you've been spending a lot of time on it. From your contribution record, it's also clear that this is pretty much the only article you've been working on. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but single purpose accounts tend focus so much of their time and energy on a single article or niche that they end up putting lots of pressure on themselves. They also tend to get upset when somebody comes along and undoes their "hard work". Try and remember that none of us own the articles we create or edit and anything that we do can be pretty much undone by another with a single click of the mouse. Sometimes the best thing to do after creating an article is to take a step back (perhaps go work on improving other articles) and let others work on it for awhile to see what happens. Another editor may improve the article in a way that you didn't even consider. There's no reason to stress out too much about Wikipedia. Most editors are really here to help build an encyclopedia, so they will not purposely try to "harm" the Gomez article. All editors make mistakes and Wikipedia is not intended to be perfect, but most of the time these are mistakes made in good faith and things that can be quickly fixed by another editor. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)