User talk:Joojay/Archives/2020/November

Big Thanks for your work on the RAC page

1997kB has given you a tall pint! Pints promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tall pint, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Merry drinking!†

1997kB has given you a tall pint! Pints promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tall pint, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Merry drinking!†

Mvitulli (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Foreman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Chi-kwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burlingame.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dudley C. Carter

A tag has been placed on Category:Dudley C. Carter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Allison Schulnik

Hello! I reverted your recent edits here, mainly because they removed a number of sources in the exhibitions that I had spent time tracking down. I'm sorry to say that I think your edits worsened the article overall. I was not able to undo the edit that destroyed the exhibitions section, and determined that a full revert of your edits there was called for as they made the page worse rather than better.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

For example, the exhibition section you provided goes "Schulnik's has had various solo exhibitions, including ... among others." Multiple errors, along with removed sources. the table of film isn't needed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:I didn't remove your citations and this is a BLP, please review this more carefully. The table shouldn't be an issue either way. Jooojay (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also what does "I think your edits worsened the article overall" mean? It's not constructive or civil communication, it sounds subjective and like gatekeeping? What don't you like? What are the errors? Right now it looks like you just don't like the table. I am sorry if you didn't like my edits but we need to work together, we often edit the same art-based articles. Jooojay (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

For context, I had recently saved this article from deletion. I have been adding sources since then. As I added sources I have discovered how much writing there is about her- there are reviews and in-depth coverage. What your edits did was to trim all the source material I had been using to find sources. So they went out the window. Your approach of condensing the exhibitions and collections into one section is one method, but it makes further development harder. After restoring my version just now, I was able to use the source material to add ten sources. I am pretty sure your edit removed some of my sources but I could of course be wrong. As to Gatekeeping, I am not sure what you mean. As to the reference to it being a BLP, not every single fact needs to be verified, and I do not believe there are any exaggerations, falsehoods in the article. Most of the above is actually moot because the article now has ten more sources than it did a couple hours ago, and the majority of the material I restored is sourced. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Many of my contributions of new sources were not added back still, I am specifically referring to the the film section. When I say "gatekeeping" I am referring to your control of how the edits look to you on this article, none of which was relating to the MOS. I appreciate you were able to do further clean up, as it was much needed, but this is a shared space and none of us own a single article. I did not see the importance of highlighting every private gallery exhibition, it is not particularly notable information and starts to look like advertising (esp. with primary sources or sources like galleries). Jooojay (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There are only about two gallery references there; the rest are reviews. All of the content in an article does not need to be notable. Review provide valuable followup material for readers and for those looking to expand the article.

As I said, I have been working on this article. I don't own it, of course, and you need not educate me on how Wikipedia works. That said, there are five million article on the wiki, and I don't usually go poking around in articles that people are actively working on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: I apologize if you were still working on this article, it looked like you had moved on. I hope you are able to restore all of the missing citations, I will not touch this article now since I am clearly not welcome. Best of luck to you. Jooojay (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)