Hello, I notice that you added a {{who}} template in the lead following many felt the album was overlong and lacking in coherence, though some. Since the first half sentence already specifies music critics, I think it should be clear to the reader that "some" describes some of those music critics. That was a complicated way of saying that I believe the template is unnecessary in this case. What do you think? Throast (talk | contribs) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Never mind, someone has rephrased the sentence. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the reviews, I didn't see any which specifically deemed it superior to his previous albums Ye (2018) and Jesus Is King (2019). This seems to me more like fan editorialization than cited knowledge, which is why I added the tag -- the phrasing is still there, and I'm happy to take this convo to the talk page for the article (which is probably where I should have started it...). It just seems like a misconstruction of the critical consensus. (I also am not sure that critics were "polarized" by the album, it seems more like the album recieved mixed reviews. I only see one review which gives it a particularly positive angle, from slantmagazine.) Thanks for reaching out! SiliconRed (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Publications Consequence, Exclaim, and Slate "deem it superior" to those albums (they are all cited in the critical reception section), which makes it worthy of a mention in the lead in my opinion. On the latter, I totally agree. It's currently being discussed at the talk. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ciel (musician) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Thanks for the notice! I’ll reopen the article in the draft space & continue improving it. I believe the subject is notable enough, but I’ll improve the article to make that clear. SiliconRed (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC) SiliconRed (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ciel (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ciel (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Siliconred!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ciel (musician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Nope! I haven't been paid (& won't be paid in the future) to write for Wikipedia beyond the Bookmark disclosure & article. Saw her perform a few months ago, which motivated me to write this article. 😊 SiliconRed (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Siliconred, You know disclosing paid editing is really important, so I was just making sure, thought straight up ask u before putting it to a discussion at WP:COIN. Usually, users who have already disclosed a COI previously, do not hesitate to do so in future if they have COI. But u know, sometime they forget or avoid it. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I hope you'd keep continuing creating articles.
PS: I'd advice you to not directly create articles/pages in mainspace. Rather create a draft, and upon its completion, either move it to mainspace (being confident its suitable for inclusion), or submit it to AFC (as you did for Ciel, which I appreciate).
PSS: On a side note, I also often times created articles about subjects, including musicians whom I randomly came across. It's a good habit IMO. Keep doing that. Would be happy to be help regarding any issues. Cheers!-- Tame (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stellar, I'll definitely reach out if I have questions! I've created a few articles before but I'm a bit rusty (as you caught with my initial attempt at this article...). I haven't actually used AfC before, but the process was smooth and straightforward (and gets more eyes on drafts) and I anticipate doing so again. Thanks for your help! SiliconRed (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
February with Women in Red
Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sherelle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sherelle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Can you help me re-edit it to suit an entry for Wikipedia since I have all the reference links in there? I have over 28 reference points.
Please feel free to delete sections you think should not be included and make it Wikipedia-worthy.
Hi there Buernatey -- the issue isn't with the reference points (I have not given the citations a thorough review quite yet). You can use my comment on as part of my reason for decline to help out as you revise the article:
This article is full of lists. Specifically, I'm pointing to WP:NOTDIRECTORY with this decline. This draft should be revised and content cut significantly -- one of the several example of prose issues here is the sentence "He is the author/editor of at least 25 books including..." This sentence should be revised to just: "He is the author/editor of at least 25 books. (or similar). Edits like this should be applied across the article before resubmission.
Namaste
I need an my biography article on Wikipedia even I have given to draft am pavan acharya film actor and Telivesion actor I will give my film projects updates and my TV Telivesion projects updates so can you do article promotion
Nathan, none of the edits on the Pak page is contested information that you deleted systematically. I don't understanding - everything is justified. I am fully aware of several well funded campaigns to delete mentions of Pak (and I know who is behind some of them). I do hope this is done with good conscious as there is a bit of disinformation out there.
Hi there! None of the information you’ve added is cited. If you’d like to add it to the article, please provide WP:RS. I have no idea what “campaigns” you’re talking about, Wikipedia prohibits canvassing, unless you’re referring to AfD discussions about the page. AfD nominations happen all the time. Please stop undoing my edits unless you plan to constructively add to the page content that is independently verified. Thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
March editathons
Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225
I don't quite understand why do you always delete Lost Poets from Pak's webpage? There are legitimate sources on this sale, and it was even cited by Andreesen Horowitz in their investment into Manifold. Shortshoward (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! In the future, I’d prefer if you raise questions on the article talk page, rather than my personal page — I do not WP:OWN the article. The first citation is not from a WP:RELIABLE source, and the second is not WP:INDEPENDENT. For now, it seems okay to keep information about the project, but the $70 million figure has been impossible to verify in my research, and it would be against the guidelines of WP:BIO to keep such a massive claim in the article without sufficient sourcing. Apologies if this wasn’t clear, I work to articulate reasons for changes very explicitly in my edit summaries. SiliconRed (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources verifying Lost Poets sales, please explain to me why the citation is not relevant? You do realize there has been a systematic campaign paid by several NFT collectors (who many are aware of) to try and reduce media coverage of Pak on their Lost Poets and Merge drop. Shortshoward (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other citations out there, please share them. I've already explained issues with the existing citations, and I'm still not sure what campaign you're talking about. Anyway, regardless of whycitations don't exist, you can't add information to any article because you believe it to be true without proper citations to back it up. This is a core principle of Wikipedia. SiliconRed (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, do you also want me to point on the blockchain how Pak raised $70 million? Also explain to me why cryptotimes is not an information source? The campaign was done to pay certain people to specifically delete Pak on Wikipedia and pay certain news sources to not publish or bring attention to Pak drops, which more or less have been a waste of money trying to censor events that occur on the blockchain. Shortshoward (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a general lack of reliable coverage of the sale. Notice how the "Merge" sale has plenty of independent citations, and the "Clock" sale is covered in multiple known WP:RS. There is only one article which mentions this "Poets" sale; "Cryptotimes" is not sufficient to WP:VERIFY the claim. The "chain" is not WP:INDEPENDENT -- it's impossible to verify the legitimacy of the sale by looking only there. Paid editors on Wikipedia are required to disclose, and I have not seen suspicious editing patterns on Pak (creator). I am doubtful there is a campaign to silence this person, but if you have WP:RS to support this, it would be noteworthy content to include in the article. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I am not going to continue this conversation here. If you have content issues with the article please raise them on the article talk page. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples of paid Wikipedia editors and their backers (known) who have paid to delete portions of Pak's creator Wikipedia page and limit media coverage. Shortshoward (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COIN
Greetings, even though you started this on Barkeep49's talkpage, didn't feel like cluttering that page up. Just wanted to let you know that since that editor looks like they are going to adhere to COI guidelines and not directly edit, I'm going to hold off on the report. Onel5969TT me17:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes total sense, agreed. I’ll be keeping an eye on the page, if any issues come up I will likely ping you. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Thanks for the notice Doug Weller -- just out of curiosity, do you find my contributions have been productive on the article? I don't mean to step on toes, and I'm looking to make sure the piece is strong. Open to any commentary. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t really scrutinised them and don’t want to get involved in content, bit I’ve seen no problems. It’s just routine and I need to be sure I give them to good editors as well as those I worry about. I made myself aware of them. I didn’t give you one for gender. Doug Wellertalk18:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
This version seems to be the correct one. It looks like you saw the mistake, fixed it, then accidentally clicked undo: the current version proposes to merge the DAB page with itself. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
