User talk:Cabayi

User:Bazj/arc

Question re: tag

Hello Bazj, A question for you regarding the article, Ecological art: I noticed that you tagged the article for COI via TW. This is a non-commercial, educational encyclopedia article on a relevant topic with hundreds of practitioners around the globe.

May I ask why you did not simply leave a message or question on the talk page rather than tagging the article with no communication in good faith?

Could you please provide more information on your rationale, as the article contains dozens of references and citations to practitioners and theoreticians in this genre. While I am a university professor and administrator one of whose many areas of expertise is art and art history, I have not cited myself, my writings, or any of my original research. Why the COI, and why use a TW tool rather than carefully examining the article?

Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How about you carefully examine Pointillism, Cubism, or Cave painting, then try and convince yourself Ecological art has any distance, perspective, or encyclopedic view of the topic? Even if you hadn't declared your background in academia it would be clear from the presentation of the article. It needs to be an encyclopedic article, approachable by the general public, not a research paper. Bazj (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ecological art practitioners include artists, scientists, philosophers and activists who are devoted to the theory and practices of ecological art."

"Ecological art practitioners include [people] who are devoted to ... ecological art."

"Ecological art practitioners ... are devoted to ... ecological art."

The closer I examine, the more it seems to lose meaning. Bazj (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I am sorry, Bazj, but I am not understanding you. Is your question rhetorical or ironic, or are you suggesting that I follow the format of Pointillism, Cubism or Cave painting? It is unclear if you are saying that it is a poorly written article, if so, thank you for pointing that out, I will continue to improve the article. However to imply that it is a COI is illogical - the article does not contain any original research, nor mention me personally, nor anything I've ever written. There is absolutely no commercial business attached to the article, nor am I being paid by anyone or any institution for working on it. The article was created because the genre of Ecological art is and should be distinct from the genre of Environmental art, and they were formerly lumped together in one article (Environmental art) which was confusing and incorrect. They are two separate genres.

I was unaware that having a background in academia was a handicap or forbidden in writing encyclopedia articles. If you feel that the language of the article needs to be more approachable and accessible, I will work on that, and would appreciate constructive suggestions! However when I look at many of the articles in the sciences, they seem unaccessible to the general public, and sound very academic (from my standpoint). For example: Jellium Local-density approximation or Quantum-mechanical explanation of intermolecular interactions. Why is the Ecological art article considered a COI?

Lastly, I do not understand the intention of your second message, other than implying redundancy. Do you suggest I list the types of practitioners, and leave out the "devoted to" part of the sentence? The point is that Ecological art is not practiced solely by artists, but also by scientists, lawyers, policy makers, philosophers, activists, etc. - that Ecological art normally develops from teams of people working collectively in different disciplines. I truly and respectfully seeking your help in making this a better article, and would appreciate constructive feedback and helpful suggestions in making it a higher quality article. My main concern is why you tagged it COI, rather than just saying it's a poorly written article that needs work. Thank you for your help, and hope to hear back from you. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:COI : I've never said you had a commercial interest. The policy states "your financial or other relationships". It's unfortunate that the policy undermines that message by discussing nothing but financial relationships. I can't see now what I saw a month ago when I tagged the article, nor can I recall how I came to look at the article in the first place. I am reassured by the time and consideration you're giving the discussion, and given some WP:AGF I'm happy for you to remove the tag if you feel you're detached enough.
• having a background in academia was a handicap or forbidden - it's not... unless you're trying to raise the profile of a new branch of academia in which you have an interest.
• the intention of [my] second message was that, as written, that sentence resolved to a tautological nothingness. Something along the lines of "Ecological art is a multi-disciplinary field involving the skills of ....", as you outlined in your reply, conveys the meaning more directly.

My subsidiary point there was that if a reader spends the time to consider that sentence, and then finds it devoid of any substantial meaning, when they next encounter a challenging concept, are they going to spend much time on it?

• Pointillism, Cubism or Cave painting? Jellium Local-density approximation or Quantum-mechanical explanation of intermolecular interactions?

Let's try another example, near to my heart, Dacryocystorhinostomy. As an encyclopedia user, that article covers the ground beautifully (though it could do with linking to other wiki articles). If, on the other hand, I found that the surgeon wielding a scalpel at my face had learnt all he knew about DCR from that article, I'd panic. By analogy, I'd rather see the article pitched at the general reader than the EA practitioner.

The Ecological art article is detail heavy... do we need every topic in Mo Dawley's book? does ecofeminism need 22 references while museum studies and language get none and the Ecofeminism article itself only musters 19 references in total.

• More succinctly, if I were stood in front of a piece of Ecological art, would the article help me to recognise that or not? That was my point in referring to Pointillism & Cubism. I'll presume a painting in a cave doesn't need a wiki explanation.
• Tagging the article's talk page as belonging to whichever of the sub-projects at WP:ARTS are relevant may help in getting a more enlightened "second pair of eyes" to look over the article & help improve it. Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wowzers! This is extremely helpful, Bazj. It is exactly the kind of feedback I needed to hear to understand the problems with the article, and see it from another point of view. Many thanks to you for your feedback, and the time you took to respond in such detail. I will work on the article, and take all of your helpful suggestions in to consideration. I get it, and am inspired to reconsider many aspects of the page to improve it. It may be a week or two before I can focus better as it's the end of semester crunch/miasma/discombobulation. Forgive me if I sounded defensive in my message, I'm a new-ish editor still getting the hang of this. Know that I care deeply about Wikipedia's goals, and thank you again for your guidance. Netherzone (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

About the Empty Page...."Texts Everyone, Texts."

Thanks for your comments kind Sir....U will kindly be advised that I notified of why the page was started. I am heading out the door to my office to begin work on it in moments...be there in an approximation of sub-game equilibrium in two hours....long commute today. Hopefully traffic lights friendly; so thanks again for reminding me of my policies' I'll do well to make sure Blue Gene and Watson are updated as to your diligence....many thanks! Dutch. Publican Farmer (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iskander Zakirov

Hello Bazj. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Iskander Zakirov. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149. Deletion-tagging an article that is obviously still being written. allowing its creator only two minutes to finish their work, does nothing to impeove Wikipedia, but damages it by deterring a potentially valuable new contributor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I make no apologies for tagging unsourced autobiographies on sight. Bazj (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

you know?

I already finish the main temple structure. whatever you say, arrogant guy. --Composcompos12 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm The Avengers. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, UK O 8OO O86 9133 USA 18OO29O5189 microsoft office 365, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. The Avengers 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, I nominated it for deletion as spam, it's been deleted. Not sure what was achieved by un-reviewing it, but if it made you happy then all is good. Bazj (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't post the above message. The page curation tool does that. Those who created the tool, they use the first person pronoun I, instead of using third person. The Avengers 10:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, I'm not sure what your point is there. I was commenting on the pointlessness of unreviewing an article that was blatantly spam and heading for the bin; I wasn't questioning the message.

But, now that you raise it, was your point that you'd have not bothered to notify me, or that you don't want to take responsibility for what happens when you use the tools provided? Neither seems to be something to boast about.

Most of the tools come with the caution that "You are responsible for your edits". The fact that you don't see everything that it does on your behalf is neither here nor there. The message is signed by you, it is credited to you in the edit history, it's YOURS, not the tool's. Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe I am not wrong, if i say that reviewing an article means patrolling it. Un patrolled pages appear yellow. Most of those who creates pages which are tagged as speedy delete, these users remove speedy deletion tag. I changed my twinkle settings as when i nominate a page for speedy delete, the page shouldn't be marked as patrolled. If the user removes the speedy deletion template of a page marked as patrolled, then other new page patrollers might ignore the page, as the page is not yellow. The Avengers 12:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, Thanks for explaining. It's always good to see someone else's point of view.

Personally, I use my CSD log & watchlist to spot CSD tag removal. The article is marked as patrolled to save other reviewers redoing work I've already done. The CSD log also pays dividends in spotting when the article is recreated, which can then flag up sock-puppetry, paid editing, and the like.

I guess we're on the same objective, different tactics. Keep fighting the good fight, Bazj (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Template editing

Hi,

I see you are a Wikipedia:Template editor so I wonder if you can help at: Template_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Wrong_sortkey_used. Since I do not wp:watchlist pages I hope you will either wp:Ping me or respond on my own talkpage. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Simonr1295

Bazj I was trying to delete a reference that I had inserted clumsily. I have requested a speedy delete instead owing to my conflict of interest. Thank you for your help. I will in future ask for amends to be made on the article talk page rather than make them myself. Thank you for your help. (Simonr1295 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

Simonr1295, that would seem a sound plan. Bazj (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol troll award goes to...

After reading the comments, it seems you have nothing better to do or must get paid to troll and request deletion of newly created pages. You sicken me.