User talk:AndersenAnders

Please note that all the sources you are adding to the ASM article are what Wikipedia terms primary sources... in other words, they are related to or provided by the artist themselves, which aren't considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles as they may introduce bias, and also they do not demonstrate notability because it doesn't prove that anybody outside of the band has taken any notice of them. Blogs aren't acceptable either, because there is no editorial control. Please see WP:RS – acceptable sources would be established published newspapers, music magazines, etc. with journalistic backgrounds. If you can't provide this, then the article may be nominated for deletion, as you cannot show that the band meets the notability requirements at WP:BAND. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but since there's nothing controversial about this band I don't see any problems with primary sources, to be honest. There are no analyses and overall nothing that really needs to be verifiable. There are articles about them, but in French and German. I know, the rules are like that, but in some cases it's not easy to fulfil them. Please pardon my English, I'm foreign. --AndersenAnders (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the information is true or if it is not controversial – what is important is that the subject has to be notable, per WP:N. And that means there have to be independent and impartial sources, not primary sources. It is not a problem if the sources are in French, German, Arabic, Chinese or any other language – the problem is that these sources do not meet WP:RS. Limonadier is a blog, and also it's an interview with the artist, talking about themselves, so it's not impartial. The German source is just a concert hall – playing a concert doesn't make a musician notable, every musician plays live concerts. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well then go on, delete every article of any artist that isn't noted in any important newspaper, if you think this is how wikipedia should work. Why would you think an artist istn't notable just because he or she is not that famous? ASM is a group since 2007, they have played more than 600 shows in 25 countries, and still they aren't important enough for wiki? Is this supposed to be a VIP club for super famous artist or what? I know you didn't invent those rules, but couldn't you just let it be? Do you think wiki shouldn't be a platform that provides as much information as possible for as many artists, even independent ones, as possible? Not just for the artists everybody already knows?--AndersenAnders (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point at all. I have let it be, I haven't tried to delete the article at all... I'm just letting you know that at present the article does not pass WP:N, and there is every possibility that some editor in the future will nominate it for deletion if it isn't improved with reliable sources. Of course Wikipedia should provide information on less famous artists, provided that information is from reliable independent sources – that's the only thing I'm stating here, which isn't what I personally think, it's just the fundamental basis for Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I terribly misunderstood you, my apologiese.--AndersenAnders (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wood-pasture hypothesis has been accepted

Wood-pasture hypothesis, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wood-pasture hypothesis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wood-pasture hypothesis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hallo, a human here. I've reviewed the article. It is well-cited and comprehensive but it's quite discursive and difficult to read, so I suspect it will take quite a bit of work to bring it up to GA standard. I'm happy to work with you to help get it there. Let me know what you plan to do with it and what sort of timescale you have in mind, and we can work something out. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking it up. In principle, I am willing to invest a good deal of time into the article, as I have done already (it is mostly my work). However, I expect the coming weeks to be relatively busy for me. In your experience, how long do you estimate it would take? And could you elaborate on what you would change specifically (as an overview)? Many thanks AndersenAnders (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your review until now. I will go through them and get back to you. AndersenAnders (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wood-pasture hypothesis

The article Wood-pasture hypothesis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wood-pasture hypothesis and Talk:Wood-pasture hypothesis/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wood-pasture hypothesis

The article Wood-pasture hypothesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wood-pasture hypothesis for comments about the article, and Talk:Wood-pasture hypothesis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Chiswick Chap, and thank you for you patience and good advice. AndersenAnders (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wood-pasture hypothesis

Hello! Your submission of Wood-pasture hypothesis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Wood-pasture hypothesis

On 4 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wood-pasture hypothesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the wood-pasture hypothesis posits that semi-open wood pastures and not primeval forests are the natural vegetation of temperate Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wood-pasture hypothesis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wood-pasture hypothesis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oak notes

Hi, I don't think we can sensibly list all the sections in each region - and the regions are well-defined - in an image caption. I suggest you list them in "efn" footnotes to the image caption, i.e. like this: [[File:.....|thumb|... North America{{efn|The North American sections are A, B, C, D, and E.}}, Europe{{efn|The European sections are F, G, H, I, J, and K.}}, ... etc.]] That way the caption remains manageably short and interested readers can get a quick overview with one click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Will do as soon as I can AndersenAnders (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've created in-place templates for them and filled out a couple. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. AndersenAnders (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have filled out the other templates, largely after this graphic. There was also the issue with the New World/Old World clades, which is true evolutionary speaking but might cause confusion as Quercus and Ponticae occur in both spheres. AndersenAnders (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)