User talk:Herrikez

Welcome!

Hello, Herrikez! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Henry Hope Reed Award Laurates

A tag has been placed on Category:Henry Hope Reed Award Laurates 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herrikez (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Okay, do it.[reply]

Rafael Manzano Prize‎

Hi, I had a look at your draft:Rafael Manzano Prize‎ following our conversation on New Classical Architecture and tweaked the intro a bit. However in the English Wikipedia "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Step_2:_Notability_and_verifiability. As all the references about the award are to the award website, I think you will need to find several additional reliable independent sources to get through Articles for creation review. Also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says that "the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." I am happy to (try to) answer any questions or you could also try the Wikipedia:Help desk. TSventon (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herrikez (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Hey hello! Thanks, I didn't know that, first time creating a page. I can easily get external sources but they are most probably going to be in Portuguese or Spanish. Let's see if that is not a problem. Cheers.[reply]

Different Wikipedias have their own rules so you won't know everything at first. Spanish or Portuguese sources are not a problem, but the article needs several sources with significant coverage of the subject (at least a paragraph each). And they need to be high quality and independent, as explained in the reviewing instructions I linked to (you need to click "show" to see the details). TSventon (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herrikez (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Thanks, I already changed the article to have many news sources, couldn't find anything in English, but in Portuguese and Spanish there is plenty. Fingers crossed. Thanks and take care![reply]

Herrikez, good to see your article has finally been published! TSventon (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks for your help TSventon! Cheers

I have also linked the English article to the Spanish and Portuguese ones and merged the two versions of the Spanish article. TSventon (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I noticed the 2 Spanish versions bu didn't know how to fuse them.Herrikez (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hoping to add articles for some of the winners? Until then it would be possible to add interlanguage links like Ignacio Medina y Fernández de Córdoba [es]. TSventon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, I do not know enough about the winners to be confident in doing a page for them. I did a page for Antonio Maria Braga because he has worked in some public buildings listed on Wikipedia, so I had something to add to his page. Herrikez (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Urban Renaissance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammamet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Hi, I don't want to derail the conversation at WikiProject Architecture‎ so I am posting on your talkpage instead. You are putting in a lot of work into finding sources for "New Classical architecture", so I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to focus your work. It is fairly short and one of Wikipedia's three "core policies". (The other two, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are also useful.)

For example the section on Due and undue weight, WP:UNDUE, is relevant to whether we should use Robert Stern's book "Modern Classicism" as a template for the article. The section says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".

The section on Explanation of the neutral point of view, WP:WIKIVOICE, is relevant to using Demetri Porphyrios' book, "Classicism is not a Style" as a source.

The section on article names, WP:POVNAMING, links to Wikipedia:Article titles which is essential reading when discussing article names.

My interest in the article is to see how it can improved, which means applying the three core policies. TSventon (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon, look, I have made my arguments, I just find a bit pointless to have page called "New Classical architecture" and write it simply as a page about "Classical architecture" that is new. If your evaluation your correct, then our best thing course of action is to delete the page. We don't have a page about "Islamic architecture" that is new, or about "Gothic architecture" that is new, then why should we have a page about "Classical architecture" that is new?

I admit that I like the page because it made me interested in architecture, and interested in participating on wikipedia, so I cannot be neutral in this case.

My proposals was simply an attempt to maintain the contents in a way that makes sense bibliographically. It was an informative research anyway, so worth it.

Herrikez, are you saying that you are not interested in Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view and Article titles? (Or am I misunderstanding you?) NPOV does not mean that editors should not have their own opinions (if it did it would be difficult to write an article about Donald Trump). As it happens, I am fairly neutral on "New Classical architecture", but would prefer to have an article based on reliable sources.

There are sections on recent Classical (Neoclassical architecture#Today), Gothic (Gothic Revival architecture#20th century) and Islamic (Islamic architecture#Contemporary Muslim architects) architecture and any of those sections could be spun off into a separate sub-article if there was enough material. TSventon (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon And yet none did.

BTW, I found this ref, so it seems that New Classical architecture is actually a thing, and is more or less what you describe. Now that I have a reliable source for what New Classical architecture actually is, I will provide no further opposition to your review.

I just thought that there could be something on those books that described "New Classical" architecture as something different, and as I don't have have access to those books, I trusted the original authors more than I trust you.

I am sure there is plenty of scope for an article on Contemporary Islamic architecture, but I don't have the knowledge to write it.

Thanks for finding The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture's section on New Classicism. (I notice that Craig Hamilton and Thomas Gordon Smith don't seem to have their own articles yet.)

I am quite happy that you don't trust me as much as published sources as Wikipedia is based on published sources. TSventon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafael Manzano Prize has been accepted

Rafael Manzano Prize, 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia, but

I don't think adding the category 'bibliography articles without infoboxes' to Jaquelin Robertson is controversial. i find it a convenient way to mark articles that do not have the template 'infobox architect' yet. Can you explain why you rejected the change? Thanks Fred (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Maybe you are interested in the wiki project for architecture [[1]].

Fred I just saw that the list of pages in that category and most of them where talkpages, not mainpages, so I thought that it was a mistake. Also, I find it bit weird to have that information in the page that is most accessible to the public, since it is mostly a category for internal organization and communication, not really related with the content of the page. If you check it, you can see that I didn't delete it, I just transferred it to the talkpage. If you really confident that you are doing it the correct way, I will not oppose you putting it back. Cheers Herrikez (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Herrikez! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Pueblo Revival architecture into Indigenous architecture. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Apollo1203. Your recent edit(s) to the page Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Delhi) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The edit regarding Vikram Lall as the architect is not referenced in the sources used. Please ensure proper sources are being used when making such claims/edits. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia policy on RS and secondary sources Apollo1203 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo1203

Shortcuts

"Say where you read it" follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones.

When citing the source, write the following (this formatting is just an example):

John Smith (2009). Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, p. 99, cited in Paul Jones (2010). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen, Oxford University Press, p. 29.

Or if you are using short citations:

Smith (2009), p. 99, cited in Jones (2010), p. 29.

What about secondary sources? Herrikez (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have cited are not secondary academic sources. They are news outlets. I think this is something we will need to have a discussion about on the Akshardham page as I believe Vikram Lall was not the one/only designer of the monument. Till then we will keep the information off as it is not accurate or given by an accurate/reliable sources. Apollo1203 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newsources are considered reliable sources in every Wikipedia page (unless there is something clearly wrong with them). If Vikram Lall is just one of the designers, we can had the other ones when we have the information about them (we can instead had the name of his company and team, if you prefer). I can agree that we need someone to mediate this, because otherwise I will keep reversing your edits and vice-versa. But I prefer to go to consult with the architecture group because there are plenty of people interested in the topic Herrikez (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Colombia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boyacá (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Abdel Wahed El-Wakil buildings

A tag has been placed on Category:Abdel Wahed El-Wakil buildings indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Historism

Hello, Herrikez,

Please do not remove all of the contents of a category and then blank it. This is called emptying categories "out of process" and is extremely discouraged. If you believe a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please make a proposal at Categories for Discussion and state your reasons for your opinion there where they can be seen by other interested editors. Please do this in the future. It is easy to make a proposal using Twinkle, a popular editing tool or you can find information at WP:CFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Category:Neohistoricist architects. Please stop doing this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on New Classical architecture

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page New Classical architecture, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mycorena moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mycorena. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it appears most of the sources in the article are composed of routine announcements and press releases, which are not suitable for this purpose. Even the article from RISE is marginal. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mycorena Logo new.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mycorena Logo new.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mycorena (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

May meet WP:NCORP but the sources doesn't show how. Green Queen is totally unreliable and I can see it being cited frequently here.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mycorena and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herrikez! Having an article draft 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! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]