This is an archive of past discussions with User:Racconish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dear Racconish, I can see that you are putting a lot of work into your customer list, which is great, but I would be wary of spending too much time until we see what happens with the bow tie wearers' list; if it goes, then that would set a nasty precedent. At the very least, don't add so many names that you would be distraught if the list had to ever be cut down a few key half-dozen customers. —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the considerate comment. Do you think it would be useful to introduce a note section, in order to explain why some less famous customers have to be listed there? to split between dead and alive? Racconish (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In view of discussion there - and previous discussion here on same subject, I have completely reorganized List of Charvet customersand expressed my opinion on [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charvet customers]]. I look forward to your constructive comments. Thank you, Racconish (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Hi Racconish! Thanks for your message. I have replied at the IFD and on the talk page for Charvet. By the way, I think the list was perhaps better before--now it's looking somewhat like there is a fair amount of original synthesis going on. I might rather just sort it by rough chronology, and within that keep it in alphabetical order. Hopefully we haven't gotten off on a bad start! I look forward to collaborating with you. If you need anyone to read over the article before WP:GAN, let me know. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem! I gave some thought to your point of view on BHL ifd and changed mine: I agree with you. Concerning the literary section, I feel you pushed me to a clear improvement. I posted your comment on the list and will wait a bit to see other editors reactions before getting back to it. Thanks, Racconish (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, Racconish! Today's your lucky day, because you have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page. Creepy grinning smilieYou can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.
Hello there, Racconish! Today's your lucky day, because you have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page. Creepy grinning smilieYou can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.
Cite book
Looking at Template_talk:Cite_book, there were some changes made to the "cite book" template yesterday which have broken the language field (which seems like a bug), and altered the page field (which a bot is apparently correcting as we speak). The full-stop at the end of the quote may well be a related issue, if you want to raise it there. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As I am sure you noticed, I have put your Charvet article up for review. It ought to go through with little to no changes, so I hope that is alright. I think the article is looking very nice now, and might as well be recognised as such.
I have some involvement in some of the topics to which I have contributed, including but not limited to Charvet. For this reason, I am careful to stick to a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability of my contributions, particularly for the list of Charvet customers, which has been at some point considered for deletion. I had never been involved in any editorial conflict prior to the Chavez discussion and tried to deal with it in the best way, including asking for your opinion. I found yesterday the article by Bocaranda and posted the reference on the talk page. With no answer, I submitted a new version of the note on Chavez, rewritten in what I considered in good faith a neutral way. Nevertheless, I get your point, there is still no direct naming. I accept your edit and comment there. Racconish Tk 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting, I agree with you about COI , if edited decently there is no problem, and you clearly do that, I appreciate your honesty though. Chavez gets a lot of flak, people publish many things about him, myself I don't mind if he has shirts but as it is a bit controversial I would say really strong citation is in order or a picture of him in a shirt would be great or him commenting in an interview himself that he likes the shirts, I think you don't mind either way about chavez politically but you simply want to include the notable people on the list, which is understandable, of course we can add it if a clear citation appears as well one might, I have a feeling that he could well have a couple of those shirts for best . regards for now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Off2riorob, our President HATES Charvet shirts....
On Smock-frock, the reason I repositioned the photo is so it wouldn't show the gap. I think the article would look better if it didn't have a gap in it. I was just being thoughtful. I see why you would think it's useless. But, personally, I prefer an article clean and without gaps and long lines of unecessary space. 173.57.186.123 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd bring this to talk, rather than simply annoy you by forever changing edits! I completely see what you mean about "two meanings", and I have no special knowledge of this slang use of the word "yoke", it was already in the article; but as it stands there really is some duplication going on there, which ought to be compressed - "Slang term … mostly in Ireland". After all, it is only a disambiguation page. I thought I'd covered the "two meanings" aspect with my edit 356011407, which set it out in the format "Slang term for x, also y", i.e., "two meanings". Maybe have another look at that? Or perhaps we can compromise on a more explicit statement? How about:
Slang term, mostly used in Ireland, either as a placeholder name in general use, or more narrowly for the tablet form of the drug 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), otherwise known as "ecstasy"
Gah! That's what comes of carrying on when you've done too much for one day already! Sincere apologies, yes, you're dead right! Take care. Nortonius (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dave and chuck the freak
I've declined the speedy on this for one simple reason — it was created before the other article on the same topic. I've not deleted the other page because it's closer to being a decent article. Could you propose a merger as you see best? Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! I came across this person's name when reading another page. That was the best stuff I could find. So what should I do? Maplealtar (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know this is a dumb question, but how do I change the title of a page? I created that article about Lee Soo Sung by simply clicking on his name on another page. But I think according to customary romanization of Korean names, his name should be spelled like Lee Soo-Sung. How do I correct it? Maplealtar (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You removed my addition "Less conventional fabrics include velvet and satin." with the comment "previous sentences relate to fibers". I totally agree with your rationale. The problem is that the 'Types of shirting Fabrics' section of that article completely omits a macro view of different fabrics used in shirt-making and leaps straight into the micro view of the actual fibres used in making fabrics. Ideally, it would be good to preface that section with a sentence or two giving an overview of the different fabrics (giving the opportunity to mention velvet, satin and a few other fabrics used) before getting into the nitty-gritty of fibres. But I don't have time at the moment. Your thoughts?
BTW, my apologies for not logging in. I do have an account (Tors newton) but my computer keeps logging me out everytime I reboot and it's a pain to keep having to log in again all the time! :o)
Thank you for helping me with the Paule Ka article ! I'm new on wiki so I don't know how it really works!
How did you noticed that this article was about to be deleted?
What is the difference between my first article and yours? I don't understand really why wiki deleted my post?
I'm doing this for an assignment which is "study the knowledge process on wiki"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraJaneL (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
In two words, the key points here are notability and reliability (see also here). The subject must be notable i.e. covered by reliable sources.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Hi, I removed the db-bio tag you placed on this article. This type of deletion is only appropriate for articles that don't contain any credible assertions of notability. This article contains many such assertions (the whole "Research" section for example). ThemFromSpace15:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be any third-party sources present if the article makes a credible assertion of notability. This is a weaker standard than the notability guidelines used to delete articles at AfD. I'd suggest you try and PROD this article or take it to AfD if you don't think he is notable. ThemFromSpace15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I, Compactembedding, am the author of Peter Hästö. Thank you for all! When I wrote this article, I provided all sources that you can check. You very carelessly edited what I wrote. Now I lost my patience, since you, Racconish, have suspected me as a "bad guy". My final decision is "would you please delete my article?". As a researcher, I do not accept such a way to insult the other. I planned to write more with a short survey about Peter's contributions. But I guess this will also be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compactembedding (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Racconish! I decided to write about Peter because, besides his many publications, I found him have the book accepted by Springer "In 2010, his book entitled Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponents (with L. Diening, P. Harjulehto and M. Růžička) was accepted to be published in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011. This is the first book about Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces in variable exponent settings. Sample chapters of this book can be found in [11]." You deleted this important part, so the article has become meaningless! Therefore I have one more reason for you to DELETE it. You claimed "prohibited purposes". Ok! Ok! Do you think referees or reviewers of journals and research projects are immature? Is that what you have learned to claim how I am? Any way, you can find out one more reason to delete the article! Fortunately, I did not set any "calling for donation", which many people are doing, in my article! Thank God! Compactembedding
Thanks for adding these - that's enabled several longstanding notices to be cleared from the article. It occurs to me that these sources may also be able to help clear the BLP notice from Franco Cerri who I'm sure is notable but I've never been able to find decent English sources to reference? And (a longer shot) maybe Bruno Marini too? AllyD (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the Textile arts project. We have very few active editors at the moment. Could you do me a huge favor and do a quality assessment on Byzantine silk? I can't assess it myself since I wrote a bunch of it. Thanks so much and happy new year! - PKM (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
i have edited this page 2x with more correct information yet i was rebuked by you for citing the League themselves for my sources for corrections. You claim that I violate Wikipedia rules. I disagree.
The very first citation given for the League Wikipage is the very League information that I cite in my edits. Furthermore, there are many subsequent citations using the very same source. How are my edits inappropriate?
I am attempting to fix the claims that the League is explicitly protestant christian, they are not, according to their web page. They are trinitarian. Trinitarianism is the very core of Christian Theology for Catholicism as well as some Protestant splinters. To attribute a purely protestant attitude towards the group with no information substantiating such a claim is what actually violates the wikipedia rules. Moreover, I also changed the claim that the League was a White Supremacist organization. I changed it b/c there is no citation given to substantiate such assertions. Of all the references cited at the end of the article, only the SPLC refers to them as such. Therefore it behooves anyone interested in learning about a particular organization to actually visit the home page of said organization.
When I did, I found that the League's definition of an Anglo-Celtic emphasis in their beliefs is was much more satisfactory considering the myriad of statements released by both League members as well as League critics. In fact, the SPLC itself merely claims the League is white supremacist by citing the League and its explanation of the ethnocentrism it emphasizes and then adding a ... see also... with no sources mentioned.
I quote the discussion page on the League wikipage by Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin:
"When dealing with published sources not regarded as reputable enough to be used as sources of information on other people, we may nevertheless use them as sources of information on themselves if they have a Wikipedia page, but even then we proceed with caution. So for example, Stormfront may be used as a source if we want to know what Stormfront says about itself in the article about that group, but we don't use Stormfront as a source of information on Jews. We also don't repeat its views about Jews in the Stormfront article unless we're carefully selecting certain passages to illustrate what kind of organization it is. But we don't allow the Stormfront article to become a platform for Stormfront propaganda. Wikipedia is not an extension of other people's websites."
Again I say that such problems with my edits is ridiculous and makes no sense. I will edit again. As my edits are more accurate and offer more actual sources that were already used. SouthronAnalyst
A presentation of a League's claim could be supported by self published sources, though I suggest you discuss it first on the article's talk page, but cannot replace its description based on external sources. Your last edits are simply unsourced. Racconish Tk 08:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, but I remind you that the information that I changed was previously unsourced and unverifiable. My edits are sourced from the material provided by every reference at the bottom of the League article. If your concern were truly source and verification then I would have to ask that you edit the page by removing the objectionable material entirely. SouthronAnalyst—Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
I don't see it as the end of the world to merge whatever is left into Dacian language if that compromise can be reached in order to salvage the content. But merging the content into Protochronism I find very unfortunate and one-sided.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I am deeply moved by your tenacity and efforts in salvaging the article. I am very impressed and thankful, regardless of the outcome.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed not, I am well capable of recognizing that your edits are in a league entirely different from those of Codrinb (talk·contribs), even if I thought they were misguided. Sorry if I seemed to lump you together with that user. --dab(𒁳)10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Dacia scope clarifications and disclaimer
Hello! Given the potential for conflict and suspicions raised by the WikiProject Dacia , I added an important notice for scope clarifications and disclaimer in the intro section. If interested and willing, please review and provide any feedaback and suggestions you may have. Thank a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask you to take a look at the file? Am trying to deal with the publicity images backlog. Not sure if this is a poster or a video cover. It has a video cover rationale, but both poster and promotional licenses; would you mind having a look and making any needed changes? Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your objection to the category: "In popular culture". Clearly, the Gucci name and brand has had reverberations far beyond the circumscribed world of haute couture. Is there some reason why its impact in the wider world should be omitted? Whether this be in pop songs, contemporary literature, "Sex and the City" etc. etc., the fact remains that Gucci has become a bywords for things fashionable and desirable.Do you have specific objections to the reference by The Kinks? This critically acclaimed group, members of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the U.K. Hall of Fame (with its prolific and literate Ivor- Novello-Prize-winning songwriter Ray Davies, O.B.E., the creator of the song in question) can not justifiably or reasonably be deemed "trivial" by an impartial observer.
My apologies for not having been clear. I did not mean the Kinks are trivial but that WP:TRIVIA applies. I should have added WP:IPC: Passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. Please mind WP:3R too. Cheers, Racconish Tk 05:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
La scuola inutile: Asini allo spiedo per il pasto del barone
May be "The ineffective school: Jackass on the spit for big shots convenience". "Barone" means "boss". --Ilario (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Marisol Deluna was elected as an "Executive Member". They have various levels of membership based on merit. "Executive", "Associate", "Student" and "At Large" Memberships. In the year she was elected, one had to be sponsored and nominated and earned. I am reverting your edit if you give me permission. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Originally posted by me on another editor's "Discussion Page", yet feels as if it applies to both of you as well:
Thank you both for being Wikipedia editors. I love fashion and charity- Yet moreso the truth. So when I read the thread of conversation to "keep or delete" the article of "Ms. Deluna"- To me the new edited version can be built upon if given an opportunity. (Smart editing thus far) Let me not confuse you- I have followed her work, which she has done primarily under the radar for years yet I have never met her. I also do not profit from her designs. The company has some external articles that are not posted on their website or added to Wikipedia. Her company's "Marisol Deluna New York" FB page has a few external publications posted. To clear up a simple edit- She grew up in Alamo Heights. This is stated in "San Antonio Magazine" (as seen in the full page article on the same FB page)
Charities have been able to raise funds due to her signature style. Official items. Fashionable items. With her name noted. Donated artwork. I believe in truth and knowledge. The editors working to show facts will surely locate more. There is a reason she was noted as a "Girl Crush" on one of editor's finds. Thank you again. Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.47 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.47 (talk)
I am working under advisement of a wiki administrator with the user name "Sandstein". It was suggested that I post references on Marisol Deluna that can be verified yet may not be found online. I need your help, if you wouldn't mind! Basically, to mention an article without reposting it on the "Reference" list- Example: (References #6 and #11) Fisher, Mary (2009). One Hundred Years of Excellence- The Story Of The Alamo Heights Independent School District. Dunning Company. ISBN978-1-57864-558-9.)...Oops!- How do I fix this so it is not posted twice? Can you show me with a template? I would like to refer other articles already posted, yet do not want to confuse editors/readers with reposting existing references. (again!) I am new to Wiki, yet am learning one edit at a time. Thank you ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Terrific! If possible, can you direct me to wiki instructions/link on how to do what you just did? Thank you-Thank you!!! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This will prove helpful! Her hometown has a library archive to source microfilm articles going back to 1985(before the internet) which a friend of mine will visit next week. Question: I have a classmate's high school yearbook to verify certain early claims. There must be a publisher and date of print, etc. Would you accept this as a reference? I will follow the wiki template for publications, yet cannot imagine there is an ISBN. Please advise. Thank you.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Please fill the "quote" section in {{cite book}}. If the book is published, there should be an ISBN. Otherwise, an unpublished source is a problem and could be considered a SPS, depending on what claim you want the source to support. You could ask at RSN on this. You may also find an OCLC reference. Racconish Tk 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Racconish,
I am new to Wikipedia and don't doubt that you are a better editor than me and that you have your reasons for reverting my edits or requesting additional citations. I follow your lead and ask questions to you before any other editor on this specific page. (which you are extremely helpful) However, if you take a look on my "Talk Page", I have added requested full citations (which you are right to ask for) in addition to adding references for verification on new comments. This designer's website notes that she offers retail items in addition to her non-profit work. (I was recently gifted one of her cotton denim handbags) Other's websites such as the Girl Scouts and the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo mention cotton with the links provided. My intentions are not to be problematic, yet I am posting verifiable references that are not unreasonable. Additionally- I understand that it is a product page, yet we should mention her official designs (silk scarves and ties for adults and cotton bandanas for girls to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA. Each are designed in her style (take a look!) and Marisol is noted on each item as "New York fashion designer and former Girl Scout". Suggestions? Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I did look at the quotes on your talk page and actually moved one to the article. Beware of not growing the article into an example farm. One example for girl scouts is enough. I take it scarves are more significative for girls than ties. Also, the design is more meaningful. As for the cotton bandanas, please don't confuse commission work and collection. Cheers,Racconish Tk 06:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"After the September 11 attacks (in which she lost her best friend), she developed the "Texas Pride" line of scarves and ties as a thank-you to the Texans that helped her cope with her loss."- This was quoted by you or another editor directly from the Austin Statesman. The reference was moved around, yet this is where this information came from as I have also read it elsewhere. This should be included.
Additionally- The reference to the playground project was well sourced and not only showed her charitable interest yet her ability to do so with design. It may not be meaningful to you, yet it made it into the local paper and the school's history book. Your point is well taken with growing an "Example Farm" and will follow your lead, yet other entry's of people less known than her have multiple examples. You are allowing "Two"? I would like to have this reverted. Please advise. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The 1st sentenceparagraph is currently not sourced. Try sourcing it. The second is - with due respect - quite minor. Can't you find a more significant example?Racconish Tk 07:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Austin Statesman re: 9-11 or the Mary Fisher book and North San Antonio Times re: Playground... Or both as I would like to include both in this article. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I found another article in addition to the Austin Statesman re: 9-11. "The North San Antonio Times" has an article from May 16, 2002 called "Fashion designer soldiers on Sept. 11 tragedy" on the front cover, page 2 and 17. It is really lengthy, yet interesting. She is quoted in addition to the Managing Editor Robert Goetz' writings on her history. There is a photo of the "Texas Pride" designs as does the Austin Statesman. Would it be helpful if I added parts if the article on my Talk Page so we can discuss this? It may take me a little time. The article also mentions the playground project we are discussing, whereas a photo of these designs are also featured. Please advise! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Two things, firstly just because a source exists (in this case a primary one) does not mean it should be included. Secondly please do not remove the notability tag from the article unless you have added significant sources that address the subject in detail and list them on the talk page. Mtking (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I could agree with you this detail on her schooling is not the most important part of the article, but it is clearly relevant and correctly sourced. If in doubt on the source, please consider going to RSN. As for notability, though the matter has been thoroughly discussed, feel free to go to AFD again - or try to contribute more positively by clarifying where you have a concerne. Thank you, Racconish Tk 06:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not relevant, her fellow students etc. were in no way qualified to make an informed choice for such a award it was more by luck than judgment, if you disagree then please feel free to start a section on the talk page.
The tag is there to help alert others to the need for better sourcing, please point me at the discussion on notability, because the close of the last AfD was very clear about it so absent another discussion then it should stay. Mtking (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm quoting the close: "The result was no consensus. This means that because there is no agreement about whether the subject is notable enough for an article or not, the default outcome is to keep the article." The notability discussion is over, unless you want to start a new AFD. As for your other point, I was not myself very warm for adding it, tried to help an enthusiastic new editor, and made sure the verb "voted" would clarify the extent of the quote. Racconish Tk 06:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is right there "because there is no agreement about whether the subject is notable enough for an article or not" so the article should be tagged to help get more sources to establish notability. The tag is not saying "delete me" it is not a badge of shame, it is trying to get it improved. Mtking (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
For clarity- Her students did not elect or vote her 'Most Artistic", the teachers did on merit. This should be included as it is relevant and can be verified by the school.
As a whole, this is a well sourced start of a new page for Ms. Deluna. The posted banner should not exist as Racconish and others have turned the original fluff article before the discussion of notability into an encyclopedic entry whereas every sentence thus far is sourced. It will grown in time as it has in the past few weeks without a banner. Please reconsider a more neutral approach as she is notable despite the fact that I did not weigh in on the recent discussion and will not continue to edit the page if only not to be confused with having a conflict of interest despite not knowing her personally. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marisol Deluna. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I dream of horses @ 04:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I dream of horses @ 04:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cind.amuse (Cindy)11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Racconish. You have new messages at Talk:Sawsan Amer. Message added 14:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I understand your point and am erasing all similar posts to not be accused of "Canvassing". Thank you for your guidance. MDELUNANY (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. But at least this time the deletion discussion is rational so far (in the sense we have an account clearly identifying themselves as the subject and wholeheartedly admitting their COI). They only asked for what we want, for the article to stand or fall on the sources. I don't get what good "wikirevenge" will do, ya know? We might as well work with people with a COI, instead of against them. Academic journals do, they just ask the people who publish to declare their COI. Jesanj (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I just tried to find this Hispanic Business article and could not find it. So I don't know how much direct coverage of the subject it offers and what claims it supports. You may want to raise the issue (again) at WP:RSN. Cheers, Racconish Tk 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see it either. But it is on her facebook page, although we couldn't link directly to it for copyright issues I guess. Jesanj (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Did not see it there - but I am not so good with Facebook. Not sure this will be important enough to make a difference. Cheers, Racconish Tk 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It does not reek of fact-checking to me (e.g. the part on the Paris studio...). More like PR. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN. Racconish Tk 18:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for reviewing the posted scanned or mentioned documents. What lead me to add to this discussion is the nature of my work as it appeared to be misunderstood and at times cruel on both sides of the debate. Perhaps mentions in reliable Texas publications are meaningless to establish "Notability", yet on what scale? As a fashion icon- of course not. Yet as a designer who returns, contributes and is acknowledged for their local and expanded outreach- yes, it does have relevancy. One a personal note, Racconish- You selflessly added value in the past to the article without knowing me. This is beyond humbling. I have already thanked Jesanj for the same. This means more than an inclusion. If the article gets deleted... Life continues beyond my work studios- Including Paris. Love, MPD MDELUNANY (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent New page patrol. Just to let you know, I've declined your speedy deletion nomination of Prof. Dr. V. David Sánchez A., Ph.D. under WP:G1 because it clearly doesn't meet the nonsense criteria. This criteria is only meant to be used when it is impossible to gather any meaning of the page, which wasn't the case. Thanks --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've also declined your speedy deletion nomination of Nargaroth (food) because it also doesn't meet the strict criteria of WP:G1 as it isn't patent nonsense. It doesn't seem to meet any of the other criteria either so if you still want it deleted I suggest WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Sorry to keep doing this. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racconish. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prof. Dr. V. David Sánchez A., Ph.D., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is certainly enough importance here to pass A7. Consider AfD if you like, but IMO an FRS is enough for notability, let alone the rest. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with an article on Sanchez with a text on Sanchez, but it was initially an article on Sanchez with a text on Furber, then an article on Sanchez with no text at all. Cheers, Racconish Tk 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you placed a prod tag on List of Iraqi artists citing Wikipedia:Listcruft. I have removed the prod tag because I do not think the reason you gave for deletion is a valid reason to delete a list. Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, meaning it does not necessarily have broad support among Wikipedia editors (as opposed to policies and guidelines, which do have broad support among editors). Beacuse essays do not necessarily have broad support among editors, they generally should not be given as the sole reason for deleting an article. In this case, there is also a guideline on the subject of lists and categories, WP:CLN, which states that lists and categories are complementary and that both can exist for the same topic. Furthermore, I don't think the entry from Wikipedia:Listcruft that you cited was actually met in this case, as this list contains additional content beyond links to other articles (such as a brief statement of what each artist is known for). Calathan (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
All the articles consist of one sentence, stating that: XY is a Lebanese painter/graphic artist. You don't forget to cite your sources, which is good (Saudi Aramco World seems to be a reliable and important magazine/website). However, the content of the above mentioned articles is insufficient for inclusion in this encyclopedia. It is necessary to explain how is the painter/graphic artist significant for local Lebanese or world art scene, what is his/her contribution to the world of art. It is beneficial both to our readers and to this project, and moreover, it is a part of Wikipedia rules to explain why a subject is important or significant. Thanks for your understanding, and please don't hesitate to ask me any question regarding this. Best regards. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. On second thought, I felt there were not enough sources to justify the last one, though there is a tiny one in Encarta. Cheers, Racconish Tk 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
FuFoFuEd (talk·contribs) asked me about my opinion of this article yesterday. When I looked through the (endless!) citations, I couldn't find anything that wasn't either primary or trivial, causing me to expect that if it came up for AfD, that I would probably !vote to delete. But this morning I see you've been doing quite a bit of work on the article, which I doubt you'd be doing if you had any big concerns about notability. Were there some good sources in there that I missed? You already know I don't really know anything about fashion, so it's meaningless that I don't recognize his name. But maybe you do. Msnicki (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I know his publishing house. It is small but respected for its reprints. Betty Williams, who helped him, is also notable. A lot of work remains to do on the article which may have to be trimmed to much more modest proportions. You are welcome to help. Cheers, Racconish Tk 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm satisfied, based on a body of work argument, to say nothing of the fact that I'm inclined to trust your opinion more than mine in this instance. Thanks! Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. In any case, I don't mean to say the personal part is acceptable as is. Probably the largest part should go. Happy editing, Racconish Tk 16:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racconish, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arbnesh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers15:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racconish. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Machli gao, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: populated places are pretty much notable by definition, cetainly not speedy candidates. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racconish. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sigi Wimala, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "starring role in box office hit" is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers16:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, well its really just two issues. There is a longstanding convention that pretty much any populated place is bound to be notable. Personally I suspect that most nineteenth century Masai bomas would fail the general notability guideline unless they continued to be lived in during the twentieth century - but I've yet to hear of a village let alone a town being deleted at AFD - and speedy is for things so clearcut that they don't need to go to AFD. May I suggest that you have a reread of the deletion policy? You might also find it interesting to install Hotcat. I find that a newpage patrol philosophy of "if in doubt categorise" makes for a much more newbie friendly approach. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I put quite a bit of effort into turning the confusing mish-mash of verb tenses into something that is consistent and easier for the reader to understand, i.e., using the past tense to describe things that happen in the past. This is a standard style when writing in English that the reader will expect to see. I see that you have re-written the article, switching back and forth between the past and the present tense again:
"Goursat arrives in Paris in March 1900..."
"His first album, yet singular object editorial, propelled him ..."
"Sem was exposed repeatedly confirming..."
"In 1927, Sem releases its latest album..."
I will wait for you to change this to the past tense. Also, I will ask you to review your edits carefully. I suspect that English is not your first language -- there are many grammatical and typographical errors. I also ask that you spend more time improving the existing text (it will help you to improve your English) before adding more content to this article or editing other articles. At this point, parts of the article are not comprehensible to English readers. Ground Zero | t10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree part of the article is illegible at this point, in spite of your effort, being an automated translation from the French article. But I disagree when you imply this is a result of my rewriting, as I have barely started, or when you suggest I should improve the previous text: the French article is vary vague and poorly sourced and I prefer to work from the sources up (I raised my concern here). I have been recently focusing on adding relevant (or connex, as I was at it) images at Commons, which is a process slower than I had anticipated, but - hopefully - beneficial to the project. I shall now hasten to focus on the style of the article. In any case, I put an {{Underconstruction}} template on top of the article, indicating "you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". Cheers, Racconish Tk 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the lolly! I should have taken more note of the "undercontruction" tag. You can understand how I felt seeing the random verb tenses back in the article, but I understand that it is a work in progress, and I will try to help out. Regards, Ground Zero | t12:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to get in touch with you in regards to my latest edits to Romapada Swami page. The content I edited was to respond to a willful vandalism attempted toward the person. I did see it to be under the category of "irrelevant obscenities". The referred link is not an authorized link but is a completely hoax entry. Please let me know if you want more information.
As a proof of my statement, here is a note from the person (Romapada Swami) whose page is being maintained:
1. I was associate director for Public Affairs from 1972-76.
2. I was NEVER Chairman of the Child Protection Office.
3. The reference made to "leaking" $2 million to the Long Island case
is false on its face PLUS the language alone is derrogatory in nature.
Another question: How can I be authorized to change the picture used in the wiki page?
I have declined your request for speedy deletion of Romapada Swami using {{db-g3}} which implies "blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism". The article is about a real person and uses some reliable references. It is possible that some informations are wrong, some sources unreliable, but this is not enough to qualify the whole article as a candidate for speedy deletion. Please refer to the page on hoaxes which says: "Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates." Nevertheless, now that the speedy deletion has been declined, you can still consider other options, in particular opening a deletion discussion.
I have also reverted your removal of sourced information which is generally not considered as acceptable. In order to build consensus on the article, I suggest you could discuss the matter on the talk page of the article or raise the reliability of the questioned sources at WP:RSN.
Hello,
I was hoping to get some additional information on the crystal healing page as it does not quite clearly explain why the metaphysical community thinks that crystal healing works, just that people believe in it. I think it would be helpful if the article explained more clearly about why it is thought that crystals do work in a healing capacity. Since I am new to making edits on Wikipedia, is there any way you could help guide me as to what would be an acceptable way to go about this? My goal is to help share information on the topic so that interested parties have a clear understanding of the topic. Thank you,
Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalhealer1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor tanning lotion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racconish! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
?
I find this baffling. Instead of wasting time wronging rights and pointing fingers, perhaps use of new information in the latest article would improve the overall standards of wikipedia. Surely and experienced editor such as yourself would realize this. I find it absurd that you should delete my contributions, which as far as I see, have corrected and made the article more accurate. You even deleted an obvious correction of the spelling. If you genuinely have your interests set on improving the page, you should use your time to use information in the latest article and add to the page, not remove contributions by other editors, who may not have your experience, but may know more about the subject.
I have added 5 references to the source you provided, which does not establish The Economist was wrong in calling Chamsi-Pasha a former textile agent. Please discuss matters related to the article on the article's talk page. Racconish Tk 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not threaten. All editors are equal and you are no exception to the rules of wikipedia. All you said applies to you as well, do not lecture other members about rules you clearly do not abide by and do not delete messages you are ashamed of, which accuse you of bias.
I am not threatening but warning you. Vandalizing or Edit warring are not appropriate responses. And I did not delete your messages on Moxon but move them to the article's talk page where they belong. Racconish Tk 16:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it unusual for you to suggest being attacked. The fact is you must see things from somebody else's perspective otherwise it will be viewed a inconsiderate. The article is where I call 'middle ground' now, until further material which would enhance the quality of the page emerges. Thank you, hopefully in future we collaborate on issues not oppose one another.
I'm confused as to why you believe "I should be reminded". This is not Primary school. I hope the edit is satisfactory and we can move on from this. Thanks for your help.Southpole1 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not mean to confuse you or to be condescendant. This is a preset template {{subst:WQA-notice|topic|reason=reason for discussion}}. Cheers, Racconish Tk 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Fashionsource, "iClothing merges technology and fashion", "The idea, to develop garments that have 'invisible' pockets that are designed to store an iPad, was the brainchild of managing director Davina Reichman, [http://www.fashionsource.com.au/news/viewarticle.asp?articleID=18830
Your removal of reliable sources and replacement by self published sources is not acceptable. They are going against consensus built at articles talk page. I strongly suggest you to discuss propositions at the articles talk page first. Thanks, Racconish Tk 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Lame
You do not label something as "lame" and proceed with the edit that you want. That is purely unacceptable behaviour. This information is unsupported by any other article purely because it is wrong. If you find it anywhere else, it will be accepted as correct. Unfortunately for you, you won't because as I have informed you time and again, it is false and a mistake on the part of the author of that article. Now concentrate on affairs you do not deem as "lame", or do not label them as such. Thank youSouthpole1 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I will follow for a while the talk page of the article, so you don't need to inform me here when you post there.— Racconish Tk 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You realise the phrase "Syrian former agent of Hield" aside from being incorrect is uncharacteristically bad English. Wikipedia community expects better. It is like saying "American former actor Ronald Reagan". Poor English.Southpole1 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all you've done on the extended résumé removal recently. The image crop you did for iClothing evoked a most chortleworthy comment from Davina herself. You've been great to work with. So thank you again, and here's a beer. If you don't care for it, just leave it and I'll eventually drink it by mistake. JFHJr (㊟) 09:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you haven't responded to the personal attacks a subject leveled against you at AfD. I hope you'll consider never responding. Her comments alone reveal her profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia, from WP:NOTYOU and WP:PROUD to WP:NTEMP, WP:RS, and WP:COI. You've done a great job in your editing, everyone knows it, and anyone that's curious can verify it. I know I thanked you previously for your work in this, but I wanted to remind you that your work here has been exemplary. I'm thinking of a good way to cordon off the subject's comments so that they're still accessible, in a way that's appropriate for AfD. I think if I ask an uninvolved admin, there might be an appropriate result. Cheers again. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is for discussion as to whether the articleDavina Reichman should be deleted or kept. I would urge you to confine your contributions on the page to that single question, and not to allow yourself to be drawn into debates on any other topic. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I am quite surprised by your comment. I think if somebody is trying to stay calm, to focus on the discussion, to be fair to another editor who is throwing ridiculous accusations, it's me. You could have written: I would urge you to continue etc. Do I have to to quote your comment about the bite at the cherry and the fact I asked you to kindly focus on the subject and not me as an editor? Thanks anyway and happy editing, — Racconish Tk 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!
ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)
We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.
If you have a moment, and if you aren't too fed up, could you verify this citation? It heavily echoes previous claims raised at the article ([7][8][9]), and as I recall, you might have access to this particular subscription. If I'm wrong or if you're not inclined, no worries. But if you wouldn't mind, could you confirm whether the claims are supported? I haven't been able to find anything myself. Cheers, and happy holidays! JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
There is only one article concerning DR from AFR on LexisNexis Academic. It was published on February 19, 2010 by Georgina Safe, the AFR Fashion editor. It is entitled 'Designers put their art into couture show'. Here is a full quote: "A new event embraces fashion as an artform. AUSTRALIA'S established fashion weeks are primarily about selling clothes, but a new event in Sydney is aimed solely at celebrating creativity. Being Born Again Couture features 10 fashion designers such as Akira Isogawa, Marnie Skillings and Dhini Pararajasingham collaborating with 10 artists including Lindy Lee, Tracey Moffat and Pat Brassington to produce one-off bespoke garments. Unlike Australian Fashion Week and the Melbourne Fashion Festival, which drive wholesale and retail sales respectively, BBA is simply about giving designers and artists a platform to let their imaginations shine without the limitations of mass production. ``We want to embrace the art in fashion because we don't think there's enough of that, said BBA co-founder Emily Fitzgerald. ``The late Alexander McQueen is an example of someone who embraced art into his practice in every possible way and that's what we're trying to encourage here. A runway show, artist installations and musical acts are among the components of BBA, which will be held on April 22 at the National Art School. ``It's about moving beyond a simple dress or other garment and taking aesthetics and creativity to the next level, Fitzgerald said. A photographic exhibition of the garments will then be exhibited as part of the Sydney Fashion Festival in August. Designer Michael Lo Sordo was yesterday fitting model Rose Vickers with the dress he has created based on a painting by emerging Sydney artist Christopher Horder. ``A lot of things we do in fashion are commercial, because of course you have to sell things, Lo Sordo said. ``This is a really good chance for designers like me to show our more creative side, what we can do without constraints. The designer has used a digital print of Horder's 2009 abstract painting The Bird Has Flown to create a structured silk minidress incorporating sheer panels and plastic, perspex and metal embellishments. ``When we began talking, Christopher and I discovered we had a lot of similarities; we are both interested in the contrast between light and shade and playing with shadow and texture, Lo Sordo said. Fitzgerald, an NAS honours student, founded BBA with business consultant Davina Reichman and plans to make it an annual event. The pair also hope BBA will cast a positive light on the NAS following criticism by its alumni."
There is also a brief article from Sydney MX, dated April 22, 2010, entitled 'There's an art to fashion', unsigned. Here is a full quote: "Emily Fitzgerald and Davina Reichman are the brains behind the Being Born Again 2010 Couture Fashion Show, at the National Art School in Darlinghurst tonight. Ten Aussie artists have teamed up with 10 leading Aussie fashion designers. www.beingbornagain.net.""
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.
Thank you so much for your answer. I love the work you have done on Charvet, it is amazing. I did the Goyard page on the French wikipedia but it needs work, I will do the English one soon and I would love to do it with you. It will be wonderful if you can fix the French one. Thank you for your time and consideration Superstudio (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
On the French Goyard wikipedia page my sources are not well done like yours (title, author, date...) and regarding the Goyard logo, Goyard gave me the authorisation to upload it but there is a wikipedia process and I dont understand it, it is the same problem for the photos. The photos have no copyright like the facade of the store in Paris and all the images were deleted. What should I do! Superstudio (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you post here a link to the deletion discussion you refer to ? For help in French on copyright issues at Commons, you may want to ask here— Racconish Tk 13:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You cannot upload a logo on Commons due to copyright restrictions but you can do so on the English Wikipedia under certain conditions. See here. It seems another user has already tried to help you on this matter here. For other images to be uploaded on Commons, if the copyright owner agrees, you should follow the procedure described here. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How can we work together to improve Devambez and Goyard? I really need a Wikipedia expert to improve the work. Thank you Superstudio (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Racconish, it looks much better. Do you want more details on books because I am working on the website and I have all the archives? Can we write that Devambez published the Goyard book ? How can we upload the Goyard logo? Have a nice day. Superstudio (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the brand history, I think that I ve all the informations and I will be very happy to explain it to you if you are interested for example who were the owners, when the company was founded and the work publishes. So can you please tell me if you can help me from a technical point of view. I am looking for help because I want to learn to use wikipedia but not for someone who puts a banner on the page saying that I dont know the company history and who is "answering" my questions with 3 words. Thank you Superstudio (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
My comments were not on your knowledge but on the verifiability of your claims. And they meant to answer your question on how to improve the article. I also tried to answer your question on uploading a logo at Commons. As it seems you are not getting what you expected, you may want to try the help desk. Happy editing, — Racconish Tk 09:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
Bonjour, je me permets de chambouler votre PdD mais mes intentions sont "constructives". Si vous estimez que ce n'est pas opportun n'hésitez pas à me le signaler, ici ou sur ma PdD. Sinon, je me permettrai de rajouter quelques éléments pouvant vous éclairer dans nos domaines d'intérêts communs. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Baruch Kimmerling was an Israeli scholar and professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. En tant que Professeur de sociologie israélien, il est bien entendu une source fiable pour étudier ce qui touche à la société israélienne. Toutefois, pour info, il est aussi considéré comme ayant été une figure de proue parmi les penseurs post-sionistes, très peu apprécié dans les milieux néosionistes où l'évocation de son nom provoque des réactions très agressives vu ses publications les concernant. Je cherche encore quel diplôme peut bien avoir "Jason Maoz".
Thanks for uploading File:Ploteus.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.
If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
Background
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.
An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.
As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)
Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Proposed changes
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boni & Liveright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colophon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Pov pushing poli
Le pov pushing poli peut être facilement déjoué. Quand on voit cette section : [11] et les motivations fournies dans l'argumentation pour renommer cet article, il est évident qu'il s'agit de pov-pushing.
Un autre élément clé est le suivant : le pov-pusher ne mettra jamais une seule information qui puisse être considérée comme opposée à sa cause dans wikipédia. Le contributeur, lui, au contraire essaie de systématiquement introduire les différents points de vue après les avoir cherchés. Le Comité d'Arbitrage n'a qu'à imposer ceci pour déjouer le pov-pusher poli : Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.
Excellent job with the Mabel Normand gallery, Racconish! Looks very good, thanks for your help with that, I appreciate it, and the Joan of Plattsburg poster is a fantastic addition. Thanks again! Cinerama Comment (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pearl White may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'Pearl of the Army'.jpg|''Pearl of the Army'' '1917)
Editing the article "Batiste" was what led me to the Charvet article as well. There is so much information on the same topic in the Cambric article that a merge may be appropriate.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As there is this difference the best thing would be to copy what is relevant to "batiste" from the "cambric" article so that "batiste" contains information on the usage before 1898.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hardouin-Fugier, Elisabeth; Berthod, Bernard; Clement-Fusaro, Martine (1994). Les Etoffes. Dictionnaire historique (in French). Les Editions de l'Amateur. pp. 81–82, 120. ISBN2-85917-175-4. Batiste. Toile de lin très fine et blanche qui, selon la légende, porterait le nom de son inventeur, ouvrier de Cambrai au XVIIe siècle, appelé Jean-Batiste Chambray, industriel du XVIIIe siècle. En fait, le nom semble dérivé du radical flamand "batiche", qui signifie "battre"[...] Au XVIIe siècle, c'est un article de luxe : selon les Mémoires de madame de Motteville, l'épouse de Louis XIII, Anne d'Autriche, recherche les plus fines batistes pour ses chemises et ses draps. De 0,80 à 0,90m. Au XVIIIe siècle, la production se répand, en particulier dans le Cambrésis, en Artois et en Picardie. On distingue la batiste claire d'Artois, Picardie et Cambrésis, 0,70 et 0,88m, la batiste moyenne, la batiste écrue, dite toile d'ortie, la batiste hollandée, très serrée, très unie, comme la toiel de Hollande. On l'utilise pour les surplis et les rochets ecclésiastiques, les rabats, les cravates et les manchettes. La fabrication se poursuit dans le Nord au XIXe siècle, en particulier pour l'exportation à La Havane et dans les colonies espagnoles où la France se heurte à la concurrence anglaise. L'Exposition Universelle de Londres (1851) témoinge de la rivalité qui oppose France, Pays-Bas, Suisse, Bohême et Silésie dans le domaine de la finesse, où triomphent les filés anglais. les utilisations ne varient qu'à peine d'un siècle à l'autre : surplis, rabats, jabots, manchettes pour les gens du monde, les ecclésiastiques et les magistrats, garnitures de tête pour les femmes, draps fins, chemises et, surtout au XIXe siècle, mouchoirs. AU XXe siècle, étoffe, souvent blanche, mercerisée en pièce. Armure toile, tissée en écru puis blanchie ou teinte en pièce ou imprimée. Batiste cristalline. Tissage transparent, réalisé en fil retors au XXe siècle. Batiste d'ananas. Etoffe tissée avec les fibres collées (et non tordues) d'un végétal de la famille des broméliacées. Le tissage résultant est d'une extrême transparence. Batiste d'Ecosse. Catégorie de mousseline fabriquée à Tarare et à Saint-Quentin, mais aussi en Angleterre et en Suisse. L'apprêt spécial provient d'Ecosse. Devient le nom générique d'une étoffe en coton à texture très serrée. Batiste Maco. Nom de la meilleure qualité de coton très fine, proche de la batiste mercerisée ou même de l'organdi, au XXe siècle. Cambric. Toile fabriquée à Cambrai en écru, blanchie ou teinte en pièce, parfois apprêtée et calandrée, proche du nansouk. Autrefois tissé en lin, au XIXe siècle, le cambric est fabriqué en coton. Les plus belles qualités servent à confectionner du linge, des mouchoirs et des tissus à broder. "Cotton Glossary". American Fabrics Encyclopedia of Textiles. Prentice-Hall. 1960. p. 91. Batiste. A fine soft cotton fabric usually woven of combed yarns and mercerized for extra strength and luster. Corset batiste ai a strong, heavy, plain-woven cotton similar to poplin. Cambric. Closely woven, white cotton fabric which are finished with a slight gloss on one side. It seems I was wrong : neither name implies linen and batiste is always expected to be a fine yarn, althouh the AF encyclopedia motes, p. 254, it has been stated "the greatest thread [of cambric] was not even the size of the smallest hair". It seems I was wrong : neither name implies linen and batiste is always expected to be a fine yarn. I suggest merging cambric into batiste. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 10:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
For the time being I have copied part of the cambric article into batiste. I would rather not do any more on the batiste / cambric articles as textiles and fashion are outside the fields which I am used to working with. My French is rather poor nowadays. Your opinion indicates adding the merge tag to "batiste" again.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As the French WP article "Batiste" refers to "cambric as the English word for batiste I am in doubt which way it should go. Maybe another member of the Textile Arts wikiproject will express an opinion.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern and have asked PKM's opinion. My take is cambric is older than batiste in English, but implies only a geographic origin from Cambrai. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This one is tricky. "Cambric" in English goes back to 1530 (as "cameryk", later also "cambric", "cammeraige", "camroche", etc.). The OED says that "batiste" is the French word for "cambric" but is used in English for a "fine, light fabric of similar texture, but differently finished, and made of cotton as well as of linen," with the first citation (as "baptist") in 1697.
So using the French "batiste" as a source for English "cambric" seems right. My first reaction is to keep the two articles separate in EN Wikipedia, and make the distinction. I'd love to do some digging on that concept "differently finished" but I'm not sure I own a reference that specific. - PKM (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PKM here. (I saw the mention on her talk page and this interested me so I'm here). I also share PKM's first reaction in that the two articles should be kept separate, with a distinction made, as they are two distinct fabrics, and are not interchangeable terms for the same textile. Mabalu (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanls PKM and Mabalu. I am also fine with that. The second reference I quoted above, the AF Encyclopedia, gives some precisions on the finishing. I guess it implied calendering, which somehow hardens the finish, while batiste is meant to be softer. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ann Murdock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[File:Where Love Is.jpg|left|thumb|upright|''Where Love Is'' '1917)]]
Hello Racconish, I added some info to the Duchamp article, pulled from the edit-history. Unfortunately, as you will see, it is full of citation-needed tags... I am not familiar with the industry, so besides googling I am not even sure where to begin looking, and if I were to try googling, how to determine which URLs were reliable sources about the clothing industry, and which were not. I also used 'circular' bare URLs pointing to the diffs from which I pulled the info, in case you (or somebody at AfD) wanted to review the originals... these are not intended to be permanent, of course! I did attempt to use encyclopedic tone, and stick with the facts, so perhaps all is not lost. If you wish, I am happy to make some cleanup-changes, just ping me on my talkpage. And of course, feel free to edit as you see fit! You obviously know more than myself about this subject.
I have put a welcome-to-wikipedia section on the article's talkpage, and posted hello-please-see-this-talkpage messages on the various IP anons that have made POV edits to the article recently. If I can get ahold of them, I will try to explain WP:COI and WP:N and WP:V portions of wikipedia to them (there was a talkpage message over at User:Flyer22's page which suggests some of the IP editors were company employees/owners).
Hi there! As you know, WP is not a reference and you cannot use it as a source. I am not very comfortable with trying to build the article around previously unsourced material. I would rather rewrite it from scratch based on reliable sources as I had started doing it. I have been bold and reverted your unsourced additions. I suggest moving this to the talk page. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 14:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
((edit conflict)) Yes, the 'circular' sources were for you, so you could realize where they were from. I am happy to revert back ((except you already did -- thanks)) to how you had it, and post a diff-link onto the article talkpage. That way, when someone gets around to searching for a source about the Unnamed Retail Partner In Germany, or other missing tidbits, they will have a place to easily find the low-hanging fruit. I'll reply further over there. Thanks for improving wikipedia. See you in a bit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Done Numbered for your convenience, if you feel like doing the sourcing. :-) Once we have sources, from an editor or from a company blog (when appropriate), we can add the info back in at that time. Thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Racconish, there is a person named June who has expressed some interest in helping with keeping Duchamp well-polished. I asked that she keep an eye out for the COI folks who drop in every six months, and try to shove them towards the article-talkpage, then ping me. I ask the same of yourself. :-) Here is the longer explanation: User_talk:JuneGloom07#UK_designer_slash_clothing_firm. Thanks, let me know if there is anything I can do. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did not do something silly.
You have been trouted for: happy editing
Hello Racconish, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓12:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Racconish/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustave Doré, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nadar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hula may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[[[File:Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle (1932).webm|thumb|thumbtime=38|start=38|end=80|The Royal Samoans (
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mills Brothers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Yes it does. And you are welcome. Also, if you think one of your uploads meets the FPC requirements, you can nominate yourself. GamerPro6414:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
And now its a Featured Picture. While I got credit for it, it's also considered a win for you too. Congrats all around. GamerPro6401:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Racconish, what's your recent reverting spree about? I see you're bothered by the fact it's mentioning "Mercedes Benz". While it's obvious that's a brand and it's trying to brand itself, the reason I included it was the sheer fact it's the single largest organizer of fashion shows on a global scale. And it does one hell lot of shows. So if the director of these states what are the most meaningful among them, it definitely has more merit than some random blogs or glitter magazines, at least to me. Or what's your stance on this? I'm eager to find out. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
A self promoting interview is not a reliable source by WP standards. RS (I have quoted 2) do not mention Berlin as an international fashion capital. Please stop your cross wiki spam. Thanks, — Racconish ✉22:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm engaged at Wiki for years, well aware of these and act them out. Thank you and have a good night. -- Horst-schlaemma ([[User talk:Horst-schlaemma|tal:::::I withdraw “Threatened to death by Azurfrog”. It should read “Threatened to death by Azurfrog”, with “death“ written in italics, i.e. as a metaphorical expression standing for “indefinite blocking”. Is that OK now, Racconish?
Well... I'm mainly a historical fashion guy, but looking in as I was asked for my thoughts. I don't know about Berlin being one of the Big Five. As I understood it, the Big Five since the 80s were London (UK), Paris, New York, Milan and Tokyo - although this was a while ago. Which of them dropped off the radar? If Berlin/Germany is there, I would imagine it's in the same league as say, China, India, or Australia, all of which are certainly firmly establishing their presence in the international fashion world, but as a fashion presence I'm thinking probably second tier at this point. Big in this context would refer to the scale of influence and coverage, rather than financial outlay, or scale of exports - this is something that isn't as easy to verify as looking at figures. Mabalu (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The usual expression is 'the big four' as indicated by the abundance of reliable sources. There is an alternate notion of 'global fashion capitals', created by the Global Language Monitor[12] and reported by reliable medias such as Vogue [13]. According to the 2014, ranking, Los Angeles was 4th and Berlin 7th, same as 2013. Cheers, — Racconish ✉10:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just seen the edits to Fashion - it's a shame that Horst-schlaemma used a source that doesn't mention clothing fashions in any way whatsoever, as this seriously dents their credibility. Berlin WAS an avant-garde capital of Europe, we can agree on this, but I am not aware that it had significant influence on worldwide clothing fashions in the 1920s. The avant-garde style mavens I am thinking of from around this period went to places like Paul Poiret (Paris), Mariano Fortuny (an Italian who exported to Paris), or shops like Myrbor (again, Paris, but its avant-garde clothes were designed by the Russian Natalia Goncharova). There were places in London, as I'm sure there were places anywhere, where you could buy avant-garde and arty clothing, but yes, in the 1920s, Paris was very much held up as the centre of fashion (both avant-garde and mainstream) and if it wasn't a Paris model it was seen as somehow inferior. (something Norman Hartnell found out when he was trying to launch in the 1920s; and the American designer Elizabeth Hawes writes brilliantly about the early 20th century preconception that all beautiful clothes came from Paris in "Fashion in Spinach") Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Mabalu, did you really read the Spiegel article on 1920s Berlin? Anyway, I have a book about the time and it's massive. I'll look into it and check what I can include. For readers it's always an issue if they can't check instant web sources, at least in my point of view. You have to consider the fact that Berlin was sort of hidden under the radar for almost a century (since WW1) when it comes to culture, especially in Anglo media. But especially the notion of the "Big 4" is all a media thing of pre-1980 decades really, especially considering how there's far larger locations for production than say the UK today. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I did read it, and I read it again to make sure before I reverted your edits, as I said in the edit summaries. The ONLY thing I saw is a throwaway reference to "six day races to fashion shows." And I've just now read it a third time. It is a good article for showing how influential Berlin was on art and architecture and general 1920s design but it simply doesn't say anything about fashion design, which is what the Wikipedia articles are about. That is fashion as in clothes and dress, not as in general lifestyle trends (so perhaps you have misunderstod the purpose of the Wikipedia articles.) So sorry, but it's useless as a source for the claim that Berlin was a fashion capital for clothing and dress design. Mabalu (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
And what about the 'big five' ? Your answer about mistreatment by mainstream media reeks of POV. Kindly understand it is not acceptable to claim such fringe theories without high quality sources. Thanks, — Racconish ✉16:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour. (Je répond ici en français car mon niveau d'anglais à l'écrit est faible, et sous IP car mon pseudo Arroser est déjà utilisé par un autre sur WP:en. Racconish pourra traduire je pense, mieux que Google).
Je peux me définir également comme "I'm mainly a historical fashion guy" sur la WP:fr.
De ce que je peux lire régulièrement dans la presse rejoint l'analyse de Mabalu : en dehors des "Big four" qui sont un fait largement établi par de multiples sources (j'ai sourcé sur la WP:fr), les Fashion week dont on parle un peu sont l'Inde et la Chine. Ces deux pays développent créativité, mais surtout possèdent une immense population, un pouvoir d'acaht grandissant, et donc un potentiel de clientèle importante. Cela dit, au niveau occidental, l'influence reste encore nulle et leur historique est encore faible, voir insignifiant. A ces deux pays, on pourrait y ajouter quelques Fashion weeks du Moyen Orient qui rencontrent pafois quelques échos dans la presse. Je suppose une débauche d'argent et de communication plus que d'inventivité ; là encore, l'influence en occident reste inexistant, tout comme l'historique.
Pour ce qui est plus précisement celle de Berlin, le problème sur les différentes WP est double :
- l'intérêt historique n'existe pas (créée en 2007), l'influence de cette Fashion week ou même des créateurs allemands oeuvrant en Allemagne n'existe pas (sauf peut être localement ?)*, les sources notables internationales n'existent pas : l'article sur la WP:en est donc creux, sans sources qui tiennent la route. Sur la WP:fr, cet article serait logiquement "non admissible" en l'état.
- Il y a très clairement un volontée de la part de Horst-schlaemma de détourner largement les faits (le concept "Big four" pour faire simple) afin de mettre sur un plan d'égalité Milan, Paris, NY et Londres avec Berlin. Ce, sur plusieurs WP et sur de nombreux articles dans un nombre important de langues. Le tout avec des fois une unique référence bien insuffisante (primaire) allant à l'encontre de multiples autres sources de qualité. De ce que je peux lire, ce comportement cherchant à détourner la vérité pour glorifier un sujet/personne est par ailleurs le même sur la WP:fr où je corrige régulièrement certaines allégations fantaisistes de ce contributeur.
* Note : A part quelques rares exceptions comme Jil Sander ayant ouvert sa première boutique à Paris et revendu sa marque aux italiens, qui devient par la suite britannique puis japonaise...
Note 2 : Je précise que le concept des Big four va bien au delà des années 1980, j'ai courcé en ce sens un article sur la WP:fr avec des références très récentes.
Arroser, stick to English please, we're at enWiki. Anyway, you should give it a rest, obviously you're going mad at references mentioning any brand/company, we got that. Have a nice day. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Translation of Arroser's comment: I answer in French as my written English is insufficient and without signing in as my user name is used by somebody else on the English project. I trust racconsih will translate better than Google.
I would also define myself as "mainly a historical fashion guy" on the French WP.
I come to the same conclusion as Mabalu, based on what I regularly read in the press: the 'big four' are a well established entity, which I have referenced with multiple sources on the French WP. Aside from them, there is some coverage on India and China. These two countries are developping their creativity, they have a large population, a growing buying power and a potentially large customer base. Nevertheless, from a Western perspective, their influence and history remain not very significant. Aside from these two countries, we could consider some fashion weeks in the Middle East, which are some times covered by international media. I assume it is a matter of budget and communication more than sheer creativity. In any case, their influence in the West remains insignificant and their history is very short.
Now concerning berlin, the problem has two aspects:
The historical interest does not exist, as the event was created in 2007, and the international influence of this Fashion Week, as well as the influence of German designers does not exist either (or is only local). There are no international reliable sources to cover them and the article on the subject on the English WP is therefore wery shallow. On the French project, such an article would probably get deleted in view of what it looks like now.
There is a clear intention from Horst-schlaemma to circumvent the facts (the reality of the 'big four' in a nutshell) in order to put on the same level Berlin and the big 4 (NY, Milano, London, Paris). This is carried on many WP projects and many articles in many languages, with always a single weak primary source which contradicts many quality sources. From what I can read, this pattern of behaviour which tries to embellish the truth and to promote a subject or a person is the same pattern of conduct which I can see on the French WP where I regularly revert the fancy contributions of this user.
Note 1: Aside from some exceptions such as Jil Sander who opened her fist store in Paris ans sold her brand to Italians, and later became British and the Japanese...
Note 2: I would like to clarify that the concept of the 'big four' extends the 80s. I sourced the article on the French WP with very recent sources. translated by — Racconish ✉16:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Horst-schlaemma:, there is clearly a problem in the way you use sources. I challenge you to
quote here the passage of the source you used which says that "the Bread & Butter in Berlin is one of the leading fashion trade fairs in the world".
quote the passage of the article of the Spiegel which says that "when fashion generally became a more liberal business during the Golden Twenties [...] Berlin was considered the vanguard fashion capital".
quote the passage of this source you added that says Berlin is a fashion capital "as well" as New-York, Milano, London and Paris.
Raccon, it's in the headline already (The largest fashion and lifestyle fair, Bread & Butter recently took place in Berlin). Concerning the Spiegel article, it seems it doesn't appear in the way it used to, several sections are missing. I apologize for not re-checking. At a second glance, I also shouldn't have used the interview with the MB Fashion Week manager, even though he's directing a dozen of the most influential fashion shows in the world. I'll try and look for sources more thoroughly in the future, while that's often not a matter at Wiki though, as even the most relevant sources are neglected when someone doesn't "like" their content. Look at all the genderism-based shallow monkey business across Wiki. No huge community project without hassle, but we all try our best, well we should. Have a nice day everyone, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Horst-schlaemma: You just did it again here! Without a firm commitment on your part to stop this kind of tampering with sources, I may have to raise the issue of your behaviour. Please let's avoid this and kindly understand it is not acceptable. Thanks, — Racconish ✉17:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You're nitpicking. It's a respected and valuable source. If you don't think so, tell me why.
As for the other: "The largest" obviously refers to the global scale. I'm not into discussing it anymore, move on. All these superlatives aren't really that substantial, but somehow they're hard to avoid to nail down the meaning of something in today's world. If anything has meaning. After all, we're all just star cum. Cruel, cruel world. So just enjoy your time on Earth and stop bullying. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Horst-schlaemma: "The largest" may refer and probably refers to the comparaison made in the body of the article with previous years. The article makes no explicit comparaison with other fairs nor any statement on the international ranking of this fair. It just says it is the largest it has ever been. It does not imply as you write this fair is "globally leading". For such a strong statement, you need an explicit quote from a reliable source, and by the way there is no evidence that Feiress is a respected source as you claim. Please stop assuming a source says what you would like it to say. I remind you that when a statement is challenged, the burden of proof is born by the contributor who added the statement. If you are unable to contribute in a careful and neutral way, please question yourself instead of telling contributors who try to explain you the problems with your edits that your mistakes are hard to avoid. Your behaviour is hurting the project and distracting other users from more constructive tasks. Please stop it. Thanks, — Racconish ✉18:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Before trying to teach me a lesson, rather dare to check the other source I included. Anyway, I'm out, this is getting tiresome. Have a good day. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Horst-schlaemma:Fashionunited is not a quality source by WP standards and you have it says something it does not say (unless you are not aware about the issue with Barcelona). I suggest it would be more neutral to quote the New York Times: "among the world’s most important urban and street fashion trade fairs" [14]. Yet the article is a bit old and can be complemented by Drapers - a good source - which says that "Since its 10th anniversary in the summer of 2011, the show has suffered a decline, with many major brands leaving". You could also use El Pais on the Barcelona issue [15]. — Racconish ✉08:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware about the Barca issues and still the statement remains, unless you're not that profound in the use of the language. Drapers asks for my money btw. Anyway, thank you for the other references. I think it's important to have things to look up to in this fast-paced world, there needs to be some constants after all, especially in fashion. Western makers need to cling together more, as competition is getting tough in Asia. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 30 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. You requested access to a British Newspaper Archive account via The Wikipedia Library a long time ago. I took over responsibilities as the account coordinator and I approved you for an account about a month ago. I still need you to follow the steps indicated on the e-mail I sent you, including submitting your information on the Google doc that e-mail indicates. If I don't have that information by 15 December, I'm going to archive your application with no further action.
If there's been any confusion or crossed-wires about this process, I apologize. I understand your request waited for some time before I e-mailed you. I'm eager to catch-up with the backlog of requests and other editors are waiting for accounts. Chris Troutman (talk)22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Im not sure what's public domain as far as these two posters. Only guessing the Walton film is 1921 predating the 1923 year copyright cutoff. Thanks for any help. Koplimek (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed for both. I think you can go ahead and assume the poster for the first film was published in 1921, hence PD. The artwork on the 1928 film could still be copyrighted even if the film is not. As the 1928 film is lost, I assumed it was safe to consider the copyright of the film had not been renewed, hence a still of it was PD. I uploaded it at Commons and used it to illustrate the article. Cheers, — Racconish 📥18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Since you're a member of the Silent Films task force, I thought you might be interested in joining a discussion about Georges Méliès and how best to cover his pioneering films on Wikipedia. I've started the discussion here: Talk:Georges Méliès filmography#What about the redlinks?
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Yes, you are right. These are "official" pages of the subject of the article, which are generally accepted, though in my opinion superfluous if there is an "official" website. Cheers, — Racconish 📥08:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
On WPen, yes, based on fair use, for the rationale stated, i.e. just to illustrate this article. But you can't move the file to Commons as is not in the public domain or use it in WPen for other purposes. Cheers, — Racconish 📥18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The protection is at least 70 years after the publication and up to 70 years after the death of the creator depending on the copyright status, i.e. collective or personal. Cheers, — Racconish 📥17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you click on the image and then on the blue button "More details" at the bottom right, it will take you to the file page at Commons which shows the uploader. Cheers, — Racconish 📥17:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It says: Author=Unknown. Since you seem quite knowledgeable of how wikimedia commons works, I thought you might know something. It seems those images weren't even uploaded to wikimedia commons to begin with.Lbertolotti (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were asking about the uploader. For both images, the source is indicated and it seems the claim they are in the public domain according to the Japanese law is sufficiently sustained. One could argue these are obviously professional portraits by a professional photographer and the fact the uploader does not know the photographer's name is not sufficient proof of anonymity, but such a concern would be pointless as the photographs are in the public domain not because of the time elapsed since the death of the photographer but since their first publication. If it would be an American or a European photograph, more investigation about the photographer could be appropriate. — Racconish 📥18:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Racconish. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stop trick may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[[[File:Beheadingofmaryqueenofscots recreation.ogg|thumbtime=1|thumb|The first use of the trick in
@User:Racconish I'm trying to add a photo to his article, but I'm not sure which is the proper procedure. He's still alive, so it's not a "historic portrait of a person no longer alive".Lbertolotti (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Racconish ! Very fine to meet you here. I've submitt a new inscription under my french username yesterday, and said to myself : so, it should be just incredible that you'ren't to WP en. Well, in fact, that's an opportunity for me to have some growed knowledged (occasionnaly). Have a very nice day . Very best regards, --Ruyblas13 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC).
Ya, that'll be fine for me. Many thanks for your welcoming . See you soon . P.S. : A barnstar collection is the most better and preciously that's anyone must to have ; yes, sure . Cheers, Philippe --Ruyblas13 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC).
Bonjour Racconish, j'ai accès à tous les wiki (commons, wiktionary, Wikipedia en anglais, en italien, etc.) sauf à Wikipedia en français. Sais-tu si cela est ″normal" ou si je suis le seul à rencontrer ce problème ? Cordialement, Olimparis (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Racconish. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Dufy victory rooster2.jpg. 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).
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
1) Ted Kennedy editorial conflict resolution on en.wikipedia vs. François Asselineau editorial conflict resolution on fr.wikipedia. 2) Killing someone non personal?
Hello, Racconish. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Done. I think the logical order is fiber > weave > finish. Racconish Tk 03:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElizabethCB123. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
References added by me, template removed by another editor.Racconish Tk 10:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! No problem. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. (This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of WP:UWTEST) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pearl White may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.jpg)
? Cheers, — Racconish 📥 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
. Very best regards, --Ruyblas13 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC).
_(14569447530).jpg){kind=link}
