User talk:Redstar0005/Archive 1

This is archived talk page If you wish to contact me, please click here to start a new discussion thread.

Draft:Sugōisobe Shrine

I saw your decline of Draft:Sugōisobe Shrine but for some reason I got no talk page message about it. Do you know what may have happened?

As for the article how do you think its tone could be improved? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to why a message did not appear on your talk page, it could be a glitch in the system, as Wikipedia is not perfect. For the tone, try to generally make this seem more formal, as if you were writing a research paper. Also, try not to include any theories as Wikipedia is a source of sure information. Try improving your sources also. I am not saying that they are bad but improve the amount of information you give about them. If you have any more questions feel free to reply. Thanks! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 22:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

John315 on Talk page

You flagged his edits on his Talk page and now he is editing the new Maestro film article with odd mark ups. Could you take a look at what he is doing? HenryRoan (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 22:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@HenryRoan, I looked at some of his edits, and they do seem odd. However, I do not believe that this is worthy of another warning, undoing it is fine. If he edits like that again, please message me on my talk page and I will administer a warning. Thanks! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 22:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. After I tried the undo, then he now appears to want to start edit warring. His two points are that Bernstein believes his wife is a ghost (which never occurs in the film), and that there is a B&W flashback of about 40 minutes during the first hour of this color film which he seems to believe makes the whole film B&W, which it is not. Both the opening scene is in color and then the last 70 minutes of the film until the end are all in color. I will follow your lead on this and support your comment about administering a warning to him. HenryRoan (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@HenryRoan I will administer a level three warning to him because this is not his first incident of edit warring. I believe that what he thinks is false and if he does something like this I will start a talk about banning him. Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 01:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear HenryRoan and Redstar0005, this is an utterly classic example of misunderstanding even though nobody means ill.

As for the "ghost" issue, see, e.g., this link, https://www.orartswatch.org/filmwatch-weekly-maestro-eileen-downwind-and-immediate-family/, which notes of Bernstein's character in Maestro,

"He speaks of seeing his wife Felicia’s ghost. 'I miss her terribly,' he says, our cue that this life story will be a love story as much as, if not more than, an artistic one."

So I'm correct about the ghost, though whether Bernstein means it as a real ghost, or a metaphor, or a hallucination, is debatable.

As for black-and-white, I never said the whole film is black-and-white. I'd have put down the time that it transitions back to color, if I'd remembered the exact point. But I didn't, so I didn't want to look like a fool, by giving false information.

(The article/link cited above says, "Cinematographer Matthew Libatique’s work is flawless, and the film shifts back to color as it jumps forward to the 1960s, Bernstein now a hip éminence grise and relentless bon vivant [etc.]”) That may be a clue to the exact point of transition to color, though anyone who wants to be exact, may want to see the film and confirm exactly how things are.)

HenryRoan could do a valuable service, by putting in the Maestro article, the exact point at which the film transitions back from B-and-W to color. That'd be great.

That's it. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I didn't actually do anything wrong, I think. I'd've appreciated if HenryRoan had discussed more of this stuff on my userpage, or the Maestro talk section, or such, rather than asking you to consider banning me, without my being able to respond in detail like I'm doing right now.

It's fine to discipline genuine vandals or other jerks, but I think I've given a good explanation of my logic and good intentions, above.

Okay. Thanks, have a good evening. John315 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I need to agree with Redstar0005 on John315's conduct of edit warring on the Maestro article and elsewhere. After two editors (Redstar0005 and me) have pointed out to him that he is edit warring, John315 does not remove his edit as would be expected, but he presents a wall of text and keeps forcing his edits into the article. Filming in color or B&W is normally discussed in the Production section of film articles and not in the Plot section. Also, John315's misreading of the word 'ghost' is odd, since Bernstein is emotionally reacting to the death of his wife and mentions that he still feels her spiritual presence in the home as if she where still there. To John315 this is summarized in the Plot section as if Bernstein believes in ghosts, and John315 wishes to force his odd wording into the article by edit warring. I am supporting Redstar0005 in any further reports he feels are needed to limit the continued edit warring by John315. HenryRoan (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I never seek to "edit war", but people do have vigorous discussions. I have reached consensus with many people over time, on Talk pages or otherwise, in many articles, often involving each side giving up part of what they want.

I repeat, HenryRoan should have discussed all this with me personally, instead of trying to get other people to punish or ban me.

The article I link to above says, "ghost". If HenryRoan disagrees, the answer is not to punish me, but to edit the Maestro article himself, and put in an alternate answer, e.g., the one he puts above, if indeed Bernstein said that in the movie. (I wouldn't be surprised if Bernstein did, or if he said something slightly different. HenryRoan may have seen the movie more recently even than I did.)

Similarly, if HenryRoan feels it absolutely necessary to put the "B-and-W or color" issue in Production instead of Plot, fine. (It could be put in both places, actually. He never discussed this with me before, and he should have.) Again, the answer is for him to do something positive (edit the Maestro article the way he wishes), not for him to do something negative, i.e., to seek to punish someone else for having different opinions.

Again, the article I linked to gives evidence in my favor.

I almost feel like saying I'm owed an apology by HenryRoan at this point. I improved the Maestro article by mentioning the ghost and B-and-W issues. If HenryRoan wants to riff on my positive contributions by further editing what I said, or offering more context, fine. That's what I tend to do, making changes on an article rather than trying to get people punished after they have made positive contributions, just because I don't 100% agree with everything they said.

Even having to write this response is a burden; I have Xmas shopping and other things to do, and was going to leave home earlier, but now I have to do this.

Thanks. Have a pleasant day. John315 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I also see that on HenryRoan's Talk page, people have criticized him for his repeated incidents of unattributed copying, over various months, i.e., he kept doing this rather than learning to behave correctly after the first time. Rather than finding fault with people who have no fault, he should try addressing his own repeated faults. John315 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry @John315, I did not understand the whole situation and I will remove my warning from your page. However, before spontaneously removing others' edits please talk to them about why your are doing so (especially if it is a large edit). For you, @HenryRoan I have also looked at your page and seen comments about your unattributed edits. Please, if you are copying within Wikipedia attribute the original page. As for copying material from outside other sources to Wikipedia, that is prohibited unless writing quotes or when you have a license. @HenryRoan I recommend you visit WP:C-P and WP:CWW. @John315 I recommend you visit WP:EW and H:RV. Thanks! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 21:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

About Draft:Airrack

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Airrack a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Airrack. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rick Fedrizzi

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft on Rick Fedrizzi! I was hoping you might be able to give more advice about the "notable" requirement for articles as well as about references I should use?

I looked through the list of reliable sources and while a couple of my references are on the list (Forbes and NPR), I think there are other sources that are also reliable even though they are not on the list. Architect Magazine is a very reliable and well-known publication that I reference a few times with a couple different articles on Rick Fedrizzi, as well as Harvard School of Public Affairs, which I thought is also a reliable source. Building Green & Design Magazine (bg&d) and Builder Magazine are also big magazines in the building world and are well-regarded (been in publication for over a decade - since 2009 and 2012 respectively). I'm just wondering if these are considered reliable or should I look for other sources?

In regards to notable, Rick Fedrizzi basically helped start the green building phenomenon, which is huge in the architectural world right now. I thought it was extremely relevant with the focus on sustainability in the news today with COP28, climate change, etc. Almost every building that is considered "green" or zero carbon these days must be LEED certified to be considered so and Rick Fedrizzi started the company (USGBC) that created LEED. In addition to this, he was big in getting capitalists to realize that sustainability is not against them, but can be used to save/make money while also saving the environment.

In writing the article, I wanted to make sure not to make statements that seemed grandiose or contained an opinion (like green building - and sustainability - wouldn't be where it is without Rick Fedrizzi, although I'm pretty positive it wouldn't be!), but I'm struggling to with the comment that he isn't notable. Do you need more information added to the article to show he is notable? Or do you think his contributions as listed aren't enough?

Thank you again for helping me and I appreciate any advice you have! Jonasstaff (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I completely think that Rick Fedrizzi as a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article himself. However, your article's sources do not seem to cover him enough to be used in the article. You already have sources that cover him significantly, just build off of that and it will be good. I will be watching the article and will try to be the one to review it if you submit it again. Good Luck! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 21:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your help with this. I just resubmitted the article. I added a bit more background of what he accomplished and found some citations from Reuters, AP News, another Architect Magazine article and a couple .org websites that seemed reliable. Hopefully, that's enough, but I'm happy to keep working on it if it's still lacking anything! Happy holidays! Jonasstaff (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Igal Stulbach

I have read a comment you left in the article. I have to say that I disagree: I didn't copied even one line from that website. However, I have rewritten these paragraphs even more now... עומר תשבי (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. If I have time, I will review it. Thanks! Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 12:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Lee Know moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lee Know (1). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Does not satisfy WP:BANDMEMBER. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Lightoil (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Bang Chan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bang Chan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Chan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bang Chan (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Freedom4U was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Lee Know has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lee Know. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lee Know (February 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Randompersonediting was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bang Chan (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Redstar0005! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)