User talk:Zuzanna Jablonska

This is Zuzanna Jablonska's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arsenale Institute (December 9)

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

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

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

What has been written about the Institute by people who are not connected to it? (Also, what does "the figures of thought of negation" mean?)

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:Arsenale Institute 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.

Hoary (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zuzanna Jablonska! 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! Hoary (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll look into it. I think your comment was very helpful - I am trying to find better sources and edit the article in line with your guidance. Once again, thank you for this recommendation Zuzanna Jablonska (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation has been accepted

Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To wit: sources were invented and/or falsely represented. For this article: Ben Broos never wrote such an article and it's not in the Yale 1998 book. For this edit, three of the links do not go to articles about Harrison, or they are simply dead links, and a search of those websites revealed nothing like it. Pinging Mandarax, User:GrigioGrey. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More: in Florian Süssmayr, the Saatchi link is dead, and I can't find any mention of Süssmayr on the Saatchi website. The MOMA link goes to an event for a different artist. He is never mentioned anywhere as having worked with Iggy Pop. Etc. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted your edits to the Constance Mayer article, bringing it back to the lastest good version of the article here, because there were a number of edits that were not credible: bare and fake urls (for some reason also wrapped in nowiki code) for information that did not appear to be correct. I don't mean to pile on, but I do want to document the unusual activity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pomona Zipser (April 25)

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

See editor's talk page: we cannot take these references at face value.

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:Pomona Zipser 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.

Drmies (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zuzanna Jablonska (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrator, I am writing to appeal my indefinite block from editing. According to the message left on my talk page, it appears that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia." While I understand the severity of this claim, I believe that it is based on a misunderstanding of my intentions. Firstly, I would like to address the issues that were raised in the comments left by Drmies and Carole Henson. I acknowledge that I made mistakes in some of my edits and understand that they were not up to Wikipedia's standards. However, I would like to clarify that these errors were not made with malicious intent. For example, regarding the article on Maria de Knuijt, I mistakenly included false information that I believed to be true at the time. I acknowledge that this was a serious error and should have been more thorough in my research before including this information in the article. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I made mistakes in my edits to the Constance Mayer article, including bare and fake URLs. I apologize for these mistakes and recognize that they are not acceptable. However, I want to assure you that they were not made with the intention of misleading readers. I was still learning how to cite sources according to Wikipedia standards. Regarding my submission for the article on Pomona Zipser, I understand that it was not accepted due to concerns over the validity of the sources used. I acknowledge that I should have been more diligent in my research and selection of sources, and I will take this as a learning experience to improve my future contributions to Wikipedia. Overall, I want to emphasize that my intention in editing Wikipedia was always to contribute to the platform and improve its content. While I made mistakes along the way, I believe that with the proper guidance and assistance, I can make valuable contributions to the platform in the future. Therefore, I respectfully request that my block be lifted so that I may continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Zuzanna Jablonska

Decline reason:

You claim you had good intentions and your mistakes were not made with malicious intent. However, the claim against you is that you have falsified sources. Specifically, you have invented sources that didn't actually exist. These are in direct contradiction. For example, you are accused of inventing the source, Broos, Ben. "From Maria Thins to Catharina Bolnes: The Inheritance of Vermeer's Pictures." In "Vermeer Studies." Yale University Press, 1998. I think you need to provide clear evidence that this source actually exists. Without that, there's simply no way we can assume good faith here. Without that, it's very clear you were being deliberately malicious. That alone won't be enough to lift the block, but it's a necessary starting point. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{unblock|reason=Your reason here=Dear Yamala, Here's a link to the book you mentioned in the WorldCat catalogue. I want to emphasize that the incorrect citations were the result of my lack of experience with this situation format rather than my imagination. The article I cited is in the first chapter ('I. CONSTRUCTING VERMEER') on page 19.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/vermeer-studies/oclc/40462569}

That... seems to prove you invented the source, no? "From Maria Thins to Catharina Bolnes: The Inheritance of Vermeer's Pictures" does not appear there. Yes, there's a section from Ben Broos, but not what you are specifically claiming. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zuzanna Jablonska (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrator,

Here's a link to the book you mentioned, in the WorldCat catalogue. I want to emphasise that the incorrect citations resulted from my lack of experience with this citation format rather than my imagination. The article I cited, is in the first chapter ('I. CONSTRUCTING VERMEER') on page 19.

Gaskell I. Jonker M. & National Gallery of Art (U.S.). (1998). Vermeer studies. National Gallery of Art; Distributed by Yale University Press. https://www.worldcat.org/title/vermeer-studies/oclc/40462569

Florence Harrison’s link to The Art Gallery of New South Wales admittedly does not work; however, the other links work for me. At the same time, I do understand that they do not meet the reliability criteria and it is something that should be improved.

I can assure you that the incorrect links are a result of my problems with understanding the recommended citation style rather than my intention to misinform anyone.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes, Zuzanna

Decline reason:

If the link did not work, why did you add it? How could you have verified that the citation supported the content? Whether or not this is intentional deception or merely a WP:CIR issue, I do not think your account should be unblocked until you give a clear explanation of how and why you added countless faulty citations to Wikipedia. Spicy (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mandarax, User:GrigioGrey, CaroleHenson, what do you make of all this? Zuzanna Jablonska, how did Iggy Pop get into this? That 2016 reference from Punknews.org ("Iggy Pop and German Artist Florian Süssmayr collaborate on Gardenia video," Punknews.org, April 19, 2016) does not exist, and searching for Süssmayr's name on Punknews.org delivers not a single hit. Spicy, it's things like that which make me think that claimed lack of competence in citing is a ruse. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. I appreciate that Zuzanna Jablonska regrets the improper edits... but am having a hard time wrapping my head around how falsifying sources is a newbie mistake, citation formatting issue, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]