Sansevieria4

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sansevieria4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hyacinth! As you can see, I am new and I have no idea what I am doing. Do I answer you here? Thank you for the tutorial information. Sansevieria4 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dorothy Lawson

WP:NMUSIC is quite clear that a musician whose notability derives from being a member of a band (or string quartet, or whatever else) rather than for solo work is not entitled to her own separate article just because she exists; rather, until you can add proper reliable sources to demonstrate that she's notable for something independently of the ensemble's notability, then she only gets a redirect to the group, not a standalone article. (And that applies to Mary Rowell as well; the difference between them and the other two members is that the other articles actually cite real references.)

And incidentally, Wikipedia also has an absolute, inviolable policy against unsourced articles about living people. So until you can add real reliable sources to demonstrate that Lawson and Rowell meet our notability rules in their own rights, then no, the articles aren't entitled to be kept in an unreferenced form — and if you can actually add such references, then it's not necessary for me to revert the redirects in advance anyway, because they can always be replaced at any time with legitimate, referenced articles. If there are real references available, then by all means you can recreate the articles with those references in place — but until those references are actually present, they have to remain as redirects. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, if you need time to build an article up to Wikipedia standards (i.e. hunting down sources, etc.), then the best approach is to start the page in your own userspace (e.g. User:Sansevieria4/Dorothy Lawson) so that you can work on it at your convenience, without worrying about whether it'll get deleted or redirected on you — and when you've got a decent article fully ready for publication, then it can be moved into article space. If you start it in mainspace without references or a proper claim of notability present in the article right off the bat, however, then we can't let it stand just because it might eventually get improved — especially when it's a biography of a living person, because we've had a lot of problems with those types of articles in the past, so our rules around those are really, really strict. So that's what I would recommend: work on the article at the link I created for you above — and then when it's ready for publication, you can copy and paste it into the actual Dorothy Lawson link.

The one thing you need to know about draft pages in your own userspace is that unlike real articles they shouldn't be categorized; you can add the relevant category links behind comment tags <!-- like this --> so that they're hidden in the meantime, and then remove the comment tags when you move the article into mainspace, or just leave the category links off the page and then add them for the first time when the page gets moved.)

As for user talk pages, some people prefer that you keep the discussion on your page, others prefer that you keep it on theirs, and others prefer the back and forth. There's no hard and fast rule about that beyond paying attention to the preferences that people actually express at the top of their talk pages.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's already a category for Category:Electroacoustic music composers. As for the musical groups one, the issue to be aware of is that it's not normally useful to create a category for just one entry — if you know of additional groups that can be added to it, then I can help you create the category, but if there's just the one then it might not be a useful category for us to have yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina Roberts (journalist).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my Talk page. I'm not aware of a time limit for improving and re-submitting your article. I take your point about the existing article about the porn star, Nina Roberts. I'm not entirely sure she is notable enough to have an article about her anyway - maybe someone will do something about this in the near future! Sionk (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethel (string quartet)

Hi, I'm concerned about your history of edits to Ethel (string quartet). You've added a ton of external links to reviews, which will be removed sooner or later, per WP:EL. Among other things it turns the article into a promotional vehicle, and raises questions about your neutrality. Perhaps you can undo much of this, preserving legitimate cites and references. If not I'll probably request input from other objective editors. Thank you, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the link to the guide for external links. I have just been following what I have seen on other Wikipedia pages, not really knowing what the rules are. I would absolutely welcome an editor to come on board. This article needs much work and I am learning as I go. I think I am slowly getting better but this site is not easy to figure out for a casual user. For example, how do you expand the article from a stub? I was hoping that adding citations/links would do it.

Since you've been editing for a year, with a primary interest in this and related articles, I'd suggest it's time to read Wikipedia guidelines re: sources. I've asked for a second opinion here [1], and Bearcat removed the external links to reviews. I can't imagine what article you've found that was similarly laden with external links, which are not the same as citations--in this case they take on a promotional tone. Also Imdb is not considered a reliable source. This is not a bad example to view, though it, too, could use further inline cites to support content [2]. Please only add content that can be reliably sourced, per WP:RELIABLE, and avoid adding external links to the body of an article, per WP:EL. Finally, if you are connected to the subject, please read WP:COI; we're not prohibited from writing about entities with which we're associated, but great discretion is necessary. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying my best to do the right thing here. I am a little concerned about the citation that you just flagged. I assumed the reason citation was needed was to document that the members of the group are also composers. It is common knowledge that they perform music by contemporary composers such as those listed. This can be seen on any of the groups album liner notes and in just about every article written about them. Take a look at the recordings listed at the bottom of the article. Do you want me to add a citation to every composers name? I can do it but it is seems kind of clunky. It is also common knowledge that the learning curve for Wikipedia is kind of steep so maybe you could cut me a little slack and perhaps be less cranky with me. I should also add that I didn't write most of this article and I have been trying to add citations. My apologies if I went about it incorrectly. The whole thing is out if date, missing chunks of information, etc. I have tried to make improvements where I can but because I did not feel I was up to the task of a total re-write, I have just tried to make small improvements where I can.

Yeah, the addition of tags to the individual names seems a bit much, but it was an understandable response to your addition of a cite that did not cover the content of the previous sentence, only half of it. As for the learning curve, that's understood, but I know from experience that the curve is often slowed by conflict of interest. No intent to be cranky; please do add cites that confirm the article's content. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you rather that I move the citation to just after "original music" in the middle of the sentence? That is the only part of the sentence that I assumed was flagged for citation since the composers are covered in the discography list below and are common knowledge. I think you are maybe looking to nitpick. Again, I did not write the bulk of the article and it has been without citation for a number of years. Look at the history. I have recently been trying to add cites that confirm the article's content. As I mentioned above. The article is listed as a stub and I thought that adding citations would correct that. I just didn't realize that the addition of external links were inappropriate and I saw other people doing it. I saw the links as further citations/data. I don't think that amounts to conflict of interest. There are a dozens of articles that I would love to launch but because of exhausting encounters such as this, I usually just walk away. So, are you just going to leave your citation flags there? It looks kind of silly. I think the sentence after that, which used to have a video link, is now in greater need of citation than the list of composers. Honestly, I have now spent way more time than I ever intended on this. You are discouraging people from contributing to Wikipedia.

I've removed the cite tags, as well as the stub templates, which don't apply anymore. I'm not discouraging anyone from contributing here--all positive contributions are welcome, but it's not inappropriate to remind all contributors to read basic guidelines before editing; I've been diplomatic re: the deluge of external links you added. Good luck and good editing. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sxip Shirey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Todd Reynolds (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina Roberts (journalist) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina Roberts (journalist), a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Nina Roberts (journalist)

Hello Sansevieria4. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Nina Roberts (journalist).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina Roberts (journalist)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dorothy Lawson (March 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dorothy Lawson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sansevieria4, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kip Jones (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 Arthur goes shopping 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kip Jones and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited What If It All Means Something, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Todd Reynolds. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sansevieria4. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sansevieria4. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sansevieria4. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)