|
||||||
Adam Weitsman
Hello! I have been working on a page you have previously worked on-- Adam Weitsman-- to get it to follow wikipedia's notability and non advertising rules and am wondering if it is appropriate to list his net worth. He is worth around $1 billion. I see some with it listed and others with it not. I am coming to you because I am unsure and do not want to post anything that would go against wikipedia's guidelines. let me know Dwals1022 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwals1022 The refs I've seen for that have been crap from the WP:BLP perspective, one was a crypto-something and one was from a gaming news-site. What have you got? IMO WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwals1022, I've moved your question to a separate thread, per local custom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Ballpoint pen artwork
Your addition of artist Enam Bosokah's artwork is welcome to the page's gallery, but choice of the portrait of Rose Dieng-Kuntz is problematic. Foremost: it is quite unremarkable for what it is; there are already fine examples of photorealist portraiture on the page, and Mr. Bosokah's rendition does not add to or even equal neither the level nor variety of mastery of the ballpoint art medium which the page strives to illustrate (on top of that it seems like a veiled promo directing traffic to Dieng-Kuntz' wiki). Unless you can ask the artist for a finer example of ballpoint pen artwork, I'll be deleting that portrait from the gallery. With all due respect to all-the-above. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Penwatchdog Dieng-Kuntz is dead, I don't see the "veiled promo directing traffic" problem. The choice of portrait was one of the three available on Commons, I have no preference.
- Your description of his work appears subjective to me (but who's wouldn't be). Apart from 2 of the others in the gallery, he actually has a WP-article (started by me). Also, it's the only portrait of a contemporary person, that she has a WP-article is not a drawback. Also, fwiw, atm only artist there from southern hemisphere. IMO, it fits well enough.
- Btw, if you're interested in the topic, have you considered making a "Ballpoint pen art" category?
- Ping to @Vexations, if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the Wiki Unseen project is misguided and should be abandoned. I can't even tell who is running it, some anonymous employee at the WMF? Vexations (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The staffer at [1] may know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the Wiki Unseen project is misguided and should be abandoned. I can't even tell who is running it, some anonymous employee at the WMF? Vexations (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
If someone has the know-how, interest and time to make a Ballpoint pen art 'category' (I'm assuming that'd be as a box at the bottom of the article linking all related?) of course that would be a very positive and welcome addition to the page.
- No intention to throw shade with my 'veiled promo' comment about Dieng-Kuntz; it was an incidental/secondary concern anyway.
- Main point: the insertion of that particular drawing by Bosokah into the gallery. Not a subjective matter, and available art data doesn't make insertion oblligatory, especially given the page is already full of images and I've already solicited other artists -- some with WP-articles, some notable but without -- to 'donate' for posterity.
- By the way, already have work-in-progress additions to the Ballpoint pen artwork article (including a 'BIC Collection' exhibition in which Bosokah was included). A 'Publication' section is also being compiled. Appreciate it if you can flow any further input through me first so's not to interfere with upcoming changes to the page as a whole. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I meant a category, like Category:Drawing (probably a subcat to that one), to put topic related stuff in. Either Category:Ballpoint pen artwork or Category:Ballpoint pen artists. Yes, it's subjective, clearly within editorial discretion. Like I said, IMO it fits well enough. With Appreciate it if you can flow any further input through me first, I think you're approaching WP:OWN territory, editing should be discussed at the talkpage as necessary, but I see no reason not to be WP:BOLD if I think it's a good idea. Use Template:Under construction or similar when applicable.
- That said, I don't have any deep insights into the topic (won't stop me from editing), though I've gotten the impression that African bp-artists is a "thing". If I come across any good sources I may edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Interesting WP(P) archeology
@Jenhawk777@Bishonen@Gareth Griffith-Jones@Xover Enjoy. Will it stand the test of time? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Really! And prompting the lovely Jen to take a peep! All the best to the three of you,
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC) - An image even minimally related to human crotches or chests that has been stable for a decade? Surely not. There must be regular edit wars that VanHooker is glossing over. But, yes, "an interesting archeology" is certainly true. Xover (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777@Gareth Griffith-Jones@Xover, some more culture for the weekend. This is from 2016 (and 1878, of course), but rather witty. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- OMG! I admit to laughing at anything that makes fun of Trump, but I also admit I just don't get body-part humor. Why is a picture of a penis funny? It isn't dressed funny or doing anything amusing. There are no cats. No dog slobber. It isn't jumping off a building into a small tub of water. I am thinking it might be necessary to be a guy and into comparisons and measuring and all that stuff that guys seem to care about that just makes women snort and walk away in order to get why this is amusing. Now ridiculing Trump? That's funny. Everyone gets that. The penis? Meh. I have someone that has one that I get to look at anytime I want.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oohh, you asked for it now. That said, the earlier penis-thing was more interesting than funny. But don't you find any humor in stuff like quote "Why not use a penis picture with more racial ambiguity to it?" THe question makes perfect sense in the WP-context but yeesh... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are one crazy Swede! I don't know any other Swedes, except the ones I watch on tv, which I am assuming are non-representative since they are all dark and depressed and you are all the way at the opposite end! How could racial ambiguity even be represented - I mean considering? I take that to be a serious question - which is of course humorous in itself, but you're right - yeesh! I have to go clean house now. Also yeesh. No penises offering to help.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777, thank you for the kind words. I just found this. Apparently Trump-GS is a genre now, perhaps we could write a WP-article about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- A genre? The horror of a second term fills me with dread. Enjoyed the spoof opera performance. And what about France tomorrow?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)- Hmm... well at least a decent portion of them are voting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Party names with ! in them, you don't see that everyday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've learned something today: Exclamation_mark#French. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I was certain Swedish had the convention of marking the imperative mood with an exclamation point, as is common in most of the Germanic languages. Xover (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xover, sure, but not that the Frenchies had to put a space in front of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I was certain Swedish had the convention of marking the imperative mood with an exclamation point, as is common in most of the Germanic languages. Xover (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- A genre? The horror of a second term fills me with dread. Enjoyed the spoof opera performance. And what about France tomorrow?
- @Jenhawk777, thank you for the kind words. I just found this. Apparently Trump-GS is a genre now, perhaps we could write a WP-article about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are one crazy Swede! I don't know any other Swedes, except the ones I watch on tv, which I am assuming are non-representative since they are all dark and depressed and you are all the way at the opposite end! How could racial ambiguity even be represented - I mean considering? I take that to be a serious question - which is of course humorous in itself, but you're right - yeesh! I have to go clean house now. Also yeesh. No penises offering to help.
- I would assert that penises (penii?) are inherently funny. I mean think about their biological and evolutionary function. What drugged out science fiction author came up with that idea? Or the fact that guys can—and do!—perform a move dubbed "the helicopter" with it. Or that it, anthropologically speaking, has been depicted as massive and (literally) rock-hard symbols of virility, even though it spends most of its time as a flaccid and shrunken appendage tucked away in an article of clothing that is the groinal equivalent of a sports bra. Or that their nemesis is… cold water. And that's not even getting into all the spectacularly dumb stuff guys do at the behest of their littler friend. Oh, or that they give it names. Like "Stanley". …! Or, hey, the blatant but subconscious ways guys tend to… compensate… for… something… Not naming any names, but there's a certain kind of man that is inordinately fond of fondling or putting their name on large phallus-shaped objects.But, of course, mostly they're funny because we all have such hangups about all the external sexual characteristics of the human mammal. All jokes have an element of surprise or thwarted expectations in them, and subjects that are slightly taboo but still at the forefront of the audience's mind are easy to manoeuvre in order to manipulate expectations. And we definitely need more penis humour to break down some of those hangups, because, sadly, a lot of the time the stuff that guys do "at the behest of their little friend", just ain't funny! Xover (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oohh, you asked for it now. That said, the earlier penis-thing was more interesting than funny. But don't you find any humor in stuff like quote "Why not use a penis picture with more racial ambiguity to it?" THe question makes perfect sense in the WP-context but yeesh... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- OMG! I admit to laughing at anything that makes fun of Trump, but I also admit I just don't get body-part humor. Why is a picture of a penis funny? It isn't dressed funny or doing anything amusing. There are no cats. No dog slobber. It isn't jumping off a building into a small tub of water. I am thinking it might be necessary to be a guy and into comparisons and measuring and all that stuff that guys seem to care about that just makes women snort and walk away in order to get why this is amusing. Now ridiculing Trump? That's funny. Everyone gets that. The penis? Meh. I have someone that has one that I get to look at anytime I want.
Question from DearestHaley (22:35, 18 April 2022)
Hi Gråbergs! I've just made an edit to the British Bingo page. Can you please review this? I'm sure it's alright but I'd appreciate some input from a senior member of Wikipedia. Thank you! --DearestHaley (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to link! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_(British_version) DearestHaley (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @DearestHaley, that ([2]) looks all kinds of excellent to me. Doesn't make sense, and sourcing the whatever to the whatever's own webpage is very dubious here per WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PROPORTION etc etc. If The Times writes about them they may be worth mentioning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
Hello, I'm Hajrakhala. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Ghalib have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember adding any WP:EL to that article, but it seems you meant "Further reading." Why do you consider an article about the subject in a WP:RS inappropriate for an encyclopedia? Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_189#User:IAmAtHome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ghalib. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Hajrakhala (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- This templated message is nonsense in context, please try to communicate better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Well that was... something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Hajrakhala. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ghalib have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You really need to stop using templates for communicating, you suck at using them, at least on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Interlocutor (well) now partially blocked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång Please be calm and don't allow spammers to ruin your mental piece. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I AM PERFECTLY C... Thank you for your consideration. Have a nice weekend. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Holy crap this is crazy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right!? Wouldn't be too surprised if there's a sockpuppet-sequel. They claimed among other things that İslâm Ansiklopedisi is my blog, which is one of the funnier "insults" I've had around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- SPA's like this one can make such claims. They might end up saying, oh no, but The New York Times is a blog, and it is not legit to use it anywhere. I've heard such funny claims in past. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I seem to have called that one:[3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right!? Wouldn't be too surprised if there's a sockpuppet-sequel. They claimed among other things that İslâm Ansiklopedisi is my blog, which is one of the funnier "insults" I've had around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Holy crap this is crazy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I AM PERFECTLY C... Thank you for your consideration. Have a nice weekend. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång Please be calm and don't allow spammers to ruin your mental piece. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
April
![]() |
as promised: dance and singing, peace doves and icecream - Freiheit! to listen to, - the livestream has it all, safety announcement, speeches, intermission ... but there's a good legend to find the symphony movement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
and now also the reminder:
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
going to hear a concert tomorrow, three composers from Ukraine, and the orchestra --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
tomorrow turned today, your anniversary day (thanks for including me): Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) - concert with Kyiv orchestra and Aleksey Semenenko (quite a story!) tonight, Symphony with war and peace in the subtitle --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
... and now you can listen: Kyiv Symphony Orchestra, Luigi Gaggero & Diana Tishchenko (violin) / Kulturpalast Dresden (25 April 2022 on YouTube (that's 25 April in Dresden, a different violinist, but the same program) - ours pictured here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Just to clarify
It's not that I didn't like your version of the lead, it's just that my experience with GAs and FAs tells me the lead needs to be a bit more engaging. I think we tend to get stuck in the exact verbage of MOS (text must be in the body in order to include it in the lead) and we tend to forget that the lead is an overall summary (which includes the photographs and other images). It also doesn't have to be verbatim - artifacts could refer to a number of different things but for the sake of clarity for our readers, it helps to name a few of the artifacts independently (the photos speak a thousand words about the museum). There is quite a bit more educational material that can be added to that article if you're up for it, including the historic significance of why certain artifacts in the museum are notable. Atsme 💬 📧 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- My view is that WP:LEAD is a good idea to follow. It's good WP-style. A museum having photos is not surprising. "Educational" also goes without saying and sounds vaguely promo-ish, and "notable" is WP-jargon. alt text is good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
CNN article
Here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I have been going crazy
I have finally finished two difficult articles and have done everything ass backwards with maximum drama. I thought I was maintaining my equilibrium, and clearly haven't been, so if I have done or said anything in the last two months which have made you sorry you know me, please forgive me. I have been going a little bit bat-shit crazy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing comes to mind, so we're good. I have been focusing on new articles, and a so-and-so dared to put my article on a Slovenian silversmith up for afd, but it turned out ok. I put a picture in the article I captioned "ornamental tree", but after some more reading I had to change it to "reliquary", embarrassing. I can always blame the uploader for not putting that in the description.
- Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation, huh? That sounds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds what? Did you mean to finish that sentence? Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation is a subpage of a particular POV, but that's okay now since I split it from the main article that is now just general overviews instead. Thank you for putting up with me. Congrats on the afd, and don't feel bad about the caption. I've done that before and unless the correct info is with the image, there is little you can do. It's happened to all of us. I need to get peer reviews and then put these up for GA - again. I am clearly a glutton for punishment.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- ...indescribable? And, yes, you clearly are, but it's for the benefit of the world, so that's ok. And to some degree, that goes for all of us long-term Wikipedians I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That we are all gluttons for punishment here? I think you may be right. That may very well be the one thing we all have in common. Oh jeez... What does that actually say about us? I have asked for a peer review of CRE as doi before attempting anything else with it. These two articles have produced some passionate responses. Take a look if you have time, but don't worry about it if you don't. I do sometimes miss my 'collaborator'. I'm sorry I haven't done more on humor. I should have time to pick it up here soon. Time sometimes gets away from me if you know what I mean. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- ...indescribable? And, yes, you clearly are, but it's for the benefit of the world, so that's ok. And to some degree, that goes for all of us long-term Wikipedians I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds what? Did you mean to finish that sentence? Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation is a subpage of a particular POV, but that's okay now since I split it from the main article that is now just general overviews instead. Thank you for putting up with me. Congrats on the afd, and don't feel bad about the caption. I've done that before and unless the correct info is with the image, there is little you can do. It's happened to all of us. I need to get peer reviews and then put these up for GA - again. I am clearly a glutton for punishment.