Jump to content

User talk:Ceradon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 24.255.142.215 - "→‎got a question: new section"
→‎Vonnegut: new section
Line 74: Line 74:


Have you ever had problems with Wikipedia? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.255.142.215|24.255.142.215]] ([[User talk:24.255.142.215|talk]]) 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Have you ever had problems with Wikipedia? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.255.142.215|24.255.142.215]] ([[User talk:24.255.142.215|talk]]) 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Vonnegut ==

I reverted your removal of the self-assessment section, which you stated was because "Wikipedia uses reliable, third-party sources, therefore Vonnegut's on assessment of his work is largely irrelevant." Per [[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources]], self-assessment (and more generally, self-published sources) is allowed provided

* The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
* It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
* It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
* There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
* The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that this section meets all of these requirements. If you disagree, we should discuss and/or get a third party to serve as arbiter.

[[Special:Contributions/104.62.20.149|104.62.20.149]] ([[User talk:104.62.20.149|talk]]) 20:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:58, 8 November 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Prodego

My apologies for not being around to answer questions. The past is the past, I've looked at the old emails, and I'd definitely have supported both your RFA and your continued work. Prodego talk 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Belenguer

LondonArt2010 is asking me about revisiting the possibility of Lorenzo Belenguer. He presented a lot of links. I think some of them may be unhelpful, but I notice some Spanish newspapers did write articles with Belenguer as the main subject (Example: "Lorenzo Belenguer conquista Londres" by Las Provincias). Do you know a Spanish editor and/or an editor interested art and/or biography articles who is willing to take a closer look? (I can post the specific article if need be). I would like for another party unfamiliar with the case to check if this subject meets WP:GNG and/or biography criteria.

If this subject does meet notability criteria I think another user (someone other than LondonArt2010) should write the article, maybe through an articles for creation process. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

got a question

Have you ever had problems with Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.142.215 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vonnegut

I reverted your removal of the self-assessment section, which you stated was because "Wikipedia uses reliable, third-party sources, therefore Vonnegut's on assessment of his work is largely irrelevant." Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, self-assessment (and more generally, self-published sources) is allowed provided

  • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
  • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  • The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that this section meets all of these requirements. If you disagree, we should discuss and/or get a third party to serve as arbiter.

104.62.20.149 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]