User talk:Hesperian Nguyen

This is Hesperian Nguyen's talk page, where you can send her 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.

Archives: 1

Koekkoek

Thanks to your edits at shibboleth, I went looking around, and found numerous painters named Koekkoek. Pretty sure that picture's caption now names the right one. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Just plain Bill! I saw the discrepancy but didn't have time to fix it. Really important to credit artists but also in this case just to note it is a painting. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archive header

I moved the archive so it has a capital "A". It left a redirect, which is probably harmless; if it bothers you, requesting speedy deletion will prompt an admin to take care of it. Sorry for all the backing and forthing; hope it wasn't too intrusive of me. Be well! Just plain Bill (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no prob. Couldn't figure it out myself. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:126 logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:126 logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Hesperian Nguyen

Thank you for creating 126 Artist-run Gallery.

User:Joseywales1961, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Maybe say in the lead where the gallery is located (now) in Galway

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JW 1961 Talk 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Ripps

Hi— you removed a lot of content from Ryder Ripps’ page, citing “puffery”. Everything was true, factual and cited.

Can you please further explain why it’s puffery before I reinstate the initial entry? Exaltedmoon (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exaltedmoon Thanks for taking to talk. I am going to ask you first off if there is a WP:COI based on your limited activity exclusive to Ryder Ripps. Also, re-reverting edits or threatening to do so is very unproductive, and fairly out of line as well, let's avoid an edit war.

I re-removed content from the page that you had restored from some time ago. The material removed is of trivial significance with non-mainstream sources WP:RELIABILITY and generally not encyclopedic or notable. It is clear Ripps is notable, but it is not important that every activity of this person be included, it is not the place for a CV like listing. I hope that is clear. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would be really useful for Ryder Ripps? If someone could use Wikimedia Commons to upload (legally) photos of his work. Big advocate of this for visual artists/information. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi— Thank you for responding. I’m happily asking about your edits and am not trying to incite. I don’t understand why you are now threatening me with an edit war.

Re WP:COI, there is no conflict as I am not paid nor do I know Ryder personally in any capacity. Although this is the only entry I’ve currently contributed, it does not automatically revert to a conflict.

I’m unsure what you mean by non-mainstream sources. Unless it’s Ryder’s personal work, all sources are from legitimate news agencies and sources.

I’m also not understanding how you have taken on the authority to determine what is trivial to this persons career and what is not. The career is a culmination of all efforts and not just those that you as a sole entity deem fit.

Thank you for the tip regarding images.

Thank you for reverting some of the text. As far as reliability and conflict of interest, I see you as being both an unreliable source of edits and a conflict of interest since you clearly have some personal vendetta and have a low contribution count on Wikipedia that seems to target select (possibly paid) edits. Exaltedmoon (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the COI Exaltedmoon. I get that you're frustrated, but I'm making standard edits to an art related page. That's what I mainly do here.

Before making controversial edits, suggest proposed changes on his talk page. That's the process. Third or 4th opinions sound good. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please make further points, criticisms, suggests on the artists talk page. It will be a lot more useful and accessible to improving that page down the road. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Dispute Resolution

Hi -

This weekend, I will provide an updated article for Ryder Ripps page. I am asking that we go to a third opinion dispute resolution before you make edits. WP:DRR/3 Exaltedmoon (talk)

You'll need to make this request on the talk page for the page in question. "Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place". Also you can sign your comments with 4 of these: ~ Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephanie Syjuco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Point.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SF-Frontlines.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SF-Frontlines.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Oriel Gallery shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Callanecc I am systematically reverting vandalism by User: Guydebordgame which is a pretty clear sockpuppet. They are reverting a number of my sourced, neutral edits as a sort of harassment vandalism campaign for my edits to the Ryder Ripps page. They've sprinkled a couple of real edits in the mix today, but I am reverting *everything* petty as best I can. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is an unfounded claim. if you look at this user's history it is clear they create articles for their friends, crediting their own photograph on articles they start and then they make edits to artists whom they do not like. their bias is toward female irish artists. Guydebordgame (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callanecc Besides being a clear case of sockpuppetry (visible today on Sarah Browne as he is attempting to differentiate between his puppets), Guydebordgame is starting up again with systematic vandalism, silly claims, and/or totally useless edits to pages I've edited and created. Can we get this block up again? He's a pest. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian Nguyen Why are you assuming my gender? Callanecc please have a look on the talk page of Jaki Irvine to see how this user is unwilling to allow for open discussion on this platform.

Hesperian Nguyen, what are the sock accounts you're referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sock for a bunch of 'anonymous' Ip editors from the same place that have only edited the suspected culprit's page - Ryder Ripps. You can see this user tried to start pages for himself, his businesses and projects, and his father. Honestly the main issues here were disruptive editing via deletions of undesirable information and adding weekly minutiae about his career. However, now I see: one day an angry vandalism campaign against my edits, then the next attempts to make neutral edits to reestablish credibility while simultaneously accusing me of this or that bias. Obviously I welcome the positive contributions, but he is being, at the minimum, a pest. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

silly accusations. you claim everyone who edits the Ryder Ripps page besides you is a sock puppet without any proof, yet you are the sole editor on many pages you have started and are constantly blanking the talk pages to allow for any other sources besides yourself. you create pages for your friends on this platform, as seen by attributing CC photos to yourself on pages you start. I am not affiliated with the subjects of my writing, are you? You are correct, i have been trying to clean up your pages, as i have discovered your systematic editing practices of whiddling down entries of people you don't like while creating onesided articles for your friends who have debatable note, often times you are the sole editor in these entries. Guydebordgame (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]