User talk:Adrie23
Welcome
|
The article Francisco J. Ricardo has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Friendly note
Being autistic, I'm not really sure how this will come across on the Internet. Just noticed from you recent contributions that you've been adding ~~~~ in your edit summaries. Just so you know, it won't resolve to your signature and timestamp, so you can leave it out if you like. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Meteor sandwich yum, it came across fine to me. :) (Adrie23, don't worry, I'm not actually stalking your page. When I added the greeting to your page, the Twinkle software automatically added your talk page to my watch list. Removing it.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries about anything, and thanks for the feedback and help! Adrie23 :)
Francisco J. Ricardo
Your recent edit here was a significant contribution to the Francisco J. Ricardo page but unfortunately I had to remove the content because it was unsourced. Where did you pull this information from? If you provide a source to support the information, I would have no problem adding it back in. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! The articles where his ideas are presented are in the Selected Articles - I can make them references, if you like. As a matter of fact, he wrote much of the text himself and provided the article links. I did some editing on that. That should not pose a problem - he is the expert on his thoughts; I am putting his life, ideas, and biography online, and dislike the inference that there are no sources for the information. He's a well-published academic in new media art, and soon I'll be writing about the documentary film company he founded, of which I am a part. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrie23 (talk • contribs)
- Hi, I noticed Meatsgains' removal from the article. Your statement above, "that should not pose a problem - he is the expert on his thoughts" is a little off the mark. Wikipedia prefers that content of the type you are submitting comes from reliable secondary sources, such as news articles, journals, and books, written about the subject. We can use primary sources (blogs, interviews, autobiographical statements) sparingly for uncontroversial facts, but using primary sources for large blocks of interpretive information is strongly discouraged per Wikipedia's policy on original research, especially if we lack a balanced counter-analysis to present a neutral point of view. The community tends to frown on the introduction of autobiographical content, as people have a difficult time writing about themselves objectively, and that often results in self-promotional articles full of fluff and peacock language. As you've stated that you are working for/with his documentary film company, you are also describing a potential conflict of interest, and though you are not forbidden from contributing, the community strongly discourages contributions from editors with conflicts of interest. The preferred route is to declare a conflict, and submit edit requests via the article's talk page, preferably by providing proposed changes and adequate sources. Anyhow, not trying to come down on you, only trying to clarify what the community's expectations are for the article. Hope it helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Ok, I'll revise this more, although I should think scholarly articles written by the subject would lend more credibility to his thoughts than articles about the subject. But I do know what you're saying. I understand about the conflict of interest, yet I feel his work deserves an article as much as any other art theorist/critic/author. That he has changed from the medium of print to film is a fact I can write objectively. I'll do what you propose in the talk page. Thanks! I know you're doing your jobs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.167.86 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Oops that's me