User talk:Kevmin
If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Request for peer review help
Hi kevmin. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa
Thank you so much :
What was wrong with my edits?
What was wrong with my edits on the Microvenator page? Augustios Paleo (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Augustios Paleo: The Microvenator was a good attempt, but I changed it back due to the loss of some of the preexisting citations, and need for clarity on where the new information was sourced from. Feel free to re-add it with more indepth citations.--Kevmin § 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Wes Wehr
Hi Kevmin
I would like to understand why you undid most or all of my contributions to the article about Wes Wehr. The changes you made happened years ago; I just noticed. While I am not a frequent editor, as you appear to be, my additions were based on personal knowledge (Wes was a good friend) as well as research on relevant topics. Wes was a complex person, and art was an important dimension of who he was. Your removals short-change this side of him, which I think does a disservice to the article. Can you please respond? Thanks! Wild salmon≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild salmon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Wild salmon: I was also a good friend of Wes', through fossils and the Burke, and I knew him though the last years of his life. The reason I removed the edits you had made was, sadly, because they were not source-able to secondary literature. One of the key foundations of wikipedia is anyone should be able to follow the "papertrail" of sources in an article and check that the information is true to those sources. Personal knowledge is sadly not a source that one can do that with, and thus we must go by what is present in secondary sources. PLease, if you have access to verifiable sources that discuss more in-depth Wes' art and interactions with others of the NW school, by all means add that information.--Kevmin § 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Wild salmon response:
Hi Kevmin...while I appreciate your response, I stand by my earlier assertion that your edits do readers of Wikipedia disservice - by limiting perspective about Wes. I do understand the need for citing sources in scientific literature, and am guessing those conventions are the basis for your editorial attitude(?) This article about Wes is not science, it is biography. If Don Ellegood and the University of Washington Press had applied the science-based criteria you used here on stories Wes was telling, The Eighth Lively Art and The Accidental Collector would not have been published.
The material I posted was factual and objective. It was based on secondary sources as well as personal knowledge, things that Wes told me over several years which I made notes about. You also removed material I found online from The Whatcom Museum, The Evergreen State College, The Art Gallery of Victoria, the Henry Gallery, and other sources. I continue to believe that what I added was informing and interesting as well as accurate. Since you were also friends with Wes, I imagine you and I could talk in person to resolve this- however, I am not writing a thesis nor adding to scientific literature, so quite possibly, we'd still disagree. I contend that your removal of my contributions was unwarranted. If it bothers you as an editor, instead of removing this information, you could have simply flagged it as anecdotal, or noted a complaint that citations were not included.
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florissantia (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calyx.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)