User talk:Catanzariti

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Scandinavian rugs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello Catanzariti and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Reify-tech (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Felicty's Blog.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please review WP:COI in case it might apply.

As for the proper use of images in articles, see MOS:IMAGES. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've taken offense at Ronz' message above (per your message at his talk-page). Ronz' reasoning is scrupulous, and I have to agree with his interpretation of Wikipedia's policies regarding images, external links and possible conflict of interest in this case. It's not a dismissal of your personal or professional expertise. It's simply that the images (glorious though they be) and external links to a commercial site (which is also used as a reference) add up to a promotion of products for sale. In other words, advertising. If you were willing to unconditionally release the images to Wikipedia for free use under license, with no form of linkage to the commercial site, they might be usable in articles - though I see now that they're already released; so it's down to how they're used, and how they're credited in the text. I'm sure this can all be worked out, given time and careful attention to matters of policy. Haploidavey (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand your and Ronz's reading of the policies. I apologize for coming across as combative - this was not my intention. I am just generally offended by unnecessary censorship, which this struck me as being. I am happy to discuss the changes that I can make here that would allow for the images that I uploaded to be reinstated - I honestly believe, as an individual who has spent considerable time in the "rug world," that the best way to communicate the artistry inherent in fine weaves is to show people what the best pieces look like. I suppose most of the agitation that came across in my original post on Ronz's talk page has its origins in my surprise and disappointment in having my work censored without explanation - something that could have been avoided if Ronz (as scrupulous as I am sure that he or she is) had done something other than post a stock bit of text on my talk page saying that "wikipedia is not a soapbox."

Imagine my surprise - as an art historian and rug expert who took a great deal of time and initiative to search down these images, contact the gallery who owns them, and then upload them, all for the sake of art - upon being told that the images had been taken down because I seem to be some sort of shill. Perhaps I erred by falling too heavily on the side of crediting my source too much, a byproduct of lots of graduate work research, in which this is the preferred way to err. I can get on board with that. It is frustrating, though, that we are only now arriving at the stage of the conversation in which we discuss how the images ought to be uploaded and used.

I thought that - just perhaps - Ronz and I could talk this out, but he or she has given both of my thoughtful comments posted on his or her page total non-responses that are offensive, irrelevant, patronizing, and, quite frankly, ridiculous. These incredibly frustrating and nonsensical non-responses are characteristic of the very worst sort of faceless bureaucracy that creates a class divide between the enfranchised and the disenfranchised. Ronz's communications with me concerning this issue are Orwellian, Kafkaesque, and - I say this as a lover of Wikipedia - detrimental to the entire experience of this site. I applaud the effort of Wikipedians like Ronz who want to make the encyclopedia stronger, individuals who take the time to thanklessly go through hundreds of pages on a daily basis, keeping them free of spam. But being treated like a petulant child by being told "just vent your anger first and then we can chat like adults afterwards," Ronz, a non-administrator, is trying to create a divide between himself or herself and me - he or she is the authority figure who does not need to explain his or her actions, and I am the ignorant offender who might see reason after being given time to relax.

Why cannot it be that, when changes are made to changes, we explain precisely why they are being made, determine if there is an alternative way for the changes to be made, and then work together to create something that benefits the entire community? This to me seems like a much, much better option than random Wikipedians appointing themselves as police and then proceeding to give people "citations" for acting inappropriately and then ignoring that individual's thoughts, ideas, and suggestions, telling them they have to relax, this is just how it is, I know better, do your homework and come back and maybe then we can chat. Such behavior is wrong, and it hurts this community. Irrespective how much good Ronz does for Wikipedia, when he or she behaves this way, he or she damages the entire experience.

Let's please, for the sake of all, discuss how these images might be used in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 September 2013‎

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nazmiyal collection may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]