User talk:ThePetroglyph
| This is ThePetroglyph's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
My current schedule is the same as the times I usually have access to my local library computers. Wednesday at around noon, Mountain Standard Time, I can not guarantee a response outside of those times. ThePetroglyph (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Neomexicanus hops has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)- Appreciate it very much, I will continue to try and improve the article. I'm going to try and create another article in a little while. Every time I visit my local library I will try to make a new article about an interesting topic I find. :) ThePetroglyph (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of The Paleta Bar
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on The Paleta Bar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. // Timothy :: talk 22:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have added more citations to the article, thank you for notifying me of the issue. This is only my second article, I will try to do better on future topics to avoid this problem. Since I am creating articles about topics I find at the local library, I am learning about these topics as I write about them on Wikipedia. ThePetroglyph (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit]
Hello ThePetroglyph. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ThePetroglyph. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ThePetroglyph|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Belbury (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is completely untrue, I do not have any financial stake in promoting any topic. As I've said, I am simply creating article based on topics I am finding in the local library. Just moved to the Albuquerque area, and I am quite frankly shocked at the lack of articles for Indigenous and Hispanic topics. I am filling in any gaps I find. ThePetroglyph (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying and for your contributions. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's policy, as a relatively new user creating local business articles. Belbury (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Completely understand, I appreciate your due diligence. I too am shocked by how many articles there are to make about nationally-relevant businesses from around this area. I will stick to topics listed on the main New Mexico article for now, since those seem to be the most well cited. Thank you for letting me now, really want to be a productive Wikipedia editor for this region. ThePetroglyph (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying and for your contributions. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's policy, as a relatively new user creating local business articles. Belbury (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Welcome x2
[edit]Hey there, just wanted to send you another welcome! I've seen a few of your edits and wanted to thank you for your additions! In particular, thanks for creating the disambiguation page Navajo potato. I wanted to let you know that I've made some small changes to make it better fit the general format of disambiguation pages. I have also added an anchor to Potato so that the link in the disambiguation article leads directly to the part about the "Navajo potato".
Do you have citations for the term "Navajo potato" being used for Solanum fendleri and Solanum jamesii? I assume you do, otherwise you wouldn't have added them to the disambiguation page. Could you add those sources (and a mention of "Navajo potato") to those articles? Thanks! Wracking 💬 20:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will once I resolve a block issue, seems that there is something fishy going on there or some type of misunderstanding. User:Plantdrew and I discussed it for a bit, we were talking about Southwest potato varieties on the Navajo potato talk page. We both found small references for this. We documented at length the tuberosum terminology. But on page 206 of the Dictionary of cultivated plants and their regions of diversity : excluding most ornamentals, forest trees and lower plants it mentioned a "Solanum Fendleri A. Gray. Navajo potato. genome formula A4A4BB. Arizona, New Mexico and W. Texas, USA and NW. Mexico. Very similar to S. hjertingii and similar to S. papita. It is resistant to Y virus" and on the jamesii topic we were discussing an article by The Counter titled "The ancient potato of the future". ThePetroglyph (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Appreciate the welcome btw, sorry for not being able to do much but reply here for now. ThePetroglyph (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
ThePetroglyph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, I don't use multiple accounts, and only recently started to learn how to use Wikipedia. I edit from libraries in my free time, you can check my IPs, location data, or whatever you need to prove this. And as mentioned on this talk page, I only can edit on Monday through Thursday during morning and mid-day. This vendetta was carried out when I was clearly away, so I couldn't defend myself. The edits that have been made to articles I created seem to be racially motivated, and it is obvious that this is suppression of these topics. I've read in the news about issues facing marginalized communities on this website, and this only seems to confirm those reports. How can minorities contribute on here if this is the hostility facing them? I was initially logging in today to simply create articles about Ana Castillo's bibliography and some geographic features. I find it extremely disturbing that all the people I'm supposedly linked to were editing Mexican American topics in New Mexico, that seems to be the only similarity between them. And why is this clearly discriminatory behavior allowed? All of this takes time out of a day that I could have used to further make articles about marginalized topics in this region. ThePetroglyph (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm curious as to how anyone knows you are a minority without you saying so. Even if the topics of your edits might suggest that, it isn't a guarantee. The content of this paragraph doesn't address the claims made in the SPI. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
ThePetroglyph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I never claimed to be a minority, I said that this was a obviously racially motivated against Mexican American community in New Mexico. I am not a minority, nor am I Mexican American. Though I find the reasoning there to be quite odd. As I've said before, I am at my local library editing article about topics covered here, which happens to be in a Mexican American region. I will address each of the claims in the SPI: the articles they brought up are edited by a lot of people from New Mexico, and it should be noted that New Mexico vernacular has nothing to do with a New Mexican English. Which I don't understand accents, so I can't understand that, New Mexican vernacular is a vernacular architectural style. The coincidences of me editing New Mexico related topics is just that. Purely coincidence. I have never edited the country music article, since I don't really know much on that subject. I have been reading about Mexican country musicians, and making those articles accordingly, but not the music style itself. And I will note, that the investigation against the initial person, Smile Lee, is probably misguided. That individual, known apparently as Lucero, has clearly indicated that it was the user DunDunDunt was at the center of that, and if the investigation focused on that it would probably have prevented a lot of the aftermath. I only ever cited that Lucero person once, by coincidence, in my long list of the bibliography of New Mexico. Though I think banning that individuals work too seems odd, as they are well cited in mainstream publications, including those based in New Mexico. ThePetroglyph (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No continuation of below discussion in nine days. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I suspect that this is just caused by barking up the wrong tree. I say this because I am not associated with any of the prior accounts. Never would I have even known about this issue, until I was wrongly accused. I am now heavily concerned about the lack of coverage for this region, and I now believe it to be due to lack of knowledge. I don't understand what I have in common with those other accounts, other than the New Mexico articles I've been creating. Which were of notable topics in this region, and I also noticed in the SPI discussions that Japan was a topic associated with these other accounts. I never touched a Japan related article at all. It is an absolute error to associate my account with these other accounts, and once we correct this error, I will work to try to improve the coverage about this area's topics. I don't know why that Lucero person was even dragged into all that either, that too needs to be corrected. That person's writings have been referenced by Pew Research, numerous academic thesis, and other well-respected publishers, and the Albuquerque Journal didn't seem to take any issue with his work. So I think many grievous errors are being made here. Please help me fix my account! I am not associated with any of those prior accounts, and I have no COI. I am new to New Mexico, and I am simply at a local library cataloging notable topics that I find here, so I can learn about the area and share information I learn. ThePetroglyph (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Many of Smile Lee's many socks have insisted, despite all evidence, that Smile Lee was an innocent bystander and not a sock puppet. They have also insisted, despite all evidence, that his work is reliable and should be freely cited based on a misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policies. As I've said regarding previous sock puppets, these comments defending Smile Lee have eliminated whatever little doubt I might have had that this is another Smile Lee sock account. Since this disruption has been egregious, long-running, and the edits themselves have been questionable at best, Smile Lee probably doesn't qualify for the Wikipedia:Standard offer, but at a bare minimum, he would have to disclose his sock accounts and wait six months without socking before pursuing that, presumably from his original account. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I verified and restored this account's edit to Potato. I have not reviewed any other edits. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Many of Smile Lee's many socks have insisted, despite all evidence, that Smile Lee was an innocent bystander and not a sock puppet. They have also insisted, despite all evidence, that his work is reliable and should be freely cited based on a misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policies. As I've said regarding previous sock puppets, these comments defending Smile Lee have eliminated whatever little doubt I might have had that this is another Smile Lee sock account. Since this disruption has been egregious, long-running, and the edits themselves have been questionable at best, Smile Lee probably doesn't qualify for the Wikipedia:Standard offer, but at a bare minimum, he would have to disclose his sock accounts and wait six months without socking before pursuing that, presumably from his original account. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)