Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GiantSnowman13:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Aliza Shvarts instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This title is currently redirected to her first project by you are perfectly able to edit over the redirect to create this page yourself. You do not need AfC review to do that
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aliza Shvarts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aliza Shvarts, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, Vera Syuzhet!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vera for inviting me into the discussion on bias. Before I take a look, let me invite you into the community with a tip. The fact that your user page has a red link marks you as a newbie who is not oriented to the norms of WP. Add a sentence or two to your talk page, or just one word, to make the red link go away. OK? sheridanford (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Aliza Shvarts.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Majora (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just want to make sure that you are aware that if you have a personal or professional connection with Aliza Shvarts, the focus of your editing history, or if you have edited previously under a different user name, it is proper to disclose this information here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello E.M.Gregory, as I stated in my first post on the Yale student abortion art controversy page, I am a writer and scholar who is currently researching her work. I am doing so in preparation for a piece of writing in relation to the artist's exhibition at Artspace. I have no previous Wikipedia user name, and have never edited Wikipedia before. Is this okay? –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You self-describe on your User page as a "Writer of fiction(s)", and have devoted your brief editing career to creating a page on a performance artist and keeping the page up. To me, your editing career looks like a work of performance art, not like a encyclopedia editing. I allow that I could be wrong, but it looks to me as though you are WP:NOTHERE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fiction writer, it's true (an art historian and scholar, too!). My editing is performance, or fiction, to the degree that anyone else's is: to a certain degree, the writing of history always amounts to invention, and we all perform our various allegiances and biases daily. My writing, even when it purports to be encyclopedic, has investments and exists in contexts not of my choosing. This is the meaning of my biography. Would I have liked to come in, as a scholar with expertise on Aliza Shvarts's work, and have written a thorough and well-sourced entry on the artist (and, with the time I could have saved arguing with other editors, contributed to other articles on feminist performance)? Of course! But I've spent all my time defending a single artist, and a single artwork, because other editors have been so unexpectedly myopic and backward in being unable to consider a work of art as such. I've not vandalized, been hostile or disagreeable, or behaved suspiciously. My arguments have fallen well within the scope of what is permissible on Wikipedia. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
