Jump to content

User talk:Freshacconci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kirk8673645 (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 25 October 2016 (→Generative Art). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note: I am no longer archiving this talk page. Only serious comments will be acknowledged. All others will be erased.

Trudeau

I did not add commentary, as you accused me of. I restructured a sentence to be more neutral an added another quote from a citation (the Maclean's article) already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.176.1 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're hardly making it neutral, you're interpreting the source to push your own agenda. The legacy section of the article deals with criticism of Trudeau. Stating that some historians, plural, call him overrated is flat-out wrong based on the source. It's only one (the other one is a doctoral student, which shows how difficult it was for MacLeans to find historians to agree with that). You have a specific POV to push and you are editing in a disruptive manner. Make your case on the talk page or walk away. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for you. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that's a very strong and aggressive response, for an alleged and fairly innocent mistake. That's how you scare away would-be Wikipedians -- what happened to "be nice to the newbies"? On first reading I found the original Wikipedia sentence biased, compare to the quotes in that Maclean's article. I didn't know one couldn't count doctoral students (so dismissing all the great minds who never had PhDs?) Perhaps you should have led with your argument, instead of just reverting my change and accusing me of having an agenda -- I have none -- or vandalizing. I also noticed that the Maclean's article never referred to him as "father of modern Canada", so I removed it. Can't be pushing a specific POV. I hope you treat the next "flat-out wrong" edit with some more grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.82.208 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Levy edit

My edit was not poorly referenced. My sister went to the same school and graduated with Eugene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.12.20 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of poorly referenced. We're supposed to take your word for it? See WP:RS and WP:V. freshacconci talk to me 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work of art essay listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Work of art essay. Since you had some involvement with the Work of art essay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi, am I to know the reason for your reversion of my edit here? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed my edits

You have reversed my edits twice about a notable Pakistani. I cannot seem to identify anything that is not properly sourced (in some instances I feel there are a bit too many references). The tone is also matter of fact, without making a positive or negative judgement. Please identify or remove language that you find unacceptable or let me remove the tag as I cannot improve the article further. 221.120.215.138 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Zehra Khan[reply]

If you cannot improve the article further then you shouldn't be editing the article. There are many problems with the article and your edits do not address all the issues. Feel free to make the changes you did but do not remove the templates as these are meant for other editors who may be able to edit further. freshacconci talk to me 18:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please highlight the problems? I really want to help, but you'd have to be more specific.221.120.215.138 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)ZK[reply]

Umar Saif

Specify the issues so I can fix them. You can't be making broad brush tags like these or half the wikipedia will have these tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen547 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the talk page. However, it is pretty obvious what the problems are in the article as it is terribly written. What is happening on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant, i.e. "other articles are bad, so let's just leave this one in its bad state". Too many new accounts and anonymous IP editors have come along and removed those tags without making any improvements. The tags are there for editors to know that there are problems. It's standard and it's unclear why so many new editors are concerned with the tags. freshacconci talk to me 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some 60 odd references in the article. I looked at some of the references; easily crosses the threshold for notable. Couldn't find anything specifically biased. Your broad brush statements not helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen547 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You again added the tags. With almost every statement backed up with several references, this has to be one of the better cited articles. Not sure what's wrong. Why don't you highlight the issues and I will try to fix. Otherwise one can apply such tags to half the wikipedia (perhaps a lot more) to erode their credibility. Such tags are not only for editors, but also erode the credibility of the article for readers. I see that your pedantic behaviour is not unique to this page, so I'd suggest you either start fixing what you don't like, or stop being trigger happy on such tags.
There's a discussion on the talk page already. Discuss it there. As for "eroding credibility", the article in question has none: it's not the citations that are the problem. In fact, the tag says nothing about citations. Did you even read them? It's tagged for neutrality and copy editing. The article is written in a promotional manner. That's what needs to be fixed. In many cases, this sort of article needs a complete rewrite. Why exactly are you concerned with this particular article? It's not a good article. It was tagged for improvement, you are not attempting to improve the article, just removing a template, which you've been warned against. There's a reason those warnings exist. You are being disruptive without attempting to improve the article. If you are not interested in actually reading the guidelines listed in those templates and reading the talk page discussion, I suggest you move on to something else. The article will remain tagged until it follows Wikipedia guidelines. It's as simple as that. freshacconci talk to me 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Fresh Acconci

I saw the weird things an editor was saying on their talk page about you, in relation to the Friedman article. Then I saw this and thought you would enjoy it better than a Barnstar! It's fresh Acconci.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HappyValleyEditor! freshacconci talk to me 13:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman

It was a spurious accusation. It was doublespeak. (S)he still hasn't bothered to answer the question. No incivility here; difficult people: yes. A patronising tone: yes. Me sick to the back teeth of this: quite right. If this message is uncivil, please feel free to edit out the words you find deeply troubling. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't care in the least what you say to me. You are free to believe what you want about the article, damning evidence notwithstanding. I take it we're done here. freshacconci talk to me 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You win! I'm gone. Unwatched. Have a nice life. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Mann

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Mann_(artist) that could use your opinion.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto30

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Cinema of Canada. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 10:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I included the link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Canada as this is currently the only and first course available (Creature and Character Design) for the film industry in Canada. Since this page is talking about the Canadian film industry, I still believe user should know. Unless you know another page. I don't care if no follow or followed. Most people these day's do not even know where to start if they are planning to work in the film industry. (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2016 (EST)

Wikipedia is not a directory. freshacconci talk to me 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program

Greetings Freshacconci:


It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!


Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hello I am Pelo I created page on wikipedia, so They put a deletion box on the top of the page, can you please help me to remove it please

Here is my page Mayestron (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peloluhabanya (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Just a note to let you know I have semi-protected your user page. If you wish the protection altered, let me know. Any admin can help you with that if I'm not around. Tiderolls 10:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Tide rolls. I had no idea that even happened, as I was off-wiki for a while that day. One of the stranger bits of vandalism to my userpage. freshacconci talk to me 12:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
Picture for Women
... you were recipient
no. 596 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Sperling

Hallo Freshacconci, I cleaned out the article Bodo Sperling, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_Sperling. I hope that I have done nothing wrong. Can you please again throw your eye on it, and check the neutral point of view now? Thank you for your help. 213.188.116.142 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


September 2016

Hello freshacconci , I've tried to communicate about this matter with Marvellous Spider on his talk page , but received no feedback or response. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marvellous_Spider-Man&oldid=739440917 I assumed that no response or feedback meant that my reasons for not deleting this page were accepted. Perhaps you could help/clarify. Many thanks

--xzis10z (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions take at least seven days, sometimes longer. Once nominated, only an administrator can close the discussion (after seven days) who then decides if consensus is keep, delete or no consensus (which defaults to keep). Removing the deletion template can get you blocked. Editors will weigh in and give their opinion. At this point, there's nothing you can do but wait, but if you created the article you are still welcome to contribute to the discussion, as long as it is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. freshacconci talk to me 23:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for clarifying. My apologies for breaking the rules.

--xzis10z (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Art

Why did you revert my change. I just added a link to the #1 generative art forum and archive on the planet. Seemed extremely relevant.

John alexander greene (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ok man, I read Wikipedia:External links. My link was indeed accurate and on-topic. It was a link to the #1 generative art forum and archive on the planet today : https://www.reddit.com/r/generative/

That's about as on-topic and accurate as it gets. Certainly more relevant than links to a handful of old papers.

So how, specifically, did my link conflict with this guideline? Is it a format thing?

Also you put back that dead link that I removed. What's up with that?

John alexander greene (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freshacconci&oldid=746203088"