User talk:CrayonS

Welcome!

Hello, CrayonS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 16:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you. CrayonS (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goblin Sword (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Goblin Sword instead.

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:Goblin Sword 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:Goblin Sword, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe decker ^talk 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CrayonS! 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! joe decker ^talk 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your AfD comments on one line.

Hi CrayonS, your comments at WP:AFD discussions are welcome, but please keep them on one line in order to avoid cluttering the page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Sure. Is a whole paragraph appropriate or strictly on one line?

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

🖍️ You can add a crayon to your signature 🖍️

🖍️ You can add a crayon to your signature 🖍️ Thought you might like to know 🖍️S. Dream Focus 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you so much! I never thought of that idea. Also, thank you for contributing to my article. I really appreciate it. Just checking out your talk page (I'm a stalker). <3 and there was a war about war in one of your discussions (the American spelling ones) XD Thanks. 🖍S 10:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legendary Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Kennedys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for pointing that out. I've corrected that by the way. Bots save the day! <3 Thanks 🖍S 10:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Please note that your signature needs to contain a link, see WP:SIGLINK. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. 🖍S 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

Another editor claims that your 3RR report is resolved and there is no more copyright violation. Do you want to comment? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok thank you. no comment. 🖍S 15:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but please fix your signature. See the advice given by others above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. why doesn't it work though? 🖍S (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go into your preferences at this link and look at the 'Signature' section. Be sure the box is unchecked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you I already have. What format do I need? I've currently got (talk) 🖍S (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try leaving a comment in your own sandbox at User:CrayonS/sandbox. That would show you if the signature is linking properly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Portrait of Lotte

Hello, CrayonS,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Portrait of Lotte should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of Lotte .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Vexations (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Lotte AfD

I've decided to post this here on your talk page because I want to make sure that we discuss only whether Portrait of Lotte is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of Lotte.

You asked a number of questions that I will answer.

So, please add more to it instead of trying to cause unwanted attention over a page that has just started.

No. There is no such thing as unwanted attention for mainspace articles. If you want to work on an article undisturbed, develop it in your sandbox, or work on it in Draft space, but do not publish the article in mainspace. I came across it as part of my work in Page Curation WP:NPP and found that it does not meet our criteria for inclusion.

Why don't you help?!

I'm not required to help, although I almost always do when asked. Had you asked, "Can you help me please?" I would have done so. When I consider an article for deletion, one of the first things I do is consider alternatives for deletion. ONLY when I have decided that there is no way that the the article can be edited to meet our criteria for inclusion, do I nominate it for deletion. I have not offered to help you with Portrait of Lotte, because I don't think there's point to doing so.

Why do you want to analyse every single source it uses?

Because sources are what it's all about. We can rewrite a poor article, but we cannot fix sources. Sources need to be independent and reliable and provide significant coverage of the subject. We analyze those source to see if they meet our criteria.

Why don't you contribute? Because I had decided that trying to fix the article would be pointless. I did give you link to the Guardian article, which you used.

A factual correction: I've been forced to get as many sources as possible because of your AfD entry Absolutely not. I have no idea where you got that from. it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. See Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)

Now, there's something I did not mention at the AfD, because I want to follow our policies and guidelines, and that restricts my argumentation a bit. I can't prove it, but I have the impression that commercial interests play a role in the creation of the videos that has not been explored by the sources. Hofmeester is monetizing the videos. First by selling the earliest version of the video to Sprint (via the advertising agency Leo Burnett) and then by creating updates to the video, each time followed by a some coverage in the media. Look at this timeline of all the sources th article cites, and try to find out where almost all the information is coming from. That's that Guardian article I mentioned to you. Almost all the sources come after that source, so it is very likely the real source for all the reporting. When several sources duplicate the information, we don't then attribute that information to many different sources, we point to the real source.

Timeline

24 September 2012

(Sprint "Girl", via Leo Burnett)

[[1]] 23 April 2012
[[2]] 26 April 2012
[[3]] 26 April 2012

16 April 2013

Portrait of Lotte, 0 to 13 years in 3 ½ minutes. - YouTube

[[4]] 13 April 2014

6 June 2014

Portrait of Lotte, 0 to 14 years in 4 minutes. - YouTube

[[5]] 23 July 2015

27 October 2015

Portrait of Lotte, 0 to 16 years in 4 ½ minutes. - YouTube

[[6]] 28 October 2015

28 October 2017

Portrait of Lotte, 0 to 18 years - YouTube

[[7]] 31 October 2017
[[8]] 2 November 2017
[[9]] 7 November 2017
[[10]] 18 December 2017

1 March 2018

Portrait of Lotte, from 18 years to 0 - YouTube

I can see that, in all likelihood, you have no relationship to the subject, and you said as much, but you have been an unwitting accomplice in promoting a commercially manufactured "viral" video. Promotion has no place in Wikipedia, and I am sick and tired of people exploiting the work of volunteers for profit. You got caught up in that. Had I seen your contribution as a benign effort to write about something you genuinely cared about, I would never have AfD'd it, and I would have been happy to help you improve it. Vexations (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me please? I would love you to contribute.

Anyway, I've been trying to look for reliable sources, such as The Guardian and TIME of course that cover enough information. I admit that there are some unreliable sources but they will probably be removed anyway. But my previous experiences of Wikipedia show that only having a few citations won't be enough for notability or to even hold it. I've made the Goblin Sword article and people used to argue saying it only had 4 citations to reliable sources claiming that wasn't enough.

I will not engage in any commercial activities and have absolutely no intent to promote anyone's work. I am just a contributor who finds verifiable and notable information and put it on Wikipedia. However, whatever I give feels special because it's my work of getting an article started. There are lots (possibly many) of artisic works out there that are affiliated with a third party. Literally anything with a copyright on it. 🖍S (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands (a signatory to the Berne Convention), copyright is is granted automatically to creative, original works. Only a small portion of all creative works are used commercially, by a third party, to advertise a product. Vexations (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are some out there. Make Your Own Kind of Music (song) is a perfect example of a song by Paloma Faith being used in an advertisement for SKODA. After all, we can't have WP:WEASEL. By the way, on Portrait of Lotte, could you use some of the citations for the first paragraph and use them for more general information please? It looks a little bit of a mess. <3 🖍S (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

Hi CrayonS. In case I didn't clarify this enough over IRC, I am not a member of the oversight team myself. I've hidden the content using the RevisionDelete tool so that only administrators can see it, but you will need to contact the oversight team to complete the process. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of fresh warm milk has just been placed at my table by my assistant. I thought, I should (at least) send a cup of tea to you. JC Bills (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank you. <3 🖍S (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of fresh /hot milk has just been served at my table by my assistant. I thought, why not, at least, send a cup of tea to my friend! Regards. JC Bills (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all the cup of teas, thank you! Ya' Sir. <3 🖍S (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have further found cause to require this block to be appealed to the Arbitration Committee only. You can do this by emailing arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org. I do this as a single arbitrator, not acting on behalf of the committee. I will leave them an email shortly. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CrayonS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Vandalism was never done, only banned on IRC yesterday 🖍S (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CrayonS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account has never been used for vandalism. In fact, it has only been used for the purposes of constructive editing which will be continued. Despite me be banned on IRC possibly for immaturity, this does not mean that I will become a vandal. My work on Wikipedia has appeared to be useful in my opinion and there is absolutely no reason I need to be blocked. The explanation for why I've been blocked (possibly for sockpuppetry because of CheckUser) has been vague and unclear. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Per your block message - contact arbcom to appeal. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. As this isn't something that can be handled on-wiki, I am revoking your talkpage access until Arbcom handles your appeal, or the block message is changed. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DYK for Keith Reemtsma

On 25 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keith Reemtsma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1964, a school teacher survived for nine months after surgeon Keith Reemtsma transplanted chimpanzee kidneys into her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Reemtsma. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Keith Reemtsma), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]