User talk:Chiserc/Archives/2023/June

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome...

Hello, Chiserc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome!

As a side note, this is trivial but ... On your recent edit, you wrote "between 1910–1912". On Wikipedia, it is general policy to write "in 1910–1912" because of the manual of style. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or visit my talk page. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 22:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your comment. I will learn more on the correct use of language and the manual of style. Chiserc (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Also, I highly recommend using the simplified manual as most policies will be inapplicable to you at this stage. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Meletios Kalamaras
Could you, please, specify which parts of the article Meletios Kalamaras contains content that is written like an advertisement, so that I can improve it? Actia Nicopolis (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There was good editing by Pbritti  that removed much of such information. The section of Episcopate could probably be a little more concrete. For example, there is a detailed description of the goals set with bullets points, using the same reference multiple times.  Chiserc (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Palmer Harding
Ah, thanks for your help with the cleanup of this article. Your previous copyediting wasn't the vandalism I was reverting, but because the vandalism pre-dated your copyedit it was all kind of tangled up and I wasn't careful enough to restore your earlier fixes. Sorry about that, and I'm glad you persisted! -- Beland (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The article requires, indeed, a rigorous clean-up, thank you for your work! Chiserc (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Inma Puig
, Could you please withdraw the nomination to delete Inma Puig? She is clearly one of most prominent if not the most prominent football psychologist, with many sources such as from El Pais, one of Spain's leading newspapers... clearly not promoriontla, with secondary coverage... also, WP:ANYBIO states that "Failure to meet... is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! If other users agree with your point of view, the discussion will close with the outcome keep. It's not necessary to delete the discussion, since others may have a different opinion. There was already a notification for possible notability issue from another user from February 2023. We will wait for the outcome, thank you. Chiserc (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Your usage of AfD
Good morning, Chiserc! I wanted to draw your attention to a comment you made at Articles for deletion/Inma Puig:

Please stop! Read Verifiability before you submit any more articles to AfD! By nominating articles with no notability-establishing English-language sources for deletion, you do irreparable damage to the encyclopedia and exacerbate Wikipedia's "ethnic cleansing" problem. This statement shows that you are not using AfD correctly, and that your views on the notability of Inma Puig, regardless of her actual notability, are not based on policy and serve only to mislead other editors. I appreciate your work on AfD, but please stop to read the guidelines before continuing further. Akakievich (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your comment. Just to clarify my thoughts, the article remains only one sentence and I tried to explain that it may be an issue of WP:NRV and WP:BIO1E with the mention only on Barcelona's work, since most sources I found were written like promotional activity and without much depth to reach WP:BASIC. I may haven't explained it well, sorry for that! In any case, I don't intend to work on AfDs anymore, since it seems that it's something beyond my expertise. Thank you, Chiserc (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing text resembling advertising
Making sure that an article is not unduly promotional can be difficult. Usually text that seems like advertising can be rewritten to present the same information in a neutral way. For this reason, I encourage you to stop removing text and nominating articles for deletion until you have more experience editing Wikipedia. If you see something that looks like a problem but you aren't sure how to proceed, consider posting on the article's talk page or to the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I try to be as careful as possible when I remove advertisement-like text that is unneccesary as evident puffery. Thank you for your comment, let me know if you have a specific example to check it. Chiserc (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi, Chiserc,

I was just reading some comments made about some articles you sent to AFD along with comments made on your talk page. You have been editing for about a month and just became an extended confirmed editor yet instead of gradually gaining editing experience, you plunged into administrative work and nominating articles for deletion. This is not typical behavior for a new editor and is an unusual trajectory for an editor that has only been active as long as you have. It is not surprising that you have received some criticism because, honestly, it can take years to fully integrate all of the varied Wikipedia policies and practices. For example, I have been a regular editor since 2013, an administrator since 2015 but I only started frequenting AFDs and closing discussions in January 2022. And I'm still learning! You dove in head-first into a complicated area of the project when most new editors are fixing typos and smoothing out article content that might be overly complicated. Unless you edited with a previous account, it's almost predictable that you would get pushback from editors who have been working on Wikipedia for years or even decades.

My only advice is to listen to the message that is being communicated and do not take criticism personally. If editors were actually upset by your editing behavior, you'd be taken to a noticeboard which is a really terrible experience for most people. That's not what is happening. Instead, editors who have issues with the way you are editing are actually trying to make you a better editor by suggesting ways you can change and improve your editorial judgment. That's a good thing, that means that they want you around but to improve your competency. And all editors, even ones who have been here since 2001, can always improve their editing ability.

That's all I really wanted to say. I read the criticism and while I think it is accurate, I also want to encourage you to stick with it but perhaps slow down and learn about new areas of the project in gradual way. And it never hurts to ask for a second opinion, either from a more experienced editor or at the the Teahouse, when you are unsure about how to handle a particular situation. Good luck with your work. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comment! I will agree with you, the tasks I was involved with are actually quite hard and not for beginners like me. I tried to be as careful as possible and to fix a wide range of articles and now I feel a little bit overwhelmed by this. Indeed, I have asked for help from some more experienced editors to learn from their experience. I will try to explore more things as well. Thank you once again. Chiserc (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)