User talk:LoveKawasaki77

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyun-Chome
 The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:LoveKawasaki77 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! HChasse90 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A page you started (Kyun-Chome) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Kyun-Chome, LoveKawasaki77!

Wikipedia editor HChasse90 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you!"

To reply, leave a comment on HChasse90's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

HChasse90 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Article Review
Hello! I have recently added some content on to the wiki page for Provoke Magazine. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and provide some feedback for me? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Andrew34jack (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew! Sorry, I didn't realize there was any messaging feature on wikipedia! So I must be very late to your project. Sorry I missed this so long ago.
 * If this is your research interest and you live in NYC, you might want to make an appointment to check out the photography books and catalogues in the library at Alison Bradley Projects. They know a loooot about photography in the 1970s!
 * I don't know too much about Provoke to be honest, but I'll give you feedback as an art historical wiki editor. I worked as a Wikipedia Fellow for PoNJA GenKon in 2021 so I had a chance to learn a lot from art historian Reiko Tomii.
 * Her most basic rules for these entries are:
 * - Each sentence usually needs to have a published citation, with even greater urgency if you are not bilingual/local to that place). Warning you, as I have been flagged.
 * - Always show the Japanese name in kanji, hiragana, and use local diacritics.
 * - No conflicts of interest. Keep yourself out of it.
 * Your entry is overall really great! You've clearly done a great amount of research, and contextualize the historical moment to make it clear what their stakes are! I learned a lot. My main feedback is that you need to cite more. If i were you, i would also break it up a little for the everyday reader, since its a public wiki page and not your original analysis (i think wiki is a good place to gather published research, but its not an original research site, otherwise it would even more quickly become unreliable).
 * To do this: I'd create a clear categorical difference between the the history of Provoke and the background geopolitical history. Its great to set the stage because it makes the artist's intentions so much more clear, but I still think that paragraphs 4-5 of "History" should come first, but written more for the general reader (like a summary abstract). Then the "Historical Context" sub-section can come in, where you can further explain in detail!
 * One more note — especially at the end when you are introducing research, it would be helpful for users if you link these in citations (also helpful for developing SEO for the topic).
 * Best wishes,
 * Eimi LoveKawasaki77 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)