User talk:Ramurf

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Neoteny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adjectival (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557252968 your edit] to The SWORD Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gwaai Edenshaw (January 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Gwaai Edenshaw 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:Gwaai Edenshaw, 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.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gwaai_Edenshaw Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearcat&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gwaai_Edenshaw reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwaai Edenshaw
I don't think you really understood my comments at all, since you invested way more time into replying to them than you did actually making substantive improvements to the draft in response to them, so please allow me to clarify.

A lot of new or irregular Wikipedia users don't really understand this, but the baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia is not just that the person and their work exist — it requires evidence of distinctions, not just verification of existence. For the purposes of passing NARTIST, a “significant or well-known work” is not just any film that exists at all, and a "significant exhibition" is not just any artistic exhibition that happens at all. Having an exhibition at a highly notable museum, such as the Tate Modern or the Museum of Modern Art or the National Gallery of Canada or the AGO, would be "significant" for the purposes of passing that criterion, while exhibiting at a small museum (which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about it yet!) does not. Rather, reliable sources have to tell us that the film or the artistic exhibition have crossed a notability threshhold which is considerably higher than just the fact that it exists, such as by winning or getting nominated for a major film or art award, before it becomes notable enough to get the filmmaker or artist over that NARTIST criterion.

Now, that doesn't mean that winning awards is the only way a creative professional can get into Wikipedia — we have lots of articles about film directors and artists who've never gotten award nominations in their lives. (Not all of them should actually be here at all, however, because some of them aren't actually demonstrating that the person passes our inclusion standards at all — but we have a rule called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to explain why "Person B has an article that isn't any better Person A's article" is not a reason why Person A's article would have to be kept.) But in that case, what we do is measure the quality of the person's sourcing, to measure whether they pass the general notability guideline or not. Which is why I pointed out the problem with "the CBC article about the RezErect exhibition does little beyond confirm that Gwaai Edenshaw was the co-curator" — it's not that verification of the fact isn't useful, it's that the source isn't about him strongly enough to count as a data point toward helping to make him notable for the fact. It's perfectly fine as additional verification of additional facts after his notability has already been properly demonstrated by stronger sources, but it's not a source that assists in the process of getting him past the notability tests.

We do not just uncritically accept all possible sources as equally valid, and keep every article that happens to surpass an arbitrary number of footnotes: evaluating whether a person passes or fails GNG involves more than just counting the number of footnotes that happen to be present. A source has to be a media outlet, not a primary source like his artist profile on the self-published website of the gallery where his show was held, before it counts as support for his notability. A source has to be about him in a substantive and detailed way, not just mention his name a single time in the process of being fundamentally about something else, before it counts as support for his notability. A source has to represent him being written about in the third person, not a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, before it counts as support for his notability. And on and so forth: GNG tests the sources for their type, depth, range and context, not just their number.

Also, as important as it is for Wikipedia to improve our coverage of underrepresented groups, such as people of colour and women and LGBTs, we do not do that by creating special lowered notability standards under which certain people get exempted from having to meet our normal inclusion standards just because they happen to be a member of an equity group: we do it by making an effort to find the people in those groups who do pass our existing notability and sourcing standards but have gotten overlooked. And if you think I'm somehow prejudiced against indigenous people, then I'd invite you to take a peek at who started our articles about the following topics: Tanya Tagaq, Leonard Sumner, Bryden Gwiss Kiwenzie, Joshua Whitehead, Jeremy Dutcher, Adam Garnet Jones, Cherie Dimaline, Sol Mamakwa, Samian, Shauit, Digging Roots, Twin Flames, Eva Aariak, Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk, Burt Award for First Nations, Inuit and Métis Literature, Gregory Scofield, Eden Robinson, Darlene Naponse, Tantoo Cardinal, William Prince, Edward Gamblin. And trust me, I could keep going with even more examples, but that would just belabor the point. I do take improving our representation of indigenous people quite seriously — but I do it by trying to keep an eye out for indigenous people who do clear our existing standards and just haven't had articles started yet, not by handwaving the standards away entirely and rush-jobbing inadequate articles just because the topic is indigenous. And at any rate, Gwaai Edenshaw did win awards for the film that count as credible notability claims as a filmmaker — the article just wasn't saying that in the form you submited it, so what it needs is for that information to be added so that the article is demonstrating his notability properly.

And finally, the whole point of the AFC process was to control the creation of inadequate articles by new users that create excessive amounts of work for other Wikipedians to clean up. So no, the AFC process has no provision for "speedy approve this just because the creator asked for that". The whole point of AFC is to ensure that new users' contributions are properly meeting our standards right off the top.

All of that said, I'm not interested in getting drawn into an extended argument about this. I will approve it, but not in its immediate form — I'm going to step in and personally make the changes that are still needed to get it to an approvable form. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gwaai Edenshaw has been accepted
 Gwaai Edenshaw, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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=Gwaai_Edenshaw help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)