Hello, Vegantics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hello, I'm SkyWolf369. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eggslut have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SkyWolf369,

My edits to Eggslut were to bring it more into line with Wikipedia's formatting for other restaurants, such as the featured Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant by eliminating the Name section and grouping that information with the more relevant sections. This also had the added benefit of re-naming Accolades to Reception, which is more in line with an encyclopedic tone. I would argue that these edits are constructive, but would appreciate additional perspective on what I could have done that would have met that criteria.

Vegantics (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegantics Sorry it didnt show up the fact that you moved the information from the section and all I saw was the blanking of the section so I believed it was vandalism. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWolf369 All good, thank you for clarifying for me! Vegantics (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a notice of merge proposal, at the top of the Peter Strzok article. But I am not finding any talk page discussion about it when I click on the “discuss” link. Are you planning to start a discussion about it? I think that’s the normal procedure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anythingyouwant,

I didn't propose the merger from Compromised (book), I just wanted to raise awareness of it on the Peter Strzok article. Typically the discussion would go on the page being merged to, but 107.127.46.30 used a template that points back to the Compromised page. I have no opinion on the merger so I opted not to create a talk page because I don't have a stance and I don't know where those who wish to discuss it would prefer to do so. I would encourage you to create the discussion if you would like to weigh in.

Vegantics (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Vegantics. I’m not sure what the best course is, but will think about it. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peach Street Distillers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourbon. 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) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debra Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute helping to build the encyclopedia and have been kept. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated constructive editing may result in Wikilove. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding. Thank you so much for tagging articles that are lacking sources. The {{more citations needed}} tag sorted them to Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024 which is a backlog I'm currently trying to deal with by citing sources. If you're interested, you can find me and others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to flag and further expand on why I reverted your edits to the R. H. Quaytman article. Totally agree with many of your edits and some of the restructuring you did, but there were so many primary source citation notes that it was easier to just revert.

While you are correct that primary sources are generally to be avoided on Wikipedia, the case of museums and visual art is slightly different and varies based on the context in which the sources are being used. Editors should not use citations to museum website (exhibition listings, etc.) to establish notability or to source truly subjective details presented as fact - e.g., an exhibition listing for a show at the Met that claims "Manet was the most important painter of his time" cannot be used to establish that as fact, and should be presented in an article as the opinion of the curators or museum, if included at all. But because museums are the primary research institutions for the study and exhibition of both historical and contemporary art, they can be used as sources for basic factual information about artists and art movements - e.g., an exhibition listing for an Ed Ruscha show at MoMA can be used to establish the fact that the exhibition happened, and basic factual details in the exhibition listing can also be sourced directly from that listing, including the art that was displayed, the artist's methods or elements of their process, and other biographical information about the artist.

There are always going to cases where this is difficult or gets tricky, in particular when it comes to museums run or owned by individuals or private, single-owner foundations (like Glenstone, the Rubell Museum, or the Long Museum). These sources, unlike traditional museums which generally do not deaccession art, often have a direct financial interest in the scholarship and exhibition of the art they present as they may sell it later on, so they generally should not be considered as sources for more detailed information about an artist. And obviously commercial galleries in general should be avoided for the same reason.

I just wanted to flag this as it seems that you've added "secondary source needed" to many instances of facts that were sourced from museum websites. While a secondary source is certainly helpful in these cases, it is not strictly necessary unless the sourced information is actually the subjective analysis or opinion of the curators/museum presented as fact, or if the museum is a private institution that has market-based incentives to embellish or mis-represent information about an artist.

Happy to dive in deeper if you want, and I appreciate your time! 19h00s (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- and apologies for over-loading you with feedback here -- I just wanted to flag a helpful approach for articles about artists when you're copy editing or removing content. Again, you're totally correct to point to MOS VisArts/Exhibitions when deleting mass exhibition lists in artist bios, especially when they're completely unsourced. But it's often helpful to move the removed information onto the talk page instead of just deleting it outright - while unhelpful for the average user, this info is super useful for editors who want to expand the article later on, as it points them toward exhibitions and institutions that might have information about the artist's life, career, and stylistic evolution (catalogue essays for exhibitions, usually written by curators and art historians, are among the most important sources for information on artists, as these are usually the most detailed pieces of writing with the most access to the subject). The approach I generally take is to move anything that's completely unsourced to the talk page (long lists of exhibitions in particular), and whittle down long lists of cited exhibitions to a handful of the most notable solo exhibitions an artist staged during their lifetime or so far (no more than 5, usually). But major edits like these often spur other interested editors to revisit the article and expand it with better citations, and keeping the unsourced exhibitions lists on the talk page, even if only temporarily, can create a great jumping-off point for those other editors. Thanks again! 19h00s (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @19h00s, thanks for the conversation and explaining your rationale behind the revert. My issue with extensive use of primary sources is not that it's trying to justify notability or self-promote, but because can become original research. When an article relies so heavily on primary sources, some of which were self-published by Quaytman, it starts to tip the balance of what has actually been reported on them versus an original biography. I think you are right that the primary resource flag was not the right fit-- a more appropriate flag would highlight WP:NOR.

I also appreciate the suggestion regarding moving the list of exhibitions to the talk page-- I'll do so in the future.

Vegantics (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes total sense, and the NOR tag feels like a great approach in that case. Appreciate your time, and happy editing! 19h00s (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]