User talk:Imagritte

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft needs to be rewritten so that it's an actual article, with clear chronological information in the proper order, with a clear focus on the thing that is supposed to make the subject notable (music) and less attention (much less attention) to the little social media and NEWS factoids that have made this article look like a list of individual happenings written up as trivia on chatty celeb websites or as individual and trivial mentions in otherwise valid sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vin's and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drmies (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Drmies, thanks for reviewing my draft. I will rework on formulation and structure of the article. However, please note that the source you called tabloid ("chatty celeb website") is actually a French specialized hip-hop media. Imagritte (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks--but the articles I looked at from that website were single-paragraph announcements that read like press releases. Blabbermouth is specialized too, but that doesn't mean that everything it publishes is automatically of note. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Oh okay, and it shouldn't be used in this case ? That's usually what they do for known artists on their songs. Or do I have to wait for a more detailed article about a song to add it in the article ? In this case, I am afraid that it might be difficult for hip-hop artists to get content, since they are already under-publicized in mainstream media. Isn't there a special clause for underground art (like hip-hop) on english WP (just like on French WP) ? Imagritte (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What I suggest is include significant coverage. It really depends. Lots of things are under-publicized, but not everything that's published is worth including. Like this--this was (it seems to me) an emailed interview, where he just answers in a few short paragraphs--but that actually doesn't "prove" "widely noticed in France"--a list of a few citations doesn't prove that (it's original research), since what you need is a reliable secondary source that says "it was widely noticed". Does that make sense?

And I'm looking at the claim that his video was censored on YouTube: "Après s’être fait censurer son dernier morceau Liberté sur YouTube en janvier dernier"--surely if this person is notable enough by our standards and he gets banned on YouTube, there'd be better coverage than five sentences on that website. Why was it censored? You said "the title is censored"--you mean the work, or the title of the work? As far as I'm concerned, that paragraph with all its websites does not reach encyclopedic standards, and thus you should trim it.

I'm looking at his MeToo song again. There's decent sourcing there, and with the Franceinfo, Konbini, and Inrocks articles you can compose something solid, less promotional, and more to the point--and leave out the weaker references (I don't understand note 13, the Thierry Coljon thing). It's really a matter of tone and editorial judgment. Bonne chance. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Thanks a lot for the precisions, I will work on that. Imagritte (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for side note : both elements were added by another contributor on French article ;) I wasn't so sure about them but he seemed experienced, so I didn't question them. I'll know for next time :) Imagritte (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

On the "censorship", it seems that only one of his clips (Liberté) was deleted by Youtube. Only sources are those ^[1][2] from Booska-P, saying that he then published a second version. No explanation on the reason why it was "censored". So, I am wondering if I still let this info with those 2 sources ? What do you think ? Imagritte (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As for Thierry Coljon, it seems to be a book on #Metoo movement's influence on hip-hop, where Vin's is quoted, I suppose it was added to add to his notability, showing he is quoted in academic work, but we can take it out. Imagritte (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, right, I got you--that's stuff from the French version. I've seen a lot of really weird references in the articles I translated. Thing is, if he indeed pops up in a published book, that's worth pursuing because that greatly adds to his notability. (The book is here but there's no preview, unfortunately, and it might just be a brief mention--so that would be a lot of work for an unclear payoff.) If you can cobble together a clear and well-sourced statement on the YouTube "ban", go for it. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's a full translation :) I'll look for a version of the book. Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Drmies, it's been a while, I think I fixed all the mistakes mentionned. Could you review the Draft:Vin's or do you prefer that another person do it ? Imagritte (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Imagritte! Having an article draft 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! Drmies (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding: "What's the problem with the short description ?"

There is a syntax error in the source code for the Roselyne Bachelot article; and a duplicate short description.

{{Short description|French politician}}

{short description|French politician}}

Please let me know if you have any questions. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks, it was just for me to understand :) Imagritte (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This is the second time this year I have been given a "welcome" message by another user on Wikipedia. I have been here since 2006 and made over 600,000 edits. For somebody who appears to have only registered this year to be welcoming me, without having checked to see that I'm not new and have archives on my talk page dating back to 2006, feels rather condescending. I understand it wasn't your intention but regardless it feels like it. Please check in future to make sure users are actually new users who have not been welcomed if you welcome them. Thank you. Ss112 18:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ss112, really sorry for this mistake, I am still discovering the tw tool, I will make sure to check in the future Imagritte (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Imagritte,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Au diable vauvert for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Au diable vauvert, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't see that some sources from the French article were only accessible through archive : I will rewrite it with the correct links. Thanks @Bbb23

Also, I still have this article Draft:Vin's pending for review :( Do you konw how long it generally takes for a draft to be reviewied ? Imagritte (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Depends, but it can take months, I believe. I don't review drafts, so I'm not the best person to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Bbb23 and @Raydann, is it better now ? I clarified the sources, fixed the links and translated some more info to clearly state the notability of the publishing house, Imagritte (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Vin's, which 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your inputs @Drmies ! Imagritte (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure--next job, more cleanup. "Anglicize" the punctuation, organize the paragraphs (so they're not single sentences), put the footnotes in the right order, all that good stuff. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on that :) Imagritte (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Juan Branco shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nemov (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov Sorry for yesterday, I was really frustrated like when loosing hours of work, hope you can forgive me. + I wanted to let you know: I just noticed both accounts names begin and end with the same letter "D......d" and both have 8 characters.. Imagritte (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Georges Peignot, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:OVERLINK, country names and similar commonly understood terms should not be wikilinked. Belbury (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury Oh okay, thanks for your input and links, I will look at them, Imagritte (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Salmasalma2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @NinjaRobotPirate, could you please explain to me what "link" you have found between me and Salmasalma2 ? I have never seen or interacted with this person, so I am wondering how I could be a sockpuppet of him ? Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You're on the same IP range, editing the same article, and making the same arguments. Make an unblock request if you want to be unblocked. I will not be unblocking you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Same IP Range as Salmasalma2? What does that mean ? (and is this possible if I don't know him?) Could you please detail the same arguments ? I am just trying to understand as per WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I just told you why you're blocked. You are on the same IP range as Paulk12, and any other CheckUser should be able to verify this. I will not be posting the exact match-ups between you and the other sock puppets because it would just make it easier for you to change your behavior. If you don't know what an IP range is, try reading the Wikipedia article. It is unlikely I will reply again, so please just make an unblock request if you want to unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate So you confirm that I have no IP link with Salmasalma2 ? And why did you retag to Brancojuan on my user page then (but not here ?), am I on his IP range too ? I am confused. Sorry to bother you but the WP:Guide to appealing blocks says it is "important to understand why" before making the appeal. Imagritte (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate It also says that I can expect you to answer.. Imagritte (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment about "IP link" is obtuse and in conformance with your usual argumentative style. NinjaRobotPirate said it was unlikely he would respond again and told you what you needed to do. If you persist in these kinds of comments, you will probably lose access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, As per discussion above with the blocking administrator, I have no IP connection with the SPA SalmaSalma2. The admin then retaged the block to Brancojuan on my userpage and stopped responding. But I have never interacted with this person either. If I have a link with Paulk12, then does this mean that NinjaRobotPirate has blocked multiple accounts for being sockpuppets of SalmaSalma2 without any IP evidence ? As for "behavorial evidence", the only ones I see so far with SalmaSalma2 are that we both made (completely different) edits to Juan Branco (he tried to "clean up" controversies, while I actually added many e.g. ), and we both mentioned "translation from French", but it's actually Bbb23 who asked me to translate it , is that a surprise when the French article is B-class (VS start-class here) ? My edits have been in the vast majority constructive (except the mistakes that every new contributors make I guess ) I have created and translated dozen of articles (including Juan Branco over 2 months), and contributed on hundreds. I have shown that I am "for Wikipedia". And I have no connection whatsoever with SalmaSalma2. Imagritte (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

• Note to reviewing admin: Imagritte repeatedly makes it sound like what she did to the Branco article was with my encouragement. The truth is the opposite. I got so tired of dealing with Imagritte and their (as noted above) style of "discussion" that a long time ago I removed the Branco article from my watchlist because it was painful to watch how the article was being "expanded". Although probably unnecessary, I should also add that this is CU block and cannot be accepted without the consent of a CU. I would decline it myself except given the history between Imagritte and me, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I am surprised to see Bbb23 talk about my "style of discussion" here since the 2 first messages he ever sent to me contained ad hominems . + He said himself that I am unfamiliar with en wiki guidelines, to which I gently replied that I could reformulate, add the translated content slower and double-check it and its sources, and he didn't oppose it.. Finaly, I have no IP connection with Salmasalma2 or Brancojuan and very little behaviour evidence as one can see in the end of above discussion with NinjaRobotPirate and in my previous request, which is logical since I have never interacted with them in any way. I have also shown that I am "for Wikipedia".

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Imagritte has appealed this CU block to ArbCom. Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---

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.