User talk:BeacHal1

April 2024[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Beaconsfield (gallery). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. 2003 LN 6 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Beaconsfield (gallery), you may be blocked from editing. 2003 LN 6 21:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly have I vandalised anything? I would say the ‘editors’ that objected to the factual info I put up didn’t in fact edit they just removed my edit completely. I was accused of being paid which I wasn’t. This gallery is a non commercial space that needs help and doesn’t have big marketing teams behind it as most galleries do. I am amazed wiki allows for those publicity rife spaces and is going after someone trying to do good instead… BeacHal1 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Sarah Bernstein (author). Fanfanboy (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done wrong here exactly? BeacHal1 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding her academic research BeacHal1 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that edit was neutral. It’s from here university page… BeacHal1 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeacHal1, I'm here in response to your message on my talk page. Firstly your edits should not have been identified as vandalism because that has a very specific meaning and is not to be levelled at someone just because their edits have not been ideal. I see you have been addressing concerns about tone, style, and neutrality. I will review the article shortly and give more comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Martin. Honestly, there seems to be a whole lot of bully behaviour on wiki. I’ve just started and am trying to do good - redress the balance of so many organisations that have loads of money, pr and marketeers that know how to manipulate this site already. I’m not that. I just tried to put some academic info into Sarah Bernstein’s page but that has been denied too! Very weird. I just took from her Uni page. I notice she doesn’t have a picture either… and wanted to put something there but I’m not sure how to do it… BeacHal1 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconsfield[edit]

Some more phrases would could be made more neutral and less flowery:

provide a streamlined resource for the development and presentation of contemporary art, often including innovative sound practise
experience high quality (‘beacon’), challenging, new art works in a wide range (‘field’) of ...
has delivered a consistently challenging artistic programme

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Martin. Will do. Just to say though, all of this is taken from quotes or the website or info about the gallery that already exists online. I’ll do a quick edit though of these lines.

I think the beacon field bit is by way of explanation because of the place Beaconsfield and not wanting to be confused etc

Thanks. Did you get a chance to look at Sarah Bernstein page I edited too? BeacHal1 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The 7 references you have included in Beaconsfield (gallery) should be changed to inline citations, i.e. move them to the text in the articles which they support. Like you have in the history section with the 1st reference. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wondered if there is a way of flagging people that abuse the ‘vandal’ option on wiki. Because it seems to me that that is a problem.

Particularly, when you note certain people seem to remove constantly rather than positively add to the encyclopaedia. BeacHal1 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lauren Elkin has been accepted[edit]

Lauren Elkin, 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.

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!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BeacHal1 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi BeacHal1. Thank you for your work on Lauren Elkin. Another editor, SafariScribe, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this. Add up categories!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SafariScribe}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melanie Challenger (April 29)[edit]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It is ideal to place inline citations at the end of a relevant statement that support the claim made.

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:Melanie Challenger 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.

Toadette^Edit! 08:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToadetteEdit, would you give me some pointers as to what you were after with citations? Where you wanted them etc?

I know I did a bad one and then wasn’t sure how to remove it!!

Do I just need to attach each article citation to a point in the text that it’s relevant to? Thanks BeacHal1 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeacHal1! 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! Toadette^Edit! 08:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]