I have updated the page with more information and sources. Feel free to let me know what you think. --Sirdayne (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, working on a draft over in my sandbox. Just got the structure at the minute. Let me know your any thoughts. E Eartha78 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. I left you a note on Talk:Solange_Azagury-Partridge with a couple of new references. As I mention there, I don't think it will be good to list her collections and fragrances. Otherwise, nice!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that I've put together a List of jewellery designers (although this may need moving to List of jewelry designers - I do find that particular US/UK spelling conflict a wee bit trying!). I have not made any judgement calls on notability or deserving-of-inclusion status, apart from scanning the articles to see whether they are companies (in which case they haven't gone in, unless there is significant content about the company's designer), or if it doesn't sound like the subject actually does jewelry design, and leaving off some of the definitely-will-be-deletions from your AFD noms. In line with List of fashion designers, I've listed the names under nationality (where known) rather than where they worked. If you spot any omissions, do feel free to add in. Best, Mabalu (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, really glad you found it useful. It gave me a fillip to look up some jewelry designers on the Coty Awards list that I made years ago, and I've already done articles on Cadoro and Bill Smith (jewelry designer). There are a number of historical/vintage designers who need articles on their work as they tend to be overlooked in favour of current designers - Jean Clément, who did so much of Schiaparelli's famous 1930s jewellery and buttons comes to mind. The same problem as with fashion designers, actually - up-and-coming designer Binkie Bobo gets an article straight out of art college, (which is speedy deleted within nanoseconds and quite rightly too) yet Bill Gibb, who is VERY high on my list of "REALLY NEED TO DO AN ARTICLE ON THEM!" designers, has nothing. Mabalu (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Fulco di Verdura Aspial Corporation La Cambre Geoffrey Beene Snide and Prejudice Sint Philipsland Handmade jewelry Eve Berlin Style.com Vladimir Kagan Robert Mazlo Loris Abate Kathy Rose Jacqueline de Ribes Jānis Ķipurs Graff Diamonds Petr Jiráček Gurpreet Ghuggi Book swapping

Cleanup Cartier (jeweler) Signals intelligence Al Savill Merge Optical motion tracking Zuzu Angel Jewelry wire gauge Add Sources Estate jewelry Peter Chang (jewelry artist) Session replay Wikify Sebastian Gunawan Fabryan Spindle Magazine Expand Greeting card Raghavendra Rathore Web analytics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed the Ebendorf image uploads. While they're great images, I think copyright for the jewelry is retained by Ebendorf so they may be problematic for that reason. I'm not going to take any action, but you may want to bear this in mind. Just because a US government employee takes a photograph of a work of art doesn't make the photographs free to use if the subject is still in copyright. Do check with Wikimedia Commons helpdesk to make sure before someone else reports the images as a copyvio. To use them on here, you would probably need the artist's clearance. Just a friendly heads-up. :) Mabalu (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I struggled with this. Si.edu has a detailed terms of use page [1]. They grant specific IP permissions, which allow non-commercial use of all images on the sites, if the artist and SI is cited with a link, as I did. However, I couldn't find a license in Commons that exactly matches the permissions. Since there is a specific Smithsonian template, I decided to use that rather than attempt to simulate the terms.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Have finally done an article for the sixth of the 1970 Coty Award jewelry winners - actually finding it quite interesting to research something that is SLIGHTLY outside my comfort zone, and have been really quite impressed by Clifton Nicholson and Bill Smith (although sorry to discover that Alexis Kirk died without even an obit anywhere...) Do feel welcome to glance over what I've done and make any comments/edits you feel appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like good starts - it will be interesting to have articles for all the winners! I just added George W. Headley--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article and your comments. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate anything here in New Zealand as the ship never visited us. Maybe someone from England, Singapore, or the other places the ship was based might be able to add a photo or two. NealeFamily (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing substellar companion and good luck with your reviews! Fotaun (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you comments regarding improvements to Thomas Allen & Son Limited. I will definitely visit the article and set about making these improvements. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers. --My76Strat (talk)  06:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you nominated the article ontop of an old AfD for the article. Mkdw^talk 01:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a little bit but I think I've corrected it all. I restored the previous archive, created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Futuristics (2nd nomination), updated the AfD log on the nomination, and updated the AfD December 16 page. Mkdw^talk 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Sorry for troubling you. ---MJH (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nixie9 - I don't think this is quite bad enough to qualify for G11, but it should almost certainly be deleted as it seems to fail WP:CORP. I will be listing it at AFD in a moment. Did you have a look at the editors other contributions? It looks to me as if they are a paid editor and the articles need a lot of clean up/deletion. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article I created: Kurt Gustav Wilckens. The article has very little information intentionally, as I created it as a stub in hopes of someone who knows Spanish translating that version of the article (per WP:RFT#Requesting a translation), thus the translation template. I might get around to trying to interpret it myself from a machine translation, but at least even a stub article should be more useful than nothing, I think. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that while I probably sounded a bit snappy and exasperated on the discussion, it's not meant personally. I'm not really interested in the show or the subjects, but I have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and I hate feeling that subjects won't get a fair assessment - especially after I looked at three in a row and saw plenty of reasons why those three ladies passed general notability with coverage, exposure, and articles in multiple sources across a range of years. Yaya DaCosta in particular is a very obvious Keep, which I was surprised you didn't pick up on. There ARE a couple names on your list who I think should be deleted, but I don't want to say who without doing a proper source scan/search first. Mabalu (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mabalu - I never take AfD personally, and I'm even happier if my nominations get improved with references and saved. As I said in the nomination, I didn't investigate deeply (to ensure that people do evaluate as you have), and mainly looked at the existing references looking for actual publications and editorials. The people you mention do seem borderline, although the repeated editorial discussions are currently lacking. This my first multi-article AfD, and somewhat incentivized by Missjenkins trying to remove the AfD from the first one. We'll see how it goes, and any fair outcome is fine with me. I'm also willing to WITHDRAW particular AfDs if they are obvious, and will look into the ones you mention. Thanks!--Nixie9 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wonderfully written argument on the Jessica Meir AfD debate. I appreciate it, and following that I looked at the articles you've created/rewritten about fashion and jewelry design here -- wonderful work on an underrepresented section of WP. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry but thought I'd just quickly mention it as I only just discovered it myself. Should we consider routinely adding their template to jewellery designer's talk pages alongside Fashion? Mabalu (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting - I did see this before, and it currently focuses on the minerals used as gems (although far from comprehensively), and famous gems and gem companies. We might consider whether to materially improve this article list to include jewelers, or instead focus on WP:FASHION and create a jeweler subset infobox in WP:WikiProject_Fashion/Templates. With fashion, we have a large interested group of editors to tap into. Seems like we can make this decision for all of WP at this stage. I'm actually leaning towards the latter, but I have a bias towards fashion. Maybe a broad {Infobox Accessories Designer} also--Nixie9 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, though they do have a template for PEOPLE involved in gemology or jewellery, which I would read as including designers and jewellers, specifically: {{WP Gemology and Jewelry|people=yes}} Mabalu (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, love the template idea, though I think it would need some very serious thrashing out and establishment of really clear criteria. With general jewellery or fashion templates, you don't want to start including designers otherwise it will snowball, unless there is a way to limit the shortlist or come up with rules that ensure that only really, really notable, influential, A-list jewellery designers are name-checked. It needs thinking through. Mabalu (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the Worldwide Express article. I have only been editing Wikipedia a short time and feedback from other users is very helpful in making me a better editor. I will remember the issue of COI in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymity32 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Krista White Playboy Shootout Larissa Marolt Sophie Sumner Tiiu Kuik Stephanie Vander Werf Camila Vezzoso Leanne Marshall Rodrigo Moreira Futures (song) Vaughn Lowery Tamar Shedania Staline: le tyran rouge Rachael Cairns Bodine Koehler Justė Juozapaitytė John Goerzen Egni Eckert Anastasia Chernova

Cleanup Teyona Anderson Natasha Poly Cartier (jeweler) Merge Transmissibility (vibration) Exo (band) List of Asian Americans Add Sources Whickham School America's Next Top Model: Co-ed Edition America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11 Wikify Kreuztor (Ingolstadt) Wonderloch Kellerland William Taylor (inventor) Expand Make Me a Supermodel (season 1) UniFi Barack Obama

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the deadlink template to that Alexis Bittar article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll replace it, Cfda is a major award and easily referenced ? I had only undid, did not mean to remove template, sorry.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed the CFDA link and added Washington Post reference to the award.--Nixie9 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nixie9,

I am an old friend of Alexis Bittar's. I looked him up this morning just to see what wikipedia had to say about him and what I found saddened me greatly. The language that I found that was used for his page paints an unfairly negative connotation of my friend who has worked long and hard to build a very successful business. More disturbing yet, the language used to describe the rift with his parents gave short shrift to what I know was a hard time in his and his parents life.

Concisely put, the page as I found it lacked the objectivity and non-bias I have found on most Wikipedia pages. Moreover, I question its accuracy. The original author is fond of citing Tim Murphy's New York Time's article. Yet, some of the exact language pulled, for example, "plunged deeper into drugs" should not, for the purposes of a reference cite, be quoted as fact. Indeed, that particular phrasing--i.e. plunged deeper into drugs--was Mr. Murphy's phrase and encapsulation of events. It is not a fact in the same way it is to say that Alexis was born on August 25, 1968. Indeed, the diction of the page's author leaves something to be desired.

You correctly surmised that ARB stands for Alexis' initials. I have never before used the site and I created a username specifically for the purpose of editing his page because what I found was so disturbing.

Surely you and I can work together to create a much more balanced description of this really great guy and his career. I am uncertain whether you were the author of all the original content. Regardless, I invite you to imagine how very hurtful some of the curt language and description might be to Alexis and others--like his parents. If I were his parent and read this, I would feel like I was being unfairly critiqued. Of course, the same can be said of the New York Times article cited. If I were a parent and read that, it too would have saddened me. From what I know of Alexis, and from what I know of my own family, the dynamics of any emotionally charged situation are highly complex. A reference site like Wikipedia should acknowledge that by objectively presenting facts and abstaining, as much as possible, from editorializing content.

I eagerly await a response from you and look forward to collaboration to make this page reflect the facts more accurately and scrub it of the negative connotations it presently creates.

ARBEdit (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)ARBEdit[reply]

• Hi ARBEdit - It will be great to have constructive improvement to this article. The first step is to avoid adding promotional content (advertorial), referencing the company site. I understand that people close to him could be uncomfortable with the description of his early days, but this is an important aspect of this individual's story. The New York Times is an indisputable reference, they check everything. On Wikipedia, we are not supposed to pick and choose facts, but rather compile them into a concise and useful encyclopedia article. His homosexuality, heavy drug use, deep participation in the club scene are all important parts of that story - mentioned in many articles besides NYT. The ultimate rejection by his parents was cited as the turning point, and the article does mention the recovery and reconciliation. It is relatively balanced, written by someone with absolutely no personal connection. This is not a marketing platform, where brands can control their image. The facts are the facts. Other than store locations and positive spin, do you have any information to add, along with supporting references? When an editor adds referenced useful content, they can set a tone, within reason - that is your opportunity to exert your influence. Deleting well referenced content only gets heavier handed responses from the community. --Nixie9 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nixie9 -

Thank you for your reply. I am a new user to Wikipedia and when I wrote my original post this morning, I thought the idea was that I got to write a whole new article from scratch if I wanted to. Hence, the version I wrote was what I would have written had I been the original author.

As to the substance of the article, we can start with what you have but we will need to modify it if this is to be an accurate article. We should change much of the language of the page in order to make it less biased. So, for example, rather than writing that Alexis "plunged" into drug use, a more objective description might be "Alexis struggled with substance abuse." Rather than saying that Alexis lived "cut off from his parents," a more objective description might be "Alexis and his parents communicated very little during this period in Alexis' life."

Additionally, I would submit that much of the NYT article and other articles you have cited are themselves factually inaccurate--or at a minimum result in a factually skewed picture. Alexis never lived with more than one boyfriend, yet the New York Times article said that he "lived with boyfriends." Moreover, the article describes Alexis' relationship with his parents as "cut off," yet both Alexis and his parents would tell you that they communicated during this period of his life but infrequently.

Finally, I must respectfully disagree with you that the only persons with "absolutely no personal connection" are eligible to contribute to this or any other page. You, Nixie9, are a case in point. You are a graduate student at the Fashion Institute of Technology. I suspect you have a deeply personal connection with the world of fashion and I suspect, further, that you have personal opinions insofar as Alexis' work is concerned. Perhaps you love it; perhaps you dislike it; perhaps you loathe it; perhaps you think it is so-so or adequate. Whatever the case, a graduate student in fashion with a taste for accessories likely has some personal opinion on the subject matter of these Wikipedia pages of designers she continues to author and edit. By your criteria, you would be ineligible to contribute to Wikipedia. I suspect that most everyone who contributes to a Wikipedia page chose to contribute to that particular page for many reasons, quite a few which might be characterized as personal.

Facts are, indeed, facts--but they cease to be facts when they are viewed through a less than objective lens (as for example, through the eyes of a writer for the New York Times tasked with crafting an entertaining story).

Now, I would like to make some linguistic changes to the page but keep the cites. Shall I go ahead and edit the page and you can see how you feel about the changes?

ARBEdit (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)ARBEdit[reply]

• Dear Nixie9 -

Good news! I have been able to correct some discrepancies that I found in the original version. For example, if you will re-read the NYT article, you will note that the exact word used was "estranged" rather than "cut off." Additionally, the article leaves open the actual source of estrangement between Alexis and his parents. The article merely indicates that Alexis' revelation at being gay went over poorly with his parents. Nowhere, however, does the article explicitly establish a causal link between his homosexuality and the rift. Rather, upon a close reading, one can only surmise that many factors including Alexis' general rebelliousness as well as his drug use as well as his sexual orientation may have contributed to the tension between Alexis and his parents.

I have gone ahead and made some changes, appropriately cited of course, which reflect a more accurate version of his personal life.

I hope you are well, Nixie9! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBEdit (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually when there has been a back-and-forth edit fest like this, they suggest posting the proposed revisions to the article's talk page, so anybody interested can contribute to the conversation without disturbing the article. I do not have a problem with you toning down some of the descriptors. On Wikipedia, there is a prohibition against using original research as you suggest - we need to go by what has been written in reliable publications. Perhaps there is another reference that can adjust those elements? Regarding personal connection, honestly I have never seen his work. I started a review of American jewelry designers in general, and have improved dozens of jewelry articles. This article was in terrible shape so I did a major rewrite and added references. Before it was all linking back to the bittar site. I'm looking forward to seeing your suggested edits and promise to hold no personal biases, including any defense of my own writing in the face of equal or better alternatives.--Nixie9 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problems with the constructive edits you made just now (while I was writing the above). Thanks!--Nixie9 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jewelry Designer Mimi So.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie, My apologise. I didn't want to disturb this article... but I must say that I really got excited when I'm talking about the Nobility and Royalty. I really love it. About the First Ladies, that's a bit relative. Like, for me, the First Ladies of the United States doesn't have so much importance. I must confess that describing some important things about those great ladies (Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and The Duchess of Cadaval) was a little too much, but both of them are important. One was the First Lady of the United States (a very important country in some terms, but still a important country), and afterwards wife of Aristotle Onassis. The last one is The Duchess of Cadaval, and therefore the Chief of the House of Cadaval, a noble house that's descendant of the Most Serene House of Braganza - the Portuguese Royal House. By this descendancy, the House of Cadaval is relative of all the European royal houses. The Duchess of Cadaval also married with Prince Charles-Philippe of Orléans, Duke of Anjou, that's a grandson of the late Count of Paris, the title of the heir to the throne of France (see French Crown). So, Michelle Obama is important in terms, because in some years almost nobody will regard her, she won't have importance anymore.

I think that some points we should put, such as her title, and The Duchess of Cadaval (but for sure without the description of important things about her and Jackie Onassis)

Regards,

The Economist Lord of Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEconomissst (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--TheEconomissst (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world isn't ONLY the United States of America. And I'm also sure that you're American. Your country was created three centuries ago with an European tradition, and now just because in the US people (of your social class) hadn't heard about The Duchess of Cadaval (that's very important all over the world, especially in Europe), your first lady is more important (only for you and your equals, dear cowboy. that rejected your true tradition). In all Europe this matter, and what you and the Americans of your social class think, REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. That's an absurd. A woman that had 3 years that became famous, and that in some years will "disappear" of press, and Her Excellency The Duchess of Cadaval, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Anjou, Princess Diana d'Orléans. In Europe people would laugh about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEconomissst (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I put the reference. Just see it, please, my dear cowboy. --TheEconomissst (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nixie, Well, first you should understand that US is one country, and in the world we have lots of countries, so, lots of traditions. And about English, we've more countries talking English that are monarchies, not republics. See United Kingdom Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Bahamas, Jamaica, so, lots of countries... I can understand that you were doctrinated since you was a child that your first lady is the best lady of the world, the best dressed, the most polite, an angel of the American, and of the fake American dream... but you've also to understand that each country has its own traditions, and so I'm respecting yours on this article, and so you should - must - respect mine, that by the way is the one of the majority of the countries of English language. So, you should understand that in an European tradition - a tradition much older than your presidential tradition - the person personifies its title, when she's unique. Like, Wallis Simpson, The Duchess of Windsor, on her luggage she always put just "The Duchess of Windsor", and not Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor. Like, for example, The Duchess of Alba, Doña Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, isn't referred as Doña Cayetana, Duchess of Alba, but always simply as The Duchess of Alba, in her case because she's the Chief of the House of Alba, the richest of Spain, as owner of innumerables palaces and masterpieces, as well as a lot of money, that constitutes the estate of the House of Alba - a secular tradition of more than a thousand years. The same happened with, for example, Earls, Barons, and everything. That comes from the Crusades, religious orders, the Roman Empire, is very old. I'm sure that more than your little and closed mind could imagine. So, we must put her title in that part, because she personifies it, she is The Marquise consort of Torre Casa. If she belonged to an family of Count of the Austrian nobility, for example, that would be a bit different, 'cause in Austria, all the members of a noble house have titles, so she would be "Countess Carolina of Herrera", and not "The Countess of Herrera", as there in Austria the preposition "of", in German "von", or "zu", or even "de", is a privilege of the nobility. So, you're seeing that all the nobilities share some similar traditions but with some differences.

So, we cannot hide why she changed her name, and why she's personifying her title, 'cause, as she personifies it, and, in Europe, by the European tradition, by this tradition of more than a thousand years, she personifies it. She is The Marquise consort of Torre Casa. So, I think that you've already understood.

Regards,

Obs: about the doctrine of the American life system, this happen on TV, with the programs, and all those kind of stuff...

--TheEconomissst (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it should be easy for you to find a reliable publication that supports your point of view, and verifies all the titles you so vigorously support. For now, we must go with the wikipedia acceptable references, as undated, unsigned blogs surely do not qualify. I have left the Duchess of Cadaval, even though it does not belong in the lead of the article - at least it has a reference.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You asked about other first ladies dressed by Carolina Herrera:

Nancy Reagan [2] according to Reagan Library

Barbara Bush [3] according to Washington Post

Hillary Clinton [4] according to Huffington Post

Laura Bush [5] according to Washington Post

Should they all be in the lead paragraph too? They each have stronger references--Nixie9 (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now we can put the "from - to". And so you're saying that any American newspaper is better - more reliable - than any European newspaper (Portuguese, British, anyone)????? Oh, please, look at yourself, see what you're saying... So now, all the governments of all the countries of the world should be managed by the US government, and as such, buy HIS ROYAL VERY ROYAL HIGHNESS AND MAJESTY THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAKE AMERICAN DREAM, HIS MAJESTY THE PRESIDENT OF THE FALSEHOOD????

PLEASE, I BEG YOU, LOOK AT YOURSELF, SEE WHAT YOU'VE SAID.--TheEconomissst (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody ever said anything of the sort, the Portugese paper supports that she made one dress for the Duchess. That fact is in the article, in the very first paragraph. I said clearly that you need a reference for all the honorary titles, and even if you find it, it will have much less emphasis that you have advocated, as DGG and others (see directly below) have agreed.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, in 5000 years time the American presidential tradition would be junk as you said about the European tradition?

I MUST SAY ONE MORE TIME, LOOK AT YOURSELF, THINK BEFORE TALKING.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a general clean-up to the article. Her nobility title is not as important as her career to be included in the first paragraph (personally, I didn't know she is a Doña). All information you, or Economist, need is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nix, I'm gonna put the reference back.

--Antoniodelisboa,portugal (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Obs: But if we're gonna a reference for the Duchess, we should put another one for Caroline Kennedy.

--Antoniodelisboa,portugal (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Carolina Herrera (fashion designer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Yves Saint Laurent, Consort, Lanvin and Valentino

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of R. H. Quaytman.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 22:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

test--Nixie9✉ 03:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, sorry - forgot about this until just now.

Excellent work. I've added some categories, but that's really all there is to it - otherwise they look great. Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nixie9. I have had a trawl through and made some minor changes with punctuation and links, etc. If you feel uneasy with any of these, please feel free to revert. I am particularly unsure about how best to present English translation of titles - with date? in brackets? in quote marks? in italics? So many quotes may make the article look untidy, so if you feel it's better without them, please go ahead and remove them all! I think it's a great article. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nixie, thanks for your feedback. I believe I did go overboard. However, I really don't believe it's appropriate for editors with a conflict of interest, like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bernie44 to edit Wikipedia and not disclose his conflict of interest. An editor without a COI would not include so much puffery and promotionalism. Again, I apologize if I went overboard, I just don't believe Wikipedia should be a commercial entity. Please see here for what sparked my outrage: http://business.time.com/2012/05/07/want-your-own-well-written-fully-cited-wikipedia-page-thatll-be-300/ Thanks! CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Roe Ethridge, Nixie9!

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

Nicely referenced article. Good luck with your editing! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Nixie - I'm reopening the AfD on Michael Kitces - I have serious concerns about the relationship between User:Finplanwiki and Kitces given that User:Finplanwiki is adding apparent WP:OR using Kitces's website as a source. Also, do you not find it curious that the "speedy keep" voter in the previous AfD, "RinkyDink2013" [6] had only one edit to their name, the speedy keep vote? Michael_Kitces_(2nd_nomination)#Michael_Kitces The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo your concerns. I backed off my AfD because DGG, a well respected editor and admin, suggested we give time to allow improvement. Seeing that it has not come, I am supportive of your AfD.--Nixie9✉ 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• With the new WSJ and NYT articles, the notability threshold arguably has been met, or is close enough to warrant leniency. I'm willing to back off if he avoids piling on the advertorials. I'm also willing to forgive the obvious (with laughable consternation) conflict of interest. I cut out much of the junk, and he put some back in, The AfD will still need to run its course.--Nixie9✉ 03:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the view that he is non-notable, but am willing to look the other way now you've cut out all that awful wording in the article. A deep thinker indeed... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since then he put in more junk, which I see you pruned. The AfD goes on - let's see if another editor expresses an opinion. If he insists on junk, I expect people will be less flexible.--Nixie9✉ 23:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kiara Belen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiara Belen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Betony Vernon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• she made “L’Envol”, a short video for SHOWstudio and her first collaboration with Nick Knight.{[cn}} At the request of [[MTV]] Italy, Betony wrote, starred in, and co-produced “The Boudoir”. These

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nixie9. I just wanted to let you know that Brad Troemel has been nominated for deletion. You participated in the discussion two years ago which resulted in a Keep, so wanted to let you know, and encourage you to join the discussion.--Theredproject (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nixie

thank you for your feeback on our page. It is the first time we have attempted to edit it. We are working on the page in the sandbox as you suggested. If you are able to help in anyway i would very much appreciate it. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW Marketing (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up and revised this draft article which was abandoned by an editor I welcomed last year, Draft:George Brooks Jeweler and I thought I'd pop by and see if you fancied taking a peek at it and seeing what you thought. George Brooks certainly sounds as if he ought to be notable, especially with the strong backing of the jewelry curator from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, although I've found it hard to find sources and thought you might know where additional sources could be found. Oh, and Happy New Year! Mabalu (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond: Talk:R._H._Quaytman. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flont, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad to see you're back, although sorry it took a Speedy Deletion nomination to bring you back. There's definitely a shortage of editors with knowledge of jewellery design on here, so you've been missed every time I look at a dubious jewellery designer artcle and think "I wonder what Nixie9 would have been able to source about them?" Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Every time I come back to WP is frustrating. Not worth it. Nixie9✉ 12:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I highly suggest using a pre-med Draft to consider subjects instead and this can be made by a user sandbox; articles made immediately, especially when questionable to our policies, will be subject to possible removal and, whether you intended or not, the page was simply too promotional. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Self Portrait, by Philip Pearlstein, 2000.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Two Models in a Window with Cast Iron Toys, by Philip Pearlstein, 1987 from Smithsonian American Art Museum 2006.9.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DiamondStandard.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nixie9. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Nixie9. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nixie9|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been paid a penny for any editing on Wikipedia and will never accept any payment. You, sir, are a bully. You are abusing your reputation and administrator position, throwing around accusations to justify unilateral actions to edit and delete articles that you think are promotional. I request that you recuse yourself from the Diamond Standard AfD.Nixie9✉ 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just me editing, not an admin action. I didn't even delete the article, I just proposed it for speedy - to check my opinion on it with someone else, which was then concurred with by the actually-deleting admin. It's not clear what the grounds for recusal are, even if there were an AFD in progress. Remember that there is no ownership of articles at Wikipedia. Please note that deleting the courtesy notice concerning blockchain articles (which Diamond Standard is included in) does not mean it does not apply to you. Glad to hear you're not writing these articles for pay. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that my opinion was concurred with by another editor a second time. It appears you're writing things that multiple editors think look like ads - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This course of action is not proper. The same admin who instantly deleted the article the prior time (before I could challenge), immediately backed you up again. Now despite my challenge you two deleted it again. I ask that you two put this article through a normal AfD. Why should no other community members be heard? The pattern is disturbing at the moment.Nixie9✉ 00:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wheatfield -- A Confrontation, 1982, by Agnes Denes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cormac Kinney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CME. 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) 06:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]