User talk:Kludgebros

Welcome!

Hi Kludgebros! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Nthep (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The Template namespace is not the place to start creating an article. I've moved it to Draft:Ultra-Realism where it can be worked on at leisure. Nthep (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultra-Realism has been accepted

Ultra-Realism, 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!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Ultra-Realism

Hello, Kludgebros,

Thank you for creating Ultra-Realism.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for your extremely thorough article on ultra-realism! It's clear this is a subject you know very well. However, Wikipedia has a particular encyclopedic writing style that should be used, and this article is written in more of an "academic journal" writing style. It's a hard rhetorical shift to get used to, but fundamentally, Wikipedia writing should be not persuasive. It should also be as concise as possible, focused on simply summarizing secondary sources. I encourage you to revisit the prose of this article, and I am happy to answer questions if you have any as you work. Happy editing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|LEvalyn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'll edit it down over the coming week. Kludgebros (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling these edits, it's really heartening to see the article shifting away from a persuasive/journal-style academic tone toward Wikipedia's encyclopedic style! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, it's just a slight modification, weeding out the persuasive rhetoric. Kludgebros (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Simon Winlow (June 8)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Simon Winlow 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of independent sources in bona fide academic publications, I just thought he had written so much himself it would be overload. I'll find them and insert them this coming week. Kludgebros (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are literally thousands of references to Winlow in academic literature and media. I don't have time to trawl through them right now, so I'll try to do it over the summer or Christmas vacation. I'll delete this draft and replace it later in the year. Kludgebros (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kludgebros! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users?

Hi, I happened to notice the statement on your userpage, and wanted to check how many individuals have access to this user account? The reason being, Wikipedia user accounts are for use by a single individual only, so if there are more than one of you using this account, the others should register their own accounts. If there is only one of you, then that's great, although you may wish to rephrase your userpage content to avoid similar confusion by others. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. We're a research team but at the moment there's only me. I'll rephrase the userpage blurb and ask any other team member willing to help with the page to register. Kludgebros (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and thanks for the swift response. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]