User talk:Mukilman

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Mukilman, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Mukilman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pedro the Lion Santa Cruz Album (January 3)

[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 Qcne 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 music-related topics). 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.
qcne (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pedro the Lion Santa Cruz Album

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Mukilman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pedro the Lion Santa Cruz Album, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
Thanks for creating a draft!

Hello Mukilman, welcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Pedro the Lion Santa Cruz Album to Articles for creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

If you have general editing questions, the Teahouse is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the Articles for creation Help Desk instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome – I hope you enjoy your time here! -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Santa Cruz (album) has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Santa Cruz (album). Thanks! Rambley (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mukilman - just following on from Rambley's comments. You would do well to add further information only where it is directly attributed to reliable secondary sources. Of which there do appear to be plenty in this case. If you summarise the analysis from reputable reviewers - then this does have the potential to be a high quality article. You've shown that you've got the motivation to make some valuable contributions, so please have a read of some of the guidelines given to you to keep you on the right track. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Mukilman! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Hi, I made a page for an album but it won't let me post it., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Santa Cruz (album) has been accepted

[edit]
Santa Cruz (album), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

~ Tails Wx 06:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whole EP (July 9)

[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 Naraht was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Album not shown to meet notability.
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.
Naraht (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

Please could you take some time to read WP:NOR and I do mean the whole thing. And consider whether statements like "This is not to make a definitive statement about exactly what is going on..." is the type of thing that anyone would expect to read in any encyclopedia article. You seem to have a reluctance to absorb these core policies but if you want to keep contributing to Wikipedia then I promise you, it is more satisfying to do it right. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract art is open to interpretation. By the very definition abstraction is about the departing from the most literal definition of something. Dictionary Definition: “existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.”
When describing abstract art one should not assign a narrow explanation to it, that, by its very inherit nature is nebulous. If someone where to say that the cover is not face then this person would just be giving their own interpretation of the art and not be wrong. That person wouldn’t necessarily even be in contradiction with those that say it is a face because abstract art is not concrete like math or science.
Even if the artist told us what the cover art is they would just be showing their own interpretation of the work. So even in that case it would not be an absolute answer in the way that the math equation 1 + 1 = 2. To respond to your question about if I would expect to see "This is not to make a definitive statement" in an encyclopedia article on abstract art I would say yes. Writing the article this way shows that the author has an understanding of art basics which is even taught as early as K-12 education.
The main topic being discussed is the album so you could provide a link to abstract art for people who do not understand the attributes of various types of art. What is a hard fact is that fans are discussing what the art means and that is verifiable. Mukilman (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters, a collage isn't abstract art - you might not be as much of an authority on that topic as you think you are. When discussing art in the context of a Wikipedia article, we offer readers summaries of interpretations by reliable sources such as scholars and, yes the artist themselves. Every view is attributed, and we don't make interpretations ourselves. The reason that "This is not to make a definitive statement about exactly what is going on..." is not appropriate is (aside from just that it's incredibly sloppy writing) that we are not making any statements about "what is going on". Fans on a reddit thread having a discussion about potential interpretations is not worth including in an article for any artwork, no matter how minor - unless that discussion is reported on by a secondary source, in which case you would be citing the secondary source.
I'm really trying to be supportive here, you've chosen a notable topic but you seem to be chosing not to write it well. No Original Research is a well established, and very well known Wikipedia policy - it's not just something I came up with - but you seem to seem to have been constitenly flauting it for some time. Have you taken the time to read it and/or any of other the other core policies? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon I have raised this at the No Original Research Noticeboard to get input from other editors, thank you. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A collage can be abstract but it doesn't have to be. Its not mutually exclusive. Type in "abstract collage" into your search engine and see if anything comes up. I am an award winning collage artist that does this work for my job but I think that is beside the point (I only state this because you keep asking for "an authority.") To be completely honest I'm not sure what "authority" even means in this context. In an interview with Dave Grohl he said that when 50,000 fans sing his songs back to him with the same lyric for 50,000 different reasons. I bring this up because you are looking for the one true interpretation and I don't know what that means.

A lot of artist intentionally don't want to reveal everything about their work. With this cover art the fans can gradually see a greater concept unfold in a surprising matter. Why would the artist want to ruin the fun by explaining everything? It builds up anticipation as we wonder what will be on the fourth album in the series and the fifth. You've brought up that one sentence from the write-up multiple times and yes, I understand that not every sentence in this first draft is perfect. Is the first writing ever perfect? Given that the album has been out for a full year it is imperative that it be released in some form and no one else is writing it. Mukilman (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Grohl is actually a great example - if you take a look at Foo Fighters § Music and composition, you'll notice that equal weight is not given to 50,000 possible interpretations - but that discernment is used when picking sources, there's no handwavey language, it's not written like an essay and as such it's a good article.
Obiously I'm not asking for "one true interpretation". If you read what I said you'll notice that I never said anything along those lines. If you're not sure what an authority means in this context, have a read of of the reliable sources guideline that people have been asking you to read going back years. (it does not mean doing something as a day job).
Obivously I'm not asking for perfect writing the first time round, but Wikipedia works by aiming to improve and not aiming to get worse.
I'll ask again, have you taken the time to read any of our core policies? If not, why not? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spend a lot more time on this article but if others want to add citations they feel work then I would encourage them to go for it. Mukilman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whole EP (July 20)

[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 TheNuggeteer was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Multiple unreliable sources. Can you kindly remove the external link to the performance in the second paragraph?
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.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]