Hello, Chiarapassa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Chiara Passa, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((help me)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Citobun (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chiara Passa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Citobun (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Citobun. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chiara Passa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Citobun (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chiarapassa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the ((request edit)) template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Chiara Passa. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Chiara Passa. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chiara Passa 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/Chiara Passa 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. Citobun (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got your emails, but I generally prefer to engage in discussion through Wikipedia so that is all on record. Based on your email, it is especially concerning that you referred to it as "writing a bio" WP:AUTO, and is generally frowned upon. The only reason I declined the speedy deletion was to give it a chance to be reviewed by a greater audience to determine if it had any redeeming merits. Based on that discussion, it appears that your bias , in writing about yourself, seems to make it not appropriate for wikipedia. Basically, the only way I could see the article staying is if it was written in a non self promotional manner, with everything carefully cited by a reliable source. Other than that, I expect that it will be deleted at the WP:AFD where it is currently listed. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiara Passa, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. You are wasting the time of volunteers. If you have made a major impact in your field, chances are someone else will create an article for you eventually. You don't need to do it yourself. You should not do it yourself. Please read the policy. This is an encyclopedia. Please stop trying to promote yourself here – there are other websites, like LinkedIn, that may be of more relevance to you. Citobun (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun i understood that is a deontological matter and a contradiction too! So, i have to do like others colleagues i've cited. Some of them asked to others to write their pages but others write themselves the pages... ok! Is not my intention waste the time of nobody!

As I've indicated to you before, if you have evidence of other autobiographical pages that are improperly promotional, please offer it on those pages. It's not relevant to the page you created about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot i've cited here some of them, and i wont to cite more but practically, almost all of artists' biographies i've seen are written like mine. This is why i don't understand mine is considered self-promotional. see this one. or here, written by unknown user!

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. In this case you have also been emailing users. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me how I came to the discussion. I went there because I was reviewing your editing history in response to a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism that you were editing purely for promotion. That is true, but not in the blatantly spammy way that justifies immediate administrative intervention.

The idea that Wikipedia discourages people from writing articles in fields such as "media art" is mistaken: what Wikipedia does discourage is writing articles on subjects which do not satisfy our notability guidelines. Unfortunately, many editors who have little experience of editing Wikipedia find it difficult to believe that their own work could fail to be considered notable, so they come up with other reasons why their article is nominated for deletion, such as that Wikipedia is biased against their political views, or against people of their race or religion, or that particular Wikipedia editors are being paid by their competitors to suppress information about their business, or that Wikipedia is biased against articles on subjects in their particular field, and so on and so on. You may like to think carefully about the fact that earlier in the discussion you were claiming that your article should stay because we have other similar articles on subjects in your field, and now you are suggesting that we do not like to have articles on subjects in your field: is there not a contradiction there?

You say that we "continue ignoring" the point that we have articles on the same subject which you see as no better, but it is not true that everybody has ignored that point: 331dot gave you a link to an explanation why that reason carries little weight in deletion discussions, but perhaps you didn't notice the small blue link in the comment "As this indicates that is a poor argument to keep a page", or perhaps you noticed the link but didn't realise its significance and so didn't check it. Perhaps it would have helped if 331dot had emphasised the point more. As for myself, I have not ignored your point, but have been looking at some of the articles you linked to. (Only some of them, as I don't have enough time at present to properly study them all, but I may look at others when I get time.) I was intending to let you know of the outcome of my investigation, but you posted about it before I did so. You are right in thinking that at least some of those articles are little or no better than the article about you. Probably several of them, perhaps all of them, should be deleted, and it may be that they will be. However, anyone can come along and post an article, and many thousands of people do, and at any time there are many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so the existence of articles of a particular type does not guarantee that articles of that type are acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sionk the user that has deleted the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Black_Kite doesn't exists!

The user exists, but their userpage does not. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to understand, so... it was a discussion between you 'the administrators', you've invited to take part. Because i could not invite anyone else (wiki-user) even expert in media art.

Any Wikipedia user can participate in the discussion if they wish; You cannot canvass for support, no, especially when you have a conflict of interest in the status of the article as the person who wrote it. You can suggest that others come to offer their honest opinion, but you cannot ask people to "save the article", as one user stated you did.

As you have been told, you are likely correct that there are other similar pages, and those may need to be deleted as well once someone proposes it. As a volunteer project, things only get done on Wikipedia when someone gets around to them- which is why "there are other pages like mine" is a poor argument to make.

I would highly suggest that if you think you can make an improved article, that you visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for an independent review before posting and you can get feedback on what is being looked for. Please do not simply recreate the article, as it will be speedy deleted as there was a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot I understand, but in good faith, i didn't invited at the discussion any other user and wasn't my intention to canvassing, i was looking for some 'help' from art-users; anyway, now i know. Regard the article, I thought too to search someone else (can be a wiki user?) that can help me to re-edit and improved it in the way you required. Henece, I submit an article draft for the review, even will be difficult that just some wiki user involved in art :-) will review it. I'll take my time in order to read carefully the guideline. Thanks for the suggestions.Chiarapassa (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I received an email from you. I prefer to keep Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, resorting to email only in extreme cases such as when personal information would be revealed.

You said you were not sure where to write. The best place would be other users' talk pages, like for example the administrator who deleted the article would be able to offer advice.

You wondered how other Wikipedia users can know about deletion discussion without being accused of canvassing. There are pages that any user can put on their watch list, to alert them of new discussions taking place about a particular topic. The deletion discussion of your biography article was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists for example. A link to that was added somewhere in the middle of the discussion. Anyone with that page on their watch list might have noticed. But there is no requirement for anyone to put anything on their watch list. I don't monitor discussions about subjects within my area of expertise. That's not what I use Wikipedia for... so I probably miss a lot of deletion discussions about my area of interest. That's OK. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have matured enough that I trust that whatever gets deleted, should have been deleted.

The only really acceptable form of canvassing is not to invite people to a deletion discussion, but rather to invite people to help you get an article into a shape that avoids deletion.

As far as I can tell from looking at the discussion as well as this talk page, nobody was inviting administrators to judge the page in negative terms, as you suggested in your email. Closing AFD discussions is part of an administrator's job. Evidence of canvassing or participation by numerous "single purpose accounts" (SPAs) that have been created solely for "saving" the article by adding votes to a discussion, will always hurt more than help. An AFD discussion full of SPA "keep" votes that offer no rationale grounded in Wiki policies is strong evidence that the article exists to further the interests of the article subject, not Wikipedia, and isn't worth keeping.

Hiring someone else to write about you doesn't erase the conflict of interest. That other person would also have a conflict of interest, although a 3rd party might be capable of writing in a more neutral fashion than your article was written in. There are a few paid editors here who do good work — you'd have to hunt for them — but most paid editors are quickly found, blocked, and their articles are deleted. The best venue for you, or anyone you retain, to write an article about yourself would be Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amatulić I can't continue the discussion in the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite that has deleted the article because its page doesn't exists anymore... Anyway, yes, i am understanding wiki as an interesting process, full of unexpected events. I was having also interesting suggestions and advices by some users here in the talk page and in the article for deletion page. Excuse me, who want to hire someone else in order to write an article? Someone told you that? I never thought a thing like this, is not good especially for writing articles in restricted fields. I really don’t think would be a solution, i didn’t knew that persons in wiki can write for money. I really don’t need. What i need is a person who have familiarity with my artistic research and can adjust or rewrite the article, if possible. if anyone has tips or advices i'll be glad to have a look, thanks in advance. Chiarapassa (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]