User talk:Artintegrated

Hi...looks like you caught me just before I attempted a bit of late-night editing.

As I recall, there was an issue of notability. Another editor felt that the subject wasn't notable enough and tagged it as such after (hopefully) determining that the "Google test" came back with few hits. I merely kept it from being recreated after an edit war looked to be breaking out. It wasn't a judgement on my part.

I'll go ahead and unblock the title. My suggestion is that you do your best to establish notability with lists of major works, exhibits and the like. This way, it's likely to remain. Thanks for being a good sport and have fun. - Lucky 6.9 06:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're good to go. I unblocked the title and deleted the page so that you can start on a clean slate. - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will def work harder but it being an artist page it is hard to not be just a lister you know like a laundry list. How many google hits would I need there are at least 400 pages on this guy

The layout may have scared some editors. It looks like a vanity piece. I'll see what I can do, but it'll need a major overhaul. - Lucky 6.9 06:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

In your versions (September 2006) of Julie Moos appeared some text that also appears verbatim in this article (about an exhibition held in 2002 and presumably written and uploaded in 2002). This looks to me like copying. There was no clear sign (e.g. via the combination of quotation marks and a footnote) that the text had been copied; this in turn looks to me like a copyright violation. Actually there is no need to describe Agee or "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" as both have their own WP articles, so instead of rewriting this I simply cut it.

In future, please don't copy from elsewhere unless you scrupulously label the copying (and of course also adhere to principles of "fair use", etc.). Thank you. -- Hoary 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

On this edit of yours (as well as a number of others): Please avoid external links within the main text.

Imaginary example: If we're writing up Cornell Capa and are dealing with his remarkable family, and if his obscure [actually, fictitious] brother Marmaduke Capa doesn't yet have his own WP article, then we don't write:

Capa's brothers [[Robert Capa|Robert]] and [http://obscurephotographers.com/mcapa/ Marmaduke] were both photographers.

We instead write

Capa's brothers [[Robert Capa|Robert]] and [[Marmaduke Capa|Marmaduke]] were both photographers.

This of course redlinks the latter. Do this if Marmaduke seems to deserve his own article and seems likely to get it. Or of course leave him unlinked:

Capa's brothers [[Robert Capa|Robert]] and Marmaduke were both photographers.

Or you can have the combination of

Capa's brothers [[Robert Capa|Robert]] and Marmaduke were both photographers.

and, within a list of external links near the end of the article:

* [http://obscurephotographers.com/mcapa/ Marmaduke Capa] (obscurephotographers.com)

Or you can use a note:

Capa's brothers [[Robert Capa|Robert]] and Marmaduke<ref>See [http://obscurephotographers.com/mcapa/ obscurephotographers.com] for Marmaduke.</ref> were both photographers.

You'll need to add <references /> somewhere below this for the note(s) to be rendered.

Please see WP:external links for more about external links. Thank you. -- Hoary 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These look like reasonable suggestions for article improvement to me. --Orange Mike 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Jon Coffelt

Your recent edit to Jon Coffelt was not only vandalism but a blatant violation of the expectations of civil discourse on Wikipedia. Such behavior can have consequences, and you are asked not to repeat it. --Orange Mike 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE : Hoffman

If I didn't think you could show notability, I'd have tagged the article for deletion. The tag is so any editor who sees the article can add more reliable sources and citations to prove it. Exxolon (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Judy Hoffman

There should be no reason why you are not able to edit Judy Hoffman that I can see. If you're getting an error message when you try and edit, I suggest you follow the instructions on the message to resolve it. Exxolon (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'notability' tag should not have had ANY effect on ANYONE's ability to edit the article or add information to it. Are you/your friend getting ANY kind of error message when you try to? Exxolon (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link [1] - this will purge the page so the latest version is displayed. Exxolon (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

I'm unable to help you with the problem you're having with the Judy Hoffman article - try asking here instead. Exxolon (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Edit?

I am wondering about your addition of Ten Cubed gallery to the Second Life article. I'm unclear what about it warrants special mention. Yes, it is run by a RL gallerist, but many RL businesses have a SL presence. I've visited the gallery in-world and found nothing extraordinary about it. Why single it out among all the art galleries in SL? Be assured I am not questioning your integrity, but given your own admitted propensity for original research, I'm wondering if perhaps this isn't a vanity edit (see "Self-promotion" and "Close relationships", among others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darguz Parsilvan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the question of its notability within the context of the SL article. In an article about Ten Cubed, certainly its SL presence would be worth mentioning. And, yes, as you say, it would most likely warrant mention on the SL Wiki, if there is a place there for such things, but this is not the SL Wiki. The fact that the owner knows you and asked you to write something, makes it sound more and more like a vanity edit. And, by your own admission, you have a tendency to lapse into original research. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine gallery, but there are thousands of fine galleries in SL; obviously they can't all be mentioned in the SL article. WP is not a promotional avenue. I have a friend who is preparing to open a gallery in SL. Her focus is on introducing artists to SL who are unfamiliar with it, and especially seeking out artists who have never been published or exhibited anywhere except their own personal web sites. A worthy (and as far as I know, unique) endeavor, to be sure, but not warranting a special mention in the SL article; and even if it were, being a personal friend of hers, I would likely leave it to someone else to do it.

I'm not sure what you mean, "...it was the first gallery to have a real life and second life opening on two continents...." I haven't checked, but I would imagine that many of the galleries in SL have an RL presence on more than one continent. Or are you saying that it opened in RL and SL at the same time? An interesting fact, to be sure, but still, not really worth a special mention in the SL article. When you consider that things such as the Ginko Financial collapse, which impacted thousands of Residents, or Anshe Chung, who has incited very widespread discussion and controversy, are not mentioned in the SL article, the question of the relevance of one single – admittedly nice – art gallery arises.

So, that's my point – nothing against Ten Cubed or yourself, only the question of its relevance within the context of the WP Second Life article. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In each of my posts, I've stated that I am not attacking you. As I said, the original research statement is by your own admission: "Artintegrated has a tendency to overextend information in some cases where Artintegrated has more knowledge or inside information." I have done my best to not be offensive in my posts, but if you choose to take offense, then so be it. You may have noticed that I have not removed your entry from the SL article; I'm hoping to discuss it intelligently with you first, so we can be in agreement on whether it should remain. As I said, we can't possibly list every SL gallery in the SL article; I'm just trying to figure out what makes this one significant enough to be mentioned. If things like Ginko and Anshe are not mentioned, why should this be? That's not a rhetorical question; I really do wish to know. And if this one gallery really is not that significant in the overall SL article, it's certainly nothing against you or against the gallery. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Frank Lloyd Wright do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You have repeatedly made this unsourced edit and added the same external link. Please discuss on the talk page before adding again. HokieRNB (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has a wiki article. Artintegrated (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find a WP:Reliable source and add this information in a way that doesn't put extraneous external links into the article text. HokieRNB (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Galt

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, "I feel this person is quite notable" is not the standard on wikipedia for notability. I have restored the notice on the article until reliable, published, third-party sources can be found. I'm also interested that you seem concerned about me deleting something. ~~I am not proposing to delete this article.~~ Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I have some sort of agenda to drive something or someone into the ground, and I have absolutely what you are referring to with the "yet again". To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've brought up for discussion the notability of a person, and once more than six months ago I questioned the notability of a nickname within an article. Surely you can't be referencing that? If Melissa Galt is truly that notable, then other editors will undoubtedly have something to add to the discussion. If not, then you are still welcome to find reliable, third party sources to establish her notability. In the meantime, please remember to WP:assume good faith. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You just took removed the notability tag on this article, stating in your edit summary "rewording for formality and notability issues", but so far as I can tell, you made no changes to the text nor to the references that would address these issues. I restored the tag. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You are clearly "missing something about this notoriety issue". Please review the Wikipedia guidelines on notability as you try to "wrap [your] head around it." None of the people mentioned as keynote participants at opening of the Interior Design Society headquarters (Michelle Lamb, Lloyd Princeton, Mayer Rus, Thomas Burak, Jim Druckman, John Pujol, Andrew Limone, Margi Kyle, Sev Ritchie, and Debbie Green) are notable enough for a Wikipedia article without significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of themselves. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given the fact that no new reliable third party sources independent of the subject have been produced, I am now proposing to delete this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Brat Pack

I undid your recent edits because they were factually inaccurate. Mare Winningham and Elizabeth Perkins did not appear in The Outsiders. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Mare Winningham to the "close contributors" column for St. Elmo's Fire, but since Elizabeth Perkins does not appear in any reliable source that I could find as having been associated with the Brat Pack, I was unable to add her to the chart. If you do find such a source, then it would be appropriate to add her to that column, and to add From the Hip in which she starred with Judd Nelson to the "other movies" list. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudo's to you. Awesome Thank you Thank you. I will continue to do what I can to help with the Galt article. Thank you for your help with that and this brat pack article. Be well. Artintegrated (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins was in "About Last night." Just found it on her article and not sure how to include it on the brat page. Artintegrated (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for why Elizabeth Perkins should not be added to the Brat Pack page until there is some source that associates her with the pack. For good reasons, the page does not list every co-star in every movie that every Brat Packer was ever in. Since the term refers to a group of actors who often collaborated on movies, any additions should be identified by a reliable source which actually cites a specific actor as being a part of the "Pack" or somehow associated with it. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. Thanks Artintegrated (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wikipedia Art

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wikipedia Art, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Intrinsically unencyclopedic and unreferenceable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

give me a little time to complete the article please Artintegrated (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Art

I have nominated Wikipedia Art, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article I only added it for Stern and Kildall. I have, however come clean to adding it in an article by Patrick Lighty. Artintegrated (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

erased de kooning

thanks for the Rauschenberg deletion, in my book that's an honor. very telepathic of you -- my current work is an extension of the erased de kooning. bummer i didn't save the highlighted edit source code, or i could've easily erased your erasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmeck (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Shmeck (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin

Please see Illinois College page for discussion on the notability of Brian Sherwin in notable alumni. Let's keep the discussion there so we can hopefully get some others involved in it. RegainTheTruth (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.C. von Sukmeister

L.C. von Sukmeister on wiki art —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdeboer (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Barbara Rosenthal page

I see that you have been working on this article, too. And your tone conforms more to Wikipedia style, and you have been able to remove some of the tags. I am part of a graduate school group working on this article also. We don't find any more peacock terms, so could you also remove that tag, or point out where we could rewrite to eliminate a peacock term you can point out, please? We are also troubled by the notability tag that is still there because we have put in many of the citations, including New York Times, Village Voice, Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes, etc. She will also be representing the United States at the Prague Contemporary Art Fesival in October, in two media: text-based art and performance art, so could you remove the notability tag, please, or tell me what more might be required.The comment on my talk page about writing more about the work is being addressed by our class, so more will be up about that in the next few weeks. Any help you could give us is appreciated.Originale (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extraneous tags but keep an eye on it as it has been visited more than once by someone who seems to hold a grudge.

I know Barbara and her work. She is quite the artist. Artintegrated (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Artintegrated! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Melissa Springer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing -- April 2010

I have removed/edited much of the content and links you've added with requests for reliable sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont take lightly your resent edits to several editors work that I know. Reliable resourcing on Wikipedia would include cites from reliable sources, links to cites, ASIN, ISBN etc.

What you have done to many of these articles has been nothing more than to render them laundry lists with no nuance nor interest. That is a shame. Hours of work poured into each for no other reason than for you to slash them away. It is people like you as Jimmy has said that is keeping the numbers down for editors on Wiki in general Shame on you. You are giving Wikipedia a bad name. I have read and reread many of your older posts and I can say without hesitation you should stick with editing things you know about. You dont know enough about art and/or the art world to edit here. I suggest strongly that you edit elsewhere where you may have a wee bit of knowledge. Artintegrated (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Artintegrated (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Artintegrated for understanding my plight. Seems Flowanda is very self important and while she may be correct in some of her edits. she leaves every single article with no flow and uninteresting. There should be a law against this and you know it. Yes if everything on here was left as Flowanda leaves it then no one would come to Wikipedia as it may as well be a dry droll dictionary. Also I dont think Flowanda knows anything about artist's books or the importance of some of the artists involved in this the fastest growing area in the arts at the moment but I digress. Thank you for your understanding. I do think there is something of great importance when it comes to how an article flows. Many this editor should rename themselves something other than Flowanda. Mayb NoFlowWanda but again I digress. OneMarkus (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this editors edits are interesting because these edits almost intentionally render the article useless and yes as you say laundry list with no interest whatsoever. Artintegrated (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to join WikiProject Women artists!

Hello Artintegrated! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Judy Hoffman (artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judy Hoffman (artist) 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/Judy Hoffman (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Armadillo pteryx 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]