Talk:Aida Tomescu

Untitled

@Tane Andrews and MaryannM53: (Just to let alert some relevant people). MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@203.164.33.25: The Conflict of Interest (COI) template has been removed. This artist profile page still has a COI (Conflict of Interest), and the addition of another large direct quote does not resolve the COI. Please familiarise yourself with the definition of COI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide and provide an explanation for the removal of the template. MaryannM53 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Reequest for semi-protection

This page is repeatedly being vandalised by editor(s) using IP addresses. Protection against such anonymous, reversions of well referenced work is requested. Well referenced work is removed (together with its citations) and being reverted to an earlier less fleshed out version of the article. Thus, in the latest anonymous reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aida_Tomescu&oldid=975383558, none of the work from 14 edits from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aida_Tomescu&oldid=975334801 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aida_Tomescu&oldid=975342063 is retained, yet it contained citations for four awards and for 5 collections (listing works and pointing to them). MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I think you're looking for WP:RFPP if you want the page protected. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Primefac:. I hope I have now managed to find the right template, but whether I managed to complete it correctly is another matter. (Is there now a request for semi-protection for Aida Tomescu? MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Close enough :-) Primefac (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, it has been almost 3 years since my last contribution to this record and, while acknowledging the best of intentions (WP:AGF) I would respectfully ask if some of the subsequent deletions of my contributions be reconsidered. For example:

23:12, 27 August 2020 'No works found in the AGSA collection'. Is that statement made on the basis of a Collection search on the AGSA website? The same search page states that only 18,000 of 45,000 in the collection have made it online at this time. Page 2 of a google search for 'Aida Tomescu Art Gallery of South Australia' lists the 2013 Annual report which records the donation of 'two Aida Tomescu paintings were gifted by the artist' p.29.

Thanks for this @Art Resources:. I did the suggested search, but still could not find it. Perhaps, having found the reference you might add that her works are in AGSA together with its reference. (That would be very helpful). MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArtResources: Now found and added. MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

23:18, 27 August 2020‎ 'No works could be found for her at QAGOMA. She may have had works in an exhibition there...'. Same as above - search at QAGOMA's web search BETA website produces no results. However, QAGOMA's previous Collection search is still online however, which lists at least 2 works (accession numbers 1991.230 & 1992.027a-c). https://collection.qagoma.qld.gov.au/qag/imu.php?request=display&port=45000&id=a2d4&flag=start&offset=0&count=20&view=lightbox&PublishOnIMuInternet=Y&CreCreatorLocal_tab=TOMESCU,%20Aida&view=list

Thank you for this @Art Resources:. I am hoping the link works (as yours did not - required a further search). It does. So this is now fixed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The artist's experience with printmaking has been summarised as 'she found the experience a challenge'. In the Artist Profile cited as a source the artist uses words such as 'freeing', 'liberating' and 'transformative'. May I suggest the summary description could be improved?

Is there not a place for the strictly limited use of quotation in the 'Critical reception" section? What was the reason the Patrick McCaughey quote has been retained yet others deleted? How is the article improved by the removal of the quote from Deborah Hart? If it was just that the quotation was incorrectly cited, can I ask was there a good-faith search for a source before removal? Would a book published by the Australian National University (and further quoted in about a dozen websites) constitute a reliable source? If so, then why was it removed when it has so clearly been regarded by many as an insightful aid in the appreciation of this abstract artist? What do others think? Art Resources (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The critical reception quotations you mention appear to be a copy-and-paste from the artist's own website including a copy-and-paste of its citations, so not exactly a reliable source (WP:RSSELF). Probably the McCaughey quote should go too on that basis. Re the Hart quote, on what basis do you say "it has so clearly been regarded by many as an insightful aid in the appreciation of this abstract artist"? Who are these many people and where did they express these views ? Kerry (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Given previously raised concerns about conflict of interest in relation to this Wikipedia article, if anyone is contributing to this article directly or via this Talk page, could you please ensure you are compliant with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest including its paid editing policy. Kerry (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Text in Education and Career has been updated. @Art Resources: MaryannM53 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)