20thCenturyArtEnthusiast
20thCenturyArtEnthusiast, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
February 2018
edit
Hello, 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- do your best to comply with 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).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, I'm curious--can you share exactly what John Canaday wrote about Mr. Sacklarian's work, since you used an article of his from 1958 as the only source in describing the artist's style? If Canaday published at length about the artist for a Metropolitan Museum seminar, that would be of real interest. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there! In the transcription of a 1958 lecture on expressionism the differences in the mental processes of artists, Canaday stated that "while some painters approach and interact with the canvas with an empty and spontaneous mind, others like Stephen Sacklarian, Marilyn Gordley, and Harvey Quaytman claim to have exact mental images of their finished works prior the first brushstroke." Hope that helps!
- Correcting quick typo in the quote "...prior TO the first brushstroke."
- Thank you. I've restored two of the maintenance templates. Large tracts of the article are still not sourced, including, apparently, descriptions of work in the style section. One of the sources you've added to it, and used elsewhere in the article, is a Who's Who publication, which is not considered a reliable source, since its content is generated by its subjects--I know, because I provided all the content for my Who's Who entries. Some or much of this I've previously attempted to explain in my edit summaries. Also, you haven't responded to the COI notice above. Given that you
're new here, andhave a narrow scope of interest thus far, it's a legitimate concern. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) - Among many other issues, there are multiple quotes by critics for which you've provided no sources, nor evidence that the critics are themselves notable. Prior seems to have been, but even there we need a specific citation to her statement. All quotes must be properly sourced. Also, most of the content about Mr. Sacklarian's personal life is unsourced, and may be removed. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've restored two of the maintenance templates. Large tracts of the article are still not sourced, including, apparently, descriptions of work in the style section. One of the sources you've added to it, and used elsewhere in the article, is a Who's Who publication, which is not considered a reliable source, since its content is generated by its subjects--I know, because I provided all the content for my Who's Who entries. Some or much of this I've previously attempted to explain in my edit summaries. Also, you haven't responded to the COI notice above. Given that you
- No problem. Thank you for bringing up these additional issues with citations and source reliability. Yes, this is true about a Who's Who, and that makes sense why it would not be considered a reliable source. I will either find a non subject generated source or remove the information that cannot be cited with acceptable sources. I also think I am including too few footnotes and will include more for each specific piece of information. Actually, I have 2 questions you may be able to help me with. 1) 90% of the information in this article is found in the the book SACKLARIAN, as the book is all about the artist, his style, and his life, but it felt strange to only include that and maybe one other source. Maybe this comes from my college research paper days when we were forced to use multiple sources even if one had all of the info...but is this OK on Wikipedia to do? Also #2) Regarding the COI, I have none--but admittedly have taken a personal interest in ensuring that this particular article is written correctly and within the Wiki guidelines. I started this a couple years ago but there were some flaws with it in sources, etc. so I'm now trying again to make everything "kosher." Appreciate your help in this process. I plan to contribute to and edit some other 20th century artist articles as well, but I felt as a beginner best to stick to one since I am still getting the hang of it. Plus creating a new article is more of an ego boost :) Is there any way to help show that I am not connected to this personally or financially? Thank you for any help.
- I agree, it's better to include a wider range of sources than to lean heavily on one monograph. However, the strength of that monograph depends on context--if it was written in conjunction with a commercial gallery exhibition, or was a vanity publication, its value is limited, as it will likely be inclined to a promotional tone. Even if descriptions of the work are too public-relations in tone to be of value, it may still be useful for confirming aspects of the artist's personal life. Was the author a gallery employee or an art historian with a broader history? As for conflict of interest, the best way to show that there is none is to keep the writing absolutely flat, objective to the point that one can't tell how you feel about the subject. Rhetorical flourishes are one easy giveaway, and there were several of those that raised red flags. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, very good points. I am learning! I understand why one could be concerned with COI from certain ways I wrote things. As a new writer I beleive I unknowingly added a "personal element" --which of course is not the point of encyclopedic writing. I have been looking at other established articles and seen how they are written completely objectively as you have mentioned. I will go back to take out any rhetorical flourishes or other stylistic comments that could be deemed non-objective. I also need to make the footnotes for style comments more thorough. As far as the SACKLARIAN monograph goes, the author, Sophia Chitjian was an Armenian historian and teacher. No financial link to the artist. There are interesting comments on his style but most of the book is historical. I found it most useful and for confirming aspects of of his early youth and career. I think my best bet is to use this source predominantly for the more biographical aspects of his life and maybe a little bit of the style--but mainly other sources for comments on his style, as other sources that I feel do a more thorough job of explaining his work and artistic style in depth. I am seeing now how different sources are best used for different aspects, and can go in conjunction to enhance and validate one another. I have a bit of reorganizing of my sources and footnotes to do but I am up for the task! Thanks again for your help.
- I agree, it's better to include a wider range of sources than to lean heavily on one monograph. However, the strength of that monograph depends on context--if it was written in conjunction with a commercial gallery exhibition, or was a vanity publication, its value is limited, as it will likely be inclined to a promotional tone. Even if descriptions of the work are too public-relations in tone to be of value, it may still be useful for confirming aspects of the artist's personal life. Was the author a gallery employee or an art historian with a broader history? As for conflict of interest, the best way to show that there is none is to keep the writing absolutely flat, objective to the point that one can't tell how you feel about the subject. Rhetorical flourishes are one easy giveaway, and there were several of those that raised red flags. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Thank you for bringing up these additional issues with citations and source reliability. Yes, this is true about a Who's Who, and that makes sense why it would not be considered a reliable source. I will either find a non subject generated source or remove the information that cannot be cited with acceptable sources. I also think I am including too few footnotes and will include more for each specific piece of information. Actually, I have 2 questions you may be able to help me with. 1) 90% of the information in this article is found in the the book SACKLARIAN, as the book is all about the artist, his style, and his life, but it felt strange to only include that and maybe one other source. Maybe this comes from my college research paper days when we were forced to use multiple sources even if one had all of the info...but is this OK on Wikipedia to do? Also #2) Regarding the COI, I have none--but admittedly have taken a personal interest in ensuring that this particular article is written correctly and within the Wiki guidelines. I started this a couple years ago but there were some flaws with it in sources, etc. so I'm now trying again to make everything "kosher." Appreciate your help in this process. I plan to contribute to and edit some other 20th century artist articles as well, but I felt as a beginner best to stick to one since I am still getting the hang of it. Plus creating a new article is more of an ego boost :) Is there any way to help show that I am not connected to this personally or financially? Thank you for any help.
Please don't add unsourced content again [1]. Period. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I do not know why you are saying that. All of the content is sourced and I have been working diligently to make it within the Wikipedia policies. There are rhetorical flourishes that need to be removed and I am doing my best to continue improving this article.
- Saw your specific edit notes via internal link in you comment. Have corrected.
Nomination of Leo Braudy (art dealer) for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Braudy (art dealer) 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.
Nomination of Leo Braudy (art dealer) for deletion
edit The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Braudy (art dealer) (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.