Kenfriedman0
Welcome!
Hello, Kenfriedman0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly - I see nothing wrong with RepublicanJacobite's edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and RJ simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Concerning your comment - First I do not claim to own any articles, second click on this -> Owen Smith<- this is the guy you included in the Fluxus article, if you want some other Owen Smith included then start an article about him...Modernist (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Modernist,
Thanks for your response. I didn't include the Owen Smith you cited. I simply listed the name Owen Smith, the one who wrote the book listed in the bibliography. If the UK politician of the same name was linked, this has to be a mistake of some kind -- I did not do it.
The problem with the artist list is that it doesn't reflect the membership of Fluxus, but only the leftovers. It also is not clear in the article when someone quoted or mentioned is an artist or a scholar. Mentions of the artists do not always discuss their work or contribution to Fluxus, but merely cite them in a passing quote.
If you and the others are convinced that you're doing it the appropriate Wikipedia way, I'll bow out. Two or three times, I've explained myself to Wikipedia editors that have a different view on these things. I started to make Wikipedia contributions to this article as a result of my involvement in a debate about Wikipedia that started in the New York Times. I got a letter from Jimmy Wales telling me why Wikipedia is good. Thought I'd give it a go.
One of the problems with Wikipedia for subject experts is the need to explain oneself repeatedly from people who come from different backgrounds and different discourse communities. Experienced Wikipedia editors achieve a certain kind of standing and rank with Wiki stars and awards for the number of articles and edits they've been involved in. It's impossible to tell who they are -- most use pseudonyms and few step up to say who they are or what they do for a day job. At the end of the day, the differences in style become so great that one simply can't keep up. While I accept your view, I disagree with it. But it is clear that I can't persuade you. While I appreciate the Wikipedia venture, I don't have the time to accumulate enough edits or contributions to rise in the editorial ranks. I've spoken in the past with subject field experts to ask why they don't contribute to polish the articles on which they have done serious research with strong publications in peer reviewed sources. A few people told me that the problem was that anyone could edit, change, or remove their contributions. The first two or three times one must explain the reasons for a contribution or an idea, it's OK. After a while, one feels foolish -- Wikipedia involves a great many people with opinions. Most contributors are anonymous. While many are well intentioned, there is no way to determine their subject expertise, nor to offer a proposition in terms that would make sense to scholars.
While I would not argue that the changes to my carefully developed contributions are vandalism, I would argue that the effects -- for me -- are the same. Many talk pages make a point of saying that the editors have a life and they'll answer when they can. Like the rest of you, I have other responsibilities and I don't want to allocate time to protect my contributions to Wikipedia. I've done my best to make a case. Since several Wikipedia editors seem to be voting against me, the majority wins and my career as a Wikipedian now comes to a close.
Kenfriedman0 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman
- The article on Fluxus has a substantial list of artists in the text and in the list. For you to get bent out of shape because Dick Higgins (who I knew quite well) and some of the other figures like Paik (who I also knew) and Yoko are only mentioned (many times I might add) in the text is a little precious on your part - I hope you don't mind me saying. The subject is fairly well covered but can definitely be improved especially by you - who was and/or is still a part of the movement. I spent hours of my afternoon today referencing and rescuing a large section of that article. I am not a part of the Fluxus movement - while you are - and still I have labored to create an article with some credibility. Whether or not you edit here is purely up to you, learning at your own speed and skill...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Modernist,
Well, let me give it some thought. I've avoided substantive edits for a simple reason -- because I am part of the community, I have not wanted to engage in substantive edits, even in cases where the article quotes me without attribution. It feels a bit too much like writing about myself, and that's one of the things one ought not to do in Wikipedia, as I understand it. What I was happy to do was to add links, clarify lists, etc.
On the subject of lists, I don't think it's precious to argue that a list of artists or scholars functions like an index in this context. It is a finding aid, and it is different to the narrative text. No matter how many times artists or others are mentioned in the article, the list offers a ready-to-use index that people can employ to gain a swift overview or to link quickly to other entries.
Since my note earlier today, I observe that you have indeed brought clarity and improvements to the article. I appreciate your contributions. It makes for a better article.
Kenfriedman0 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman
- Ken - what I did today was add the word Additional to that longer list. You mention that many of those people are peripheral to the main core group. Add another list section with the heading - main Fluxus artists or the original group or just Fluxus artists, (I'll start it), and don't link them if they are already linked. I'd like you to add your expertise to the text as well, just don't talk about yourself. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- For purposes of practical applications I have moved this discussion here to Talk:Fluxus: [1]...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken - what I did today was add the word Additional to that longer list. You mention that many of those people are peripheral to the main core group. Add another list section with the heading - main Fluxus artists or the original group or just Fluxus artists, (I'll start it), and don't link them if they are already linked. I'd like you to add your expertise to the text as well, just don't talk about yourself. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Jack Ox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you. This proposed deletion was started by User:Piotrus
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack Ox 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/Jack Ox 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)