User talk:Judyholliday

Welcome!

Hello, Judyholliday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DVD+ R/W 22:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For Your Work on Andy Warhol, a Flower

Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

MECU's Tulip Flower Photo

Vaginal Davis

Good work on the editing of the Vaginal Davis page. As you know, separating fact from fancy is rather difficult. One thing I would note, though, is that there is a recent trend in Wikipedia disapproving of trivia sections -- see WP:TRIVIA, and suggesting rather that those facts which are important be incorporated into the main body of articles, or reorganized into more narrowly focused lists.--Larrybob 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy Name

Hello there. You seem to be interested in Warhol and to have materials on him. Could you possibly take a look at the article on Billy Name (one of his superstars or hangers-on or whatever)? It seems dreadful in various ways (see its talk page too), but I lack the reference materials or (sorry) the interest that would let me fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving Andy Warhol

Hi, JH! I posted a response to your July comment in the Andy Warhol talk section. My suggestion is to attack the Warhol article a section at a time, and within each section, a paragraph at a time. There are several benefits to this. First, changing an entire section overnight isn't feasible given the hornet's nest that would stir. Second, the length of this article and difficulty of the subject make a wholesale approach daunting and given the first point, not likely to fly (too many people rightfully have a "stake" in the article). Third and also related, the wiki approach doesn't lend itself to this kind of "originality." The exception is new articles, which generally do not involve broad collaborations.

The section/paragraph approach would be work as follows: The lead would summarize the section. So for the 1960s, the open would read something like "The 1960s saw Andy Warhol transition from a highly-regarded commercial illustrator to one of the century's most successful - and controversial - artists. It was also his most productive period creatively in terms of originality...etc." From there, each successive paragraph would lay out the chronology, for example, the bridge from his 50s drawings to his early experiments with pop art, his first forays with iconic subjects, the tabloid photos, the soup can/supermarket series, his early portraits, the focus on film, then the shooting. In some cases, it might take several paragraphs to cover the thought, but in any event, each fact reported would be a "top layer" item. No trivial enounters or sidebars. And, of course, everything must be sourced, or as I prefer, multi-sourced and single cited. Also, to make clear, each paragraph would be written, vetted, and inserted individually, replacing existing material that covers similar ground.

Frankly, the usual wiki process of working in relative isolation and adding a fact or edit at a time just doesn't cut it for improving a "mature" piece like this one. What I think might work is to build a list of the prime facts (something like a timeline), reach agreement amongst the collaborators that this is what needs to be said (along with conclusions/implications), and then use these points to build the paragraphs. I don't think it would take an "authority" to do this, either, just some able editors and solid sources, of which there are many on both fronts. By the way, I'm two years new to Wikipedia, but I have a fair amount of writing experience and a thorough knowledge of Warhol's work. (I've dated and sourced 95% of his art from 1960-87, though I'm only generally conversant with his life.)

I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. 72.237.31.195 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I was signed in but got bumped in the time it took me to write the above. Also, I did a quick edit to replace a poor choice of words. And now, here's the sig... Allreet (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.