User talk:Salmon1/Herskovic archive

Welcome!

Hello, Salmon1, 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
• 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!  zephyr2k 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello zephyr2k : Thank you very much for your help. Marika Herskovic 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Marika Herskovic 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of articles on artists. Please note that there are certain guidelines for article formatting and style, and these are detailed at WP:MOS. By writing articles that don't comply, all you are doing is making work for others who have to come and clean them up. Please, before you continue, make yourself familiar with the editing and formating guidelines around here, so that your work is lasting! Akradecki 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki I am greatful for your comments. My only interest is to provide accurate information about the period of American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s. As a collector and a Ph.D. in basic medical science I have been troubled by the lack of accuracy that art history has been dealt with. What I have been writing in New Art Criticism is entirely correct yet I believe that it needs help in presenting it. If you could help me I would be greatful. Similarly I need some help with Albert Kotin as well as with The Art of This Century. I am going to delete the outside links to the books that were edited by me. Sincerely Yours, Protector 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Marika, I've cleaned up Albert Kotin a bit. If you want the New Art Criticism article to remain, I'd suggest thoroughly re-writing it in an encyclopedic style. It should start out with one or two sentences that give the reader an understanding of what the subject is. For instance, how is "new" art criticism different from any other? Give a brief, concise overview of the history under a header of "history". Another good header would be "influences". Once it is rewritten, post a note on the AfD that this has been done, and invite folks to take a second look. I'd be willing to withdraw my nom if this article becomes an informative, concise, encyclopedic article. Akradecki 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki: I have tried to think a way to alter the New Art Criticism but I have difficulty with the "wikipedia language". Please help me!!!! Sincerely Yours, Protector 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help of Albert Kotin. In the future I will try to follow your format. Sincerely Yours, Protector 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki: I thank you for your comment about the renaming to "9th St." Show. I had a problem: Clement Greenberg on the 1953 poster writes about the exhibition as "Ninth Street" Show I wanted to be reverent. Please help me to change it to "9th St. Show or Exhibition as you find better suited. Thank you. Sincerely Yours, Protector 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki: I just realized: "9th Street Art Exhibition" would be the best. Thank you. Sincerely Yours, Protector 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising your books

Please also note that Wikipedia is not a place to be promoting/advertising your books. Listing them as references might be barely acceptable (you're really not supposed to reference an external source that you yourself have written), but adding the sales links is definitely not acceptable, and is called "linkspam." Akradecki 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The books themselves are not inappropriate, it's the listing of the website where they are sold that is considered "spam". What I've done on a number of the pages where they are listed is to remove the web link, and edit the ISBN number so there's no colon in it. In wikilanguage, that automatically generates a link where an intersted party can then find an appropriate source for the books. I've edited and written a few books myself, so I know how difficult it is to tread the line at Wikipedia.

Don't worry about it...it takes some time to get used to working in the Wikipedia environment in general, and specifically in wiki markup language. You obviously have advanced knowledge of the subject, which makes you the type of person the project wants to attract. Your contributions have the potential to increase the value of the project, it's just a matter of you getting up to speed on the mechanics of article writing. Feel free to ask questions! As a note, the article Albert Kotin is now a pretty good one, and you should consider using it as a format reference. The text is well-cited (except there needs to be a citation for the Calder quote), and the lay out is typical Wikipedia style. Akradecki 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research

One of the things that is being brought up on the AfD is the issue of Original Research in your article. As you set out to improve it, keep this in mind. The way it is currently written, it sounds like you're writing your own conclusions and presenting your own information. On Wikipedia, we have to essentially only repeat information and concepts (without repeating the actual text) found in external sources. Think of it as a research paper: if you don't have a verifiable, reliable source for the material, it shouldn't be here. If you have sources for the material, make sure you use the <ref>[source info here]</ref> formatting for generating the reference citations. After you fix this problem, make sure you note in the AfD that you've corrected this and that the OR issue has been fixed by noting appropriate citations. Akradecki 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Here's a suggestion: when you include an ISBN number, please don't use a colon (:) between the ISBN and the number. The colon interupts the feature built into wikilanguage that will recognize the number and autolink it. Akradecki 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Purple is the color of links that you've visited recently, blue is the color of ones that you haven't. Works much like html links work on other sites, to let you know you've been there. Akradecki 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

All fixed. In the closing ref bracket, the slash goes before the word "ref". Putting it after does wierd things to the code! Akradecki 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New Art Criticism

As you've probably seen, the AfD for New Art Criticism ran its course and the article was deleted. Before it was, however, I saved the text to my sandbox here [1] (a sandbox is a place in your userpage environment where you can create drafts and they aren't subject to deletiong while you're building them). Anyway, it's my intention, with your help, to now rebuild the article into something that will be accepted and kept in the encyclopedia. I propose doing this, at least initially, through some dialog between the two of us. So, let me start with a couple of questons so I can better get a handle on this:

• First: How much is New Art Criticism related to the New Criticism movement in its origins? Are its tenets (such as the intent fallacy) carried over into New Art Criticsm?
• Second: What were the generalized dates that New Art Criticsm was in vogue?
• Third: Was this a world-wide critical movement, or was is primarily localized in the US? And within the US, was it just in NY, or did it flourish other places?

Ok, that's a start...awaiting your reply!! Akradecki 02:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki:

I thank you very much for your intention to write on the New Art Criticism of the post war era prevalent in the US. Someone listed "Art critics of the post-World War II era" on wikipedia.org. I think it is well written and maybe is enough for an encyclopedia. It could make an interesting book to write about the New York art criticism and the art business. There is a book titled: How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art. Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War by Serge Guilbaut. My interest is to preserve the art of the 1950s. I am unhappy about the critics but they were loved more in the 1950s by few then ever before by any artists. Thank you again. Sincerely Yours, Protector 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the link to that? 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_criticism Protector 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that this article is sufficient and the other one isn't really needed? Akradecki 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the text is sufficient. It has been explained that these pages should not be articles. Sincerely Yours, Protector 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If there's any text from the old article that you want to merge into the existing one, I'll leave it up [2] for a short time so that you can copy from it. Akradecki 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Protector 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

9th Street Art Exhibition

Dear Akradecki: May I use your sentence as an introduction. "The 9th Street Art Exhibition was a historical, ground-breaking exhibition for its time during a critical period of art history, that was a gathering of a number of notable artists." I think your definition is entirely correct. Would you add it? Sincerely Yours, Protector 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9th_Street_Art_Exhibition"

Why the changes?

Hi Marika, I'm not sure why, after I've taken a lot of time to patiently help you with several articles, you are now accusing me of having sockpuppets. I try to do what I can to help people who aren't as familiar with the system, and I thought we had a fairly good working relationship. I'm a little bothered that you have blanked your user page, blanked the talk page in the article, and created a duplicate article. You have to have a little patience with the AfD process. I know the first one didn't turn out for your article, but the second one came out fine. Creating a duplicate article was not the answer, and could be looked at by some as deliberately trying to circumvent the policies here (although, please understand, I don't think this was your intention). If you disagree with me, don't want my help, or whatever, just come and tell me on my talk page. I have no clue why you think I'm User:Modernist, but I'm not. I'm very transparent with who I am (I'm one of the few people who put my real identity on my userpage), and I have a lot of time invested in this project. Don't know why you think my statement on my userpage is a "problem". Patrolling the new pages and recent changes is considered "custodial" work, and it's generally appreciated when people take the time to help keep Wikipedia's content highly reputable. If you've not patrolled the new pages, you probably don't really appreciate the true "junk" that some people try to flood the encyclopedia with. There are several new articles submitted every minute of the day, and a good portion of them have no business on the encyclopedia. I'd still be willing to help you, should you desire it, but if not, I'm not offended. Good luck, and happy editing. (By the way, it's considered bad etiquitte to blank your talk page out.) Akradecki 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki! I am so glad about this message. This what I am talking about. This was blanked by the Modernist and I so it on his list of activities with the writing: "violation of privacy." It is real! This is what I am talking about all along. I was very upset because we checked my message on your site and we found that the part explaining how I found out that Modernist and Ronnie Landfield are the same was missing. I also knew that you already saw it. It was not funny yet it was sad. This is strange to be involved in this kind of activity. Sincerely Yours: Salmon1

No personal attacks

If you have a grievance against User:Modernist, please pursue it only through appropriate channels. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you feel that something has reached the level where it calls for immediate administrator intervention, you can bring it to WP:AN/I, but expect that your own conduct will probably be examined as much as his.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your response. To see the quality of my contributions (which started on September 13, 2006 on wikipedia) please look at 9th Street Exhibitions; Albert Kotin; The Art of This Century Gallery; and contribution to Art criticism-on the post World War II era. My two books are available at Amazon.com under my name Marika Herskovic. I hope to continue to contribute to wikipedia. To describe myself: I earned my Ph.D. in 1979 at NYU Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. I have edited 27 art videos which were shown on cable TV and were listed in "Art on Screen,-A joint venture of The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Trust." I have spent the past two decades documenting the New York Painting and Sculpture Annuals, the participating artists and their art. To be collegial is necessary in all endeavors. In this field maybe the freedom allows for more contention. I must admit that in this short time I came in contact with some dedicated and well meaning people and I am grateful for that. I did change my user name to Protector and now to Salmon1. Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely Yours, Marika Herskovic, User:Marika Herskovic 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

I have restored deleted content from this page Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing your name

I'm nost sure what's going on, but you are signing your name in at least three different ways. This is not correct, it leads to confusion. The last post you made you signed with Salmon1 - that is not a user name - it's an article you created which has been tagged for deletion. You also have signed as Protector - but there is already a User:Protector you should not pretened to be that person - using misleading signatures is not good - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Signatures --ArmadilloFromHell 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)