User talk:Artdoofus

Welcome!

Hello, Artdoofus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Chawky Frenn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chawky Frenn. Thanks! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your cleaning up my first page

@Nathan2055: Thanks! How do I start a "new" draft page in my Sandbox?

AfC notification: Draft:Chawky Frenn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chawky Frenn. Thanks! Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations

@Otr500 - Thank you for your great recommendations! I'm new at this... so learning and I appreciate the constructive criticism.... I've followed your recommendations and updated the draft...

January 2019

Hello, I'm Mahveotm. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Draft:Chawky Frenn— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mahveotm (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Tips on articles

Thanks for contributing articles! However, your recent articles tend to resemble resumes or artist bios more than encyclopedia articles, which can make them appear promotional (WP:NOTPROMO) and prone to deletion discussions. Articles should generally be written primarily in prose and paragraphs, not bullet point lists. Exhaustive listings of every art piece, exhibition, or collection holding are generally not encyclopedic (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Section headings like "Critical Acclaim" risk violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as do "Controversy" sections (see WP:CRITS): rather than devote sections to positive and negative coverage (which can become magnets for additions disproportionate to their importance to the overall subject), a subject's accomplishments and reactions should be fairly discussed throughout the article. (winning "Best in show" for a minor, non-noteworthy, or fleeting trivia may be verifiable yet not worth mentioning). Vague statements like "internationally acclaimed" should be replaced with more objective, concrete examples (see WP:PUFFERY) to maintain a formal, fact-based tone. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Animalparty: Thank you for your great input! What I've been doing is going through Wikipedia pages that have been already published by someone else and copying their style, clearly under the false assumption on my part that those pages were in an "approved" style for notable artists' pages. It won't happen again - I will follow your input... Q: IRT your note for "internationally acclaimed" - I was basing that on that description in several external sources, including international external sources? But I think that in this case perhaps you mean (by concrete example) something like that major London prize??? And instead of "Critical acclaim" - would "Critical Comments" work??"... Thanks again for taking the time to review and your recommendations! Artcontrarian (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Artcontrarian", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent a website. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Artcontrarian name - whodda thunk it??

Thank you for leaving a note about my username in possible conflict because it appears to represent a website - just googled it and found a blogger in Seattle... I'm in Washington, DC (the other Washington :-), but I get your point and I don't want to erroneously be associated with whoever that gent in Seattle is, so will ask for a name change request and be safe ---- Appreciate suggestion!

Not "that" Art Contrarian--Artcontrarian (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for your addition to the "List of Puerto Ricans". However, said addition was removed because the following rules of inclusion were not followed:

Read carefully before adding a name to this list! This list should contain the names of persons who meet the pre-established Notability criteria, even if the person does not have an article yet. Additions to the list must be listed in the section which best describes the field for which the person is most notable and in alphabetical order by surname.

Each addition to the list must also provide a reliable verifiable source which cites the person's notability and/or the person's link to Puerto Rico, otherwise the name will be removed.

Note:

Websites such as Wikipedia, IMDb, You Tube, Facebook, MySpace and personal websites which anyone can edit are not considered reliable verifiable sources per Wikipedia policy.

You may re-add the name once more provided that you cite reliable sources in regard to the subjects notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Wilmer Wilson IV) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Wilmer Wilson IV.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Artwork exhibited in multiple major museums, articles written specifically about him, multiple reliable sources (plus a bunch of others), how did nobody approve this already?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Gatemansgc}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 19:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Gatemansgc : Thank you for your note! Artdoofus (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Michele Banks) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Michele Banks.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Michele Banks.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: - Thank you! Much appreciated! --Artdoofus (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I had to remove some content in Nestor Hernández which appeared to have been copied from this source. Copyright is something that we have to take very seriously on Wikipedia, as it is only by continuing to respect copyright laws that we are allowed to maintain the website. Now that I have removed the content there is no need for further action on this article (unless you wanted to reintroduce some of the information removed using your own words), but please be aware that if you continue to violate copyright in the future it could result in the loss of editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: - Thank you for your advice - I must admit that I'm a bit surprised that a list of publications is considered a copyright violation? That's a pretty tight corner - but please accept my apologies and lesson learned - I did not intend to violate any copyright and I will take your advice and will reintroduce the information (or the list) in a different sequence?? In any event, please be assured that I will be more careful and that I appreciate your time and effort. --Artdoofus (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Artdoofus, lists of things can often be a borderline case for copyvio, as can paragraphs that include lots of namedropping. What made me think that this example crossed the line was 1) the inclusion of specific examples beyond just "here's a list of places Hernández's work has been shown", 2) the length of the segments of unbroken content that was copied from a source, and 3) that the list of examples does not present itself as exhaustive, and thus appears to in effect copy the original source's editorial choices of which exhibitions and examples to highlight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: - Thanks for the quick comeback. Lesson learned for me! I appreciate the feedback. --Artdoofus (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: - I've redone the offending area by finding multiple RS for each paper/magazine on the list... the interesting thing is that nearly all the references have the exact same "order" - which seems to imply that they were all copied from an original source - probably Hernandez's CV? I also found a "new" one for the list.

Barbara Januszkiewicz

Hello! Just a question: why did you recreate Barbara Januszkiewicz, when it was deleted via deletion discussion a few months ago? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:- Ahhhhh… I had no idea... what was the problem? She's a pretty vocal and well-known DC area artist... is she banned for something? If so I have no issue deleting the article. --Artdoofus (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It is all taken care of, deleted. The notice "A previous version of this page was deleted" would have come up when you made the article.23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: ---> Got it --- time wasted but lesson learned - is there a way to find out why she was "banned"??? --Artdoofus (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"she" was not banned, the article was deleted. It was a product of long term promotional editing of a subject that did not meet the notability standards. See the AFD discussion. As described above, if you want to see why any page was deleted, click on the red "create article" link, and the creation/delete history will come up in a red block. All edits and page creations and deletions are logged in Wikipedia, with the exception of a very tiny percentage of edits that are deleted/hidden by administrators. Edit histories are basically transparent here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad sources

Hello! I have a suggestion for you: take a close look at WP:RS. I see that you have used poor sources many times in the articles you are creating. New articles on notable subjects are welcomed! However if another editor has to go through and clean up bad sourcing, that is less than desirable. In Marily Mojica, for example, I have checked three sources and none are a) independent of the subject and b) published in a reliable publication and c) in-depth coverage. In the above article, your first source is this page selling her paintings. That is a very bad source, per the above. At the same time, I see you have sources in some of your articles form the Washington Post: these are great, as they are independent and reliable. Try to resist the urge to use any source that mentions to stack the article full of sources. Event announcements are basically worthless beyond confirming that the event happened. Something like this one, "BEST OF Bethesda Magazine 2018 Editors’ Pick, Best Place to Experience Art!!" is also extremely weak as it is obviously trying to promote something. Anything that lacks substance, looks promotional, is trying to sell something, is published by a related business or person, or is self published should be avoided like the plague. I sometimes use Museum event listings myself, but they can be considered to be more independent as a museum is a kind of publishing house. Anyway, just a few words of advice as you look like you could become a good editor. But... I would advise tightening up on how discriminating you are when choosing sources! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at Nate Lewis (artist) now, where I see:

• PRweb. We do not use this. It is advertising.
• ISSUU. This is self-published. You should have gotten a warning when adding this, that you had to bypass in order to add it.
• Wordpress site: Anyone can make one of these, which is why we do not use them.
• This event announcement from "collegeschoollistings.com", which is just republished junk.

From the page Shanthi Chandrasekar:

• you have used her self-published member page for a local group as a source. Not independent or reliable as she can say anything she likes on it.

On the page Michele Banks:

• you have used this source for a claim, but the article subject is not even mentioned on the page.
• you have use an announcement for her thesis defense to say she had a residency at the place. So this ref has nothing to do with the claim.

On Alessandra Torres:

• you have used her CV as a source. That is the definition of a bad source.
• for the exhibition claim "2011 Personal Space, Interlochen Center for the Arts, Interlochen, Michigan[12]", you give the source as the generic website for the school. That also tells me it's an undergrad show, which tells me someone is trying to puff up the subject's notability.

Over at Chawky Frenn:

• Epub, a file hosting web site as a source
• a file hosted on Google Sites as a source,
• Askart.com auction prices used as a source,
• onefineart.com, which says "Artists! This is your online gallery, whatever your talent, this is the place to display samples of your work!" used as a source,
• for the exhibition claim "Convergence: New Art From Lebanon. The Katzen American University Museum. Washington, DC", you had a source that didn't mention the artist or the "gallery".

I have deleted all of the above edits. Clearly you have a problem with identifying what is a good or bad source. Please take a very close look at WP:RS if you continue to make articles, as continuing to add such clearly bad sources to articles is considered disruptive. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: - First of all: thank you for taking the time for all the constructive criticism - it is really helpful. Here's my takeaway from what I read: (1) avoid artist's own websites as RS. (2) Here's what is hard to navigate: If the requirement is that every single art show has to have an RS - often a listing is the only online source, as not ever show is reviewed and thus the "substance" is the issue - but I hear your overall point, and note your comment about museum listings.

One thing: I did not get any warning with ISUU??? I regret to say that I've used and see a lot of ISUU references in Wikipedia??? Also, the Washington Informer is not self published junk - it is a respected African American newspaper here in DC. In any event: "Do not use ISUU" - got it.

Honestly - I am a bit deflated by all the "hits" that you found - it is especially deflating when pages like Mona A. El-Bayoumi exist without any "issues" from editors --- an article which I even tried to "beef up" in the past, and yet lacks any of the things/substance that you note above - and yet stays on without anyone fine tuning it to the degree which you have re-tuned the above pages.

I started this Wikipedia thing after I retired as a "project" to add well-known, deserving, notable but marginalized artists from the DC region - now I'm thinking of just hanging this whole thing up... all those now-deleted references were not done out of malice or to disrupt - they were done after I looked at 100s of artists' articles in Wikipedia and noted (as you probably know) that there are a LOT of what I now I know/am told are badly sourced (or even more without any sources at all) which for whatever reason have not faced the scrutiny which they probably should have faced.

I meant it when I said thank you for your time - it is clear that you took quite a bit to review those pages and in every case noted issues --- I am sure that your decision is justified - it is just very disheartening and hard to recover from - I suspect that Wikipedia is lucky to have dedicated editors like you, and others which have helped me in the past like @Lopifalko: and others...--Artdoofus (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Marily Mojica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marily Mojica 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/Marily Mojica 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. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)