User talk:Art4em

Hello Art4em! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tyrenius 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click on "show" to open contents.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hedrick flag c.1953.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Wally lawnpolo.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Wally lawnpolo.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Wally lawnpolo.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hedrick blackptg.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Merry Karnowsky, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Clamster 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.ragedsage.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wh war room2.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Wh war room2.JPG. The copy called Image:Wh war room2.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 07:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shiftingslogans.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted as one which promotes a person and requires a rewrite to conform to wikipedia requirements. Please also see WP:COI.

Kindly do not keep reposting this article. It is clearly promotional, exulting the subject and a conflict of interest. Please see also WP:AUTO. You are welcome to contribute to other articles. Tyrenius 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am new so I am all apologies if I read that the article could be rewritten, which I did -- to its original state. All the references are clearly marked and verifiable. Therefore I do not understand -- could you please make a suggestion since it meets all the criteria?

Thank you! and your assistance in this matter! --Art4em 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made numerous editorial comments at your suggestion -- thank you. I appreciate your input.

1. Names: I have deleted any names not found in wikipedia -- for instance, the famous iconoclastic sculptor: Dale Eldred -- a legend at MIT. Why he is not found here is another unwritten counter-cultural mystery.

2. Removed the few 'bold' type in Artworks.

Is there anything else? I look forward to your excellent comments and suggestions...

3. I would like to add the "RAT BASTARD PROTECTION AGENCY' to wikipedia. Does this meet with your approval. It is one of the great underground, lowbrow, beat institutions in San Francisco in the 60's. Please advise if ok.

--Art4em 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the article in your own user space (i.e. not in article space) at User:Art4em/Draft 1. This is so you can work on it, and if other editors approve, it can be put back into article space.

At the moment it reads as a self-congratulatory, self-aggrandising, promotional piece, and this is not supported by verifiable references. Just two examples:

"He is often acknowledged as being an important young 21st Century artist" - this is NOT supported by the references supplied.

"maverick artistic temperament" - what's the source for this?

You need to study proper use of references, as in the guide above. Also look at WP:FA to see the best articles and use them as a model. Look at formatting and section layout. For example, bold text is only used for the name in the lead section, not later in the main text.

It is not a question of size, but of writing from a [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] with facts, not speculation and interpretation, and, furthermore, of referencing those facts.

You may also want to consult with User:Freshacconci, who first drew attention to the article.

At such time if and when it is ready, it will have to be transferred with the proper move function (and the resulting redirect removed), not copied and pasted. This is necessary to preserve the edit history for GFDL purposes.

PS I would like to see a good coverage of lowbrow and associated art, and would welcome your contribution here, but it needs to be in line with wiki writing, which is basically factual and plain, understated rather than over.

Tyrenius 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see! yes...understated will be my mantra! That is all that I was looking for! That was my error. I will comply!

Thank you! I will consult Freshacconci per your request!

And I will address your suggestion: Lowbow et al, with your permission.

Also, I will just post the LG Williams simply == understated == with your permission until i consult Freshacconci. Is that ok?

Thank you for the newbie mistakes -- I appreciate it.

--Art4em 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)--Art4em 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have your permission to load a mini LG Williams until a larger version gets your (2) ok's?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter! --Art4em 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously recommend that before you post anything, you create it on a draft page and consult. You can create another draft page if you want. Everything doesn't have to be done the day before yesterday. Tyrenius 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice headed: as I said, "I will await your approval" before posting something more than a stub.

TY!--Art4em 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you are able to grant a GFDL licence for this image, unless it is your original work? Also for Image:MerryKarnowsky.jpg -- Tyrenius 02:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your querry. I am a new here, all apologies.

Answer: Correct, yes it is my original work. Anything else? Ty! User:Art4em

The Hedrick image can't be your original work, unless you are Hedrick. Are you Hedrick? The copyright is with the original artist. If you are not the artist, then a fair use claim will have to be made for the use of the image. Here is a sample text which can be copied, adapted and pasted: User:Tyrenius/Image_FU#Fair_use_rational_for_artwork Above it you will need to specify whose copyright the original is, and where the image was obtained. If you are the photographer, specify that.

You have put the source for the MerryKarnowsky image as the MK gallery, but the image doesn't appear on it. Is it your own photo? In this case, the licence should be {{GFDL-self}}.

Tyrenius 03:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Hedrick photograph is mine. And the collector of the painting, a dear friend, gave permission.

What is your suggestion?

Thank you!

--Art4em 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is that the copyright of the painting belongs to the artist, so you will have to remove the GFDL tag and change it for a Fair Use one, as I've specified above.

And the MK image?

Tyrenius 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty again. I have taken care of the two images in question -- I hope correctly. Thank you for your assistance.

--Art4em 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hedrick blackptg.gif You have to provide a specific Fair Use rationale in addition to the template. Please read what I write here!!!!! as above -

a fair use claim will have to be made for the use of the image. Here is a sample text which can be copied, adapted and pasted: User:Tyrenius/Image_FU#Fair_use_rational_for_artwork Above it you will need to specify whose copyright the original is, and where the image was obtained. If you are the photographer, specify that.

If the image comes from a web site, then you need to specify the URL. Tyrenius 03:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MerryKarnowsky.jpg OK, you, User:Art4em are the photographer of this work and hold the copyright, which you are releasing under GFDL. Please note, that this means anyone can use it for any purpose and modify it, providing they credit you, and conform to GFDL requirement, which are quite onerous really: they have to include a copy of the GFDL document when they use the image, for example. In this case you can delete the infomation in "Summary", as the MK gallery source is inaccurate. If you want to keep Photographer: lgofbeverlyhills, you can do so. If you want this name to be credited, you should make that clear. Tyrenius 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your edit, and you have simply replaced it.[1] We do not allow original research. The only reference given is a press release. This is not an acceptable reference. Wikipedia is not a lauching pad for personal theories. If you think it should be in the article, then put it on the article talk page for other editors to assess. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I am sorry for the confusion, because you said I could post other than LG Williams (a short version I would like to post now till I get your permission to elaborate -- understatedly. I will reference the Press Release and the Book reference with your permission! Is this ok?

Thank you and cheers! Appreciatively!

--Art4em 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean reference the press release in the LGW article? By the way, it should be the proper name normally, or is LW Williams always used? There is a case in the LGW for saying that that LGW has issued this press release with this theory, but not in any way suggesting more than that, i.e. the article should not imply approval or validation for the theory. Tyrenius 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty for your additional comments, and I am happy to address them:

1. I will reference the article with (A) book citation information and (B) pr. The later I only include, with your editorial permission of course, because it is a valuable online resource pertainting to the discussion at hand.

2. Name Citation: Yes, indeed -- LG WIlliams is the proper name, "always" used.

Thank you for your valued assistance!

--Art4em 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you have reverted the same material to your version 3 times.[2] You are about to break the 3 revert rule, which can lead to being blocked from editing. Edit warring can lead to being blocked anyway. Please discuss on the article talk page, and do not insert material which has no substantial reference, which is original research and also a conflict of interest. Tyrenius 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. However, yes, as you suggested above, I did repost with the book / publication citation information + in additon to the other citation: (1) Author (2) Book Title (3) Publishing Date (4) Publisher. In any event, thank you for message, I will consult with that pages editors per your suggestion. --Art4em 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredibly irritating when I post questions, and you don't answer them, then just post a stub article anyway. The questions above need answers or material is going to get deleted. Tyrenius 05:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I am so sorry about the frustration - please accept my apologies. Indeed, I was reviewing the wiki protocols you suggested -- which were very helpful!

1. I changed the copyright to 'Merry Karnowsky' as you suggested to "self". Thank you for your suggestion.

2. I am looking for the correct code for the other 'Hedrick' image, which I wil change momentarily. Ty!

3. I am going to load up the 'Mona Lisa' 3 sentences with book reference added. Ty.

4. Working on 'Williams' draft.

Thank you for your assistance -- I am looking forward to making a modest contribution, as you suggested, to the (A) Beat Art, (B) Lowbrow Art movements -- and I hope I can turn your frustration into reward.

--Art4em 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mona Lisa material is not acceptable, is original research, lacking sufficient references. See WP:3rr above. As for other matters, it's up to you to write according to wiki requirements from a neutral point of view and referencing material. Tyrenius 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am requesting your approval for User:Art4em/Draft 1 to be posted -- and uploaded with the specific function you outlined above to preserve GFDL. --Art4em 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. Sort refs for a start so they are inline with <ref> code. At the moment there's a mixture of inline citations with direct external links in the text. The latter need to be changed so the link is within ref format. Tyrenius 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! I really appreciate your participation and commentary. Will do immediately. --Art4em 00:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I was happy to help out with some formatting. The article is coming along well.Best of luck. Truthanado 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! Nice to hear a friendly voice. Could I ask you visit this page: Wally Hedrick. Wally was a Rat Bastard, too! Thanks again, appreciatively, --Art4em 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of the "Using references (citations)" guide above, to see how to format a reference. For a newspaper, which is online:

<ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref>

Note the title of the story is in double quotes (because the title is a quote from the paper), within the square brackets. "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed it.

If it's a web site, you can put the name of the site instead of the name of the paper.

Also it's not usual to quote chunks of text in the footnotes. If it's important, it should go in the article, or be paraphrased in the article.

If you use a source more than once as a reference, then give it a name the first time you use it:

<ref name=smith> ''Details of reference as normal'' </ref>

The second time or subsequent times you use the same reference in the article, you need only to use the name as a short cut:

<ref name=smith/>

Don't forget the / or subsequent text won't appear!

Don't write text in upper case.

Tyrenius 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TY! I am so sorry for the trouble -- but I appreciate your words and assistance. Will revisit and comply! ty! --Art4em 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complicated business, but you are doing well, so I thought you might like to hone your skills that extra bit. Tyrenius 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- that was very kind. Onward! --Art4em 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ts pirates.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Tspirates.jpg. The copy called Image:Tspirates.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 04:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article and talk page per your request. I can't say I appreciate the aggressive comments you made on the talk page. You may not realise it, but bold capitals are equivalent to shouting: see WP:TPG. Continuation of this is likely to be regarded as uncivil behaviour which can lead to being blocked. I am glad you have worked it all out, and will be able to forge ahead on your own now. Also you might like to consider the relative notability of "LG Williams artist" as in 624 google hits[3] and "Damien Hirst artist" as in 1,120,000 google hits.[4] Tyrenius 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad about the all caps...eecks! Thanks for the move! I'm finished with the article, but will attend to the footnotes per you specifications! ty!

) --Art4em 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ts.pirates.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited "Manuel Neri" to state that he was simply a member of the Six Gallery rather than a founding one. I've also removed the sentence on Alan Ginsberg, etc, though I have kept in a link to the Six Gallery reading. At some point, I'd like to figure out exactly what Neri's role in the Six Gallery was based on a consensus of information given in Cowert's book and in "Smithsonian Archives of American Art: Oral History Interview with Wally Hedrick", and base any statement in the Wikipedia article on a consensus of the two. Peter G Werner 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:6 announce.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Treasures moviepstr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:LGW supersize 04.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about supplying citations for statements that are common knowledge, but not officially documented. The answer can be found at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, it's not enough that the statements are true, they have to have been published by a reliable source. Unsourced information shouldn't be left in an article for too long. Although this can be frustrating, it does mean that the quality of the encyclopedia is maintained. I hope that helps.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce-conner-rolls.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2002 rpba edict 01.22.2002.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'd be happy to do other copyedits if you need them. Graham87 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ratbastard seal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the comments you have made in the above section. They blatantly violate WP:NPA, which is an official policy. You might like to take a look at Wikipedia:NPA#Consequences_of_personal_attacks. I would be grateful if you withdraw your remarks. If you persist in such coments, I will take it further. What you say is completely inaccurate. I'm not questioning your sources or trying to undermine the article - quite the opposite. It needs to conform to WP:MOS to improve it. I see above on this page that I have given you a lot of time and information to help you to create content. I have also warned you about aggressive communication. I recognise you have done great work on Wally Hedrick, but there are certain aspects which don't conform to wikipedia guidelines, some of which John is more informed about than me. You should be glad that people are willing to help out. This is a collaborative project and other editors will intervene and point out where writing falls short. This is something you can learn from, and not treat everything as some attempt to sabotage the article. Please see WP:AGF: it goes a long way. Tyrenius (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your remark on User talk:John - you're an editor. Do something about it. Edit the article on Koons. Tyrenius (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think the Duchamp postcard would be a logical choice to come first after Leonardo out of the two or three hundred quotations of Mona Lisa in art, not counting advertising. I for sure don't know enough about art to weigh and choose among hundreds of works of art. No need to ask me if you want to restore football. At the time it looked low on the totem pole. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have references to validate that your picture is in popular culture and of note? Tyrenius (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, may I suggest you go and look at the Wally page for the last absurd citation request that I recieved from your buddy, so you can learn from his subsequent candid mistakes and acknowledgments...since I don't have the time right now to make you look like a fool again, too.

Btw, do you need a list of minor league pages that need major league attention? I would start with Jeff Koons. Wally Hedrick 130 citations -- Jeff Koons 0. Ok, I guess you don't have the merit or nerve to break some bread there -- since I am proving you and ur buddy petty one citation request at a time. Ty in advance --Art4em (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the info will not stay in the article (Mona Lisa) without a reference. Please don't keep on making comparisons with other articles. This is known already and is irrelevant. One of the reasons that attention is being paid to this article is that you have done so much excellent work on it that it merits being taken to the best wiki standard, and you don't have the experience of wiki to do that. Other editors do. It has the potential to become a WP:FA (check it out and also WP:FA?) and even appear on the main page of wikipedia. Koons etc are nowhere near that standard. Tyrenius (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's do this! I am procurring images, information and citations for 1970-2005. Appreciatively, --Art4em (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas is a very recent Featured Article and will appear on the main page tomorrow. It gives a very general idea of a page's appearance, structure, headings, image placement and so on. I trust you will understand why editors have made certain changes to this article. That is no fault of yours, as there is a lot to learn, but it makes sense to take advantage of experienced editors, whose only interest is to make the article better for wikipedia. Tyrenius (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've made me look like a fool [5] for conceding a point to avoid a protracted argument that wasn't doing the relevant article any good [6]. Well done you. I can only assume your response [7] was insincere. Please remember that the encyclopedia is also a collaborative community, and try to recognise when people are trying to help you out, rather than looking for opportunities for point scoring.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:2007.03.01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:2007.04.01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Btmfellout sm 01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:House sm.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Btmfellout sm.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:2007.05.01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cononaphoto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of House Where The Bottom Fell Out (LG Williams), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: House Where The Bottom Fell Out. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this message was generated as a by-product of your renaming the page. In order to rename a page, please use the "move" button at the top of the page, rather than copy/pasting to the new title. "Move" moves the editing history as well the current article content which is essential for copyright purposes. CIreland (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hedrick_blackpainting.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with this image is that it may be a copyright violation. It is your photo, but the photo is a derivative work of the painting. The copyright on the painting usually lies with the artist that created the painting, which appears to be Wally Hedrick. When I tagged the image, a GFDL tag was on the description page. I see you have changed the tag to Non-free 2D art, which solves the issue of the GFDL tag but presents two more issues. The first is that the image is not used in any articles. Orphan images are not usually kept on Wikipedia, whatever their copyright status might be. A fair use image cannot stay on Wikipedia if the image is an orphan as that is a copyright violation. To keep the non-free image in must meet all 10 criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The second issue is that the image will need a fair use rationale to justify why the image should be used in the article. -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hedrick blackpainting.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to link the image into a relevant article. The image cannot stay on Wikipedia if it is not attached to an article -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hedrick blackptg.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is the image that was in use on the page, the other image was not used anywhere and I deleted it tonight as a duplicate of this one. However, this copy still needs a rationale. ~ BigrTex 01:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, however I am confused...the picture clearly is in use in the article...if I am missing something, i would appreciate a simple explanation...thank you --Art4em (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:6 announce.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't really involved with the article; I just noticed the article on a list of candidates for speedy deletion, saw that you had removed the speedy deletion notice from he article, and re-added it. (The proper action was to put the {{hangon}} tag under the existing deletion notice and not to replace the tag with it, so that the administrator looking at the article can see why it has been nominated for speedy deletion.) Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most textbooks are not notable; they are evanescent as snowflakes. A workbook about a textbook is mindbogglingly unlikely to develop notability of any kind, barring some kind of bizarre Adulterer's Bible-style scandal. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that scandel to my attention! Appreciatively, --Art4em (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Debate (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article L. G. Williams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Debate (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Party Down Scandal (LG Williams), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Debate (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.thoseaffected.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.ragedsage.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shiftingslogans.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg bosandbot.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg rv.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.helpwanted.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.whatistand4.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg.partydown.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2007.01.02.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:LGW supersize 04.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lgwilliams.com 2004mona.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cononaphoto.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DUA New Cover ver1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much of those articles maintained a promotional tone that it was difficult to see the real value in them. For each individual separate article, an encyclopedic tonemust be maintained, and they should each have 3rd party, nontrivial, verifiable and reliable sources. Even if LG Williams is notable, some of the events which had their own articles may not have been notable enough to actually merit separate articles. This is an encyclopedia that documents subjects of the real world, not a promotional website to hype up one's favorite subjects. After reviewing the notability standards and other policies on tone, etc., try working on your articles so as to be on par with other good articles. (Note: If you see something that does not belong here, don't use it as a reference or guide, but mark it for its errors and problems, using appropriate templates to do so.) Feel free to contact me with any more questions. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on Talk:House where the Bottom Fell out: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your comments...thank you. May I ask you a question? So am I to understand that you are condoning demonstrated ignorance and prejudice at the expense of proven facts and notability? Please explain...--Art4em (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to maintain civility, please direct your comments towards the content in dispute, and not the editor(s) involved -- unless another editor breeches civility or other conduct-related guidelines; in which case there are steps to be taken. Labelling as hoax or similar is not a personal assault, even if you feel it is unwarranted. Best to familiarize yourself with notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic tone. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, although I DO NOT appreciate the lecture since you are obviously a very late comer to the discussion. In fact, it clearly convey's your complete lack of understanding on the issues and matters at hand -- which seems to be the norm around here. Moreover, if I were to appear upon somebody's discussion, I would research the matter not just deliver a platitude. It is insulting and vulgar, period. I hope I am clear.

I would be glad to comment on Debate comments...his name is debate but has NEVER once been accountable for the ignorant comments. So let me just site the obvious:

1. He listed my entire Wally Hedrick article as a 'hoax'. This error is beyond ignorance, it is clearly motivated by (a) stupidity or (b) some philistine agenda. It can only be a or b. Clearly it is contemptible. Moreover, the wiki community has NOT held this 'editor' accountable for the ridiculous comments / slander prejudice, period against the article.

2. Similarly, he labeled / deleted my Party Down article as a hoax. This error is beyond ignorance, it is clearly motivated by (a) stupidity or (b) some philistine agenda. It can only be a or b. Clearly it is contemptible. Moreover, the wiki community has NOT held this 'editor' accountable for the ridiculous comments / slander prejudice, period against the article.

ADDITIONALLY, since the 'editor' did not achieve his goal of deleting the page the first time, the 'editor' tried another route, 'notability'. With this route, he tried to bring the entire University of California journalism department into question which is absurd. Again, the wiki community has NOT held this 'editor' accountable for the ridiculous comments / slander prejudice, period against the learned publication and citation. Also, the learned comments by the article's supporter's were NEVER debated or brought into the discussion -- Debate just deleted them. Again, the wiki community has NOT held this 'editor' accountable for the ridiculous comments / slander prejudice, period against the comments.

The wiki community's defense of Debate's ignorance and lack of debate is clearly in evidence. --Art4em (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like "is beyond ignorance", "...motivated by (a) stupidity or (b) some philistine agenda...", and "it is contemptible" are inflammatory. There are no constructive or actionable implications to such statements. I don't need to know the technical issues involved to know when a user is being uncivil. Temper yourself, remain dispassionate if necessary, but do not inflame or insult others directly. We do have behavioral guidelines for the benefit of everyone in the community. These protect you as well as others from unnecessary stress and detraction from progress here. Consistent personal attacks or insults are deemed by the community as a whole to be unacceptable behavior, and administrators are permitted to respond appropriately; this is the limit of my role thus far. This is not a delivery of platitudes; it's a friendly notification that personal affronts are unacceptable. I hope this is clear. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I would like to point out that you have the cart in front of the horse.

But thank you for acknowledging that you do NOT know the facts surrounding the issue.

Now, then: I am awaiting your comments on Debate's many errors, or do you want to condone the obvious errors, ignorance and prejudice? Or maybe you have some other diplomatic term for such plain contempt for facts? Thank you. Respectfully -- --Art4em (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in fact two separate issues, not conjoined as cart and horse. You could be 100% right here, but continual violations of behavior policies and guidelines could result in your temporary or even permanent loss of editing privileges. I am trusting that you're definitely intelligent and mature enough to avoid this ever getting to that level.

So then, let's separate the issues. Addressing the content, it seems as if User:Debate has articulately expressed his (her?) refutations of all of the sources that were provided. Additionally, I do not see that User:Debate has ever edited the Wally Hedrick article, so I can't guess as to why you'd say he marked it as a hoax. If you are sincere, and not POV-pushing, you can continue to search for sources that meet our guidelines. Even if your article does get deleted, you can ask for a deletion review when you have more convincing sources.

I await your reply. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I very much accept you willingness to address the 'content' of the charges at hand. Thank you. However, I find it a clear violation of my rights to have to REWRITE MY COMMENTS again and again -- they were deleted by Debate without any debate; despite my clear request to be heard out. In fact, there were many commentators whose positive comments were deleted off-hand by, so-called, Debate. That in itself is another violation against my wiki rights and wiki pages. Voices were NOT headed but deleted. I urge you to address this clear abuse.

Now then, you can clearly look at Debate's first instance of abuse with his comment in the Wally Hedrick discussion page:

Art4em Hoaxes:

As far as I can tell the vast majority of Art4em's contributions appear to be hoaxes. If anyone more knowledgeable about the subject than I can scan an eye over his/her edits that would be much appreciated. Debate (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite some disagreements about the style of the article, Art4em's contribution to this article has been constructive and well-intentioned. The sources are genuine, and Wally Hedrick is a notable subject for an article, and definitely not a hoax.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now then, User:Ethicoaestheticist chimed in immediately and snuffed out Debate's errors, yet Debate was NOT warned about his inappropriate behavior, slander or insults -- despite his demonstrated ignorance on matters of art -- in fact, this may be his first foray into the field. Do I need to continue? I perfer to stop here because clearly there was NOT one hoax here, despite Debate claim that there was in fact "HOAXES". There was none, there never was. Moreover, all the subsequent debate was deleted, period -- despite no evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, good friend Tony, notice what User:Ethicoaestheticist said:

1. Constructive, hello!

2. Well Intentioned, hello!

3. Sources Genuine, hello!

Is there any mention by a learned art editor, User:Ethicoaestheticist of 'hoax' or 'fraudulant'??? NO. Why not I ask you?

Next, to many reader's disbelief, Debate tried another route: 'notablity'. What does he know about notablity in art? True, I love and champion iconoclasts of highest order, but Debate has never contributed to any art articles before? Moreover, to refresh all the deleted comments by all the astute editors which Debate quickly deleted, he went on to trash such 'notable' people and comments from the following sources: San Francisco Chronicle, University of California, Wadsworth Press, Village Voice, East Bay Express, Bay Guardian, Sacramento Bee, etc, etc, etc.

By the way, with all due respect to User:Ethicoaestheticist, I wrote and initiated the Wally Hedrick page myself -- not "contributed" -- despite strong objections to the "most important artist" Jerry Garcia ever met.

What other info do you need to reprimand User:Debate immediately for bias and hostile abuse -- not to mention deleting erudite commentary. In other words, I do NOT need to debate in the deleted section, Debate's inappropriate actions should be held accountable immediately and my deleted articles stated forthwith -- with proper discussion held in their discussion rooms without the comments deleted, period. --Art4em (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, User:Debate's comments on these articles is content-based, and not a direct attack on you, so I cannot in good conscience accuse him of this. (See WP:CIVIL, et al.)

Regarding his perception of the content, I have to say that what is plain and well-known to some is not such to others. If your sources and references meet with our policies and guidelines (see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS), then User:Debate must acknowledge this. His itemized assessment of them, however, seems to suggest that he feels they do not meet our standards. The best course of action, I think, is to let the deletion process run its course so that the community consensus can rule out over one user's viewpoint. The question, it seems, is if the sources meet our requirements, and the mention of the subject matter within each is not trivial -- that is, in amongst many descriptions of similar subjects which are not notable or have mixed notability herein. I am continuing to read up here while trying to keep my job, so please bear with me. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. You did not address my concerns and charges. Postive content and consensus was deleted / records obliterated / and never addressed. This is wrong, harassment, abusive and vandalism. All charges WERE addressed...postponement of deletion was NOT headed...I want to file a complaint.

Should I re-upload the page in question to initiate debate and to examine the record of abuse / and favorable content reviews? What about the many learned comments that were deleted in positive favor of the said articles...I would like them reinstated for 'consensus'...they were not address? how can i retrieve them? --Art4em (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a deletion was, in your opinion, erroneous, then request a deletion review; calling it "filing a complaint" is not constructive. If an article is still being discussed, then take part in that discussion, without ad hominem attacks on other editors. If you would like a copy of an article that has been deleted sent to you, then make that request of any administrator. In the meantime, be aware that arrogance is not calculated to win you support in these discussions, and that no one person can possible know a fraction as much as we all know collectively. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Yes, again, my concerns have not been address. A page was deleted when it was requested not to be deleted. But, then you credit the abuser by insisting the conversation to take place in the wrong place -- not on the page's discussion page. This only gives credibility to the harassing agent. Whereas, it is wiki protocol, and my opinion, that the discussion should take place on the disputed page. Clearly, discussion was deleted to insure harasser's agenda and delete group concensus.

However, this 'common sense' agent is only proving Nabokov and Andrew Kean's nightmare. And, your 'protocol' only supports injustice.

But, indeed, I love the 'Borg' concept of group intelligence. That is, when one 'borg' can tap into the vast resources and intelligence of the collective borg mind. However, with this embarrassing agent, this borg novelty is NOT in use. He/she has no background in the field, nor have they heeded the commentary of the other learned borg in the field who chimed in. This borg agent is a rogue and their actions have NOT been addressed. I am pretty sure, such rogue borg would be deleted from the collective hive.

Given the above, I am going to repost the article in that the discussion can occur where is belongs, and where is was initially requested to take place. --Art4em (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a polite note to let you know I have filed a wikiquette alert. I am notifying you per the instructions on that page. Debate (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping by continually making accusations against other editors. It harms your cause. What you need is facts, backed by sound references. I notice you have employed rhetoric, but this does not carry weight, I'm afraid. Any problem with deletions, contact the admin for speedy deletions, participate in WP:AFD with your case, and see WP:DRV. Ty 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your comments. I have refuted all the charges (time, activity, personages, et al).

I would like to begin a full review of Party Down Scandal as soon as you have the time. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prod read thusly:

This article covers an event that happened in 1999, reported in one article in one newspaper. There is no evidence that it has received any coverage anywhere since. The incident is therefore patently not notable (see WP:N). The apparently solid reference list has been copied wholesale from the artist's article (see L. G. Williams) and many 'references' do not even mention the artist, let alone this piece (See talk:L. G. Williams). The article's creator has had opportunities to improve the article with solid references but none have been forthcoming. An extensive attempt to find additional sources to substantiate the notability of the subject has failed. The article appears to have been created entirely for the purposes of promoting the artist (see WP:Spam).

Per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS (see also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), a single event is not notable if it is not covered in multiple notable/reliable sources in a nontrivial way. This event has thus far failed to be proven to be notable -- whether it happened or not. (Even a hoax event could conceivably be notable if multiple notable/reliable sources covered it in a nontrivial way, whether falling for it or reporting on the hoax.) Respectfully, The Daily Californian is not a "major" newspaper on par with, say, The Philadelphia Inquirer or The New York Post; rather, it possesses notability on par with The Daily Pennsylvanian. "Major", at least in my perception, implies of a major metropolitan market or a national or other media outlet. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now your talking...thank you so much for the clarification. I really appreciate it. Let me proceed carefully, so I understand...your patience is appreciated:

Nowhere in the debate of this excellent subject was this handled with such nuance and understanding. In fact, the feature citation, a major cover story was dismissed outright as a photoshop hoax; then when that proved to be a false accusation, the unsuccessful editor with no experience in these matters tried another tactic to summarily delete my pages: the editor in question suggested that the reporter for this cover story was a mediocrity in a mediocre job. Obviously, this is no way to conduct a 'fair' assessment in a subject few understand. So, my thanks to you because I believe education is the highest priority of a nation, and this is why were are talking in wiki, too. Bravo to you.

Naturally, if a valuable citation in a major publication in San Francisco Bay Area was summarily ridiculed as was its hard working staff and Nationally ranked staff, do you think I would want to present another for ridicule? In fact, I did NOT, nor would I usher up another publication or citation to be deleted by such 'fair' editors. Therefore, it is NOT true that I had an opportunity for further discussion when the first was unabashedly dismissed in front of the entire San Francisco community.

Now then, if I read you right, you are not slandering this hard working, great staff and important resource to the entire East Bay, and its front page editors, professors, staff and story supervisors -- but you would just like another major market reliable source for 'additional' verification. Because, small towns and small reporter's across America don't have merit, don't know how to do their job, don't understand the 'big' picture or cannot be a true judge of notability.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." (Italics mine.) Here's why I would guess that the The Daily Californian is not considered a mainstream, reliable source: 1) Current circulation is about 10,000[8]. That's less than the number of people in my hometown, whose collective opinions about art would hardly be considered a reliable source; 2) It is a student-run paper. This means that the ethical, intellectual, scholarly, and attentive aspects of the staff of reporters changes completely at least every four years or so. This makes reliability, which is at least as dependent on individual staff members as it is a media outlet's management, constantly fluctuating. A stellar piece of journalism in one issue may have its value solely in its writer/editor(s) and not the institution itself. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Thank you for your quote to this one queston. 1. Daily Cal is an academic publication; 2. But, OK, I will take it that numbers infer quality; 3. also, I will also deduct / infer that if another major metropolitan art news-source also mentioned the story, I would have permission to repost the article.

1. The Daily Californian os NOT an academic publication, but a student-authored newspaper at an academic institution. Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship. 2. Numbers infer notability. 3. One or more reliable sources of that general calibur. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Here is the passage your cite:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Please notice it does NOT distinguish between who authors the newspaper articles, the newspaper in general, or its metropolitan area. It only 'welcomes' certain newspapers. With ALL DUE RESPECT, in my reading of the above, your points and claims are way off base, in fact, they might clearly be construed as inventions or projections since none of your claims appear in the above wiki citation.

However, rather than contesting this obvious point any further, I would simply like you and I to agree upon the fact that my citation is from a newspaper, and a fairly reputable one at that... Are you up for that? I am. --Art4em (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree to the notion that your viewpoint is accurate. In terms of the notability of an event, I would NEVER consider a student-run, non peer-reviewed publication with no established scholars on staff, as the sole source. Notability is supported most effectively by the calibur of sources Wikipedia 'welcomes'; other sources are considered based on their reliability for the type of information upon which articles rely, and the frequency with which the subject matter occurs for multiple sources of this type. Multiple reliable sources are also preferred. I can guarantee that if we restore this article, it will immediately go to WP:AFD and be undeniably challenged by any experienced Wikipedian here who happens upon it. If that is the route you wish to go, so be it. But this serves as the preemptive 'I-told-you-so' that will inevitably be forthcoming. I am going offline now, so if you want this done immediately, you'll have to find another admin to do it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to do anything you and I don't agree upon, be certain of that. I just want to be clear.

You said my 'viewpoint' was inaccurate? Yet, where is it inaccurate? Please read the reference you gave me!

Nowhere in the wiki reference that you supplied does it separate or categorize newspapers, period. Wiki, believes as I do, that newspaper people all around this great nation do the best job they can, period. Nor, does the wiki passage you gave me distinguish between alot of peer review, a little peer review or no peer review. Geezus, lets get real here, ok? Please read what you gave me!

I am NOT inaccurate on either of these points, period. Nor, does it state, how many articles are necessary to make a point -- fyi. More on this later.

I would also like to point out, having worked in a major 'daily', 'weekly' and a 'student' paper, that more 'peer' review occurs at the later than the former. The later is done out of love, the former to pay the mortgage.

i object to the fact that you call me inaccurate about a viewpoint; when I have not viewpoint -- I am just reading the 3 sentences you yourself gave me! Please admit to my two points because they are in black and white above. You cannot fabricate inferences in wiki policy when they are NOT supported by the wiki material. The only thing this newspaper section states is 'welcome'. Period.

Lastly, with all due respect, if we are to have a meaningful discussion, I would prefer that you stick with the wiki facts and policy as stated, and which you supposedly are upholding -- rather than your personal viewpoints of some supposed fabricated inferences. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to question the "respect" you offer at the end of your brimming comments. If you were earnest in understanding how Wikipedia is applied, you would note that WP:NOTE states this:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[1]
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[2]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[3]
• "Sources,"^[4] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[5]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[6]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Footnotes

1. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
2. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
3. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
4. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
5. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
6. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

Notice: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." The broader topic would be L. G. Williams, or maybe modern art controversies. However, L.G. Williams was not deemed notable. So the notability of this event must ride on some other facet. Yet, you only have one source which mentions it. And it's a source which, based on my experience as a Wikipedian, I can tell you doesn't hold water with community consensus interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If someone was shot on the Berkeley campus, the student paper would cover it, but other local news media would also cover it. That event would not be notable enough for inclusion unless it garnered wider attention, or proved to be a very significant factor in some important aspect of the community. This is how it works. You can tell me I'm not quoting sufficient policies to convince you that this is how it works, but since you haven't read everything that Wikipedians base their interpretations on, I don't understand why you don't trust me on this. By all means, recreate the article. If you don't, I'll restore the deleted copy and run it through WP:AFD and let you argue endlessly with everyone else. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, OOOOOOh, the reference to campus shootings is a little too much for me -- having spent a great many years on campuses myself. That comment is very scary and very ominous to me. I would like to state for the record on this personal discussion page for any editors or FBI onlookers that Art4em DOES NOT condone violence in any form, nor any illusion to violence even in rhetorical debate. Additionally, these comments above are not Art4em's, nor the coupling of this directive with the references from the 'Bible' -- it is compounded errieness at the very least -- and appears headed toward violence grounded by fundamentalism, which I abhor. I will leave it at that.

Next, I don't understand why you just don't concede my points, period, since they are substantiated by the wiki policy -- whereas your comments, for instance, about the size of the paper correlating with a editors hometown simply does not. It does not hurt to admit ones errors.

Thirdly, I NEVER said that I DO NOT HAVE MORE citations? Where did you get these unfounded ideas from? I NEVER said that. In fact, it is NOT true (see bottom below). In fact, I have many...but first, I want my points recognized and validated since they are justified and pertinent. My pages have been clearly deleted, thus violated, by personal bias -- not wiki policy.

Fourthly, I 'READ' the wiki policy on newspapers. No matter how many times I read those 4 sentences I will not discover your inferred claims about the disreputably of valid and invalid newspapers, period. Admit that, geez.

Lastly, I appreciate your comments (except for any references to violence). And, I appreciate the offer to repost my article, thank you. I will do it when I am ready....and we are almost there. Thank you, --Art4em (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, you are telling me that every article in wikipedia MUST HAVE two reliable news sources per argumentative point from a big metropolitan area or they can be speedily deleted? Do I have this correct? Or, is it just my article that needs two or more? (Obviously, if this is so, I would like to ask the wiki community to delete the story of Moses and the 10 commandments since it has NO small town coverage, no Desert News, but only as a story from a sheepherder.)

I'm sure you think this is funny, but that story is recorded in a book that is available in 2,454 languages, with various portions of it in 848 languages, one of the two Testaments in 1,168 languages, and the full Bible in 438 languages. Moreover, the story is believed or highly regarded by a significant portion of the world's population. Moreover, Moses was no sheep herder; rather, he was a ranking member of the Egyptian nobility (the grandson of the ruling Pharaoh) who fell famously from their graces and started a nation that still impacts global politics, religion, and security today. True or not, its verifiability and notability is beyond question. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Great, um, according to the movie, Charleton Heston was hanging loose with the sheep on the mount at that time, with a bunch of somebody's daughters. Sheep and daughters, he had his bases covered! Nice. But, I appreciate your correction -- although you missed this point too. My point was not post-postmortem assessment, but a 'contemporary' assessment of his real-time account, "like when he just came down, dude".

It's a movie... dude. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Now that you took the bait, hook, line and sinker (I thought the bible belt discussion might reveal some true color and boy did it: no wonder contemporary art is taking a thrashing here!), could you please address my valid points above the sheepherder decoy.

You're delving into personal affronts again. You know nothing of my beliefs, personal tastes, etc. What you've just done is accuse me of a conflict of interest, failing to assume good faith on my part. I'll state my objection to this tactic, move on, and direct you to the Bible article, which redundantly re-emphasizes the notability of its contents. (You'll also note no mention of any Biblical bias against "contemporary art".) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Additionally, are you inferring an event has to be reported time and again and again throughout history for it to have notability? And, moreover, it doesn't matter to you that historically, another artist two years later makes an identical claim then naturally infers 'unique' and 'precedent' setting status on the very similar artistic action? You see, artistic legacy, precedence and subsequence is very important in the field.

I am not stating that it needs to be brought up again and again. But the single event must have echoed significantly in multiple verifiable and reliable sources independent of the subject, even if just in that instant. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Lastly, most interesting articles that I see in Wiki appear to include background reference materials outside the perview of an incident or subject as 'additional resources' for reader's to investigate. Do I have this correct? I hope so. See, you would be able to show you that I did place additional materials in this light and manner, where it not for the speedy deletion of the page. I would certainly agree that article that do not mention the subject, or shed light on the subject should be deleted! I would never object to that. However, are you saying that all articles should NOT provide additional reference materials? I am happy to abide either way, it doesn't matter to me. I just want to get it right if I have your permission to repost the article.

The additional reference materials should mention the subject in a significant, and not trivial, way. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Thank you for your time and clarification...I truly value your time and interest. I believe that this matter will be resolved shortly.

Against my better judgement I'm going to jump in here... Art4em, you really need to read a couple of those little blue links people keep quoting at you, they answer all your questions. See Wikipedia:Notability and as Cobaltbluetony has already mentioned, Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. Debate (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politely, I am requesting Debate refrain from my discussion page while this matter is under examination and while I am having a valuable conversation with learned colleague. His/her remarks above are clearly designed to be insipid, thus, pointed harassments. Appreciatively, --Art4em (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal disagreements aside, Debate is right. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, am I to infer that this is your learned and supportive answer to my questions to you? I certainly hope not. In good faith I have asked for your clarification on a few matters, therefore, I am asking a few simple answers. --Art4em (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I am interpreting to you comes directly from links that have been provided above by multiple users, not just Debate.- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is: provide multiple reliable sources. One mention in one newspaper does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and does not justify an article. You remark about Debate, "His/her remarks above are clearly designed to be insipid, thus, pointed harassments" violates WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. He is only commenting as any experienced editor would. Editors on this page are spending quite a lot of time, pointing out some essentials, and it's in your interest to take advantage of the advice. It comes from widely accepted guidelines applied on wiki. Ty 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, thank you for you input, I truly appreciate it. I am going to be happy to supply additional resource or resources, when i am good and ready, of course.

You don't think I would go to all this trouble without having all the cards i need up my sleeve, do you? Also, I think you know my scholarship better than most. Once citation Art4em indeed! Ha! It would take 1,000 Jeff Koons articles to equal the citations in my Wally Hedrick! Somebody who is simply doing a simple search on Google is but a simple keyboardist; not a judge of notability!

All of the inferences of wiki policy that you and other are "pointing out" are totally unjustified by the language and intent of the wiki statements! Simply put, the various editors inferences drawn from wikipedia language are simply invented -- it is not stated anywhere in the wiki policy? No where does the wiki newspaper policy say that a newspaper output must be larger than so-and-so editors town! Come on, clearly, such constructed editorial fantasies of wiki policy are revealing and way out of bounds on any 'fair' scale.

Look, it is a great pleasure to show you and the other 'fair' people, just how my case and my efforts have been duly mistreated against wiki policy. My pages were deleted before a case had been demonstrably discredited, period. Even now, my article is jusified, period. I have established a reliable citation and notability through precedent: it art that is the way it goes. Mona Lisa does not ask for peer review, it sets a precedent that was followed. Subsequent homages, as I clearly demonstrated in my article are further testaments to notability, period.

Tellingly, again and again editors point to wiki policy's which DO NOT validate their claims. I have demonstrated this again and again above.

Thus, the deletion of my article in question was done will-o-the-wisp, at best, period. This is against wiki policy and it was wrong.

That said, I will be glad to post up the other "major metropolitan" sources once I feel that my point has been clearly demonstrated for all to see, which by now, I am fortunate to have here a very telling record (ie, the others were deleted) of personal bias, invented wiki policy, and unwarranted actions under a false blanket of wiki policy.

Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited for over a week for a well-meaning, fair-minded administrator to undo the wrong that has been clearly demonstrated and reinstate my pages, so that proper protocol can be followed and the wrongs addressed -- I will be happy to wait till Friday....Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you [SheffieldSteel]:

"Where reasonable doubt exists for a potential deleted article, discussion using (A) another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. (B) If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted". The deletion of my pages occurred despite (A) and (B). Of course, the record of this has been deleted.

Additonally:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page." I was never "encouraged" to fix any problems, ever. Of course, the record of this has been deleted.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

"These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. (THERE WAS NO CONCENSUS IN MY DELETED PAGES PERIOD -- NOR WAS MY PAGES GIVEN FIVE DAYS.) [MOST IMPORTANTLY: ]If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. (THIS LAST SENTENCE IS MOST PERTINENT TO MY CASE...)

Wiki policy was clearly thrown to the wind in my case, on every count of the above...hence my absolute frustration on all counts. I am asking a 'fair minded' administrator to reinstate my pages to let protocol rule the day in fairness and fair practice. So consensus and fair practice may rule the day. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art4em, here is some clarification you may find helpful. I know we Wikipedians tend to throw around a lot of jargon, heh, and that can make things confusing.

First, the policy you quoted:

""Discussion: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

The key word here is content. The point this clause is trying to make is that if we have an article about a subject that everyone agrees is notable, but a group of editors cannot agree what to actually put in the article, in that case deletion is an inappropriate resolution. Instead, the editors involved should continue to work to find a consensus, rather than kill the golden goose.

By my understanding, that is not what happened in your case. The notability of the article is in question, not the content. In this case, the deletion process is perfectly valid.

Now, I apologize if this next bit is something you already know, but bear with me here... There are three types of deletion:

• Speedy-Delete, also called Speedy or CSD (for "Criteria for Speedy Deletion"). Under this process, a tag is placed on a page saying that it falls under one of a number of various narrowly-worded categories that you can find here. The creator of an article may not remove a speedy-delete tag, and the article in question can be deleted without further discussion. This is necessary to deal with the large number of article that are created along the lines of, "Me and my buddies started a band called Blah-blah, and we are huge in Europe, prove it's not true," or "This is my website, visit it and increase my click-through rate." In theory, the lack of discussion is okay, because the criteria are extremely narrow. Unfortunately, the process is sometimes overused.

• Proposed deletion, usually referred to as prod. In this case, the article does not meet any of the speedy-deletion criteria, but the person who placed the tag believes the deletion will be relatively uncontroversial. Anybody can remove a prod tag, even the creator of the article. If nobody removes it in X number of days (five or seven, I think), then it's assumed that nobody cares if the article is deleted, and there it goes. But if anybody disputes the proposed deletion, then we move to the final level of the process...

• Articles for deletion discussion, or AfD. This is the policy you referred to either where the article is not supposed to be deleted without at least five days of discussion. This process is used when an article is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and when there is disagreement by one or more users over whether it should be deleted. In this case, a whole new page is set up to discuss the notability of the article, and you can comment and present your arguments there. If there is still a consensus to delete, the article will be deleted anyway, but this may provide the "discussion" you keep asking for.

Now, some of the articles you did not want deleted were listed on AfD, and there were five days of discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House where the Bottom Fell out. You had from May 7th until May 12th to comment on this deletion discussion, but failed to do so.

The Party Down Scandal appears to have been speedy-deleted because it was a redirect to another page. Do you know where it redirected?

If there are articles that went through the CSD process, and you wish they had gone through AfD, you can try filing a report at WP:Deletion review. Right now, I don't see exactly what you are upset about. There were plenty of chances to dispute t