User talk:Ginnymak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

John Craig Freeman[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Craig Freeman, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://johncraigfreeman.wordpress.com/about/.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Craig Freeman[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Craig Freeman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bihco (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blaise Tobia[edit]

The article Blaise Tobia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Randykitty (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ginnymak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Star Mississippi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, CETA Employment of Artists (1974-1981), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Star Mississippi 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi Ginnymak! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Barbara Strasen that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Star Mississippi 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removing valid references[edit]

Hello Ginnymak after I added a refence for a work by Barabara Strasen in collection of the the Allen Memorial Art Museum and marked many others as failed verification because the museum collections do no list her work, you removed the one reference that, for a specific work, was to a reliable source, the museum itself. Please don't do that. You added a very poor one, http://www.georgebillis.com/barbara-strasen-resume.html instead. It doesn't say what the works are, doesn't give the accession number, gives no date of acquisition or provenance. Please remember that references need to be WP:verifiable. I doesn't have to be easy, but it should be possible for me to consult the source. If there is a claim that a work by Strasen is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art, then it is reasonable to ask where one might see it. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations: First of all thanks for all your hard work! That said, the "back and forth" on the Strasen article has been very confusing for me since much of what you (and some of the other editors) are asking for is impossible to comply with.

Most museums do not publish, nor do they list online, complete listings of which artists and artworks they have in their collections. Some museums are in the process of creating searchable databases online, but not all are complete. The oversight comes from what could be called "peer review." Her two galleries, George Billis and Susan Eley, provide the oversight. Billis has the better of the two websites, and they have verified Strasen's resume. Even if I called the various museums, what would I put down as a footnote: "phone conversation with the museum registrar"? If I ask for something in writing, how do I reference that if it is not "published" by the museum? While it might be reasonable to ask a museum "where one might see" a piece in its collection, the result would be to make an appointment to go to their storeroom. The large majority of works owned by museums are in storage.Ginnymak (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ginnymak I think I may be able to help. I understand that much of this is new to you, and creating a biography of a living person is challenging, and Wikipedias policies and guidelines (and it's editors!) can appear overwhelming. I'll try to show you some examples of what I think can be done to meet all those seemingly impossible demands. All the best, Vexations (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations: Thanks. I'd appreciate your help. I must say that it's also been confusing having so many editors working at once. Some of the messages I've gotten have been contradictory, asking for additional references, which, when I add them, I'm told that a Wikipedia article is not a "resume." Then other editors have made mistakes themselves. In one case, s/he said that Strasen was not in the show "Four New Artists" and gave a reference to "prove" it. However, s/he was looking at the wrong year, even though I had stated the year correctly. I didn't realized I would have to footnote every show I mentioned when Billis Gallery vouches for them. Then an editor put in a link to a review of Strasen's lenticular piece at the LA International Airport and erroneously changed the name of the artwork from "Flow & Glimpse" to "Influx" because the title of the article referred to the "influx" of new artwork at the airport. An editor also removed the "Awards" category saying that a NEA fellowship was not an award (it certainly is!) and seats on art review panels are awarded to distinguished artists (you don't apply for them). I tried changing the category to Awards and Honors, but that wasn't sufficient. I totally understand that Wikipedia needs to comply with its own format, but there are also details particular to specific professions that some of the editors don't seem to understand.Ginnymak (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ginnymak, You bring up a lot of issues. I'll see if I can respond to some.
  • Yes, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be resumes. We even have policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:NOTRESUME links to subsection of that policy.
  • The "four artists" show was my fault. I found a reference for a show with that name, and didn't think that they used the same title twice.
  • Should you footnote every exhibition individually when they are listed in a single document published by the gallery of the artist? Yes, you should. What Wikipedians expect to see is sources that are independent of the subject. A review in artforum shows us that the exhibition has received critical attention from someone who is not connected to the artist and has relevant expertise in the subject matter. A listing in a gallery guide, announcement or press release shows us that the exhibition took place, but not that anyone found it significant enough to write about. That distinction matters, because Wikipedians are, generally speaking, just some random person on the internet. We do not get to decide what matters, we defer to published authors, so that anyone can go and check that, yes, so-and-so, who knows something about this (they're a reliable source), really did say that. In the hierarchy of trust, I am right at the bottom, where I belong.
  • "Flow & Glimpse" to "Influx". I don't know why that happened, the cited source [1] doesn't give a title for the work. Something that you might find helpful when discussing these changes on that article talk page is what we refer to as a "diff", the difference between two edits. I could point to the URL of the history of the article, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Strasen&diff=prev&oldid=1034555875&diffmode=source or I could use the {{diff}} template, and point to this diff, using the IDs of each version that I want to to compare.
  • Awards. This is a recurring issue. Some people prefer a narrow definition that only includes prizes, others a broader one that includes grants. I'm very skeptical of the value many (pay-to-play) awards, and I think that some grants are more significant than others. The talk page of the article is where you can discuss such changes. Context matters. An NEA fellowship is worth what, $25,000, these days? That's more than a lot of awards.
  • Stuff that is particular to the arts that other editors "don't seem to understand". I would advise against making any kind of assumption about what other editors know or understand. I choose to remain anonymous, although I occasionally mention something personal, like "I have seen that exhibition" or "I own a work by that artist". But what I know should not matter at all. If I write an article about someone, I start with all the sources I can find, and then use that to summarize what those sources say. I don't include anything that I know to be true but cannot find a source for (that's Original reseach). Using those same sources, any other editor could write the same or a similar article. Having said that, there are obviously things that people who work in this field (21st-century art in North America) just assume to be common knowledge (if you're in the Whitney Biennale, you're a notable artist), that are not always as common as we'd like to think. That's one reason wikilinks are so helpful: not clear if something is a notable award? We have an article about that award!
Lastly, please keep in mind that while we have a lot of policies and guidelines, and editors sometimes interpret them differently, we do not assume that you know about them until they have be pointed out to you. Nobody is expected to read all of them before they start editing. But once you're familiar with them, please follow the spirit of the policies, and try to work with editors that you disagree with.
I hope this helps, Vexations (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting as I know I was involved with some of these edits, although I think this conversation is better suited to the article's talk page as other editors might be interested. Vexations covered many, but a few other points. Mainly that BLP is our most stringent of rules and anything about a living person should be very well cited. As far as the LAX installation, the broader piece is called Influx per "Aschheim’s work is part of a larger airport-wide art initiative called “Influx.” It features 11 original, site-specific installations and the work of 45 local artists including Eileen Cowin, Jorge Oswaldo and Cynthia Mine" which is what I was trying to say, and that Strasen's work was part of it. I could have said it better most likely. The other issue, and this is true of the shows and the awards is that when she has a tie to it - such as it being a faculty show, the university's website isn't an independent source. While she is no doubt a notable artist, the article should not be a list of everything she's done as not all of that belongs. Focus on what has been discussed in independent, secondary sources rather than trying to include every little thing about her life. For example, her being a mentor (uncited) isn't something that sources have covered, but maybe there is something about how the NEA grant impacted the rest of her career. Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ginnymak, in my experience, the larger museums have almost all published their collections online. For Strasen, the relevant links are:
What sometimes happens is that recent acquisitions have not been added, but those are typically listed in the annual report. For example, https://www.nga.gov/about/annual-reports/2020/acquisitions.html
I'm particularly concerned with the NGA, because it should be possible to find the work, if they have it. Do we know anything about the work they have?
One reason that Wikipedians (myself included) are often skeptical of claims that an artist has a work in the collection of a museum is that such (promotional) claims often exaggerated. A copy of an artists' book in the museum library is not equivalent to a work that has been acquired by the museum itself and having it on display. (See for example [2] If nothing else, an accession number might work to convince editors that the work is in the collection. Vexations (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations and Star Mississipi: Thank you both. Vexations, your responses are particularly helpful. Please understand that I am not "arguing" with you, and I will let whatever you did to the article stand. But I just want to make clear some points about details (even if they sound picky);

1) The title "Influx" is not a title for a "broader piece"! It was the name of LAX's public art program. The individual artists' pieces are not related in any way other than that.

2) You can see from your examples of museum collections online how incomplete or inaccurate they are. Strasen's work in the National Gallery is part of the Vogel's "Fifty Works for Fifty States" donation, which, apparently, has not yet been listed work by work. The link you give for the Wellcome Trust is for searching the library catalogue, not the Visual Culture collection, which does not seem to have a searchable index.

3) I might have misinterpreted "citation needed." When it came after Strasen's having taught at UCSD at the height of the development of Southern California art in the 1970s, I first thought linking to the Wikipedia articles of the artists she worked with would be sufficient. When that wasn't, I was able to find proof that she had been on the faculty and worked with those artists via the university's website. I don't know any other way to footnote this historical fact.

So, as I said, THANK YOU both for you hard work. I can't put any more time into this article since I can't seem to find references that meet Wikipedia's standards.Ginnymak (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Information icon Hi Ginnymak! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Barbara Strasen that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. adding, replacing sources absolutely is not a minor edit Graywalls (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ginnymak&oldid=1124464335"