User talk:Artarch/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Artarch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CubesinStudio.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:CubesinStudio.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. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.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. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Floating and Dreaming.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Floating and Dreaming.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. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FKI025.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:FKI025.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. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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 an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Dual Entry Water Ballet TC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dual Entry Water Ballet TC.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CubesinStudio.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CubesinStudio.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:CMN012 TC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:CMN012 TC.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 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Lilorphanannie1960.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lilorphanannie1960.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 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Untitled-4,2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Untitled-4,2006.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 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UntitledGoldBox1964.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UntitledGoldBox1964.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 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.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 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FKI025.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FKI025.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 06:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2006CubeInstallation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006CubeInstallation.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 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellCubeinStudio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BellCubeinStudio.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 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellatWork1962.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BellatWork1962.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 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MEL98.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MEL98.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 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FBA086.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FBA086.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) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PearlNecklace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PearlNecklace.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Peter Shire (artist). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadowlynk, Thanks for replacing the maintenance templates.I appreciate your revision. I'll address those issues when I get a chance, but right now I am blocked from editing. Perhaps you would like to review the previous versions of the entry, and address your concerns with Politizer, the editor who is making some serious accusations about my writing. For now, I am addressing those strong and serious charges, and I am blocked from performing any editing. thanks, FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)00:08, 14 November 2008[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Shire Pizz-O-Lover 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shire Pizz-O-Lover 2007.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23:23, 13 November 2008

Hey there Politizer,

I found your comments, but since I am now blocked (by Orangemike, administrator) as an editor, the only place I can talk is right here. I am very interested in this posting:

This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. (Peter Shire (artist) and Craig Kauffman (artist) are the ones where he's active at the moment.) Furthermore, he has been unilaterally removing cleanup templates without addressing concerns and, more seriously, removing ifd templates from fair use images he has uploaded, without giving a FUR or engaging in a discussion about the image. The two articles I linked to above both originally had large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman (artist)) and this user has repeatedly reinstated that text in the articles after I commented it out or deleted it. I have warned the user about his edits and about COI, and another editor has also asked the user do disclose any possible COI, but the user has ignored all requests for discussion. Can anyone suggest a next step? ::—Politizer talk/contribs 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The user has acknowledged here that he is Frank Lloyd himself. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user just admitted to being a representative of the subjects of those articles (diff), so it's a legitimate COI. ::::—Politizer talk/contribs 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, you saw that quickly. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The COI is pretty clear here, but note that this does not prevent him from editing the article, as long as he stays neutral and verifiable. As for the copyright issue with using text from his web site, if he is the copyright holder, he is allowed to use the same text here, though he will be releasing it under GFDL if he does so. See Wikipedia:Copyvio#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. I'll leave him a note letting him know this, and as long as he understands the implications of doing so, the text itself is not considered a copyvio. It still may have issues with Peacocking, but once he posts it under GFDL, it may then be modified to stay wikipedia-friendly. ArakunemTalk 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I hope you have a chance to read my response to the civil and kind user Arakunem, who has reminded me of the COI and NPOV policies of Wikipedia. Also, I hope you will note that I have posted entries since March 2007, and since that time have been informed about the goals and policies of Wikipedia. All of my entries have been edited by other users and editors, and we have never had a conflict until your complaints.

Now, I have some questions for you:

What is your knowledge of the biographies of the persons that I have entered?
Has your research as a graduate student in linguistics qualified you to edit and object to my point of view?
Are you a published author in the field of art history?
Are you a student of contemporary art, and have you read the sources listed on each of the entries that you are commenting on?

My answer to all of the above questions is this: on Wikipedia, no one is required to hold a degree in a subject, be a student in a subject, or be a published author in a subject to make edits to articles on that subject. If you look around, you will noticed that Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers, most of whom act in a variety of subject areas. I was not making my edits as a person knowledgeable in the field of art history, but as a person knowledgeable in the rules of Wikipedia; everything I changed was to remove content that does not follow Wikipedia rules. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the question, and now I understand where you are coming from. I posed those questions in order to get a sense of who I am corresponding with. Good luck with your studies, and I wish you the best in your volunteer work for Wikipedia. I have posted summary comments below, under the COI section. I am getting a much better sense of your motivations, goals, and reasoning.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make some edits yourself, as suggested by Arakunem?

I made numerous edits to several of the articles. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize your changes as edits, but that's just my opinion from working with editors in publications. Wikipedia terminology is differrent, but the question I have is why not contribute something useful and based on your own research, rather than editing by deletion? Does the Wikipedia method leave some room for other biographers to discuss and edit? You seem to have fixed your goals on Wikipedia rule compliance, and I understand that now. I am interested in providing information to other people. I can now see that this may not be the forum that I want to participate in. At any rate, I suggest that you look at some of the other contributions that I have made, and how others have modified, edited, and changed the original stem. Your vigilant behavior stands out, in my experience on Wikipedia. FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name the "large amounts of plagiarism" and "large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman"?

The list in a previous version of the Craig Kauffman article appears to have been directly copied from here. As for the text copied from your website into the Peter Shire article, even if it is originally your writing, you still need to attribute it with references and quotes where applicable; you can't expect all readers and editors to just know that the original text was yours. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list could have been commented on in more civil terms (your comment was "ridiculous"). I have seen discographies for muscians posted, and filmographies for actors posted. In the world of art, a listing of exhibitions is common, and if it seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, that is easy to state in a courteous manner: "Long listings of exhibitions use valuable space on Wikipedia biography pages. Perhaps you could include some of the most significant exhibits in the text, and provide a link to an external source." might be just one way to maintain a civil discourse.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that I have "ignored" requests to discuss the COI and NPOV?

Yes. If you go through the edit history (for those reading, I will provide diffs upon request) it is clear that you continued your editing after having received numerous warnings from me, and you did not post a single message at this talk page until you were blocked. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs: COI warning from me on Nov 11, after which Mr. Lloyd reverted twice on Peter Shire (artist) on Nov 12—restoring commented-out section, re-restoring commented-out section—before bothering to leave me a message. During this time (before leaving me a message) he also removed deletion templates without providing a fair use rationale (only copying in the {{Fair use rationale}} template, not actually giving any FUR information).—Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is your discussion. Again, the tone of your response is a real reason for me to reconsider participation in Wikipedia. Is there anyone else out there reading any of this? Orangemike? Arakunem? FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it your responsibility to now go and tag all entries that I have made, regardless of your knowledge of the subject?

As I said above, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and when I see articles that need cleanup I often take it upon myself to clean them up. If you are suggesting that I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article, I suggest you read WP:OWN, an essay explaining the "ownership" of articles and the fact that articles are free to be edited by anyone (also notice the first message under "Please Note" at the bottom of the page when you edit pages: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I understand your point of view:"I often take it upon myself to clean them up". And I understand that you are interested in keeping Wikipedia within the rules. But what is up with your assumptions. I have, as I have noted in this discussion and in correspondence with Orangemike, submitted several stubs--and they have been mercilessly edited. But I have not encountered anything like this. I never suggested any of these things ("... I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article") and I again find the tone of your response to be extraordinarily defensive and argumentative. Again, take a look at the records of all the other entries, if you are interested in histories.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that your edits were being made as we were posting, and that editing out postings with the term "ridiculous" could be considered uncivil in most forms of communication (could be perceived as interrupting and ridiculing)?

I am posting these comments, and I have responded to Arakunem. I am also wondering about your response "Oh wow you saw that quickly." I am concerned that your vigilance is a bit excessive. Yes, it's true that I have also written to an administrator. But what I need to know from you is your answers to the questions above, and your reasons for being over-vigilant on one user/editor. Why not answer some questions, and while you are at it, let me know a way to contact you besides this page. I am in lock-down on Wikipedia, and I wonder if it's due to your complaints? So far, your complaint stand alone--neither Themfromspace or Arakunem seems to share the view that I have violated any copyrights. How can I plagiarise myself?

My complaint is not alone. Note that in my original message to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (the message you reproduced above), I never asked to have you blocked, I only asked what the next appropriate step would be for addressing these concerns with you. Orangemike made the decision to block you on his own. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and read, when you have a moment, the difference in your complaint and the one posted by Arakunem. As for Orangemike, I think he is an administrator, and I will look for his message and respect the decisions and advice given. Posting things on the COI Noticeboard is an action that will hopefully bring some more responses. So far, it's really just a two-person argument. Arakunem's response to your comments was a lot more civil, and he/she acknowledged a lot more of what I might expect in the way of intellectual discourse. We'll see if anyone else has an opinion, but from what I read on Wikipedia, one should guard against getting too upset. Best of luck in your studies, and please do note my summary comments below.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this POV: the entries I have made constitute biographical information and are reasonably presented. Previous entries have also included footnotes, references, suggestions for further reading, and several outside links to other web sources. The real sources for my writing, however, are scholarly research based on a library and archive of which you have little or no knowledge. Why not let my entries stand, and allow Wikipedia community members who know something about the artists make the changes? Is that not, as suggested by Arakunem, the function of Wikipedia? And, as for the open use of my name, why is it that you don't post yours? FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)00:02, 14 November 2008[reply]

As for your "library and archive of which [I] have little or no knowledge," you need to cite those sources when you edit articles. Again, you cannot expect everyone to have access to and knowledge of the same sources, and all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The old versions of both the Craig Kauffman and Peter Shire articles included amounts of text with no source explicitly given (only a list of general sources given at the end of the article), making it impossible for anyone to verify where the facts came from. And given that much of the text of Peter Shire was lifted directly from your own website, which represents Shire, it could not remain (again, because of the conflict of interest policy. It would be one thing to cite that website (sparingly) as a source, but it cannot be simply copied and pasted in, as it is heavily biased in favor of Mr. Shire. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, How about letting others modify it, and contribute? I gave it a start, and like the experience I had with others, I know it will be modified. It's going to be interesting to see what happens, and if anyone else wants to contribute to the entry. Maybe it should be deleted altogether? Like I said below, that might be the best solution. Of course, as you have noted, the biggest rule around is posted at the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ain't that the truth! Well, best of luck with your work, your studies and with policing the pages of the people's encyclopedia.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest dispute

Mr. Lloyd,

Please continue the discussion in this section, so that all the various discussions will be kept in one place. Also, when responding to other user's posts, please indent your response (by including a colon ":" at the beginning of each paragraph) to make the discussion easier to read and allow everyone to keep track of whose comments are whose. Finally, just FYI, to start a new paragraph you have to make a double space (hitting the "enter" key twice, rather than just once) between each paragraph, otherwise all the text will run together. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Politizer,

Thank you for all of your responses above. Thanks, too for the tips on dealing with the formatting on this page. I, too am a volunteer and a contributor. I asked questions in order to get some sense of where you are coming from. I have been considering the policies and rules of Wikipedia, and my place in the culture of Wikipedia. It has been a very interesting experience, and I do want to thank you for pointing out again the COI and NPOV policies, as well as the verifiable sources rules. Also, I am well aware of the warning about merciless editing.I am leaving this note in response to all of the discussion above. I would be interested in the opinions of Arakunem and Orangemike, too. It's hard to tell tone in this type of discussion, but from what I can read in your prose (phrases such as "Mr. Lloyd will certainly accuse me...", and "your own website is neither of those things, as it and you have financial stake in how the artists are represented on Wikipedia", and "If you are suggesting that I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article" sound like I am corresponding in a kind of discussion that I just don't want to have. I will reconsider my participation in the world of Wikipedia, and if allowed by the administrators, I will withdraw ALL of my edits, content, and contributions. I wish you the best in continuing to volunteer on Wikipedia. FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to explicitly "withdraw" all of your edits, as everything done to Wikipedia can be further edited and refined—information that is found to be against Wikipedia policy will be removed or modified, and information you have inserted that is not against policy (such as the lists of books and other sources for each artist) will most likely remain in the articles and continue to be improved. All that's necessary for you to do is 1) for you to allow others to edit your work as well (i.e., not reverting when other people make edits that you dislike, and not removing cleanup templates the people place on articles you created), and 2) for you to agree not to edit in a way that violates the conflict of interest guidelines; to edit without violating COI, the general solution is just to entirely stay away from articles where you have a conflict of interest (although it is still permissible to watch the article for the purpose of reverting vandalism or factual inaccuracies that people insert, especially if those inaccuracies are malicious), but the specific resolution for your case is something for you to work out with administrators. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would like to hear from the administrators. Are you also an administrator? I know your discussion has been directed toward the policies and rules, but I am locked out of editing for "Spamming". So far, I have only heard a discussion with one person. I do appreciate that your tone has changed considerably: "There is no need to explicitly "withdraw" all of your edits, as everything done to Wikipedia can be further edited and refined—information that is found to be against Wikipedia policy will be removed or modified, and information you have inserted that is not against policy (such as the lists of books and other sources for each artist) will most likely remain in the articles and continue to be improved." But because of the tone of your previous comments, and the lack of response from anyone else, I doubt that I will continue to participate in this forum. I will give the matter some consideration, but for right now my intention is to ask that all of my contributions to Wikipedia be withdrawn. By the way, it's not a matter of "ownership", as I have plenty of experience with seeing my published articles and website all over the internet, repeated without citation in lectures and presentations, and cut and pasted in students' papers (many art professors refer their students to my website). It's really about something else: your tone and manner was really far too aggressive and harassing. The proof is really in the histories, and it's here in your comments.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone else interested in this, by the way?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for Cbl62 informing him of the discussion here, so he should be available for comment soon. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Politizer, and perhaps we might hear from Orangemike, Arakunem, and anyone else who read the Notice of Conflict of Interest? It still seems like a very closed discussion between you and me. And, just so I understand this Notice board, the concept of discussion, and the culture of Wikipedia correctly, are you friends with Cb162? Is objectivity and civil discourse and exchnage of ideas going to be the intention of your discussion? I hope so, becasue that's what I have as my objective.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally acquainted with Cb162, but he and I frequently collaborate at DYK, the project responsible for populating the "Did You Know?" section of the front page of Wikipedia. As for Orangemike and Arakunem, I am not familiar with them, but I have sent them messages letting them know that their input is requested here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would prompt someone to nominate the an entry to DYK?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I ask this because the initial response from Cb162 was"I nominated the above article for a DYK entry on the Main Page." But I guess you noticed that?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs are new or recently expanded articles on Wikipedia that we deem may be interesting to a broad readership and probably have not been seen by many people yet (since they are new), and we choose a fact from each DYK and feature it on the front page. Cb162 contributes frequently to DYK by patrolling new pages and nominating all those that he thinks might be interesting; it was not until after nominating the Craig Kauffman article that we noticed the conflict of interest issues with it, and were therefore unable to feature it. That DYK nomination then brought my attention to the rest of the articles you have been involved with, which is why it took me until now to tag your articles. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been considering all of the above, I decided to review my contributions to Wikipedia. I now noticed that all of them have been tagged with warnings in November 2008--including postings that I made 23 months ago. Is there a way to determine who has posted those?I ask this because, to my way of thinking and writing, a biography such as the one I posted about John Mason is a model of NPOV, and provides an extraordinary amount of reference material for the interested student or viewer. Maybe it's too much, in fact, and I would like to take it back. Try reading it, the way it was originally posted, and tell me why that's not NPOV, and why it's COI. One thing for sure, the tags are a sign from someone who is recently vigilant, and could that be you, Politizer? FrankLloydGallery (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is neutral, another editor will dispute my tag and remove it; this happens frequently. A tag such as that is a request for cleanup, not a permanent taint on the article. Unfortunately, because of the situation with the Peter Shire article, all of your contributions have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized. This is not a criticism against you personally; it's just an unavoidable consequence of the relationship you are in with the artists about whom you are writing. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that your primary purpose in these discussions has been to advise me of the rules and policies of Wikipedia. All of that is referenced and is useful for me. I would encourage you to read the article about John Mason, as an example, and to note (as you have done before) the large amount of sources that I have left for the reader. I don't taken the tagging as a personal criticism, but I do find the tagging quite different from a comment based on sources, additional and verifiable knowledge, grammatical errors, a different point of view, or other things that are justified in another world: journalism. It's a new experience to have "all of your contributions have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized." Wikipedia, it seems to me from this experience, differs greatly from academic discourse, the rigors of having one's work edited for publication, and the time-honored letter to the editor.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my COI and Spamming notices are absurd when compared to other art dealers' entries on Wikipedia. Neutral point of view? try these two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Painter, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Boone. Why do I feel like I am being singled out, even though my history is of contributions? Take a look at those two entries and tell me there is not Conflict of Interest.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the existence of articles that are worse than yours never qualifies as a valid defense on Wikipedia; see the article WP:Other stuff exists for more information. If other articles are bad, that doesn't mean articles that aren't as bad should stay; it just means those bad articles need to come under scrutiny as well. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. The issues are Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View and Spam. An article about the owner of a business, Patrick Painter, with links to the artists that he represents, and with only one external link to his own website isn't "worse" or "bad" as you describe it. It is an advertisement. When my articles "have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized", yet that one is still posted, and without any tags, it's absurd.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am only one person and can't be expected to fix every bad article and advertisement on Wikipedia; all I can do is deal with the articles that I come across, when I have time. It just so happens that I came across your articles a few days ago and not the Patrick Painter and James Mason articles; that doesn't mean that I'm unfairly discriminating against your work, only that I saw your work and not the other work, as I am not omniscient. Every other Wikipedia contributor is in the same position. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you, Politizer, to fix every bad article, and the issue is Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View and Spam. I see from your contributions page that you are quite active, and I recognize the value of volunteers on Wikipedia. I am entering this into the discussion because I find the label of "Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming" is still there. I sent e-mails to Orangemike, and am awaiting his administrative decision. So far, as you know, it has really been just two people discussing this. Although I know you find it tedious and long, sometimes I wonder why our talk hasn't been joined by anyone else. I'll thank Athaenara, an administrator, for her kind attention to my request for the deletion of all of my copyrighted images.But I am still waiting for comments from anyone else. Not that I haven't learned a lot from this, don't get me wrong, it has been a really important experience.But I have repeatedly, as you know, wanted to get others to comment. At any rate, I do thank Athaenara for attending to my request and for citing the appropriate point in the Speedy Deletion file.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). Sorry for my absence from this discussion. I have endorsed your unblock below, though you will likely have to change your name. The username policy generally does not like any name that implies a connection to a company or organization as it could be seen as a promotional-only account.

On the COI issue, the crux of it is that if you (the generic "you") have a close connection to something/someone, it is very easy to have your edits stray from neutral, whether positive or negative. It is generally suggested that those with a connection not edit any articles so related, but sometimes those users have the best information. Thus, the COI policy does not prohibit such people from editing. In those cases, you do need to make sure that your edits are neutral (WP:NPOV) and that any information added can be sourced (WP:V) from a reliable, third party source that is unrelated to the subject (WP:RS). It is this last policy that Politiizer was referring to when he mentioned what sources were valid. Ideally we like to see newspaper stories and other published works to establish notability (WP:N).

I look at it this way: When I write an article, even one where I know about the subject inside and out, I always write it based on what other people have already written. That assumption immediately forces me to find sources for the topic. And in the case where a possible COI exists, basing my text on others' works dulls the tone that might otherwise be seen as promotional.

Hope this helps! Arakunem^Talk 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

{{unblock}} I have read and understand the Wikipedia files that are cited above by Arakunem and Politizer. I know that by definition a Conflict of Interest is perceived. However, I think that a review of my history, and the neutrality of the contributions I have made to biographies of living persons are points that should be considered by administrators. It has been pointed out that my history began in December of 2006, and the contributions have been viewed and altered by several editors since their original postings. It has also been pointed out that I have provided a large amount of reference material for any other user or editor. I request that I be allowed to change my screen name for Wikipedia, and I am willing to refrain from posting entries that promote a business. I do, however, ask for some clarification from the Administrator that blocked my account, and request that the discussion shown above be given some consideration.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: I know this is ultimately your decision, but I just wanted to say, as the person who originally leveled complaints against this user, I would not be against unblocking him and having his username changed, or allowing him to continue editing under a new account. Given this user's willingness to engage in discussion and familiarize himself with WP policies, I think he can probably be a valuable contributor, with new experience gained from this episode; some old concerns that I raised about editing conduct (such as removing templates and reverting) I think will probably not be problems anymore, again because the user has demonstrated a willingness to learn more about WP policy. Of course, he can't continue editing under this username because of rules against using a company name as a username, but I wouldn't object if he were to continue editing under another name, as long as he discloses his relationship to artists whose pages he edits. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stand by as I request comment by the blocking admin. FrankLloydGallery, it would probably help if you told us what contributions you intend to make if you are unblocked and renamed. Sandstein 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for blocking admin. As a slightly involved party (from COIN), I endorse the unblock of Mr. Lloyd. I do not get the impression that he is here for purely promotional reasons, and he is absolutely willing to discuss his edits and how they interact with policy. I do think the username could be seen as promotional, but an unblock and name change request would solve that. I feel he has valuable information to contribute, and especially given his attitude towards discourse, will be a net asset to the encyclopedia. Arakunem^Talk 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support unblocking. — Athaenara ✉ 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to offer my thanks to Athaenara, Arakunem, Sandstein, and Politizer for support in this process. Second, I would like to apologize for not having informed myself of the COI policies as much as I should have. In line with that, I must commend Politizer for giving me an extended tutorial, and engaging in discussion (recorded above). As I said at the outset of that discussion, I expect to learn a lot. In making the request for unblocking, I kindly refer anyone to the contributions that I have made, and their histories. Other than the obvious COI (and lack of sophistication with inline citations), they seem to have stood with further editing and provide a resource for learning (references). Finally, as for my plans in the Wikipedia community, I would like to edit and contribute in other areas of interest: Architecture (specifically Los Angeles post-war modernist architecture), Sports (specifically baseball), and History of Art (ceramics, painting, and sculpture). I now have a much greater understanding of the policies, and would not be involved with edits that constitute COI and Spamming.I hope that answers all questions.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have disabled your unblock request because the blocking administrator has unblocked you. Welcome, again, to Wikipedia, and thank you for your patience and understanding. Sandstein 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nowkied out the "blocked for spamming" category as it no longer applies. Arakunem^Talk 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you attention, Sandstein, Arakunem, and Politzer. I'll proceed with the name change and my learning process on Wikipedia.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

The page where you can submit a username change request is Wikipedia:Changing username. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. I submitted the request.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]