User talk:Edieco

Notability of Pete Wheeler

A tag has been placed on Pete Wheeler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall ^talk 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved, but I'll leave it for an administrator to make the call. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Pete_wheeler_06_boy.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

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 you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were multiple Pete Wheelers, then moving the article to "Pete Wheeler (artist)" would be appropriate, but with only one person by that name having an entry here, renaming the article is not necessary or desirable. Now that the speedy deletion request had been denied, I shan't pursue the matter further. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks, and take care. --Finngall ^talk 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:History repeats 2003 1600x1600.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:History repeats 2003 1600x1600.jpeg. 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:

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. 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Google hits

The good news: I find that when I search for something on Google, if there's a Wikipedia entry for it, that entry shows up at or near the top of the list most of the time. No problems there.

The bad news: Wikipedia uses nofollow tags for external links, meaning that external links within Wikipedia articles will not affect search engine rankings and results.

Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT an advertising medium or a provider of free web hosting (Please see "What Wikipedia is not"). One or two images of an artist's work is okay for an encyclopedia article, full galleries generally are not. That's what external links are for. Also, images posted for inclusion in articles must be available for redistribution under the GNU Free Documentation License or some similarly appropriate copyright/copyleft/public domain arrangement.

Hope this helps. --Finngall ^talk 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Looking Forwrd to not going back.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Looking Forwrd to not going back.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:

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. 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:2003 crowd.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:2003 crowd.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 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wheeler

Hi Christopher - I am James Dignan, an arts columnist for the Otago Daily Times in Dunedin - I reviewed a couple of exhibitions that he did at the Milford Gallery a few years back (I'm also an admin here on Wikipedia). I trimmed back what you wrote in the article on Pete because - despite it appearing in officially published reviews - it is one reviewer's opinion and therefore not encyclopedic in the sense that is necessary for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are meant to remain neutral and be of encyclopedic style, avoiding peacock terms, and directly citing any opinions or critiques inline (i.e., adding a direct reference to them immediately they appear in text). I've cut your latest amendments to the article in much the same way, since some of what you added was not appropriate to the standard tone of an encyclopedia. You also need to be careful of anything that could be considered an advertisement, especially given your close connection with one of the galleries where he exhibits! Grutness...wha? 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted from anon IP talk page): Hi again - you wrote: original version "The artist vents his frustration at the unsuspecting viewing public and their acceptance of image at face value" Your re-write "frequently using images taken from political propaganda as a basis for the venting of his frustration at the acceptance of this manipulative political tool" Can you see how you have changed the original meaning, from looking at peoples acceptance of all imagery at face value, to now only refering to political imagery.

I will accept that, but the fact remains that the majority of Pete's work (which I have been following from a distance for some time - I am aware of much of the work he has done in New Zealand and Germany since he left Dunedin) deals primarily with political propaganda. As such, the suggestion that he frequently uses these images (i.e., not all the time, but certainly a lot of the time) is perfectly accurate. However, I have amended the article to lessen the suggestion of this major influence on his work.

If you would like to write about Pete that is fantastic but I suggest you look at a the full body of his work and not just those shows that have been in Dunedin

I have.

A four page article about his debut Berlin show can be found in last years Art News.

Indeed there was - it was a good article.

I hope my tone has not been to harsh, but you will understand I have an interest in making sure artist that I work with are not misrepresented in the public domain.

Similarly I hope my tone has not been too harsh. But the problem remains, and is clear in the second part of this last sentence. You work with the artist - I'm guessing you represent him as part of the Kolektiv Berlin. As such, you have to be very careful with what you write about someone as there is a conflict of interest in your editing of this article. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - it would be useful if you could remember to log in when you edit - it saves having to reply on one of several anon IP tralk pages! Grutness...wha?