User talk:Eleesa Dadiani

Conflict of Interest

Please cease from editing the article on Paul Wager, as you clearly have a conflict of interest. It also looks very bad when people edit their own pages-- and sometimes shows up in the media! In this clase it is clear you are interested in promoting the article subject, which makes editing his page a no-no. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, therefore I can edit it. I removed all references to Dadiani Fine Art even though it is relevant as this is where he is exhibiting. A quote by a fellow artist, Michael Sandle, is very much relevant to Paul Wager's origin's and work. You have reduced the article to an incomplete and barren state which would do the artist, Paul Wager, a great dishonour to allow it public in that state. I have reverted it and omitted all references to Dadiani as per your indication, I have kept it as neutral as it can be given Paul Wager's long career as an artist. It is not wrong for me to write an article on an artist which has been consistently producing monumental works, it is a public oversight that no article has been written on Wager prior to my article. Please refrain from this pointless exercise of power when I have not violated anything; this is clearly your opinion that I am serving self interests which I find insulting and unfounded.

It's not an opinion or power trip, it is policy. The policy is there to prevent poeple without a neutral point of view, like yourself, from creating promotional articles. Sorry, you are clearly his dealer, which means you have a strong conflict of interest. Right now I'm the only one objecting, but I am happy to take it to other editors to back this up. Your account can be blocked for repeatedly refusing to follow COI guidelines. Bad PR also sometimes comes of your stance-- just Google "edited own Wikipedia page". In any case you are in violation of the COI policy, so this is your final warning to cease editing the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I represent Paul Wager, so all I can do is remove all reference to my name and gallery to keep it neutral. I don't wish to violate but I do strongly believe that a man who has been consistently producing monumental works of art working for over 40 years deserves to have an article written about him. People who have achieved not a fraction of what Paul Wager has achieved in terms of influencing other people and the input of labour for a given task have had articles written about them which I find insulting. It's just that no one took to this task, so I took it upon myself to do it. As I said I removed all mention of myself and my gallery despite the fact that it is very much relevant. I can't do much more. When I saw you cropped the article, I felt the state it was left in was not acceptable so please review the article as it is saved and let me know what else I can do to keep within policies. Thank you

I entirely agree that he warrants an article, but on Wikipedia this is done by persons with a neutral point of view. You do not have a neutral point of view, and much of the material you added does not fit within guidelines as it is not referenced. As his dealer, you're also basically a WP:PAID editor, which along with the COI makes you somewone who all of Wikiepdia does not want editing the page. You can suggest changes on the talk page, as stated in the WP:COI policy. See also WP:OWNERSHIP, which is an explanation of the fact that once an article is published, no one editor owns it. Finally, it's obvious that this is a serious artist deserving of a page. I hope you can see that there is nothing personal here-- it's a matter of preserving the quality and objectivity of the encyclopedia. Summary: It is Wikipedia policy for those without a conflict to work on the page, and for those with a conflict, such as yourself, to stand back. (Aslo, when you post on talk pages, could you please put four "~" tildes after your post? That will WP:SIGN your post.) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you write it? I am not being paid to do this, I own the gallery, I am self employed. I decided to do it not knowing the rigid policies so I cannot leave the article barren and incomplete as when you stri it, it really dishonours the artist. Who can I ask? Can't one of your team do it if I give you the material? I also I might not have a neutral interest but my article can be. Michael Sandle RA champions this article, I felt it was necessary to quote him. I also felt it necessary to include Paul Wager's artist's statement. So long as the article is factual and there is no visual affiliation with the source then I don't see where the violation lies.

There's no team-- there are thousands of volunteer editors around the world editing pages. I'm sitting on my balcony in Canada. Someone else in Dubai might edit it. Soemone I do not know just reverted your revert of my edit. You should be very careful about reverting edits, as if you do it again your account wil be blocked. See WP:3RR, and consider yourself warned (multiple times). HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case I need the article removed, I've written it to begin with therefore I am not happy with it's edited version, it compromises Paul Wager. How do I delete the article? And if you are just a volunteer editor why are making my life here difficult? I have been working on this article for weeks and now you want to reduce it to an incomplete state. Eleesa Dadiani (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making your life difficult-- I'd say it's the other way around :) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Eleesa. By way of introduction, I work at lot on COI issues in Wikipedia and my attention was called here by the posting at COIN noticed below.

I hear your frustration and surprise, and I understand where you coming from. I do. From your perspective, this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there was no article on this artist who you really believe is important, and Wikipedia is a widely used reference work and in your review there should be an article on him. On top of that, it is kind of urgent that this article appear, since you are having an exhibition about him and a Wikipedia article will help people understand him and want to come to look, and perhaps buy. The Wikipedia article is part of your curating efforts for him. Put all that together, and it made sense to you to create an article on him.

From the perspective of the editing community - the reason why we are talking with you and working on the article with you -- Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work. We all really care that content in Wikipedia complies with the community's policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines have been put in place by the community itself over the past 15 years - they govern everything we do.

It is not uncommon that people with a financial conflict of interest (COI) on some topic, come to Wikipedia to create or edit articles in that topic. It seems natural to them to do so. But it is very common that when these folks come here, their editing is promotional and it often doesn't comply with the policies and guidelines in many other ways. These editors, like you, just really didn't know about any of these policies and guidelines, or that undeclared conflict of interest is ever a problem in Wikipedia.

It is a problem ! Managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it - it matters.

People who come here and want to work on content where they have a COI can be really productive members of the community, but only if they "get it" that COI is an issue, and agree to slow down a bit and learn how this place works, and work here with the policies and guidelines in mind. Sometimes editors in this situation don't "get it" and keep pushing and pushing for the content they want, and either leave in a frustrated and angry way, or get banned by the community. The path each editor chooses is of course their own.

Does that all make sense to you? If so, we can talk a bit more about this if you like. The key thing that I hope for, is that you "get it" - conflict of interest matters in Wikipedia, and disclosing and managing it, is important, and you have a COI with regard to this artist Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It totally does. Thank you. It was my oversight, if I knew that using my name would create such conflict of interests I would have encouraged the arts community or an independent writer to write this article, now I feel I blew it. Since the article I initiated is now in the hands of the wiki community, I only ask that Mr Wager's history is respected and a decent edit is introduced. I have read countless articles on wikipedia to acquaint myself with the structure, therefore the majority of the article has, to my understanding, adhered to this structure. One point to note here is that I only edited a biography provided by a fellow sculptor of the article, so it wasn't 'written' by me but structured into sections and uploaded onto wikipedia by me. I find it unnerving that the previous editor removed almost all of the article's content and left it barren. In that, I find it is better to remove the article in it's entirety than to allow it to remain in it's current state. Since the article remains in existence, I would like to work with the wiki community to complete it.

One thing that I will also mention is that I was very upset by how I had been dealt with by the previous editor. I found his tone sarcastic and reprimanding and unhelpful especially on the open forum. After that encounter I felt let down and somewhat embarrassed. I am not a child nor a criminal but a respected person; troubleshooting on the nature of these incidents I came across a fellow who writes books and articles exposing the clandestine doings of wikipedia and it's voluntary editors and felt he may have been right after my previous encounter, however, after your sensitive message which seeks to resolve this issue, I feel encouraged to persevere. Please suggest what can be done in this instance, what can I do to have this article appear in a more comprehensive form?"2A02:C7D:BB0A:D000:54F4:993D:5A32:F49C (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry I didn't log in to post the above, in case you didn't here it is again:

"It totally does. Thank you. It was my oversight, if I knew that using my name would create such conflict of interests I would have encouraged the arts community or an independent writer to write this article, now I feel I blew it. Since the article I initiated is now in the hands of the wiki community, I only ask that Mr Wager's history is respected and a decent edit is introduced. I have read countless articles on wikipedia to acquaint myself with the structure, therefore the majority of the article has, to my understanding, adhered to this structure. One point to note here is that I only edited a biography provided by a fellow sculptor of the article, so it wasn't 'written' by me but structured into sections and uploaded onto wikipedia by me. I find it unnerving that the previous editor removed almost all of the article's content and left it barren. In that, I find it is better to remove the article in it's entirety than to allow it to remain in it's current state. Since the article remains in existence, I would like to work with the wiki community to complete it.

One thing that I will also mention is that I was very upset by how I had been dealt with by the previous editor. I found his tone sarcastic and reprimanding and unhelpful especially on the open forum. After that encounter I felt let down and somewhat embarrassed. I am not a child nor a criminal but a respected person; troubleshooting on the nature of these incidents I came across a fellow who writes books and articles exposing the clandestine doings of wikipedia and it's voluntary editors and felt he may have been right after my previous encounter, however, after your sensitive message which seeks to resolve this issue, I feel encouraged to persevere. Please suggest what can be done in this instance, what can I do to have this article appear in a more comprehensive form?"Eleesa Dadiani (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way! I see no evidence of my talking down to you-- only evidence of me try to explain the rules, which you persistenly ignored at first. Was it perhaps when I said "Thank you in advance for your cooperation."-- was that over the top? I can see a few instances of aggressive language on your part, but I am ignoring them. I assure you there is nothing personal here; we are simply trying to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. Regarding the article, to expand it it needs published references. Several editors have looked for them but they cannot find them. If you can dig up published references by third parties, then post the publication info on the talk page for the article and we will add it! Happy editing. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks HappyValley. I will have a look. What about including images of his work in the article? Wager has written to wikipedia giving his consent for the use of those images."Eleesa Dadiani (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process for that, which I am not exactly sure of. Look at the Wikimedia commons for something like "authorizing images". The biggest thing you can do is find published references in a trip to the local library. Anything pre-1989 is poorly covered online. My hunch is that someone reviewed those large public sculptures at Loughborough when they were put in, and those count as notable references. There must be many reviews and articles on the Loughborough group as well. The date of the refs is not important, as notability is not temporary on Wikipedia: If you were once notable, you always are here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You could also Draft an article on the Loughborough group, which would seem to be the logical master page for Paul Wager to be linked from. I'm sure there are lots of refs for them. I think it would be safe to say your conflict with such an article would be minimal, so you could just publish it yourself. I think...HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

″Ok well I am just getting online references together and we will go from there. This might be an idea but I really didn't expect to be confronted with this much work over one article :), so will see what I can do. Meanwhile please bear with me whilst I gather online articles."Eleesa Dadiani (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

″Alright, so I managed to find some references, however, for your convenience it might be an idea to use command/finder key to locate exactly where Paul Wager is mentioned as some of the articles are general and speak of other things besides Wager, especially where the online books are concerned. I have also attached some press just in case. I have been sent an essay/piece written by Dave Morris, who was the former Head of Sculpture Loughborough University, about Paul Wager's sculpture "Omnibus", which I can copy onto here if relevant. Please see the links below:

References:

http://www.arts.lboro.ac.uk/collection/campus_art_trail/

https://yoursculpture.wordpress.com/tag/paul-wager/

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Loughborough_Group.html?id=bT7pSAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/reference-entries/39550247/pulse

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/reference-entries/39550241/la-retraite

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/reference-entries/39550242/strike

https://www.thesculpturepark.com/paul-wager/

https://worldwar1trenchart.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/memoriam-omnibus-paul-wager/

http://www.allenmill.co.uk/#!sculpture-trail/c1jnl

http://westernindependent.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/crucible2-at-gloucester-cathedral.html

https://artupdate.com/en/reflections-war-flowers-gallery-kingsland-road-19-july-30-august-2014/

http://timshawsculptor.com/category/news/

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TBwKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=paul+wager+sculptor&source=bl&ots=ROIYreM2Jc&sig=Eg9-1UhZ8ojeNKD6PDDLv8K_Wck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVj6yXnZTMAhXBvRoKHbW0DnM4ChDoAQhAMAY#v=onepage&q=paul%20wager%20sculptor&f=false

http://www.vads.ac.uk/large.php?uid=78895

https://issuu.com/powershift/docs/24_artists_letter_w/5

http://empedia.info/resource/162

http://empedia.info/resource/180

http://www.viewgallery.co.uk/assets/brochures/Anthony_Heywood_brochure.pdf

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/artist-bids-to-build-163-250-000-sculpture-1-1507742

http://artuk.org/about/blog/finding-inspiration-inloughborough

Press:

https://artattackapp.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/paul-wager-the-mask-of-anarchy-dadiani-fine-art-london/

http://www.thepalettepages.com/2016/04/12/paul-wager-at-dadiani-fine-art/

http://www.afternyne.com/#!Paul-Wagers-The-Mask-of-Anarchy-Northern-Grit-Lost-Heritage/colb/570b72160cf21d117956ab18"Eleesa Dadiani (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

There is currently a dicsussion on the COI noticeboard that you are a part of. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So then delete the article and I will appeal to someone else to do but it just won't do in the state in which you're leaving it. What is your problem? Who am I hurting with this article? Is this really self promotion if I write an article on an artist who deserves it and remove all links or mention to myself?

It's a conflict of interest. Read the links provided above, multiple times. Also, be nice. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]