User talk:Eperless

June 2016

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Joseph Fuller, from its old location at User:Eperless/Joseph F. Fuller, Jr. AIA, NCARB. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 01:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Fuller (June 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed. Also, this is unacceptably promotional, mainly with the quotes. Drop the quotes of praise - just include facts.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joseph Fuller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Eperless, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Joseph Fuller has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joseph Fuller. Thanks! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Fuller has been accepted

Joseph Fuller, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Tseung Kwan O (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Eperless, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Joseph Fuller. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Eperless. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Possible conflict of interest (COI)

Hello, Eperless. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Robert Perless, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, thank you for your help. I did not write the Robert Perless article; Jay Moskowitz did.When I attempted to add a photograph to his Gallery, and Robert filed all the necessary forms to Permissions, I NeverCry removed all the photographs from the Gallery, although they were approved when the entry was created. This is really terrible for a visual artist. I think that Wikipedia is being very weird that it won't let me try to get the photographs restored because I am Robert's wife. I also help with his sculpture studio, so it is a major waste of time to have to email Jay every time we see that an editor has cavalierly removed something, like the bibliography, which someone put on the Talk page. (Nobody but Wikipedia contributors goes to an article's Talk page. It is like removing it.)

The edits I suggested are restorations only. Eperless (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do directly, and need to do, is to add a reference for each work in a public museum, preferably rom the museums print or online catalog. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG, I did not write the article, Jay Moskowitz did. I will ask him to restore the lost photographs and bibliography if you find it so objectionable that I do it. It is not possible to have museums verify their collections in that manner; they do not operate that way. Catalogs are not published every time they acquire a work. I am very discouraged about Contributing to wikipedia.Editors suggest things that are just not possible. Eperless (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eperless, the point is that in an encyclopedia information needs to be reliably sourced. If it's not, and if there's a suggestion that unverified information serves to bolster up a subject's image (or tear it down, as sometimes happens), it is incumbent on editors to make the kinds of edits that keep the article neutral. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, there is no suggestion that this is unverified information. What DGG asked for is not what exists in the Museum world. In fact, what I asked to have put back in the article was the Bibliography which I Never Cry put on the article's Talk page. The Bibliography is filled with newspaper, magazine and web references, all impeccably verifiable. The photographs that were removed from the article are of sculptures that were commissioned by cities and state organizations and are each nearly 100 feet long. I was going to write a couple of articles about some brilliant photographers whose work I admire, but this incessant attack on the part of editors makes me wonder if it is worth it. Eperless (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eperless, museums and galleries do indeed post information about their holdings online, and online articles and PDF brochures also mention their holdings and acquisitions. If a holding, acquisition, or exhibition is not notable enough to be mentioned in either of those sorts of venues, then (even beyond its non-verifiability) it is generally not noteworthy enough to mention in a Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, softlavender, but that's not entirely correct. Museums post information online and in brochures about their CURRENT shows and scquisitions, almost NEVER catalogs of their entire collections acquired years before. (Unless, perhaps, they are the Metropolitan or the Louvre.) Much of Robert's work in museums was acquired pre-Internet. The most recent Museum installation, at the De Cordova, can be found at http://www.decordova.org/art/sculpture-park/mobius. The caliber of his clients are also proof of his legitimacy — numerous Public Agencies and corporations like Mobil Oil, Xerox, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Eperless (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, important or notable exhibitions (even pre-internet) or holdings are usually mentioned somewhere -- articles, books, official websites, PDFs, etc., etc. If an item held by a museum is not on display but is gathering dust in a warehouse and no mention of it can be found anywhere (not even in pre-internet newspapers), then it's probably not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. In any case, the article needs to be trimmed of unverifiable material per Wikipedia policy.

By the way, in the future please indent your posts with colons in order to nest your post underneath the post you are replying to. I am going to do that now with all of your previous posts on this page. Also, do not put your signature on a separate line. Softlavender (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I'm sure that each museum acquisition was written up somewhere at the time it was acquired. Many of those newspapers are out of town and we do not know the dates of acquisition any more because nobody ever told us that we would be called upon to prove their relevance. I found the one for the Aldrich Museum in his bibliography it is “Art of the State: Big Names, Talent in Aldrich Show” The Bridgeport Post 3/1/87. I can see what I can do about finding some of the others that are not listed in his bibliography, but I am very busy for the next couple of weeks. Hard copies would be in dead storage somewhere. Surely Wikipedia must have a court of higher appeal. Just the fact that you are calling this into question seems preposterous given the scope of Robert's work. I feel as though I am being persecuted and it is really inappropriate.Eperless (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed Chrysler Museum item, for instance, is not mentioned anywhere on Google that I can find, not even in Google's thousands of scanned newspapers that go back decades. And to reiterate, if the item is in some warehouse collecting dust, it's probably not noteworthy enough to mention on Wikipedia. No one is persecuting you. We are upholding the standards of the encyclopedia by following its verifiability, notability, and style polices and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a personal website or an advertising medium; nor is it a catalog or directory, or a repository of exhaustive and indiscriminate information. Additionally, participation on Wikipedia is voluntary; no one is forcing you to participate. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much about the Chrysler Museum on Google, period. The last time we were there a couple of years ago, Robert's sculpture was in one of the main galleries. NOTHING IS GATHERING DUST IN A WAREHOUSE, AND I RESENT YOUR CONTINUALLY SAYING THAT IT IS! I will call them and the other museums to find out where work has been published or if they can place the work on their site. Here is the Whitney Museum site's list of artists whose names begin with P in the collection: http://whitney.org/Collection/AllArtists?name=P. They used to contain live links to the works, but none of them are live since the museum moved, unfortunately. Various references to many of Robert's works are in the copious papers of the estate of his late dealer, the esteemed Andre Emmerich: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/andr-emmerich-gallery-records-and-andr-emmerich-papers-6275/more. Can I add the references as I get them, or will you consider that COI? Should I have Jay Moskowitz do them? Also, is there a way to get Robert's Bibliography off his Talk page? I NeverCry put it there for some reason, but you have to admit only Wikipedia contributors know about the article's Talk page and people will never see the bibliography which has some relevant articles, both in magazines and online.Eperless (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography was moved to the talk page because it was overlong, unviewable, and non-independent, and because it added to the resume-like quality of the article which was bloated with long lists To repeat, Wikipedia is not a personal website or an advertising medium; nor is it a catalog or directory, or a repository of exhaustive and indiscriminate information.. If you have viewable (clickable) reliable independent-source citations (like the one you linked above) to substantiate what is currently in the article, you may add them. Neither you nor Jay Moskowitz should be adding any further text to the article, since you both have conflicts of interest. If you wish to make any edit requests, you may do so on the talk page of the article. The Chrysler Musueum lists its current public holdings on its website, and it does not list any piece by Perless, so indeed I presume any piece they may have by him is warehoused. If he has a piece there that is on permanent public view, then all you need to do is have the museum correct their website. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are so hostile and misinformed I am going to ask for help in the Teahouse. All of the Chrysler Museum's collections are not exhibited on their site, only a small portion. Anyone who really understood art and museums would know that. Furthermore, when I look at other sculptors' articles, such as Beverly Pepper (who is a legend and also showed with Andre Emmerich) and Fletcher Benton (who showed at the same gallery as Robert in the 70s) they do not have any references to support their museum entries, so there is no Wikipedia precedent for what you are demanding!!!Eperless (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of precedent for demanding reliable sources for verification, Eperless. In fact, it's a core policy of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Cordless Larry, that's not what I'm talking about. I appreciate the need for verification and I actually first entered Robert's article to provide some asked-for citations. It's about an editor misunderstanding how museums and their web sites work. All museums have a constantly rotating collection; even a Picasso is sometimes "warehoused" and that is not proof of its lack of importance or the fact that it is "gathering dust." No museum has its entire collection enumerated on its web site. None. Zip. Zero. That is bad scholarship on the part of the editor. Contemporary work that was acquired in the '70s or '80s may be difficult to cite. The acquisition may have been published in a newspaper, or it may have simply been celebrated with an opening party. The fact is, many important contemporary artists do not have their museum shows referenced like that on Wikipedia, and this is starting to feel like a witch hunt. Eperless (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand. You say that it's not about the need for verification, but the rest of your reply seems to be an explanation of why it is difficult to cite a source that verifies a claim. Is that right? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said I don't dispute the need for verification whenever possible. I also said that sometimes truthful and important facts may not be easily cited. A lot of pop culture can be referenced up the wazoo. ("Gwen + Blake" has 9 million hits.) The sometimes arcane art world — particularly that of museum collections — makes this difficult. The fact is, most of the contemporary artists whose bios appear on Wikipedia have not been held to this standard when it comes to the citation of museum shows. Softlavender did not know what what she was looking at when she reviewed the Chrysler Museum site. Only a small portion of their collections in each category are discussed or shown. I am happy to provide citations when they are available. But Robert should not be held to a standard to which other artists are not.Eperless (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not possible to find a source, then the material shouldn't be in the article - it's as simple as that. I agree that different articles shouldn't be held to different standards, but the solution is to remove unsourced material from all of those articles, rather than using poor sourcing in some to justify it in others. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to make it my mission to provide as many citations as possible for the article. Some of them are already in his Bibliography. Some will be very time-consuming and I need some time because of work commitments. Please rest assured that work is under way. Should they be posted on the Talk page with a COI declaration? As far as removing unsourced material from other articles, I will leave that to those who feel that is their mission. Thanks to everyone. I need to get back to work.Eperless (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can post them here using the request edit template. It would probably be most efficient to make the requests once you've found several sources, rather than doing them one at a time. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is what I will do. I do think we have uncovered a problem here, though, and it is the issue of a Level Playing Field. One party should not be subjected to a more rigorous editorial process than other contemporary artists are. That doesn't mean there should be a witch hunt. It means you should treat everyone equally. There is also the fact that one of your editors made disparaging and unprofessional comments because she misunderstood museum process. ("The Chrysler Museum lists its current public holdings on its website.") No, it does not. It lists a few, maybe six, from each category. ("...if the item is in some warehouse collecting dust...")All art is warehoused at some time in a museum, even Picassos. A collection is constantly rotating. These remarks would have been insulting whether I was an art critic or Robert's wife. Surely you must have some process from discouraging such behavior. There are many areas in which I could contribute to this endeavor. For instance, your entry on the Doberman Pinscher, a breed with which I am very familiar, is riddled with unverified errors. (It claims that the German Shepherd and Great Dane are ancestor breeds, which is patently not true.)I intend to contact the DPCA and have them take a look at it. Perhaps one of their members can revise.Eperless (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real editorial process - things just get fixed as they get discovered, and with 5,222,693 articles and only 100,000 or so reasonably active editors, lots slips through the net. We are only discussing this particular article because of your COI request, which has brought the issue to light. The aim should be to level the playing field up to the highest standard, not lower it, but that requires resources and we're all volunteers, after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is like Animal House's Double Secret Probation. How do you expect people who have never contributed before to know about all your rules? You're saying if an art critic had made the changes, they would have gone through.Got it. I will post the edits on the Talk page when I have them in bulk.Eperless (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "gets through" in the sense that it is permanent - everything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time. It just might take a long time to pick up on errors or unsourced information. We don't expect new editors to know all of the rules - hence why we've explained the importance of them to you here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gets through" and "gone through" are two different things. I understand the need for citations and will provide them to the Talk page appropriately labeled with COI as soon as I can. It's ironic, though, that I first came onto Robert's page to add asked-for citations, I just didn't know that the proper way to add them was to do it through the article's Talk page. Perhaps it would be helpful if Wikipedia were to have some "Rules for New Contributors" section easily reached from the Home Page.Eperless (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome message above contains some helpful links on that front. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you see major uncited claims on other articles, you are welcome to add the {{cn}} tag(s) to them. Any uncited information may be challenged or removed. Softlavender (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But as I said above, I will leave that to those who feel that is their mission.Eperless (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I tagged Doberman Pinscher as requiring additional sources, and I see that another editor has been putting some work in to sort that out. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Eperless. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joe Roe (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm KGirlTrucker81. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Joseph Fuller, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]