User talk:GGWuregina

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, GGWuregina! Thank you for your contributions. I am BrillLyle and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! BrillLyle (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Gee

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regina session - note

Hello, I'm Blythwood. I've just noticed that a lot of the articles created at the University of Regina event you attended ended up rapidly getting deleted for problems. I contacted you as I thought I should notify someone present about this and you seem to have been active on Wikipedia most recently of the participants there - quite a lot of the articles created ultimately got deleted or listed for consideration for it, so I thought you might be a good person to contact in case participants wanted to rewrite or make changes to their articles.

The problems people were worried about included straight copyright violations of text like faculty biographies or not presenting evidence of notability (for example, an Associate Professor often isn't automatically notable unless they're unusual). A discussion thread about this is here and an example discussion of one of the articles is here. Blythwood (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your response Blythwood. I was part of a multi-class assignment to post articles on artists from the University of Regina (Saskatchewan, Canada) to Wikipedia. I’m not sure how prepared the hosting class was, but I certainly didn’t realize the full requirements going in to the project. I’ve always valued Wikipedia as a concise resource and seeing the rigor behind the articles has left me with a greater appreciation for the Wikipedia project and its information in general.

The organizing professor is away until next week but indicated that she would try to do more research when she returns. Are you, or someone else, available to provide comments to her? I’m not sure what her user name is but I can forward that or pass on a user name to her. I looked at many of the pages and agree with many of the flagged comments. Some of the efforts were not too well done. The shame is that I saw people who I think are actually notable but the author did not identify any of those details.

In my own case, I did do research on Wikipedia as best as I thought I could. I was aware of this artist through a series of technical workshops she did back at Regina. My page was deleted for “promotion” but that certainly was not the intention. I was concentrating on illustrating “notability”, which I think is demonstrated by this artist, and I can see that my expansion on that may have been interpreted as promotion. In my class, we are studying artistic research methodologies and this artist ha−s a very complex philosophical basis for her work. It was very hard to bring that forward in my own language. I would appreciate any insight you may have on this; not on the wording itself but more on the approach. I have started to enter the wording again, respecting a “neutral” tone. My sense is to leave out the dense discussion and keep the page more succinct. On another note, the artist “Erin Gee” has a direct name conflict with another musician of the same name. I had entered a bracketed qualifier as a solution {Erin Gee (New Media artist)} but I would appreciate any response to that. --GGWuregina (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've contacted the Art & Feminism events coordinator in case he has any input - I'm just some random person who was curious, I'm afraid. I'm really happy to look through your article and will see what I can do to help with when I next have a chance too. Wikipedia's guideline on whether an article on a person is appropriate is at WP:PERSON and that links to comments for people in other specific lines of work such as for academics. Hope that helps somewhat. Blythwood (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I've just read your article and am going through it. Some thoughts, some based on Wikipedia standards, some just me being opinionated:
1) I mean, basically this is all going down the right lines. It's clear that the person is notable, that they've done some exhibitions and that there are a lot of citations out there, and it doesn't feel too much like a sales pitch. So the article's on the right track - the citations now need to be brought to being inline so citations are called out from appropriate places in the text. I've put three citations like that. You give the citation a name in the form so you can call it using 'named references' from multiple places in the article as is necessary.
2) You probably want to expand the description of her artwork and not worry too much about listing every exhibition she participated in, when that list will be out of date tomorrow. I mean, this automaton stuff sounds like fun - you should add more about it! (One thing I see with artist articles by new editors is that they often seem too nervous to actually write their own description of anything. Or write something ghastly like "her works examine the sense of the sacred space through an examination of the inherent historicity of the sublime, interrogating it through the lens of modernism and the concept of distransitive mislocation" - yes, I've seen stuff that ridiculous. Not that it left any scars or anything.)
3) I've moved the education section down. OK, this is me being ideological, but I feel that articles should try to avoid starting with what university (if any) you went to. It just sounds a bit snobbish.
4) Since she seems to have some videos of her art, I've put a direct link to them in her external links section.
5) As general housekeeping, I've also added categories and so on. Wikipedia uses titles in sentence case, so it should be "Erin Gill (artist)" not "Erin Gill (Artist)" when moved to a permanent slot. I would say just "(artist)" is simpler than "(new media artist)" as the other Gill seems to be just a composer?
Hope this is OK - let me know if any thoughts. Blythwood (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your input Blythwood. I really appreciate your help and the edits! I think I'm catching on here. Your points are all well taken and I'll get back to this again shortly. For now, I've changed the page title and I'll do some work on the inline citations with text. I read through the material on images and I get it; for now I'll go with no image but see if I can procure a public domain release after the text is in place. As you've stated, I do think the artist is of note, it's just a matter of appropriately illustrating that. --GGWuregina (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]