User talk:Galeriechezvalentin

Welcome!

Hello, Galeriechezvalentin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Laurent Grasso, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Laurent Grasso

The article Laurent Grasso has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello and welcome! I noticed you made a change to an article, but didn’t provide a source for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you can include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Thank you, Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Laurent Grasso. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Laurent Grasso. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Grasso

Your recent editing history at Laurent Grasso shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. reddogsix (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material you wish to add is tantamount to resume, something that is discouraged in Wikipedia. If you wish to add a couple of exhibits that is a better suggestion or you might want to refer to major exhibits in the text.reddogsix (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Laurent Grasso. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 (continued)

Hello Galeriechezvalentin. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Laurent Grasso, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Laurent Grasso

Hello, Galeriechezvalentin, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Grasso whether the article Laurent Grasso should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Laurent Grasso, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Laurent Grasso

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Laurent Grasso. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Galeriechezvalentin reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: 3 days). EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Laurent Grasso

Hello, Thank you for your information.

But let's clear everything. We are a French contemporary art Gallery, in Paris, which plays a major role in the contemporary scene, national and international, as we are currently participating to Art Basel In Miami Beach, Fl. Laurent Grasso, is one of our major artist, and he actually won the Marcel Duchamp Prize in 2008, which is one of the most important prize in contemporary art.

So the discussion about whether the article Laurent Grasso should be in Wikipedia is nonsense, just because there is a french version of the page, which has been created by myself, and has been approved, with any problem. All the information I put, is verified as we represent the artist for years. If people took a look at the gallery website, where we can find a resume and a bio of the artist, they should have noticed that every information is clear and verified.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galeriechezvalentin (talk • contribs)

If you promise to stop editing the article directly, but simply propose your material at Talk:Laurent Grasso, you might be unblocked. Other editors do not believe that you have WP:Reliable sources for the claims you are making. It is your job to convince them on the talk page. Existence of a page in French Wikipedia does not decide the matter. They have their policies and we have ours. Please see this comment which was made in the debate at WP:Articles for deletion:

No evidence of notability. The references are (1) a page that doesn't mention Laurent Grasso, (2) a page at http://laurentgrasso.com, the full and complete text of which is "Laurent Grasso", and (3) page on the website of a gallery showing his work, which includes his name in lists, and that is all. (Incidentally, creator of this article has stated that he/she is the owner of that gallery.) Searches have likewise produced mainly coverage on websites of businesses and organisations which sell or exhibit his work, or otherwise cannot be regarded as independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know if you will promise to stop editing the article so I can unblock you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the issue that this is a promotional user account. Per the article the artist is represented by Galerie Chez Valent. (Galeriechezvalent = Galerie Chez Valent) reddogsix (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of another article on any Wikipedia is of little relevance to whether an article should be deleted, for reasons you can see at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The relevance of an article on another Wikipedia (such as French Wikipedia) is even less relevant than the existence of one on English Wikipedia, as each Wikipedia is autonomous, and French Wikipedia may, for all I know, have different inclusion criteria. The fact that a business that "represents" the artist has information about him is of absolutely no value at all in establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these useful information. As I still cannot comment on others pages on the actual subject, I will do this here.

I will explain the functionning of an art gallery, as it might not be as clear as it seemed. An art gallery has an artistic program, with artists, which are physical persons, usually, an artist can work with several galleries, depending on his carreer, but will still have a main gallery, usually the one he started to work with.

As a matter of fact, his carreer, his exhibitions, his exposure ... are reliable on the gallery which the artist belongs to.

For this wikipedia page, we, I, personnally worked with the artist himself and the artist's studio, to make all the information I put online, clear, verified, true, and reliable.

So could you please tell me, who other else could be more qualified to verify these information than the artist himself ?!

On the other hand, the websites used as references are ALL, with NO exceptions, mentioning Laurent Grasso, If not, these websites won't be stated here and chosen as references, as we are a professional entity.

I tried to make this as clear as crystal, and I hope that you will understand the problem. I apologize if I didn't respect the rules on a single basis. I thought as an offical, professional and representative entity that the information we share won't be put under the microscope and be questioned.

With that being said, please also note that this has no commercial purpose and advertising goal, it's just an information page, explaining who the artist is, where he works and how active he actually is on the contemporary art scene.

Thank you.

Gallery Chez Valentin

Edit#

Almost every well-known artists, have different articles on several wikipedia, and their relevance are never questioned. People don't speak the same language, otherwise, why wikipedia would even exists in different languages ?

This is not about doubt, it is about sharing ideas and spread knowledge, it's the first aim of this encyclopedia. And I doubt on the fact that one of the only representative of the artist would spread wrong information.

Comment - What you seem to be missing is the basis for inclusion into Wikipedia is establishing notability using verifiable and independent sources. Wikipedia inclusion does not include truth as a criteria and must be written from an unbiased point of view. The fact that you represent the artist and that the artist had a hand in creating the article negates the concept of a "neutral point of view." reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, if you've read the article, it is totally neutral and simply informative, we don't give, at any moment, our opinion, thoughts, or any other feeling, this is information in its purest form so I don't really get what the problem is for this article to be accepted. If you're actually find any elements that are proven to be non-neutral, I undertake to remove these elements. But since there is none, this is becoming total nonsense. The fact discussed is that the artist and his studio are co-signing this article is the highest proof of its reliability, and even more just because this is not a promotional page, the information given are here to let people know about a young great artist, which is recognized by the international scene (institutions, museums, OTHER galleries etc...), so from here, it totally has a place in the Wikipedia world.

It's not about truth, it's about fact, official websites verify themselves these information. Of course what I call "official" is not a governmental website, but professional websites which just verify the information provided. THREE DIFFERENT REFERENCES sites should be enough. What you call "Independent sources" take their nature in institutions websites such as the ones I have provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galeriechezvalentin (talk • contribs)

Comment - Your insistence on not allowing the article to be changed is a good indicator of your lack of independence. The changes you refused to allow were intended to improve the article and provide an article that would meet Wikipedia guidelines. More importantly your insistence that websites vet what is on there site is not really true. In addition, there is no way to insure you are you you say you are or that the artist is involved with the article. Regardless, it is a moot point. All Wikipedia articles must be derived from independent sources. An artist's website is hardly independent. It can also be argued that someone that represents the artist is not independent.

I suggest rather than try to argue the point your read the articles I referenced above and concentrate on providing valid references to support the article. If you have any questions specific to those article, I am more than willing to give you a hand. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for your response. I accept changes from contributors, if they help to make the article evolve in a good way, if not, we wouldn't have put an article on wikipedia, which support everyone's contribution. But deleting content from the article must also be an interference to the Wikipedia policy. I understood that we can't rely on trust here, even for such an article. Art is not science, this is not 1+1=2. That's the reason why you would might notice differences in the information released in the air. By the way, if some contributors find better information about Laurent Grasso, I'm eager to see it, but once again, deleting content I put on a basis, it's not helping the article, the subject, and the readers in any ways.

With that being said, could you please tell me what I clearly have to do to make this article accepted and be "reliable" ?

Thank you, and I apologize to keep responding here, but I actually can't comment anywhere else.

Whilst I appreciate that you are (probably) in a unique position in both knowing and promoting the artist, that isn't the basis upon which Wikipedia entries are based. They are based on reliable third party sources, major newspapers, learned journal, major broadcasters etc which report on the artist and /or his work in sufficient detail that adds verifiability to what is being said. Passing mention only confirms existence. It would also be worthwhile to look at the articles of other artists such as Henry Moore, Tracey Emin, Lucio Fontana, Robert Indiana and note the degree of referencing , the lack of list of individual exhibitions and the general encyclopaedic style of these articles and use such examples to improve other artiucles. I would strongly suggest working on articles in which you don't personally have an interest to gain more experience of Wikipedia and post information here or on the article talk page of suitable sources of information that others can use. Any edits of Laurent Grasso that you make are going to be put under great scrutiny because of your potential conflict of interest in this case. . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artist you have mentioned are already part of Art History, this has nothing to do with emergent artists such as Laurent Grasso, Bruno Peinado, Thomas Hirschhorn, Valentin Carron etc.. All are emerging artist who are growing up every day, and of course don't have a Damien Hirst or a Richard Prince carrer.

So the information could be reduced, for the moment, to a resume or an exhibitions list, which is, still, relevant, as it's a part of the artist story. So the degree of referencing might not be as huge as artists who are already recognized by the mass.

But anyway, if we let GalerieChezvalentin help sharing knowledge, we can provide "references" which are "degreed" enough to be accepted.

All the best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galeriechezvalentin (talk • contribs)

You are correct in assuming established artists may have more support than emerging ones; however, the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is not a sliding scale. It is a minimum defined in WP:NOTABILITY and its associated sub-articles. Once again, I suggest you focus on providing adequate support for the article as defined in the above referenced articles. If you can do this the article will survive the AfD, if not, it will be removed from Wikipedia.

An extensive "resume or an exhibitions list" is considered as unencyclopedic. As indicated above Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. GalerieChezvalent is more than welcome to share knowledge about the artist, but once more as indicated above, Wikipedia requires independent references. reddogsix (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Galeriechezvalentin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

81.64.82.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Galeriechezvalentin". The reason given for Galeriechezvalentin's block is: "Edit warring: [[WP:AN3#User:Galeriechezvalentin

Blocking administrator: EdJohnston (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You are blocked directly for your edit-warring. See WP:GAB for instructions on requesting unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]