User talk:Lonebiker

Welcome!

Hello, Lonebiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Chairboy deleted my article on Kim Dingle and I'm wondering why. I went ahead and replaced it, but am still perplexed at the deletion. Because I'm a relatively new editor, I'm not sure where I can go to ask him about the action. His only comment in the history was A7?

Hi there! It is nice to see you trying to add content to the encyclopedia. Chairboy did delete the article, and the reason would probably have been notability. You might need to add more sources for your article to ensure it is not deleted again. Google searches return notable pages which is a good thing. To talk to Chairboy about his reasoning for deleting the article, you can use his Talk Page. I hope I have been able to help you, if you have any further questions, dont hesitate to ask me on my Talk Page. --Ali K 04:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Is there a way to recover articles that another contributor has deleted? I am hoping to add a page on Kim Dingle, but Chairboy keeps deleting it. I am in discussion with Ali K about Chairboy's motivations and would like to make any needed corrections, but because the page is deleted as soon as I write it, I will have to keep re-writing. Thanks!

lonebiker 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a copy of the article in your userspace at User:Lonebiker/Kim_Dingle. You're welcome to move it back to the encyclopedia once it meets the notability requirements I've mentioned below. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be persnickity with you, but I suggest that you read the second paragraph of WP:CSD.

As I stated in my article and in the previous post, Dingle is described by "multiple, independent reliable sources" as outlined in the wiki notability article. I am not affiliated with the artist nor her galleries, and therefore consider myself as neutral an editor as possible. I do however, consider her a significant and note worthy contemporary artist worthy of an article in this encyclopedia.

If you would allow me the time to state in the article which aspects of WP:CSD are being met, I would be happy to have that opportunity. However, you have twice deleted my entries, which I now have to completely re-create. I would also like to kindly suggest that you read WP:BITE and maybe not be quite "as fast as a speeding bullet" when it comes to making important decisions regarding the importance of an entry.

Thank you for posting the article back into my user space. I do plan to add further content to it because I believe Wikipedia to be an important portal of information, but I do have to say that this experience has kind of turned me off a bit.

lonebiker 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"However, you have twice deleted my entries, which I now have to completely re-create." doesn't really make sense, because I posted the entire contents of the article back to your userspace. Also, each article must stand on its own merits from the moment of conception. This is why we have the preview button. Welcome to wikipedia, I look forward to seeing your contributions but must insist that your submissions meet the community driven standards. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my article?

You have deleted my Kim Dingle article twice, citing notoriety. I would like to respond, and request that you stop deleting the article as it is completely relevant to Wikipedia. One of the main reasons I joined Wikipedia as a contributor was to write articles on historically ignored artists who tend to be women. Amazingly, Dingle doesn't fit into this category at all - yet you seem to think her unworthy of inclusion. She has gallery representation in New York, Los Angeles and Italy. Her works are in large museums like MOCA LA, and she has received a great deal of critical review and acclaim in major art magazines. I intended to start the article last night and add more content in the upcoming days. I understand the usefulness of the sandbox, but felt my original and second versions of the article substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's suggestions. Furthermore, my second version did make reference (and external link) to her NY gallery. When you do a google search of the artist's name, google has 10 pages of results! What kind of notoriety are we expecting, and who gets to decide whether a topic is worthy of space? This has been a major problem with western art history in general, and I would like to think it could end at Wikipedia!

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration in this matter. Please respond to me at [my talk page].

lonebiker 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CSD Article #7. She may be notable, but the article made no assertion of notability. You're welcome to recreate the article, but you need to state in the article which aspects of WP:NOTABLE are being met. As the article creator, the burden is on you to clearly document in the article why the person belongs in an encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It seems like you have finally discussed the article with Chairboy and his reasons seem to be legitimate. To find a user's talk page, if you are using Mozilla Firefox, all you need to do is type in the Location Bar : wp User_Talk:lonebiker and that should link to it. If you are using IE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:lonebiker should work fine. Hope this helps you out. --Ali K 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary art

Hi there! Glad to see you're taking this on. I was shocked to find this article in shambles when I stumbled upon it. While I am not at all an expert in contemporary art, I would gladly help out with prose/copy editing/general suggestions. In case you didn't know, your sandbox can be especially useful as you take on this endeavor. Good luck, and drop me a message at my talk page whenever you want! Gzkn 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the sandbox I was referring to was your own user-created one (see Wikipedia:About_the_Sandbox). Thus your sandbox would be at User:Lonebiker/sandbox. This way, you can save your draft and check over how it would actually look in the wiki. Hope this helped! Gzkn 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the museum section should probably be entirely rewritten. And yeah, claims of being the "first" anything are usually up for debate. I would leave it out unless a plethora of the standard texts/books about contemporary art/museums state so. If so, make sure you cite it (have you had a chance to check out WP:CITE yet?). The important museums should probably have their own wiki pages. With regard to the list, I generally would stay away from incorporating extensive lists into an article such as this one. IMO, that would be better suited for a list wiki page (perhaps List of contemporary art museums). I think that a paragraph or two of prose about the prominent museums should suffice.

On the issue of merging, I'm afraid that this is where my lack of knowledge on contemporary art comes into play, as I don't know how art historians define "contemporary art" and "postmodern art". If you want to merge, make sure you read WP:Merge. You'll need to put up the proposed merger templates and place your reasoning on the talk pages for discussion. This will also hopefully generate some more informed opinions on this matter than mine. Gzkn 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I put in a plug at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts for this rewrite. Hopefully, we can get more people involved. The more, the merrier! Gzkn 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks fine to me. Good job. To create a redirection page, you can read up on Wikipedia:Redirect. You'll probably want to use {{R from alternative name}} Cheers, Gzkn 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Contemporary art museums

Hi! So if you scroll down to the bottom of Contemporary art, you'll find that the article belongs to these categories: Articles which may be biased | Articles to be expanded | Art history | Contemporary art | Contemporary artists | Postmodern art | Postmodernism. Now go ahead and edit Contemporary art. If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll find a bunch of [[Category:blah]] tags. That's how you categorize a page. You can just copy and paste the relevant ones to your Contemporary art museums page. You might want to also include [[Category:Art_museums_and_galleries]]. Note that the "Articles which may be biased" and "Articles to be expanded" categories were automatically included because of the {{POV check}} and {{expand}} tags at the top of the article. Hope this helped! If you want more information, check out Wikipedia:Categorization. Gzkn 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]