User talk:Murranji

Welcome!

Hello, Murranji, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Okay, about Eddie Burrup. You need to pause and digest Wikipedia's policies, about what an encyclopedia article is, about sources, about neutral point of view, the policy on 'no original research'. It is clear you know a great deal about the Burrup case, but there is a risk that significant parts of what you are adding will end up having to be removed. I will try and give a few examples.

Quite a number of sentences are unreferenced.
A significant number of references are to primary sources. Wikipedia generally does not accept primary sources. Most of what you are writing reads like something that itself would need to be published in a reliable source, such as a journal on Australian art. It would then be a peer-reviewed secondary source that could be cited here. "Correspondence: Elizabeth Durack Estate archives" is an example of an unacceptable primary source, both because it is primary and because of a lack of clarity about the nature of the item.
There is a heavy reliance on the Elizabeth Durack website. I've had a quick look and can't see clear evidence that it can be treated as a reliable source. I can't find information on who has written the critical text used on it, or who the "curators of the estate" actually are, and whether they (if they have written the site text) are qualified to provide critical evaluation. As curators of the estate, they may also have a particular point of view regarding Durack / Burrup, and may not be entirely neutral. In this regard, it is good that other published works are being drawn upon, but those published works (McDonald, Hutchings, Gooding, Smith, Timms) should be relied upon more extensively, instead of the durack site.

I hope this helps. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hamiltonstone, for your comments and generally for your offer to help with this article on Eddie Burrup. Indeed, I, personally, am not experienced at entering Wikipedia articles and will need help.

What I have in mind, is that I complete up-loading the revised text for this article that we (the trustees and curators of the Estate of Elizabeth Durack) have prepared, and then ask you to have another look and, at that point, get into discussing the alterations that you might deem necessary to suit Wikipedia policies that we certainly wish to respect.

We also have in mind that I insert several images of The Art of Eddie Burrup (about half a dozen) that the trustees are prepared to allow into the public domain, rather than directing to the Elizabeth Durack website to see them. It will be with this process, in particular, that I would really appreciate your help.

I intend to complete the uploading of our prepared text today (5 April; Australian time), but it might be a few days before I can get onto uploading the images that I have just referred to. Purwthrub 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Update on 5 April: The revised text for this article is now essentially up-loaded. The images are yet to come. You can get an idea of what we have in mind at References 57 to 61 Purwthrub 13:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Update on 25 May directed to Hamiltonstone: Since your initial advice we have received third party guidance on this article from an experienced Wikipedia contributor. (It was agreed that the text required attention.) The article in its present state now meets the Wikipedia guidelines and therefore we ask that you remove the NPOV tag.

Further, we have settled on three images to represent The Art of Eddie Burrup. These are up-loaded in accordance with 'Non-free rationale'. Please review these up-loads. They have attracted robot notices which have now been addressed. We trust associated tags will also be removed. Purwthrub 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Murranji, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Murranji! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:The coming of gudea, 1997, Eddie Burrup, diptych each 188x92cm.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The coming of gudea, 1997, Eddie Burrup, diptych each 188x92cm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 03:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MifterBot:

I believe the licensing requirements have now been addressed Purwthrub 05:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Burrup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DPL bot; I believe this problem is now solved.Purwthrub 00:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, Murranji. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eddie Burrup, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:The coming of gudea, 1997, Eddie Burrup, diptych each 188x92cm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The coming of gudea, 1997, Eddie Burrup, diptych each 188x92cm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]