Jump to content

User talk:Nynewart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi - I don't speak code so I hope you get this. You added a citation flag to the page on my work and remarked on my "notability" (a word that makes me profoundly uncomfortable and I did not choose. And frankly I understand your point - I don't know who first added me to Wikipedia and for years I have wanted to update the page but didn't know how.) As I alluded, I did not ask to be in Wikipedia. I was put there by others based on, I guess, what they know of my work and life. It may have been one of the music journalists following my work? Maybe you can even help me figure that out, as one day, the listing was just there. Then I had to live with a page that barely actually talked about anything I have actually done, but from a more sexist standpoint seemed most concerned with one very notable boyfriend. Ugh. I updated the page being as I would not know who else to ask to bring it up to date, and modest as they are I have worked hard to clarify what might be construed as some humble achievements. As I am a published writer, performed on some stages and have organized and taken part in public actions and a few other things, I am proud and happy to be included in Wikipedia but the problem is I am not known enough to have a lot of sources, particularly for my earliest performance art pieces when having your own video camera was not even a distant dream back in 1985! And most of the sources who reviewed my early performance work are not online (village voice articles, Dance journal, etc.) So, the citation can stay up there but I just wanted to be in solidarity on the awkwardness of this entire arrangement and say that I welcome conversation as to how I can "authenticate" my wiki presence at any time. I added a bunch of links (to journalism award, articles, more video, etc.) and will slowly submit others. I would appreciate your advice/help. It is weird having to authenticate oneself! Agh. Thanks, Rebecca Moore Rebaloo (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Nomination of Mark Miremont for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Miremont is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Miremont until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Resurrection of Beauty for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Resurrection of Beauty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resurrection of Beauty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Someone got me the references and "additional information links" from the miremont page that got deleted before it could be improved. Here they are, for possible future use by others:

[1][2][3][4][5] [6] [7][8][9]

  1. ^ Glucksman, Mary: Filmmaker Magazine (winter issue, 1996), "production update column" - full page article on Miremont
  2. ^ Alighieri, Beatrice (2009) "The Resurrection of Beauty: the art and philosophy of Mark Miremont", Revolutionart #17, March 2009 34.1MB pdf, Accessed online, January 3, 2011
  3. ^ Chris Morris "Billboard Magazine" (January 18, 1997), pg. 14
  4. ^ MTV.com : Miremont credited with video for Toad the Wet Sprocket
  5. ^ Production Notes "Billboard Magazine" (August 16, 1997), pg. 74
  6. ^ "The Sundance Institute Archive" Accessed online, December 23, 2010
  7. ^ "Mark Miremont's White Ocean at The Sundance Institute" Accessed online, March 24, 2014
  8. ^ "La Galerie Provocatrice, Amsterdam - photo exhibit, film premiere & manifesto release".
  9. ^ "THE RESURRECTION OF BEAUTY film premiere in Amsterdam" Accessed online, March 24, 2014

Additional Information


Editing

[edit]

While I don't regret nominating the two Miremont articles for deletion, as I genuinely believe these two articles aren't notable, at this time, I am glad to see that you have not stopped editing here, after all. One thing I do want to apologize for was the strong language I used at times in the edit summary and my at times aggressive tone in the Afds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shawn in Montreal

[edit]

I appreciate you admitting to that behavior now. I certainly "felt" the tone and feel that you made me jump through hoops just for your entertainment. (Others see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Miremont)

I tried to act in good faith despite it, but realized it was one sided, especially when you refused to replace the content you deleted after you finally read the source that the content came directly from and admitted it was reliable.

I still find notability in a subject that:

Directed Soundgarden's first music video, a video that was the first in the gurnge movement to get worldwide airplay
Directed numerous music videos for grammy nominated/winning artists
Who has exhibited photography internationally of models ranging from mamie van doren (a 50's legend), dita von teese (a contemporary one) and numerous other noted models, bands and artists with wiki pages
Whose first screenplay was developed at Sundance Director's Lad using Lothiare Bluteau as an actor(your fellow Montreal native) at (Sundance picks 6-9 projects out of over 2500-3500 submissions a year to develop.)
Who had an experimental, non-narrative feature film screen for a one night audience of 5000+ people

We can disagree that these are notable claims, sure. You find Canadian content notable that I find obscure; and I find experimental films notable that you find obscure. The difference is I don't go deleting pages with a prejudiced tone. If I did that to pages you created (not merely added tags to), you would likely be put off too. It was hard to not be dismayed when I saw several articles you edited at the same time, that you don't hold to Wikipedia's standards (claims with no citations, IMDB citations, Employer's Bios, etc). From one of the pages, I saw a claim that the living person "has directed 100s of commercials", without a proper reference to even one of them. Whereas on the miremont page there were 3 references (Billboard mag, MTV) and 4 additional reading links to support the uncontroversial claim that miremont 'has directed numerous music videos'. I guess that you find that a local station promo is notable but music videos for Grammy nominated bands are not.

Certainly miremont has done MUCH more work than was cited on the page in question, but none of that work was ON the page BECAUSE it wasn't cited.(Per Wikipedia). For instance I believe he has a Ph.d in Philosophy and was mentored by W.V.O. Quine, John Rawls and B.F. Skinner, but that was not mentioned in the references I had to cite from, as they were written earlier in his career. (This is why I did not dispute your claim of "Bullshit" when you deleted the content stating that he is a philosopher).

I think we just fundamentally disagree about which is worse: (1) an article with solid citations on a few notable claims or (2) an article with lots of un-cited, claims of notability. I opted for (1) and you seem to work in (2).

You could have applied other tags to the articles, which would have allowed editors time to contribute to the basic work established. This is what happened with the Edmund Teske article I created, and it evolved into a nice article. You must admit that deleting, not improving, became your mission. Deletion was not necessary; and looking at your other work as an editor, it seemed out of place. As someone else wrote me, this is an "example of why I don't edit frequently anymore".

Of course, I accept your apology. It is nice and admirable of you to admit what you did. And please know, I too would have been more gracious if I was given a chance.

I still wish you would revert your actions, at least on the miremont page, in service of improving it. Nynewart (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • I didn't delete your article: I nominated it for deletion and consensus was what resulted in deletion. I see you've restated a lot of claims for notability above, but again, as we must go by guidelines such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, I don't see anything that would make me change my mind at this time. Edmund Teske, by contrast, seems clearly notable according to our guidelines. Now, there is one reliable source on that article, as I've started at the AfD: that Revolutionart sure looks like WP:RS to me. So that's WP:ONESOURCE; if we consider "multiple" RS to mean more than two (as I do) you're one third of the way there. While I'd initially misunderstood the association with mamie van doren I can't consider that "independent." Her effusive praise of his work was on her own website, where paid subscribers could view his photos of her, correct? Not a truly reliable source, far as I can see.
Now, all is not lost. You do have another option, if you so choose. You might consider taking your complaints about how these Afds were closed to WP:DELETIONREVIEW. I don't know what success you might have, and I could possibly participate in any discussions there if I felt I needed to explain my position or role -- but that is an avenue open to you, that you may not be aware of. I cannot "revert" the deletion of the article at Afd, just because I nominated it. But deletion review can restore the article, if it's decided that the AfD outcome was mistaken. I've never taken anything to DR myself (not in memory, anyway) so I cannot tell you what to expect. But it is an option. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Point taken about "consensus", but let's be honest: You did more than merely "nominate" it's deletion. At every point of my trying to work with you to reach consensus, you refused to look at legitimate references or misunderstood things. Only one editor, "Arxiloxos", made a short comment, and that was before the cleanup edit I did, which I feel substantiated the notability claims made above. It was almost a book of you and I not agreeing. Anyone being "pro" the article would not want to step into that mess, seeing how I was being beaten up.

And since you brought it up, let's note, the one cleanup edit I made after you tagged the article did not include anything about van doren or philosophy. I didn't argue with you about deleting the van doren quote (I just pointed out your claim of "logrolling" wasn't fair as it was a direct quote I found in revolutionart. I had even taken the time to reference further back to her website). Niether the quote nor the "philosopher" deletions existed in the final, edited article.

About you saying there is only "one" WP:RS :

It took me jumping through hoops to get you to admit there was even one. Then you refused to restore the content from that ref that you deleted, making the article subject appear less notable.
You refused to accept as an WP:RS the use of Filmmaker Magazine- perhaps the most significant magazine about independent film at the time of story's publication. In it, was a one page article about miremont, his background and notes on the film that sundance developed (It is described as an experimental-narrative film that was being shot over several years). Now, I used that article merely to support the non-controversial claim that he "went to UCLA Film School". How could that not be ok as for a reference for such a bland statement? Especially when the claim is further substantiated in other WP:RSs?
Yet, despite being shown that it was formatted exactly as Wikipedia requires, you refused to admit it is a valid reference for an uncontroversial claim on some personal bias that you don;t hold your own edits to. I would assume after you saw that your good faith was not betrayed with Revolutionart "being Malware" as you suspected, that you could trust filmmaker magazine.
You say there is only one WP:RS. I believe there are at least 3: (1) The Sundance Institute site (as reliable as the Canadian Film Board site, no?), (2) Revolution Art and (3) Filmmaker magazine.

No one else made negative comments after seeing the re-edited article and the Admin seeing your spirited resistance, just said "delete". It wasn't even up for debate for 2 weeks. So to be honest, the lack of "consensus" was just yours and mine. No one wanted to deal with the negativity they saw there.

If you are suggesting I should try WP:DELETIONREVIEW sincerely, I would. I have not done much and Wikipedia and don't know the culture like you do, as someone who has edited countless hundreds of times. But what is the point, if you are just going to argue against it again? I have already been exhausted by the negativity on the miremont page. The Edmund Teske article did not start out as it is now. It had less content than the miremont one did. If teske was deleted at that stage, I doubt it would exist in any form now. I've started a few articles with hope that others will add to them, but they have to exist for that to happen. If you are saying you are going to continue to argue against the miremont page, why would I bother? I am not looking to edit war, just add to the knowledge base.


  • I think you're kidding yourself if any admin is going to delete an article because of my or anyone's "spirited resistance" any AfD. I have no special status at AfD, I can assure you, and my arguments to keep or delete are about as unsuccessful as they are successful. I was curious to see that Filmmaker article and it's a shame it's not available online. As I said before, I wanted to see it to ensure that it was as claimed, because I felt the article, as I originally saw it, had a lot of unsupported claims. As I've explained already, a lot of the other references you've relisted above appear to me to be either non-substantial coverage, or primary references. Now, if you take it to WP:Deletion review I will only participate to the extent that I may need to explain my position, especially if I feel it may have gotten misrepresented. The people overseeing DR are very experienced, and they are not going to be swayed by me. If you do take it there, remember to read and follow the instructions: I believe the first step is to contact the closing administrator of the AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and ask for Teske, it isn't a question of how the article "started out." Articles are not deleted -- or should not be -- because of their current state. Teske is manifestly notable. He's been the focus of major exhibitions. He easily meets WP:ARTIST. It's apples and oranges, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to be encouraging me go against your "success" at getting the page deleted and continuing the debate on my TALK page. Why is that? I would like to hope it is becasue you might regret, even a little bit that the page got deleted now and that it should exist in some form.
If not, and you aren;t willing to help with that, I really don't want to deal with the negativity anymore. What is the point? I don't feel like fighting the good fight anymore.
You keep making slams at my good faith and I keep showing you how you are wrong. You say, "you saw unsupported claims". Then you allow the WP:RS (revolutionart) from which all those claims were supported. But then you say because you first thought they were unsupported claims, you wont believe the filmmaker WP:RS, and I guess the Sundance WP:RS either. Simply put, you say there is a problem with X, then you admit there was no problem with X, but becasue you thought there was a problem X, there is a probably a problem Y and Z.
Can you see what I mean? I can't stay positive facing a bias with that logic. I wish you did want to see that page restored to some reasonable form so that it can be improved. It certainly is more cited than many of the pages you edit in the Canadian arts realm every day. But unless you want to help improve it, I just see more debate with you I don;t want to engage in Nynewart (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Shawn in Montreal. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. It's starting to become clear that you're following me around Wikipedia, often within minutes, with edits of your own. I have no disputes with any of the edits - you are quite right to remove IMDB as a reference and I do appreciate the improvements, but this is getting a bit creepy. I ask that you please stop this. WP:HOUNDING can result in one getting blocked, if it continues and if the intention is to harass other users. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this got posted at the same time I was replying to your other comment above. Please slow down if you are going to attempt to take over my TALK page so I can at least reply to you.
I have been polite to you while you continually try to bait me. You just "apologized" to me today about this and now you are doing it again. You demonstrated to me that YOU were stalking my edits on pages today that you have never worked on. You then apologized for your aggressive tone and rude edit summaries. You then keep suggesting I go against your success at deleting the miremont page so that that drama could continue. You then complain of hounding becasue I improved a couple of severely flawed pages you edited. I even took the time to research and add the only cited content some of those pages had. (Remember, you previously encouraged me to edit these pages? see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Miremont and even "thanked" me for those improvements.
Don't you find your contradictory behavior odd? Don't you see that you are continuing to bait conflict? You just apologized to me for doing this earlier, and then start it up again minutes later. I really think you would benefit from a break from wikipedia for a day or two. In either case, please stay off my talk page from no on as I have stayed off yours.Nynewart (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How am I stalking you? I'm telling you to take it to WP:DELETION REVIEW, and I'm telling you how to do it. I'm trying to help you to get what you want - your article back - even if I still feel the deletions are correct. I'm not taking a break, I'm going to continue editing elsewhere as I see fit. Yes, I did thank you initially, but this has become WP:HOUNDING imo and I am again asking you to stop. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Um, well... to congratulate me above on not letting your bad "tone" and "Aggression" stop me from editing, you have to be stalking what I am editing. Right? Today I started off editing pages totally unrelated to anything you work on (Brakhage, Mikas, Smith, Conrad, etc)... then bingo! your apology and congratulations minutes later. Coincidence? That is followed by your unsolicited urging of me to dispute the page you fought to get deleted. OK, that's weird. I greeted this with as much kindness as I could, remembering the hypocracy of how most of the pages I see you edit have few if any citations. Since we were currently talking about citations on a page you got deleted, I then check your editing and see that the hypocracy has not changed. I fix and even research content for a proper citation or two on those pages and you then post here that I am "hounding you". wow. WOW.
Now, to protect myself, I did likewise on your talk page, just for the record. But henceforth, I am going to do my best to ignore you. I request again that you stay off my page and stop bothering and stalking me.Nynewart (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nynewart&oldid=667127765"