Jump to content

User talk:Roodhouse1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Roodhouse1 (talk | contribs)
238 edits
Line 430: Line 430:


Please refrain from posting Brian Sherwin in notable alumni of Illinois College. The Brian Sherwin article questionably meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia, let alone makes him a notable alumni of Illinois College. If you disagree, please respond on the discussion page of Illinois College BEFORE adding him back to the list. [[User:RegainTheTruth|RegainTheTruth]] ([[User talk:RegainTheTruth|talk]]) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from posting Brian Sherwin in notable alumni of Illinois College. The Brian Sherwin article questionably meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia, let alone makes him a notable alumni of Illinois College. If you disagree, please respond on the discussion page of Illinois College BEFORE adding him back to the list. [[User:RegainTheTruth|RegainTheTruth]] ([[User talk:RegainTheTruth|talk]]) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't recall adding him to that list nor do I think he deserves to be on it. At least not yet. ([[User:Roodhouse1|Roodhouse1]] ([[User talk:Roodhouse1#top|talk]]) 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Revision as of 11:17, 31 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Roodhouse1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ty 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Article

Why have you blocked me from working on this article? Do a google search for Brian Sherwin or Brian Sherwin art and you will discover that he has a huge following online. I learned about him while at Art Chicago. If you don't know what Art Chicago is you probably should not be deleting art related articles at random! His art blog is one of the most read art blogs in the blogsphere and he has interviewed some very influential artists. Am I doing something wrong in how I'm posting it? I cited info, mentioned why he is important. Am I missing something? My hope is that people will include more informationa about him. Also, why did the links to his interviews get marked as spam when obviously they are not. I've contributed links before involving www.deviantart.com related articles and never once had a link removed. I just find that odd and I'm starting to jump to conclusions.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Notability of Brian Sherwin

A tag has been placed on Brian Sherwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I tried to create an article about Brian Sherwin who is the Senior Editor of Myartspace (a networking site that is popular with the mainstream artworld crowd) and the Myartspace Blog. I learned about him while at Art Chicago this year. I tried to create an article about him today but it was deleted within seconds. I went back and included cite links and it was still deleted. I had also added some interview links to the articles about specific artists that Sherwin has interviewed. For example, I placed a link to Sherwin's interview with James Rosenquist on the article about James Rosenquist in the correct area but it has now vanished. There was a note about not placing spam links on articles but the link was not spam! 

I'm new so I'm sure I may have messed the article about Sherwin up, but I know how to add links to articles. Why would links to an interview an artist had with him be marked as spam and deleted? I must say that I'm a bit frustrated with the way this has been handled and with the time I've wasted trying to contribute. I have added information in before about www.deviantart.com and never had this trouble. What gives?


Notability of Brian Sherwin

The article Brian Sherwin has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Brian Sherwin, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Roodhouse1, and welcome to Wikipedia! We're really glad you've chosen to sign up for an account; it offers numerous benefits in case you weren't already aware of them.

Thankyou for your contributions if you've been editing before you got this message. If you haven't, don't worry: there are numerous ways you can contribute to Wikipedia if you're not sure where to start yet. Either way, we hope you'll like the place and decide to stay. We all remember what it's like to be new, so don't let others scare you off.

Here's some useful links that will help you get started.

  •   Tutorial - a collection of pages explaining the most important things for contributing to Wikipedia.
  •   Sandbox - the best place for trying things out. If previous edits you made to articles have been reverted because they were experimental or unconstructive, this is the place to make test edits.
  •   Wikipedia:Manual of Style - our style guide outlines our standards for ensuring that we present information in a consistent manner that promotes cohesion and professionalism.

Contributing

With these references at hand, we hope you find it easier to contribute to Wikipedia. Here's a brief synopsis of some ways you can:

  • We obviously wouldn't have an encyclopedia without articles. This page shows how you can help them grow.
  • Removing vandalism and keeping the integrity of articles intact is a great way of contributing. More information on how to do so can be found here.
  • Fixing typos, correcting poor grammar and repairing broken links are just some examples of useful, behind the scenes contributions. Even just making things look nice makes using Wikipedia more pleasant for everybody.
  • If you like working with images, you might be interested in the Graphic Lab. Similarly, this page shows you how to work with images in Wikipedia articles.
  • This page lists the many types of tasks you can do to maintain Wikipedia.
  • There are numerous WikiProjects that aim to provide coordination and collaboration on particular subjects. From this list, you can join a project and contribute within an area that interests you.

Of course, there are many ways of contributing, but I hope that this message is helpful to you, and that you'll enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to do so. You can respond to this message by clicking here if you have a comment or need help - don't forget to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and write your query there. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! WilliamH (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin

The problem is that you've cited no reliable independent sources (see WP:V) to show that Mr. Sherwin is in fact notable. His own blog is not an independent or reliable source. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I could make it as I go, instead all of my progress is deleted within seconds of me saving it. If you need more sources I can find them. I do know that he has contributed to Hi Fructose Magazine and has been mentioned on the Juxtapoz site several times. As I tried to tell one admin, google search his name or his name with art and you will see the influence he has. And that still does not explain why the links to his interviews that I posted on articles about those specific artists have been deleted. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Nope, because so many people try to post articles about themselves, their friends, and other nonnotable people, we require that articles demonstrate the subject's notability when they are posted. Also, the fact that he may have interviewed notable artists doesn't itself make him notable. Again, you're going to need to be able to cite reliable independent sources in the article for it to stay. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.hifructose.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=57

http://www.stuckism.com/interviews.html

http://www.myartspace.com/interviews/ (May have interviewed notable artists? 'May' as in you have a doubt? Why don't you visit Aleksandra Mir's website. You will find his interview with her on her cv. Do look at the artists he has interviewed. It does make him notable. Just as Larry King is notable due to the career he has had interviewing people. Some of the people on that list are considered artworld royalty and you can't contact them unless you have the right connections. Can I continue my work on the article now? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

AfD nomination of Brian Sherwin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Sherwin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Sherwin. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Are the changes I made acceptable? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Brian Sherwin

You'd need to demonstrate that he is notable per WP:N. The myjournalcourier.com link is decent, but you'll need more like it. Simply put, the magazines he's been a part of aren't in large enough circulation. The interviews he did through his own website, but the website hasn't received a large enough mention for it to pass WP:N. Look for news sources that talk about him to start with (blogs aren't really usable for this). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeremy. I'm not sure that I can agree with your opinion on Hi Fructose and Juxtapoz. Both are noted for helping shape underground culture and influencing popular culture. The same can be said for many of the artists Sherwin has interviewed and is obviously associated with. The blog he maintains is the only source I can think of that positions mainstream artists next to underground artists while giving unknown artists a shot as well. The interviews are done for a site that he works for (aside from the guest interviews mentioned). He was hired as senior editor for Myartspace based on what I've read (I have a time line for that as well that I found on the myartspace site). The interviews are apparently sent out on a weekly ezine but I am not sure how many people subscribe to it. I did find a link where the ezine is archived. He is a founding staff member of myartspace and a member of their management team but he is not a founder (owner) of the site. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I'll see what else I can dig up. If you have more advice please fork it over. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It would seem that we need some other sources to explain how notable your sources are. This is actually a good idea, for if you can find reliable and verifiable documentation on those subjects, their established notability could in turn support your use of them as sources. Uphill all the way, but worth it if you care about the topic enough. (This is a common problem with "underground" topics.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cobalt, that is fair enough. Another question, can I start the Winkleman and Greene bio or should I nail one coffin shut before moving on to the next? Thanks. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vito Acconci http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_works_1B_0.html James Rosenquist http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_works_137A_0.html Aleksandra Mir http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/museum_work_md_1_200610_1.html Georgina Starr http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/artnow/georginastarr/default.shtm Patrick Brill http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/intelligence/smith.htm Michael Craig-Martin http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/raisedawareness/craigmartin.htm

These links show the notability of some of the artists Sherwin has interviewed. Working on more. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's looking better, but there is one problem that hasn't been overcome. Basically, someone who has interviewed notable people isn't notable themself. It helps that you've shown that he has connections- in that vein, you might start by looking for articles that he's published that made it into some larger publications, but generally, the best thing to look for would be a source talking about him. There isn't a limit to what you can work on at what time, but make sure you can satisfy WP:N and WP:RS on those articles, or they'll wind up at AfD as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Guide to referencing

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Article writing

See the ref guide above. Basically you need third party sources that talk about or mention the subject, in order to show the subject has wider notability. You should use the information in those sources and then reference the information as shown in the ref guide. I suggest a list of interviewees in the article would be helpful. I'll have a look. Ty 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some tweaking. I suggest you format the refs, as I have done with the first one. Ty 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the citation that is needed for the hundreds of artists statement should I just bump the link to the interview page up since they are all archived on there from what I've seen? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've done it. The ref is now used twice[1] - see the ref guide. The first time you give it a name. Instead of <ref>, it's <ref name=interviews>, for example, followed by the rest of the ref info as normal, with closing tag, don't forget, of </ref>. The other times after that that you use it, all you need to do is put <ref name=interviews/>. Note the / to close it. Ty 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close tag

You forgot to close the ref with </ref>. Look at the notes section.[2] An easy mistake. My correction is in red.[3] Ty 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to change it but you beat me to it. Any clue how long I have before the decision is made to delete the article or not? I'll keep working into the night if needed. Once this one is done I can use it as a guide for the other critics I would like to add. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An AFD stays open for 5 days, nominally, sometimes longer if no admin closes it on time, so it should be around till 11 May. More info on Sherwin's contributions to any print mags would be useful, particularly Juxtapoz. The ref should contain issue no./date and page no. preferably of the relevant article(s). Check out some featured articles for the top standard on wikipedia. Ty 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again TY. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Refs

It would improve the look of the article considerably if you format the references as I have done with the first one. See the ref guide above on this page. Ty 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I made more changes and then I added a link that I guess wikipedia did not like and all my stuff was changed back. But it looks like I got it fixed. I undid the revision and took out the link that annoyed the bot program. It looks better now. Still room to improve I'm sure. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Brian Sherwin do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://2winks.blogspot.com/2008/04/schweeeet-kokeshi-in-hifructose-vol-7.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).


Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the bad link out. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Moonriddengirl

Hello, Roodhouse1. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Just dropping you a note to tell you that I've responded again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more responses to you at my page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just had another glance at your AfD to see how it was progressing, and I'm a little concerned based on this that you may believe the AfD is resolved. When the AfD is resolved, the administrator who closes it will place it within a box, with the result recorded at the top. It will basically look like this. Sometimes, in AfDs that are not so clear cut, the closing administrator will also explain there how he or she judged consensus. (Oh, and additionally, I have replied to your most recent note on my talk page.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments

You perhaps were misinformed. You should not place comments about ongoing AfD's on anyone's talk page - all comments should go in the AfD discussion itself. You also should not make accusations of bad faith unless you have a specific reason to justify these claims; disagreeing with your opinion is not a valid reason. Both of these things are breaches of Wikiquette. Happy editing! BWH76 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I had placed my reason there and you failed to respond. In your vote you simply agreed with Jeremy. However, Jeremy's info was 1.) outdated because the bio has changed much since his vote. 2.) contained false information about the subject of the bio that had nothing to do with the bio in the first place. I will also state that I'm new here so you can newbie bite all you want. Happy editing. Sure. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, if it appeared that I was a bit snippy in my reply above, I didn't mean to convey that. Now that I've re-read what I wrote, I can see how you may have gotten that impression - sorry about that! Either way, the conversations about AfD's should remain on the AfD discussion page so that other editors may read all of the given opinions. The issue of accusing another editor of bad faith is actually a fundamental policy for Wikipedia - you can read more about it here. To sum it up, it is usually a bad idea to accuse others of bad faith unless you have a pretty clear-cut example to prove your point. It's regarded as an insult here as it tends to imply (or explicitly denote) a non-neutral point of view or an example of incivility. Hope that helps! BWH76 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions seem to rule the day here. One can assume it was bad faith because the way you wrote it makes it appear as if you agree with the other person word for word, but that statement is false if you had read the bio. Sherwin is not the creator of the site and I don't think the notability of the site should determine the notability of a writer and art critic who has been published both online and offline. I guess I had hoped you would have offered more so that I can improve. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

One more thing - I'd recommend to you that you create a user page and copy all of the article's information on there so that you can work to improve it. If the consensus is to delete the entry as it currently exists, then you may have to start over again from scratch if you think you may improve it and it could fit within the guidelines of Wikipedia.
How do you do this? Well, enter a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roodhouse1/Sherwin; you'll then get a "create a page" message, and copy and paste all of the work you've done on the existing article. You can then use that space to improve it, adding the references from reliable sources and all that jazz. Once you think it will pass muster, then recreate the page. Just a suggestion! BWH76 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin

Unfortunately, none of the references you've added to Brian Sherwin constitute non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party sources -- most of the sources are either unreliable (interviews, personal websites, etc.) or trivial (one piece of art on the cover of the Illinois Times). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm... where did the external links go then? There is a lot to learn here all at once. :) (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Art fairs

You should first establish if a subject has sufficient reliable sources to validate its content. If so, then it merits an article. Everything is dependent on verification. Yes, it's a steep learning curve, but wiki's standards are being raised all the time. It may be better to prepare an article safely in your user space before putting into article space. You can do this by clicking this link: User:Roodhouse1/Draft 1. Either that or put:

{{inuse}}

including the squiggly brackets, at the top of an article you are working on, though that's not a guarantee. Ty 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, so what is considered a reliable source because based on what some people have said something is only reliable if it is on wikipedia already or the New York Times. I don't see Art News, ArtForum, or Art in America on wikipedia. So would those sources not be considered reliable? Should I perhaps focus on those publications and then move on to the art fairs? There is a lot of present day art content missing on wikipedia and I think that is a shame. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you follow the links at the top of this page and read the ref guide you will find out what is considered a reliable source. Start at WP:V and WP:RS. NYT is certainly considered one. Something is not necessarily one just because it has a wiki article. Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source! The three art mags you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable sources, though a lot of editors would not realise that, because they are specialist magazines. It may have to be pointed out to them. If you care to write articles on them, that would be a very useful addition - but make sure you provide the refs! There is a lot of art content missing, because there is a scarcity of editors interested in art. This is a known factor. Ty 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTnews, Artforum and Art in America do already have (albeit rather sketchy) articles.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

Juxtapoz

I thought you might be interested in my edit to Juxtapoz.[4] I would see the myartspace interviews as a reliable source for the opinions of the interviewees, and therefore matter could be used in articles about those artists with myartspace as a reference. It is always better to use something in this way, rather than just bung in an external link. Wiki is looking for referenced content, and is not a links repository. Ty 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, I don't understand. Did you make the change already or are you asking me to OK it? I trust your knowledge so feel free to make changes. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I see what you did. Looks great. What about some of the controversial artists he has interviewed like Wafaa Bilal who is also an instructor at SAIC. In that interview Wafaa mentioned his virtual jihadi project which got some press. Can the interview on myartspace itself be used as a ref in that scenario? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
See here, http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/03/art-space-talk-wafaa-bilal.html (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That is what I am saying - that the interviews can be used to verify statements by the interviewees. That is not the same as verifying "facts" stated by the interviewees. If X says in an interview "such and such", you can't then put in an article that "such and such" is the case and use the interview as a reference, but you can say that X has stated "such and such" and use the interview as a reference. It is a subtle but important distinction. Where "such and such" refers only to the X and his activities and is non-contentious, then then it is OK to state it. Read through WP:V. By the way, on talk pages a colon indents talk by one space, two colons by two spaces etc. for clarity of reading. Ty 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the artist is "controversial" or not is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is notability. This cannot be established merely by an interview in Myartspace, although that would help towards it. Ty 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelity to refs

You inserted a statement in the middle of a referenced paragraph,[5] but that statement is not validated by the ref. I have adjusted the refs to fit the statements that are covered by it. The new statement remains unreferenced. Also refs go after any punctuation. Ty 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, I'm going to go over the info you suggested when I get back. I added the fact that Kirsten Anderson is the author of Pop Surrealism do I need to find a ref about her book? Can you look that over to see if it works? If it does not work feel free to take that information out. I also found Sherwin's interview with Alex Grey posted on Grateful Web would this be considered a reliable source about Sherwin's interview with Alex Grey? The site has been around since the early 90s. I'll be back. I have to run some errands. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I took the book info out. :) (Roodhouse1 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please read what I post - colons indent talk! You only need one space between paragraphs on a talk page. You don't have to have a ref for every single thing, but it is better to. Then no one can challenge it. Unreferenced material may be removed by any editor. My objection was that it was inserted in a paragraph in a way that gave the appearance of it being referenced, when it wasn't. I adjusted the refs to avoid it, so it could be kept in. I don't know about Grateful Web. If you think it's a good source, then use it. Ty 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Art Fair and Art Chicago

I look forward to reading the articles. Art Chicago looks like the best one to start with because its success or failure is the subject of national/art press coverage: [6], [7], [8].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to get started working on these soon. There is a Japanese art fair that is getting a ton of press as well. I just can't remember the name off hand. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Bios to work on, Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene

I think I'm ready to start the next art critic bio now that the Brian Sherwin bio is out of the way. The Edward Winleman bio will be my next contribution. Tyler's will be a breeze. I think. If anyone reads this and has ideas let me know. Let me know if you are aware of other American art critics and writers that you think should be included on wikipedia. I'll read up on them. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd be happy to look at them. I suggest you post in a user sub page first of all (where they will be safe from deletion), complete with refs etc. However, put a colon at the beginning of categories, so your sub page isn't shown on the category page, i.e. [[:Category:Art critics]]. You can then ask for feedback from others also. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is an obvious place to request this. Ty 05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois College Notable Alumni

Hello Roodhouse1. Because of your interest in the Brian Sherwin article (and the involvement of a Roodhouse in the issue), I'm addressing this to you. If you're not doing it, please ignore this and I apologize.

Please refrain from posting Brian Sherwin in notable alumni of Illinois College. The Brian Sherwin article questionably meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia, let alone makes him a notable alumni of Illinois College. If you disagree, please respond on the discussion page of Illinois College BEFORE adding him back to the list. RegainTheTruth (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't recall adding him to that list nor do I think he deserves to be on it. At least not yet. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roodhouse1&oldid=228995048"