User talk:Gaelic Tuberosa
Gaelic Tuberosa, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Gaelic Tuberosa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC) |
Re: Artforum letter
[edit]Hi Gaelic Tuberosa! I just wanted to start a dialogue on some of your recent edits on artist biographies. It seems you've copied and pasted nearly identical language regarding the fallout from the Artforum open letter that was released following the October 7 attacks in Israel. First off, it's not really appropriate to use identical language over and over again in so many articles. The fallout from that letter was different for every artist - the situation was not exactly the same for every signee, the fallout significantly differed in volume for different artists. Secondly, your description of the fallout from the letter is not factually complete. While you are certainly correct that many critics found the letter antisemitic, the fallout itself from the letter has been labeled Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian. The opinion of critics who disagreed with the artists/signees is not the only element of the situation. The way you've phrased it on dozens of artist biographies is not fully accurate nor neutral. Would love to start a dialogue on this to find a solution, as I don't want to just revert/butcher your edits without talking first. Let me know if you'd be open to chatting/changing these edits collaboratively! Thank you. 19h00s (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to second 19h00s's concern. I count 14 different artist biography articles to which you made essentially the same edit: Precious Okoyomon, Henry Taylor (artist), Zoe Leonard, Joan Jonas, Seth Price, Abraham Cruzvillegas, Mark Leckey, Jeremy Deller, Cecilia Vicuña, Barbara Kruger, Kara Walker, Eileen Myles, Peter Doig, and Nan Goldin.
- In the Myles article, LoveGermanLit described your edit as "irrelevant/malicious additions" and made further edits to make that section better reflect the sources.
- In the Doig article, Mistico Dois added a couple of words to better contextualize your addition.
- In the higher-traffic Goldin article, an IP user removed the sentence supported by the WP:SELFPUBLISHED Einspruch reference, Spicypeach tagged your addition for not being supported by the sources, then Lopifalko removed your addition entirely, citing WP:CSECTION.
- Gaelic Tuberosa, I noticed that in every one of the articles I mentioned here, you made your addition to the article, then shortly followed up with a smaller edit. Can you explain why?
- It's been more than a month since 19h00s's original post. I'm hoping my comment will initiate a reply, either from Gaelic Tuberosa or perhaps from some of the other editors I mentioned above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Dugan. I don't want to assume bad faith, but looking back at these edits and seeing the additional minor edit after each major change is concerning me. In particular, I'd note that none of the cited sources explicitly invoke the subjects of the articles other than Goldin, aside from their inclusion in otherwise very long lists of names of signees. As far as I can tell, Gaelic made no attempt to explicate how the letter fall-out specifically impacted any of the named subjects, and none of the cited sources go into detail on any specific artists whose articles Gaelic edited either (again, aside from Goldin who was interviewed by NYT in the cited article). There are a broad range of reliable, notable publications that have reported in detail on the fall-out from the letter in regards to specific artists, but none of those are referenced. Would say most of these edits fail WP:SelfPublished for the Substack source, WP:CSection for format, WP:NPOV for content, and in my personal opinion may constitute disruptive editing. But Gaelic, I really wanted to give you an opportunity to respond and open a dialogue, as I said when I first flagged this last month very soon after your last edit. 19h00s (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, it seems like we're shouting into the void here. I'm going to revert the edits to the above-mentioned pages. There is absolutely an argument to be made that this information belongs in the biographies of some artists, but only those who have dealt with significant, documented, well-reported fall-out from the letter or those that have organized around the letter publicly and with documented quotes in reliable, independent publications. But as written and in the contexts of the named artists, the edits are not productive or necessary. 19h00s (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, 19h00s. I support this decision. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, it seems like we're shouting into the void here. I'm going to revert the edits to the above-mentioned pages. There is absolutely an argument to be made that this information belongs in the biographies of some artists, but only those who have dealt with significant, documented, well-reported fall-out from the letter or those that have organized around the letter publicly and with documented quotes in reliable, independent publications. But as written and in the contexts of the named artists, the edits are not productive or necessary. 19h00s (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Dugan. I don't want to assume bad faith, but looking back at these edits and seeing the additional minor edit after each major change is concerning me. In particular, I'd note that none of the cited sources explicitly invoke the subjects of the articles other than Goldin, aside from their inclusion in otherwise very long lists of names of signees. As far as I can tell, Gaelic made no attempt to explicate how the letter fall-out specifically impacted any of the named subjects, and none of the cited sources go into detail on any specific artists whose articles Gaelic edited either (again, aside from Goldin who was interviewed by NYT in the cited article). There are a broad range of reliable, notable publications that have reported in detail on the fall-out from the letter in regards to specific artists, but none of those are referenced. Would say most of these edits fail WP:SelfPublished for the Substack source, WP:CSection for format, WP:NPOV for content, and in my personal opinion may constitute disruptive editing. But Gaelic, I really wanted to give you an opportunity to respond and open a dialogue, as I said when I first flagged this last month very soon after your last edit. 19h00s (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)