User talk:IBalancedAll

Welcome!

Hello, IBalancedAll, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathon Green (photographer) (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

"Education and University Affiliation": unreferenced section. "Minor White and Aperture 1968-1976": unreferenced section. Etc. "Green next turned to contemporary photographers with the intent of expanding Aperture’s traditional audience. Green asked White to allow him to generate an issue for the Quarterly based not on renowned photographers but on the snapshot. White was certainly equivocal about this theme but gave Green his blessings." etc: What reliable sources are there for this kind of material?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jonathon Green (photographer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jonathon Green (photographer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary,

Thanks for reviewing my article on Jonathan Green. I have a few questions. I can easily see why the anecdote of Minor White's being "equivocal" about Green wanting to do an issue on the Snapshot is not easily supported by a verifiable source. You ask: What reliable sources are there for this kind of material? "Reliable Sources" is indeed the issue. Other books such as Peter Bunnell's biography of Minor White, The Eye that Shapes have similar examples of interpersonal divergences, but here too, many are merely anecdotal rather than scientifically proven. Take for example Bunnell's comment about White and Ansel Adams: "The two men become friends, and for the next decade share an approach to the aesthetics of photographic technique and the interpretation of subject matter. Later, their ideas will diverge, with White often being critical of Adam's rejection of the psychoanalytic basis of making and interpreting photographs...." p5. Such sentences are not necessarily in an encyclopedic style and such stories are handed down and are probably closer to something called "Remembering Minor White", rather than verifiable facts.

There are other similar anecdotal statements in my article, and I can certainly either omit them or search for more convincingly verifiable sources.

But I do not understand why the section Education and University Affiliation presents information that is not verified by the entire article itself. Is your point that there is no citation whatsoever for the Education and University Affiliation section? I can understand that. But many of the other citations in this article certainly show that Green held these university positions. And if you go online using Google and search "MIT Jonathan Green", for example, out of the first 19 references that come up 9 clearly state that Green was a professor at MIT. The third reference summary from the NYT for example: Minor White Gathers Final M.I.T. Show - The New York Times, reads "Mar 1, 1974 — White and Jonathan Green, his colleague in the photography program at M.I.T., is a show of 77 works by 69 photographers." The same is true for references to Green at OSU and UCR. For the section Education and University Affiliation can I reuse existing references, such as footnote 1, already used in the first section, or 39, 41 or 44 for example, to show that Green was at OSU? Would every fact here, including the undergraduate colleges and academic honors have to be referenced by a citation? Would something like the facts stated in PraBook or in Who's Who work? See: https://prabook.com/web/jonathan.green/1719246.

It would certainly be very helpful for my revision to this article if you could single out a few more instances where you feel adequately supported reliable sources are not used.

I do understand that Wikipedia is not Google and that Wikipedia's veracity is one of its major attributes. And I'm certainly not opposed to correcting, polishing, and verifying every statement in my article. I'll take any further suggestions you have with gratitude and hope I come closer to Wikipedia's quality as I revise.

Thanks! IBalancedAll (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IBalancedAll! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hoary (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jonathan Green (photographer) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jonathan Green (photographer). Thanks! Hoary (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Green (photographer) has been accepted

Jonathan Green (photographer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IBalancedAll, I suggest splitting out some of his more notable books into separate articles such as The Snapshot, American Photography: A Critical History, etc. Currently the article is a bit long and some of his books actually warrant stand-alone articles about them (see WP:NBOOKS, a couple in-depth reviews from reputable critics meets notability). Take a look at Stephen King for an idea of an author of many notable works. I suggest this King because it is well-written and he is diverse. You also do need to declare you COI on your User page. You have been very transparent so just "paperwork" so to speak. See WP:COIDECLARE. I will keep an eye on your talk page in case you have questions, etc. Also, the Teahouse is great place for general editing questions. S0091 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking current articles to recently accepted submission.

Hello S0091, Thanks for accepting the article about Jonathan Green on October 28. Now that it is up, can I go to the two dozen or so Wikipedia articles that already reference Jonathan Green and link his name back to the recently accepted article?

To point out just a few of these articles, these include Further Reading in Robert Frank and Minor White, and references and citations in Wexner Center for the Arts, Aperture Magazine, Camera Work, Guerrillero Heroico, Che Guevara in Popular Culture, and Jacqueline Livingston. I see you updated the link in Nancy Rexroth and Arnie Zane on October 28. And somehow an updated link has already been made in Pedro Meyer, though there is no indication of a change in View History (perhaps by a bot?).

Thanks as well for your other suggestions. I have now added the UserboxCOI to IBalancedAll user page. And I am considering ways to implement your other suggestions. Genuine thanks for your support, IBalanced All IBalancedAll (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]