Talk:Florence Biennale/Archive 1

Dear Xywood:

The external link you added (bogusartfair) contradicts your false statements. It reads: "Although the event is a vanity show (i.e. you must pay to exhibit), it is legitimate and many artists have shown there happily." 

Regarding your other link, Robert Coane is simply a painter who has a webpage called "Art Alarm." It is just his personal opinions, speculation and misinformation: "Artists meet artists, sure, but what an expensive way to meet new "friends". . . I'd like to know how many people visit it during those 8 days in the middle of Winter?"

You write: "I won't bother to respond your false and stupid accusations." That is why your entry is considered vandalism - you repeatedly add biased personal opinions and unverified, misleading information without any supporting citations or neutral explanations.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to clear up your confusion.

Sincerely,

Web.Writer (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To Web.Writer:

Wikipedia is the most democratic encycopedia, it is not in your ownership, hope you understand this.

I won't bother to respond your false and stupid accusations, I am writing according to facts and conscience. For example, you can check easily the pricing structure from the biennale website.

If you violate the wikipedia rules, I will have no choice but report your behaviour to the authority.

Xywood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xywood (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xywood:

Please let me introduce you to this principle: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." 

• Your "contribution" is simply a collection of deliberate false statements, anonymous personal opinions, and links to substandard speculation. You seriously disrespect the neutral nature of the article. I have no connection to the Biennale and do not present personal opinions about the quality of the art nor whether it is worthwhile to participate. My facts are supported by citations. Therefore, I am not "promoting" the event. After ten years and five successful exhibits, the Biennale is internationally recognized as a legitimate art event, and in no way can truthfully be labeled as a "scam."

Here are a few examples of your false and biased statements:

• Your statement: "anyone who has an art website is almost certain to be invited. In this way, with few exceptions, the artworks being displayed are of very low amateur quality." is obviously false and biased. Your belief that this is a valuable contribution to the article is misguided. I personally met several artists that sold work to major buyers. Also, a brief glance through the 900 page full-color hardbound exhibit catalog showing many well-established artists' biographies and illustrations of their work disproves your statement.

• Your statement: "Each participant paid 2400 euros (about $3500) for an exhibiting space of 2.5m x 3m. The organizers provide a shipping service, which may cost $3000 for shipping one 1m x 1m painting from overseas." is false and misleading. Many international business and organizational sponsorships pay portions of the fees for many artists. It is possible to participate with little or no personal expense. Your shipping information is also wrong. For example, one artist paid about $1600 US for door-to-door specialized art shipping; Italian customs documentation and duties clearing; set up at the exhibit hall prior to opening; and then return packaging and shipping for three paintings to and from Florence to New York State, USA. After researching other options, this cost was seen as a reasonable choice.

• Your statement: "However, many participants are happy to use this opportunity to get a Florence exhibition entry on their C.V." appears to be a snide personal remark that has no place in an article.

I will give you an opportunity today to correct your facts, add citations, and remove your personal bias from your contribution. However, if the entry remains as vandalism (deliberately and repeatedly adding false statements), then tonight I will delete it, as that is the correct procedure to follow.

Regards,

Web.Writer (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To Web.Writer:

You have reverted to you previous version and vandalised and deleted mine many times already. This page is not for promotion puposes, please go elsewhere for that! As I have not edited any part your page now (other than the reference to UN partnership which I can not find clarification from the UN website), please respect my contribution and DO NOT remove the paragraph at the end and the relevant links. My observation is based on numerous visits, comments received from participants and visitors.

5:55, 20 December 2007 Xywood

Open Letter to Xywood:

My editing and corrections are based on attendance at the 2007 Biennale as a visitor over an eight day period, attendance at the awards presentations, and discussions with organizers and artists. I have researched facts and will add more citations soon. It was a fantastic experience!

In good-faith, I have edited my entries to include issues that you raised and added the citations you requested.

Please stop deleting my edits by reverting "Florence Biennale" to a version that contains false statements, bias, irrelevant information, and link policy violations. End the edit-warring and make some useful edits with citations and facts.

Why do you have such a "sour-grapes" attitude? Can you provide some actual facts to illustrate your points, or are you simply providing your personal speculation and innuendo?

3RR CAUTION:

Quoted from Wikipedia: Three-revert rule:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block.

Your recent Reverts:

1) 21:47, 19 December 2007 Xywood (Talk | contribs) (1,725 bytes) (revert back to the version before vandalized)

2) 10:41, 20 December 2007 Xywood (Talk | contribs) (1,447 bytes) (revert back to yesterday's page before vandalised by an anonymous user) (undo)

Sincerely,

Web.Writer (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note: My editing and corrections are based on attendance at the 2007 Biennale as a visitor over an eight day period, attendance at the awards presentations, and discussions with organizers and artists. I have researched facts and will add more citations soon. It was a fantastic experience! Web.Writer (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Xywood and 193.205.213.166, Why do you have such a bitter "sour-grapes" attitude? Can you provide some actual facts to illustrate your points, or are you simply providing your personal speculation and innuendo? Web.Writer (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To Web.Writer:

You have reverted to you previous version and vandalised and deleted mine many times already. This page is not for promotion puposes, please go elsewhere for that! As I do not edit any part your page now, please respect my contribution and DO NOT remove the paragraph at the end and the relevant links. My observation is based on numerous visits, comments received from participants and visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xywood (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, heated (though outdated) edit battle. I'm going to give this page some attention.Warrenking (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)