Talk:Joseph Nechvatal

{{Connected contributor |checked=2 April 2021 by {{u|Vexations}} }}
 * User1=EricaNechvatal|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=claims to be a child of Joseph Nechvatal while signed out Special:Diff/72591261
 * User2=81.57.34.12|U2-EH=yes|U2-declared=yes|U2-otherlinks=identified Joseph as their father and signed their name as Erica Nechvatal}
 * User3=Rydernechvatal|U3-EH=yes|U3-declared=no|U3-otherlinks=
 * User4=Trollpedia|U4-EH=yes|U4-declared=no|U4-otherlinks=
 * User5=JosephNechvatal|U5-EH=yes|U5-declared=yes|U5-otherlinks=
 * User6=Valueyou|U6-EH=yes|U6-declared=yes|U6-otherlinks=

Article improvement
Words linked in the article should only be linked internally to wiki articles. Put two square brackets either end of the word.
 * Wikify

Avoid bold text apart from where the title is mentioned in the first sentence.
 * Clean up

Remove external links to words. See wikify above.

External links can be placed after a sentence as a reference to verify the source of information, but not merely to provide extra information. In the latter case, external links section is available.

This article at the moment does not assert sufficient notability or prominence of the artist in terms of stated achievement, prizes, reviews, media coverage, shows etc.
 * Notability

"Galleries and museums throughout the world" are claimed, yet there are not specific ones mentioned and there is no verification.

Should notability not be established and verified, the article may be proposed for deletion.

Tyrenius 10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

please stop interfering
I have almost finished my father's page when you dare delete it! I am cleaning it as instructed so please let me finish this. I am almost done. He is a very important artist for those who know art.

erica nechvatal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.34.12 (talk • contribs) [06:02, 29 August 2006‎]


 * Could you provide some proof for this? The article has been tagged for proposed deletion and lack of importance several times. Many editors have been fairly lenient with this article up to this point. This is not "your" article about your father- this is an encyclopedia entry that anyone is free to edit, and if it doesn't assert importance with verifiable reliable sources, then it will be put up for deletion discussion. You shouldn't even be writing this since it's about your father- there is a very clear conflict of interest, and there are already issues with the neutrality of the article. --Wafulz 12:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a good job with formatting and so on, but notability needs to be established. Some shows in major galleries would be good, or quotes from magazines or books about his work + reference for them. Please remember to be CIVIL. Tyrenius 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing info
Birth date and place. Education details.

Do we take it his PhD was gained in 1997? Where are his shows in museums and galleries round the world as initially stated?

There still doesn't seem much to make him notable. Perhaps some material from the External links could be incorporated, and the link turned into a reference, instead of merely a link.

Tyrenius 09:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
(reposting comment which deleted other material)

Somebody puts this tag on top of the page I added images to: "The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. This page may be deleted unless it uses neutral language and cites independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable. Please discuss further on the talk page."

Well, all of that has been resolved long ago. All I did was add 2 images.

Rydernechvatal


 * This actually never was resolved. Other editors just got preoccupied. The article is still written entirely by family and/or associates- it has nothing to do with the images. --Wafulz 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The images illustrate the text and the text has been vetted and verified. If you have noted art historians like Frank Popper pointing to the importance of his work in his book From Technological to Virtual Art, then why would you question his presence in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydernechvatal (talk • contribs)


 * Again, I'm not questioning the presence of the article or the images. I'm just flagging it because every contributions has been from family and/or associates, which raises questions about neutrality and possibly (but not definitely) notability. Also, sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ )--Wafulz

OK. I understand. But really all the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nechvatal is objective, factual and historically acurate. ( ~ )

I see that this is still at the top of pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nechvatal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Popper

"The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. This page may be deleted unless it uses neutral language and cites independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable. Please discuss further on the talk page. This article has been tagged since May 2007."

As I pointed out yesterday, there is only neutral language and the information does cite independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable.

Can you please remove the tags or allow me to do so?

Thank you

Rydernechvatal 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo of the artist
What exactly is the purpose of the artist's photo? Is it an actual art piece, a self-portrait? If so, is it identified as such? It does not seem to add anything to the article. I have removed it twice and I really don't feel it should be placed back in, at least not without a discussion here. Also, it is helpful if Rydernechvatal would include edit summaries. I posted a note on his/her talk page. This is a matter of respect for other editors so we know edits, changes, deletions and reverts are being made in good faith (and this isn't an accusation of bad faith editing on Rydernechvatal's part, but it is hard to know what his or her intentions are without edit summaries). Thanks. Freshacconci 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo is of the artist and given to me with his approval. Don't you want his photo?

I do not know what edit summaries are. Sorry. Rydernechvatal 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue of permission. The photo doesn't seem to add anything. It's not a usual element of an article, perhaps with the exception of actors and models. An article on an artist should focus on his work. Edit summaries are the space below the edit box. You indicate what your edit is--it is especially helpful when there are a number of editors working, you can follow what work has been done. It can be a simple note, such as "fixed typo" or "added image." If you look at the history of the Joseph Nechvatal article, you'll see the various edit summaries and get an idea of what has been done so far. Thanks. Freshacconci 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI
This article is not written according to wikipedia's standards. It is written from the point of view of the artist or a close associate ofd the arist. User:Rydernechvatal should refrain from editing the article and put suggested changes on this page, so that other non-partisan editors can decide whether the material should be included. Tyrenius 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. I think it is objective and accurate.
 * Let me give you the citations you want and I will never touch the page again.


 * For your first citation:
 * He has also exhibited in Paris, Cologne, Alalst, Belgium, Lund and Munich and has participated in museum exhibitions around the world.[citation needed] -- see the artists CV here for list of exhibitions : http://www.eyewithwings.net/nechvatal/bio/bio.htm


 * For your 2nd citation for his work being in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[citation needed] see:
 * http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/Backissues/Vol_15/faf_v15_n04/text/review03.html


 * For #3:
 * Art historian Donald Kuspit has written in his essay The Matrix of Sensations that Nechvatal's digital painting demonstrates that "there are more possibilities of freedom in digital art — that is, the "mental elements" are "free[r] to enter into various combinations" and thus to be manipulated — than in architecture, painting and sculpture."[citation needed]


 * see: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit8-5-05.asp
 * which is cited in the reference section


 * For #4:
 * Frank Popper states in his book From Technological to Virtual Art that Nechvatal's computer virus work is important to the history of art as it has advanced the use of digital technology and artificial intelligence, while defending and preserving the values of formal painting.[citation needed]
 * see: Frank Popper From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120-123


 * This is also cited in the reference section


 * OK?


 * Thank you.


 * Rydernechvatal 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

++++

OK Well its been around 3 days now with the ugly sign at the top of the page. The citations are given above. Will someone get rid of the

Thank you very much

Rydernechvatal


 * Re. your request about the COI tag on the above, User:Freshacconci has said he will spend some time on the article. However, you are not in a position to make demands as to when things happen. Tyrenius 15:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be able to put some time into it later this evening (North American Eastern Time). Real life (i.e. a paying job) is my priority at the moment. Freshacconci 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User rydernechvatal is up to bad behavior on wikipedia. Have a search for "nechvatal" on wikipedia and guess what you'll find? That one "Joseph Nechvatal" is one of the most significant artists of the late 20th century. According to whom? According to rydernechvatal, who has authored and edited dozens and dozens of articles so as to make this dubious point.

The fact that Nechvatal has exhibited internationally puts him in the company of thousands upon thousands of artists. This is not to devalue the artists work in any way, but to suggest that the artists fame on wikipedia is entirely created by himself, his daughter, or his comrades. Said search for "nechvatal" brings up countless links, many of exceedingly questionable merit. I must suggest that rydernechvatal's contributions be reviewed in their entirety. Given the extent of this fraud, I believe that wikipedia may face on ongoing struggle to keep Nechvatal or his cohort from mischief.--Dylanfly 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See my note here. Freshacconci 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I had the idea that adding content to wiki was what was expected. I fail to understand the "pure genius" comment other an attempt to be nasty. I may add that his 2 essays on Baudrillard were accepted for publication at the International Journal of Baudrillard Studies: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/ so your testimony to their worthlessness seems silly and rather petty of you. Yes I created this page and 2 more (Frank Popper and Ebon Fisher) but after this experience there will be no more content supplied by me. There are NO claims of "global influence" - only specific facts concerning all three pages I created for you. If you object to my linking his early work to punk - then remove that reference but please stop your pettiness.

Rydernechvatal [07:38, 25 June 2007]

I think you dodge the issues at hand completely. The issue here is the integrity of the online encyclopedia. To place Nechvatal into the field of collage artists, on par with Matisse, is patently disrespectful to this project. There are thousands of artists who do collage, and very few deserve mention on Wikipedia. My brother is an artist but you won't find me putting him all over Wikipedia! He just doesn't have the stature required. That's not a criticism of his work (or of Nechvatal's), it's a statement about what an encyclopedia is for. May I suggest you build Nechvatal a nice MySpace page?

Similarly, to place a 2 page review on Baudrillard alongside the remarks of Susan Sontag is not helpful either. The point of the encyclopedia is not to list every possible thing connected to Baudrillard (in which case Nechvatal's piece would qualify); the point is to discuss and link things which help introduce and illuminate someone at the scale of an encyclopedia. There are thousands of published articles on Baudrillard and very, very few of them have a place on Wikipedia. The same is true of punk visual art and so on and so forth.

You really don't own up to any of this. This is why the charge of pettiness applies well to you: if you truly took responsibility, you would remove your additions and links yourself, rather than ditching this chore to the community. But that's the basic misunderstanding here: Wikipedia is not about individual promotion, by self by fans or by family, it's about a community of people building knowledge in a collaborative way.--Dylanfly 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC) [posted by User:Rydernechvatal]

Nechvatal, as a collagist, is discussed in Brandon Taylor's recent book "Collage" published by Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2006, p. 221. Perhaps your brother is in that book as well? Thus I have nothing to own up to.

For the first citation: He has also exhibited in Paris, Cologne, Alalst, Belgium, Lund and Munich and has participated in museum exhibitions around the world.[citation needed] -- see the artists CV here for list of exhibitions : http://www.eyewithwings.net/nechvatal/bio/bio.htm

For your 2nd citation for his work being in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[citation needed] see: http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/Backissues/Vol_15/faf_v15_n04/text/review03.html

For #3: Art historian Donald Kuspit has written in his essay The Matrix of Sensations that Nechvatal's digital painting demonstrates that "there are more possibilities of freedom in digital art — that is, the "mental elements" are "free[r] to enter into various combinations" and thus to be manipulated — than in architecture, painting and sculpture."[citation needed]

see: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit8-5-05.asp which is cited in the reference section

For #4: Frank Popper states in his book From Technological to Virtual Art that Nechvatal's computer virus work is important to the history of art as it has advanced the use of digital technology and artificial intelligence, while defending and preserving the values of formal painting.[citation needed] see: Frank Popper From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120-123

This is also cited in the reference section

Does that help?

Rydernechvatal [07:38, 25 June 2007]

Ok It has been weeks now since multiple editors reworked this page (which I started on Joseph Nechvatal). I have asked for the COI tag to be removed by those that placed it there - but there has been no response. So I am going to remove it now.

81.57.34.12 [ Rydernechvatal ] 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

May I, or will you, remove the COI sign now? This page has been reviewed by numerous editors over the last month.

Rydernechvatal 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This page has been reviewed and revised by numerous editors over the last month and I have requested that the editors who put a COI tag on it now remove it - but I have had no response or action taken. So I am removing it now myself.

Rydernechvatal 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection to removal of COI, as it is written from WP:NPOV now. However it needs inline citations. See WP:REFB. Tyrenius (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

COI OCT 2012

 * I am an objective archivist and also an X-employee of Joseph Nechvatal. I worked for him as an archivist from 2008 - 2011. I have helped develop many wiki pages from time to time on many cultural subjects as my contributions page indicates. See Minóy for example of a recent contribution I developed based on Dr. Nechvatal's historic recollections as a founder of Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine. Of course I had valuable access to Dr. Nechvatal and his records, manuscripts and books, and I know well his history. I am happy to give material when I can about Dr. Nechvatal's work and any other subject I feel confident in contributing to, but I am an objective professional. As I no longer work for him, there is no Conflict of interest in my opinion. Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If nothing has happened in the next 48 hours here I will eliminate the COI banner at the top of the page. I did not create this page, but only update it from time to time as I do on many other pages that are concerned with art and music. Based on my history of varied editing contributions I maintain that I have a positive reputation that goes with quality work. As an X employee of Dr. Nechvatal's I have knowledge of his activities but no obligations to him. Therefore I am able to maintain a neutral point of view towards the subject of the page. Valueyou (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * not so sure I buy this "ex-employee" story, compelling evidence suggests that valueyou is a nom de plume for one Joseph James Nechvatal. Semitransgenic  talk. 09:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I heard from my x-assistant Valueyou about what has been going on here and she encouraged me to weight in so I am. But I don't intend to work on Wikipedia directly after learning what a hornets nest that can be. Anyway, if you still would like Valueyou to continue working on Wikipedia, please lay off her. JosephNechvatal (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no proof that there is no conflict of interest, besides Valueyou's claim that there is none. Paradoxically, Valueyou, while claiming there is no COI, has instead repeatedly claimed to have a connection with Nechvatal, proving there is probably a conflict of interest. For example, Valueyou contacted Nechvatal to have the latter edit multiple Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, one may cite a published work (which others could access), but one may not site someone's unpublished notes (which no one else has access to). One cannot claim to have no connection with or interest in someone, and also claim to have access to that person's private and personal materials. A simple declaration of interest would be much more convincing than an unsupported denial, and would prove objectivity better than an unsupported claim of objectivity. Hyacinth (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that there are two outside testimonials, two anonymous people who are personally involved with Nechvatal and Valueyou only compounds the conflict of interest, assuming that these two people are not Nechvatal or Valueyou. Nechvatal, perhaps you would find Wikipedia being a "hornet's nest" less painful if you didn't beat the nest with a stick. Hyacinth (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Hyacinth for the suggestion of declaration of interest. Yes perhaps that is an answer. I was not aware of it. Anyway, all the information on this page is objective and verified. Recent verification can be found on page 199 of the book 100 Ideas that Changed Art by Michael Bird, published by LAURENCE KING PUBLISHING LIMITED, London 2012 - where his painting Orgiastic abattOir : flawless ignudiO (2003) - published with his permission on wikipedia - is presented and discussed around his ideas of the "viractual" (p. 198). The issue of notes does not apply to this page. I would appreciate it if you would remove the COI banner. If it is best, I will not contribute to this page any more. Valueyou (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Permission required for images on this page
This is a notice that I have marked three images on this page as needing permission. The images are:


 * File:Jjn.jpg
 * File:Nech1.jpg
 * File:JosephFini.jpg

While they all say that the artwork has been released into the public domain by the artist that is not enough to prove that they are licensed under something that can be used. If the artist does wish to license them under this license they must fill out a WP:CONSENT form and email it into. The images have been marked for deletion and will be deleted in 7 days if the email has not been sent in by that time. If the proof has been sent, notice must be placed on the image pages by putting on the page. Since the uploader has not edited Wikipedia in quite a long time I wanted to post this here as well to make anyone watching this page aware of the situation. If anyone has any questions please feel free to let me know on my talk page or you can ping me here. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2021)
There are three accounts involved in direct editing the article that contains the name Nechvatal: JosephNechvatal, Rydernechvatal and EricaNechvatal. made considerble contribution to this article, as did someone who says they're Joseph Nechvatal's "x-assistant". Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A COI issue has been raised by Graywalls on the Colab page that points here (and is a carry over from our discussion on Talk:Colab) that I would like to cleanup by third opinion and due weight considered consensus here. Also POV and Autobiography tags have been placed by Graywalls on this Joseph Nechvatal page. I wish to address both tagged pages with you, as they are related and partially concern me. The Joseph Nechvatal tags stem from the origin of the page in the years 2006 and 2007 and COI has been acknowledged by the family member ( aka EricaNechvatal) who apparently (quite naively) began the page and has long left Wikipedia. Regardless of this regrettable start, after some work the removal of a COI on this page was approved by Tyrenius in 2008 and things have been mostly steady since then. In 2011 there were some misunderstandings concerning me that needed settling and JosephNechvatal himself spoke up here to address them and do little else in terms of due weight. Checking his log, I see that he has also never returned to Wikipedia. But the new COI POV and Autobiography tags issued by Graywalls (March 2021) appear also partially directed at me (if only in quotations). I have already addressed the general issue at Graywalls's talk as concerning the now decimated (by Graywalls) Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine page and I will here do so again as I here by ask for removals of the COI, POV, and Autobiography tags placed on this and the Colab pages by Graywalls. Over the proceeding 10 years I have rarely touched the Joseph Nechvatal page, but since the issue has been raised again from a decade ago, I state again my declaration of interest here. I was employed by Dr. Nechvatal between the years 2008-2011 while working on his archive that was donated to the Fales Collection at NYU []. That experience deepened my much broader expertise in the history of the 1980s New York art/music scene that I have been sharing with you and our Wikipedia users for 13 years. Thus I see myself as an informed and objective and active unpaid volunteer now for Wikipedia concerned with art and music history. I believe my rather extensive but focused editing record displays that. Valueyou (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've long been aware of Nechvatal's work and some of the issues around Nechvatal's Wikipedia article. I have never edited that article, nor its talkpage. I am interested in, but have no conflict of interest with, any of the subjects associated with Colab or Nechvatal. I am willing to accepts edit requests from editors with a real or perceived conflict of interest, as a neutral an uninvolved editor. From what I have seen, Valueyou's contributions are not in any way biased, disruptive or otherwise unencylopedic and I thank them for their efforts. Vexations (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - think at this point the correct forum would be Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, that's where further input from editors with COI experience can offer an opinion, don't see things moving forward here the way things stand, situation is frustrating both for the accused and editors who would like to see article improvement, probably better for all concerned to go to there and hammer this out once and for all? Acousmana (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not wish to make a fuss over this by contending there is a conflict between editors here. Graywalls does good work (though a bit heavy handed, for my taste). So I accept Vexations's editorial input here. Thank you Vexations, I am confident you can address this without the Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard fuss. Valueyou (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(Smilon Don was Dylanfly) requesting if they have any comment as previous participants. I stand by my placement of "autobio", as having been written by the subject, or those closely associated with the subject. Whether to use COI or Autobio tag is debatable.

Here's added text stats: Valueyou · 17,971 (37.7%) (Editor states they were a Nechvatal's employee from 2008-2011) Taxisfolder · 2,227 (4.7%) (former account of Valueyou, according to prior editors) Erica: EricaNechvatal · 1,276 (2.7%) (created the page) 81.57.34.12 · 7,692 (16.2%) (Erica Nechvatal, per the name they signed in one of talk page comments claiming ownership to the page)

A Nechvatal: Rydernechvatal · 5,787 (12.2%) (obvious Nechvatal)

Total 73.5%

Freshacconci · 4,960 (10.4%) (not sure?) (comment: while I don't think or never suspected they have COI. I was only listing out the top additions, but since one editor took this as "alleging a coi", I have struck this out, specifically to avoid any further confusion. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Those with reasonably certain connections to Nechvatal are responsible for 3/4 of addition to the article. Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , does "(not sure?)" mean that you think that is, or may be, Nechvatal? I am quite sure he's not. Vexations (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant that I have no idea who they are. These are simply automatically generated list of highest contributors, by percentage of text added. Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you ought to withdraw that. FA is quite clear about how they feel about autobiographies (see their userpage). I have never seen anything in their editing that would indicate that they have a coi with any topics they have edited. Alleging a potential coi ought to be supported by positive evidence, not "I don't know for sure that they don't have a coi". That's a violation of WP:AGF. Vexations (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I never suggested FA has any COI. I'm simply copying and pasting stat contribution percentage. Such allegation of violation of AGF may in itself conflict with WP:AGF as I meant no allegation on Freshacconci as having any COI. Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what we can probably say is that the following are linked somehow: one person? meats? socks? who knows, but a declaration would be useful to defuse tensions. Acousmana (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll give you that declaration right here; I am not, in any way, related to, affiliated with or paid by Joseph Nechvatal, or any member or associate of Colab. I have never been paid for my contributions, I do not know any of the editors involved other than through their contributions here. I do not know who they are in real life, and to the best of my knowledge, I have not had any off-wiki conversations with any of them. In orther words; I do not have a conflict of interest with this subject or topic. My CoI statement is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vexations/CoI Vexations (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Am I right in assuming you used https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Joseph%20Nechvatal/? Vexations (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW we can add TwinkleJames, Tellus archivist, and Twinkletellus to the above list. Acousmana (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * there is one page that TwinkleJames, Twinkletellus, Tellus archivist, Rydernechvatal, EricaNechvatal, Taxisfolder, and Valueyou have edited and that's Joseph Nechvatal. TwinkleJames, Twinkletellus, Tellus archivist, Taxisfolder, and Valueyou all edited two articles: Joseph Nechvatal, and Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine. Make of this what you will, but based on this and other evidence, it's clear to me who the master account is. Acousmana (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why am I mentioned in this discussion? Hyacinth (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed you participated on this topic in the past and you're an active editor, so I pinged you to see if you had any comment. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If I understand the mess above, through your collective divinations of the text stats that yield an implication with 74% probability, I have practiced a 13 yearlong travesty creating a plethora of editorial contributions to Wikipedia? This conjured impressive implication is 100% speculative and in error: the early accounts cross-connections dredged up have been long ago explained by 2008 shared-at-origin office computers and networks with Nechvatal family members within the communal studio/office space. (This does not apply to Tellus archivist, who was and is completely autonomous.) I state once again my declaration of interest here. I was employed by Dr. Nechvatal between the years 2008-2011 while working in his studio office on his archive that was donated to the Fales Collection at NYU . But this current interrogation is creating an emotional lacuna disagreeable enough for me to 100% withdraw donating any more of my historic art/music knowledge to the editorial services of Wikipedia. I was not expecting this dredging up of old dead cross-connections from a decade ago, and I remind you I was the one to called for this re-appraisal. But if you prefer, I can bid you editors (and the Wikipedia community at large) adieu and yield my freely donated female editorial energy to the beaurcratic butcher-police squad. Here's looking at you Graywalls. For the record, I offer my apologies to Dr. Nechvatal for my failures here. Valueyou (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * from what I see this "mess," if you want to call it that, is down to one individual who started editing here in 08, and with an attitude that ran something like, "I have a PhD, Wikipedia should be grateful for the time and energy I contribute and should not require me to adhere to community norms or follow the guidelines that apply to content production." Reading the above, other than the sock/meat puppetry, not much has really changed. That's disappointing. Acousmana (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed the regrettable mess began at the origin of the page and is of its own making. But by the projected editorial response above, it is apparent that my explanation has not been considered. Regardless, I have been widely and productively editing here on art and music for 13 years. So at what point does the origin of the page in 2008, and my subsequent modest involvement with it, become a mute point? I will be happy to stay away form this page if we can clean the misleading Autobiography and Neutral point of view tags up. Also the Conflict of interest tag on the Colab page, which I can avoid as well. So I would again like to make an edit requests of Vexations and if possible put these tags to rest. My apologies to all of you. Valueyou (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that my explanation above has not been considered. Regardless, I have been widely and productively editing here on art and music for 13 years. So at what point does the bad origin of the page in 2008, and my subsequent modest involvement with it, become a mute point? I will be happy to stay away form this page if we can clean the misleading Autobiography and Neutral point of view tags up. So I would like to make an edit requests to you Acousmana and ask that you put the tags on this page to rest. If so, I will avoid editing the page from then on. Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not trying to be difficult, but as said already, think at this point the correct forum would be Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, shouldn't view this as a negative suggestion, if it's determined there that the COI allegation is moot (which is a distinct possibility), you could legitimately remove the tag. Right now, without additional input from uninvolved editors - perhaps via WP:THIRDOPINION or WP:RFC - I don't think I should remove the tag, but would be happy for another editor to do so after reviewing the matter. Acousmana (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I stand on my robust & diverse long editing record, I am in over my head when it comes to Noticeboards & WP:THIRDOPINIONs & WP:RFCs and the like. I don't get involved with those sorts of things and I don't wish to start now. I rest on my explanation above, and my apology for it, and appeal to you Acousmana and you Vexations - more seasoned editors than I in this respect - to move this tag removal forward & resolve the issue that I myself raised. Thank you for your help with this matter.Valueyou (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try removing it, based on your assurances, but if reverted, that's as much as I'm doing here, but don't be so apprehensive about gaining more input, could be the best way to clear the air - note failure on your part to engage with the wider editing community could be viewd negatively. Acousmana (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Acousmana Appreciated and noted moving forward. Thank you.Valueyou (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Acousmana acknowledged that at some point (now ~ 13 years later) the origin of the page in 2008, and my subsequent modest involvement with it, becomes a mute point. As I have said, I will be happy to stay away form this page if you will please remove the terribly misleading Autobiography and Neutral point of view tags. I would like to gain more input, as Acousmana suggested, so I again make an edit requests of Vexations and ask that these tags be removed by a second editor, following the previous removal by Acousmana. I should think a second editor doing so would outweigh the insistence of Graywalls. As stated above, Acousmana is happy for another editor to remove the tags after reviewing the matter. Would you please do so? Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * last thing I'll say on this, right now it's a content dispute, nothing is going to change here until you break this out to a relevant board and get input from uninvolved editors. Acousmana (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is no content dispute. No credible challenge has been raised against the neutrality of the article. No opinion has been stated as fact. There are no seriously contested assertions. The article is written in a disinterested, impartial tone. Nothing in this article has been proven to be false, unreferenced or cited to unreliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still tagged, so questions about the validity of the content exist, therefore content dispute. Acousmana (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm fixing the citations. I'll need a moment, because a number of them have been broken since they were introduced. Vexations (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Vexations (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there any example of bias in the article content? Hyacinth (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Influences
There seems to be a small edit war dispute going on in relation to this statement: "Nechvatal cites influences such as John von Neumann, John Horton Conway, John Koza, Gustav Metzger and Marcel Duchamp. I don't see anything particularly undue about this, nor is it problematic that it's a primary source (interview). I'd suggest leaving it in. --- Possibly (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record: I am not edit warring. I reverted ONE removal of content that had for the most part been present in the article for 15 years, since 2006. I am willing to civilly discuss any changes to the article in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Vexations (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I corrected the part about edit warring to be a dispute! I think the correction happened at the same time as your post. --- Possibly (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing undue about the content that was removed, The Thing is/was reliable and a well known initiative/project; and Macsovszky an intelligent interviewer. That it's a primary source is a non-issue in this case. The content itself is useful to readers of the encyclopedia, providing important information for those interested in Nechvatal's work. To my mind, the material should stay in the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)