User talk:Artarch/Archive. Old page

* 2 Image copyright problem with Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg * 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Floating and Dreaming.jpg * 4 Image copyright problem with Image:FKI025.jpg * 5 Fair use rationale for Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg * 6 Unspecified source for Image:Dual Entry Water Ballet TC.jpg * 7 Orphaned fair use image (Image:CubesinStudio.jpg) * 8 Fair use disputed for Image:Image:CMN012 TC.jpg * 9 Fair use disputed for Image:Lilorphanannie1960.jpg * 10 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Untitled-4,2006.jpg * 11 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UntitledGoldBox1964.jpg * 12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg * 13 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FKI025.jpg * 14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2006CubeInstallation.jpg * 15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellCubeinStudio.jpg * 16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellatWork1962.jpg * 17 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MEL98.jpg * 18 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FBA086.jpg * 19 Replaceable fair use Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg * 20 Image copyright problem with Image:PearlNecklace.jpg * 21 Maintenance templates * 22 Image copyright problem with Image:Shire Pizz-O-Lover 2007.jpg * 23 Conflict of interest * 24 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shire Nuovo Bel Air Model 2007.jpg) * 25 Craig Kauffman * 26 Replaceable fair use Image:Craig Kauffman Portrait.jpg * 27 November 2008 * 28 Plagiarism warning * 29 Using copyrighted material you own * 30 Conflict of interest dispute o 30.1 Unblock request * 31 Username change
 * 1 Image copyright problem with Image:CubesinStudio.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CubesinStudio.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:CubesinStudio.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Floating and Dreaming.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Floating and Dreaming.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FKI025.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:FKI025.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Paloma Walker 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Dual Entry Water Ballet TC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dual Entry Water Ballet TC.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as article name or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CubesinStudio.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CubesinStudio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Image:CMN012 TC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:CMN012 TC.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Lilorphanannie1960.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lilorphanannie1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Untitled-4,2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Untitled-4,2006.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UntitledGoldBox1964.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UntitledGoldBox1964.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DualEntryWaterBallet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FKI025.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FKI025.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2006CubeInstallation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006CubeInstallation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellCubeinStudio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BellCubeinStudio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BellatWork1962.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BellatWork1962.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MEL98.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MEL98.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FBA086.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FBA086.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LarryBellportrait2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add di-replaceable fair use disputed, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. 2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:PearlNecklace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PearlNecklace.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in. * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance templates

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Peter Shire (artist). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shadowlynk, Thanks for replacing the maintenance templates.I appreciate your revision. I'll address those issues when I get a chance, but right now I am blocked from editing. Perhaps you would like to review the previous versions of the entry, and address your concerns with Politizer, the editor who is making some serious accusations about my writing. For now, I am addressing those strong and serious charges, and I am blocked from performing any editing. thanks, FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)00:08, 14 November 2008

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Shire Pizz-O-Lover 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shire Pizz-O-Lover 2007.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

* Wikipedia:Image use policy * Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

23:23, 13 November 2008 Hey there Politizer, I found your comments, but since I am now blocked (by Orangemike, administrator) as an editor, the only place I can talk is right here. I am very interested in this posting:

This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. (Peter Shire (artist) and Craig Kauffman (artist) are the ones where he's active at the moment.) Furthermore, he has been unilaterally removing cleanup templates without addressing concerns and, more seriously, removing ifd templates from fair use images he has uploaded, without giving a FUR or engaging in a discussion about the image. The two articles I linked to above both originally had large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman (artist)) and this user has repeatedly reinstated that text in the articles after I commented it out or deleted it. I have warned the user about his edits and about COI, and another editor has also asked the user do disclose any possible COI, but the user has ignored all requests for discussion. Can anyone suggest a next step? ::—Politizer talk/contribs 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The user has acknowledged here that he is Frank Lloyd himself. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user just admitted to being a representative of the subjects of those articles (diff), so it's a legitimate COI. ::::—Politizer talk/contribs 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Oh wow, you saw that quickly. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The COI is pretty clear here, but note that this does not prevent him from editing the article, as long as he stays neutral and verifiable. As for the copyright issue with using text from his web site, if he is the copyright holder, he is allowed to use the same text here, though he will be releasing it under GFDL if he does so. See Wikipedia:Copyvio#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. I'll leave him a note letting him know this, and as long as he understands the implications of doing so, the text itself is not considered a copyvio. It still may have issues with Peacocking, but once he posts it under GFDL, it may then be modified to stay wikipedia-friendly. ArakunemTalk 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I hope you have a chance to read my response to the civil and kind user Arakunem, who has reminded me of the COI and NPOV policies of Wikipedia. Also, I hope you will note that I have posted entries since March 2007, and since that time have been informed about the goals and policies of Wikipedia. All of my entries have been edited by other users and editors, and we have never had a conflict until your complaints.

Now, I have some questions for you:

1. What is your knowledge of the biographies of the persons that I have entered? 2. Has your research as a graduate student in linguistics qualified you to edit and object to my point of view? 3. Are you a published author in the field of art history? 4. Are you a student of contemporary art, and have you read the sources listed on each of the entries that you are commenting on?

My answer to all of the above questions is this: on Wikipedia, no one is required to hold a degree in a subject, be a student in a subject, or be a published author in a subject to make edits to articles on that subject. If you look around, you will noticed that Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers, most of whom act in a variety of subject areas. I was not making my edits as a person knowledgeable in the field of art history, but as a person knowledgeable in the rules of Wikipedia; everything I changed was to remove content that does not follow Wikipedia rules. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question, and now I understand where you are coming from. I posed those questions in order to get a sense of who I am corresponding with. Good luck with your studies, and I wish you the best in your volunteer work for Wikipedia. I have posted summary comments below, under the COI section. I am getting a much better sense of your motivations, goals, and reasoning.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Why not just make some edits yourself, as suggested by Arakunem?

I made numerous edits to several of the articles. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize your changes as edits, but that's just my opinion from working with editors in publications. Wikipedia terminology is differrent, but the question I have is why not contribute something useful and based on your own research, rather than editing by deletion? Does the Wikipedia method leave some room for other biographers to discuss and edit? You seem to have fixed your goals on Wikipedia rule compliance, and I understand that now. I am interested in providing information to other people. I can now see that this may not be the forum that I want to participate in. At any rate, I suggest that you look at some of the other contributions that I have made, and how others have modified, edited, and changed the original stem. Your vigilant behavior stands out, in my experience on Wikipedia. FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Can you name the "large amounts of plagiarism" and "large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman"?

The list in a previous version of the Craig Kauffman article appears to have been directly copied from here. As for the text copied from your website into the Peter Shire article, even if it is originally your writing, you still need to attribute it with references and quotes where applicable; you can't expect all readers and editors to just know that the original text was yours. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The list could have been commented on in more civil terms (your comment was "ridiculous"). I have seen discographies for muscians posted, and filmographies for actors posted. In the world of art, a listing of exhibitions is common, and if it seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, that is easy to state in a courteous manner: "Long listings of exhibitions use valuable space on Wikipedia biography pages. Perhaps you could include some of the most significant exhibits in the text, and provide a link to an external source." might be just one way to maintain a civil discourse.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you sure that I have "ignored" requests to discuss the COI and NPOV?

Yes. If you go through the edit history (for those reading, I will provide diffs upon request) it is clear that you continued your editing after having received numerous warnings from me, and you did not post a single message at this talk page until you were blocked. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: COI warning from me on Nov 11, after which Mr. Lloyd reverted twice on Peter Shire (artist) on Nov 12—restoring commented-out section, re-restoring commented-out section—before bothering to leave me a message. During this time (before leaving me a message) he also removed deletion templates without providing a fair use rationale (only copying in the Fair use rationale template, not actually giving any FUR information).—Politizer talk/contribs 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is your discussion. Again, the tone of your response is a real reason for me to reconsider participation in Wikipedia. Is there anyone else out there reading any of this? Orangemike? Arakunem? FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Why is it your responsibility to now go and tag all entries that I have made, regardless of your knowledge of the subject?

As I said above, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and when I see articles that need cleanup I often take it upon myself to clean them up. If you are suggesting that I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article, I suggest you read WP:OWN, an essay explaining the "ownership" of articles and the fact that articles are free to be edited by anyone (also notice the first message under "Please Note" at the bottom of the page when you edit pages: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I understand your point of view:"I often take it upon myself to clean them up". And I understand that you are interested in keeping Wikipedia within the rules. But what is up with your assumptions. I have, as I have noted in this discussion and in correspondence with Orangemike, submitted several stubs--and they have been mercilessly edited. But I have not encountered anything like this. I never suggested any of these things ("... I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article") and I again find the tone of your response to be extraordinarily defensive and argumentative. Again, take a look at the records of all the other entries, if you are interested in histories.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you aware that your edits were being made as we were posting, and that editing out postings with the term "ridiculous" could be considered uncivil in most forms of communication (could be perceived as interrupting and ridiculing)?

I am posting these comments, and I have responded to Arakunem. I am also wondering about your response "Oh wow you saw that quickly." I am concerned that your vigilance is a bit excessive. Yes, it's true that I have also written to an administrator. But what I need to know from you is your answers to the questions above, and your reasons for being over-vigilant on one user/editor. Why not answer some questions, and while you are at it, let me know a way to contact you besides this page. I am in lock-down on Wikipedia, and I wonder if it's due to your complaints? So far, your complaint stand alone--neither Themfromspace or Arakunem seems to share the view that I have violated any copyrights. How can I plagiarise myself?

My complaint is not alone. Note that in my original message to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (the message you reproduced above), I never asked to have you blocked, I only asked what the next appropriate step would be for addressing these concerns with you. Orangemike made the decision to block you on his own. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please go back and read, when you have a moment, the difference in your complaint and the one posted by Arakunem. As for Orangemike, I think he is an administrator, and I will look for his message and respect the decisions and advice given. Posting things on the COI Noticeboard is an action that will hopefully bring some more responses. So far, it's really just a two-person argument. Arakunem's response to your comments was a lot more civil, and he/she acknowledged a lot more of what I might expect in the way of intellectual discourse. We'll see if anyone else has an opinion, but from what I read on Wikipedia, one should guard against getting too upset. Best of luck in your studies, and please do note my summary comments below.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have this POV: the entries I have made constitute biographical information and are reasonably presented. Previous entries have also included footnotes, references, suggestions for further reading, and several outside links to other web sources. The real sources for my writing, however, are scholarly research based on a library and archive of which you have little or no knowledge. Why not let my entries stand, and allow Wikipedia community members who know something about the artists make the changes? Is that not, as suggested by Arakunem, the function of Wikipedia? And, as for the open use of my name, why is it that you don't post yours? FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)00:02, 14 November 2008

As for your "library and archive of which [I] have little or no knowledge," you need to cite those sources when you edit articles. Again, you cannot expect everyone to have access to and knowledge of the same sources, and all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The old versions of both the Craig Kauffman and Peter Shire articles included amounts of text with no source explicitly given (only a list of general sources given at the end of the article), making it impossible for anyone to verify where the facts came from. And given that much of the text of Peter Shire was lifted directly from your own website, which represents Shire, it could not remain (again, because of the conflict of interest policy. It would be one thing to cite that website (sparingly) as a source, but it cannot be simply copied and pasted in, as it is heavily biased in favor of Mr. Shire. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, How about letting others modify it, and contribute? I gave it a start, and like the experience I had with others, I know it will be modified. It's going to be interesting to see what happens, and if anyone else wants to contribute to the entry. Maybe it should be deleted altogether? Like I said below, that might be the best solution. Of course, as you have noted, the biggest rule around is posted at the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ain't that the truth! Well, best of luck with your work, your studies and with policing the pages of the people's encyclopedia.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Peter Shire (artist), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; 3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and, 4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Responses are in the section above). —Politizer talk/contribs 14:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I read these before, and I think I gave a good start to something that would be of interest to people searching the internet. I not only provided some good text that I wrote, and I also provided within that text links to movements that are posted on Wikipedia (Memphis, for instance) and other people (Etore Sottsass, for instance), as well as references, museum collections links, and other content. I am pretty sure that I exercised caution in the language that I used, as it is biographical, referential, linked and referenced. I did not praise the subject by using praising adjectives. I kept it pretty straightforward. Again, since it was put up there, it can be modified, just like any other entry. But, let's see what others think, and like I noted, I'm probably not going to be able to participate anyway. Are you out there, Orangemike? And Arankunem? Can I get any other voices from the Wikipedia community? FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shire Nuovo Bel Air Model 2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shire Nuovo Bel Air Model 2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Kauffman

I nominated the above article for a DYK entry on the Main Page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know (Articles created on Nov. 11). However, a revier has observed that you are "probably in a conflict of interest" with the subject of the article. As noted above with respect to Peter Shire, you may have a conflict in editing an article if you have a close personal relationship with the subject (e.g., relative, personal friend, or business relationship through which you stand to gain by promoting the subject). If you would clarify whether any such conflict exists, it would be helpful to me in determining whether or not to withdraw my nomination of the article for DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear CBl62, Thanks for your courteous comments. I would refer you to the comments posted on this talk page by Arakunem. I do know both of the subjects, and I do have relationships with them. So do many of the best biographers in history. I am not hiding behind an assumed name, and I am a published author in the field of contemporary art. If there is a problem with the NPOV, let's let the rest of the Wikipedia community, and especially those with some knowledge of the subjects, post edits and modifications and changes to the entry. I hope you understand that I consider the entries that I have made as a contribution to the world wide web. But, I will leave the decision up to the administrators at this point, because I have been blocked from editing. We'll see what happens, and whether or not I will continue to contribute. At any rate, I do appreciate your civility, and I wonder what you think of the accusations made by Politizer? Do you agree with his comments and accusations? :FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)00:27, 14 November 2008

First of all, Mr. Lloyd, the fact that other biographers have relationships with their subjects doesn't excuse your conflict of interest in this case. Wikipedia has different rules than other biographers do, and those rules are very explicit. If you want to be the "best biographer in history" for one of your artists, you have to do it somewhere other than on Wikipedia. As for "hiding" behind assumed names, the vast majority of users do not use their real names. Part of this is for privacy and safety (especially in the case of administrators, who are often forced to take actions that people will retaliate angrily against), and part of it is just because, since most Wikipedians are here as volunteers, they want to keep their work on Wikipedia separate from their academic or business pursuits. The fact that a Wikipedian has not given you his real name does not, in any means, imply that that Wikipedian is somehow less trustworthy than you are. Most of the best and most respected contributors here are known only by their aliases (including CB162 and Arakunem, both of whom you seem to respect more than me). And, actually, my real name is still visible in the edit history of my user page, if you really need to know it. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear CB162, I intended to respond to your comments, and I see that I have encountered Mr. Politizer instead. I would appreciate your comments, since I responded to the message. I will be very interested in knowing how others see his comments within the Wikipedia community. I do find Mr. Politizer's tone to be extraordinarily defensive. But, perhaps that is to be expected? I don't know, I'm asking other members of the Wikipedia community to perhaps comment on this? I have posted comments to Mr. Politizer elsewhere.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cb162, I am still interested in your opinion of the article, and now that I have been informed of how DYK nominations are made, I wonder if you could respond with some opinions? I would like to know what attracted you to the new article, and how you viewed the POV, neutrality, and content--before you knew of the COI. That may be hard to remember, I understand. but as a help to my understanding of Wikipedia, I am looking for other comments.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Craig Kauffman Portrait.jpg Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Craig Kauffman Portrait.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add di-replaceable fair use disputed, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. 2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Suntag ☼ 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] November 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Image:Craig Kauffman Portrait.jpg. Please use the hangon template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for for the information. At this point, I would be pleased to remove the portrait, too. Best of luck with your work on Wikipedia.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd really like to make sure that none of our images (all of which I am the copyright holder, and used to be willing to give Wikipedia the rights) will be used. I have seen all of the previous entries on my talk page, and now I see that your vigilance has extended here as well. It would be better for the resolution of everything, just to have all of my contributions to Wikipedia deleted. I also posted images on other entries, but since I encountered you, I have really lost any enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Again, good luck with your studies.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you would still like your images to be removed from Wikipedia, you may do so by blanking the page where the image is and replacing the page content with db-author (that template can be copied and pasted into the page), after which an administrator will delete it. As I have said before, however, you are not required to withdraw your images and entries if you do not wish to do so. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your advice. But I am still blocked, and regardless of the outcome of our argument, the Spamming tag probably means I won't be able to withdraw everything. I do note your vigilance in our "long and tedious" discussion--as you have posted on Orangemike's talk page.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through and put the deletion notices on all of your images, along with links to the sections of this page where you requested that the images be deleted. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Athaenara for the deletions, and for the reference to item 7 in the Speedy Deletion file.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism warning

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Peter Shire (artist). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you were the person who wrote it; it's still from a site outside of Wikipedia, and thus you can't just copy it into an article without quoting it. No matter who wrote information outside of Wikipedia, the information can't be copied into Wikipedia without any attribution (a footnote, etc.). Also, please see the multiple messages you received above about conflict of interest. Wikipedia has rules about editing articles on people whom you represent. My edits to the artist pages are not vandalism. If you continue to revert my edits, you will be in violation of the three-revert rule and may be blocked. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the message you left me is an admission of your conflict of interest. A discussion has been opened here regarding your conduct, and you can leave comments there if you want. In the meantime, as you have already admitted to be a representative of these artists, you must not keep editing the articles on those artists, of you will risk being blocked indefinitely. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using copyrighted material you own

Hi Mr. Lloyd. Regarding the above issue with use of copyrighted materials in the articles, I just want to clarify the policy, and make sure that you know the implications of so doing. If you are the copyright holder of the text you posted, you are permitted to include it in an article you write. Note that by so doing, you are irrevocably agreeing to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL, which means that once posted here, anyone can modify or re-use the text from the article for any reason. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for all the specifics about this.

Also, as you have acknowledged your relationship to the gallery, I would ask you to review our policy on Conflict of Interest. While it does not preclude you from editing the articles on the artists, it does offer some suggestions and guidelines for keeping the article neutral and verifiable. You should also expect an increased amount of scrutiny from other editors, as some COI's can be a slippery slope. Beyond that, if you keep the article Neutral, and have it sourced from reliable third-party sources, you should not have to worry about it possibly being deleted in future. ArakunemTalk 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Mr. Lloyd: Please note Arakunem's message above. Your article must be neutral and be sourced to reliable third-party sources; your own website is neither of those things, as it and you have financial stake in how the artists are represented on Wikipedia. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Comment" in response to Politizer: I've read Arakunem's message over and over. Every time I read it, she/he says,"If you are the copyright holder of the text you posted, you are permitted to include it in an article you write." Your action was deletion, and I guess that's what she/he means by increased scrutiny. As for the information on my website, it's pretty darn accurate. Professors of art from several universities tell me that it's some of the best information on the web. FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Wikipedia's general guideline about writing about oneself is useful. Wikipedia discourages people from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves, their companies, their bands, etc., under the general guideline that "if you/your company/your band is important and notable enough, someone else will come along and write an article about you eventually." This is relevant to your case in that, assuming your cite is as good a source as it seems, some unaffiliated user will come along and use your cite as a source (and use it properly—citing bits and pieces, including inline references—rather than simply copying it). In general, users are discouraged from citing their own work (or, in your case, copying your own work) for pretty much the same reasons as users are discouraged from writing about themselves. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't writing about myself. I am writing about someone else, and making an entry on Wikipedia. But, never mind that, I don't dispute that the words are my own. Let 'em be modified, let a user make a post, do some research, and allow others to make the entry interesting. I have seen that happen with our other entries, and now the entry is really a mess: go back and take a look at the history of the Tony Marsh (artist) biography, for instance. The text, when I finished my original posting, is far more of a NPOV, and far more of an encyclopedic entry in the early stages. Now, after many "edits", most of which are from one obscure interview, not from neutral or scholarly sources, it's almost unrecognizable. I did not enter into the edits, I just left them alone--but it's another example of just how unreliable Wikipedia entries can be. I don't know if you will follow this reasoning, because I understand that your objective is to make sure the rules are followed on Wikipedia, but I can say this from my point of view as a researcher, published author, and person interested in artists biographies: it's a travestry. I'd really like to take away the images that we posted (and are copyrighted material lent for use as illustrations of the work of the subject Tony Marsh), but of course, I am blocked from doing any editing. Thanks, but I hope no one puts me on Wikipedia. I am not writing about myself.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I was not accusing you of writing about yourself, merely pointing out how the policy on writing on oneself also can shed some light on your situation. As I said above, citing one's own research (in this case, your own website) as a source is generally discouraged, and what is preferred is to wait for other people to cite your research. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

20:24, 13 November 2008 Dear Arakunem, Thank you for your comments. Are you an editor, user or arbitrator? (I am curious about this process). I am a relatively new Wikipedia contributor, and I am responding to your kindly worded clarification in a timely manner. I have noted before that I am the author of the material that was submitted for the articles tagged as "plagiarism" and deleted (I think) by user "Politizer". I am indeed the copyright holder of many different articles posted on my unique domain website. I am also the owner of that business. As a service to the worldwide community of the arts, I provide biographical information and images of artwork on my unique domain website. Many of the artists that we represent are significant members of the community of artists, and their work can be viewed (and their biographies read) on many other websites. Even a casual internet user can access those sites by one of the available web browsers. I have also researched (our library contains an archive of hundreds of publications) the artists that we represent, and we regularly update the bibliographies for these artists. One of the ways that I have contributed to Wikipedia, and a service to the Wikipedia community, is to post the references for my research on each of the contributions that I have made. Indeed, our bibliographical materials (listed as footnotes as well as under the headings of References and Further Reading), are a gift to the student or reader of Wikipedia. I am also a published author (print, periodicals, and museum catalogues).

Comment: The "footnotes" given in the articles in question were only given in cases where information was quoted directly from a book. Footnotes were never given for other factual information in the article, which needs inline footnotes just as much. As for the lists of sources at the bottom of the articles, I left those intact (see my comment to the paragraph below). —Politizer talk/contribs 14:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read and understand the Conflict of Interest policy (COI) as well as the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I understand that my contributions will be read by other "editors" and my be modified by other "users". Perhaps it would be helpful for you, and for other arbitrators and administrators to look at the previous contributions I have made to the Wikipedia community. Are you aware of these? And are you aware of the history of each of those entries? In each case, I tried to contribute biographical information, descriptive information, and quotes and references from authoritative sources in our stem page, and in each case I have (it is a matter of record on the history) allowed modification (the term "editing" is used in Wikipedia) without dispute or intervention--until the last two contributions (Peter Shire and Craig Kauffman).

Comment: Mr. Lloyd will certainly accuse me of having removed information from his articles, so I will point out here that 1) I left his list of sources intact, as that list is still useful to readers; 2) I deleted the long lists of artist exhibitions only because they were direct copies of lists on other sites, and I left links to those sites in the article, prominently featured in the External links section; 3) the information I removed was biographical information of questionable validity, given that it came from (and, in the case of Peter Shire, was copied from) a site representing those artists and written by a person who stands to make financial gain by representing those artists positively on Wikipedia. —Politizer talk/contribs

The previous entries have been modified repeatedly by a variety of users. While I do not agree with the modifications, or "edits", I have not entered into a discussion of those changes with other users. I will act in consideration of Wikipedia policies, and I believe that our actions have been in the interest of providing information and links for the community. I do not agree, on a fundamental level, with the statement:

"This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy."

Certainly, within the policies and activities outlined in everything I can read on Wikipedia, other users and "editors" and administrators are free to add, modify, clarify and change the entries that I have made. If there is someone else who is properly registered who wishes to modify that entry, they have been welcome to do so. However, when one user overrides our postings, makes comments such as "plagiarism" and "ridiculous", tags all of our entries with cleanup notices, and deletes fully documented content without giving reason (and without offering his/her own fully researched and documented contributions, I honestly think that falls into a different Wikipedia category: it's a form of harassment.

I suggest that the actions of Politizer (and I note that you have responded to this user) be considered Wikihounding. I suppose that you are familiar with that term, but I wonder if Mr./Ms. Plitizer has considered it? Here it is:

The term "wiki-hounding" has been coined to describe singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. "Wikistalking", an older term, is being phased out because it confuses minor online annoyance with a real world felony. Many users track other users edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Comment: As described in the excerpt above, the reason I tracked your contributions was to "fix violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." This is accepted and common behavior; any time a user is seen to be violating Wikipedia policy (in good faith or not), other editors will often track the user's edit history to repair any other damage that has been done to the encyclopedia, and will warn the offending user before the damage spreads. I gave you at least one notice about conflict of interest above, and you continued to edit without responding, up until a brief response on my talk page that was less of a response to my questions than a "stop messing with my articles" demand. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

""Comment"":Tracking all of my contributions is a form of harassment, I believe. I made some real contributions to Wikipedia, and those entries have stood and been edited for as much as 20 to 23 months. You are the one to come along and tag them. But did you read them?And did you read the histories of those other contributions? And, will others who make the administration judgement have any sense of these entries? Yes, the statement reads" Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." However, tagging all of them, in concert with your flaming comments of "ridiculous", "Mr. Lloyd will certainly accuse me", "your own website is neither of those things", are possibly within the other category of "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" and "personal attacks". The final edits in each of the entries that you focused on were yours, I think.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would request that I be unblocked as a user, and that the administrators look into the activities of Politizer. I don't wish to assert that there are any personal attacks, but simply that I am alarmed by the repeated activities of that user.

As for the COI and NPOV notices, I have read and understand them. As for the spamming warnings and the username notices, please advise me. Should I change my name to a pseudonym? Should I go back and request that all of my contributions be deleted? And, finally, what would you suggest doing about a user who is following me around and commenting, tagging, and deleting material that is submitted? FrankLloydGalleryFrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)21:16 13 November 2008

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text your reason here below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Conflict of interest dispute

Mr. Lloyd,

Please continue the discussion in this section, so that all the various discussions will be kept in one place. Also, when responding to other user's posts, please indent your response (by including a colon ":" at the beginning of each paragraph) to make the discussion easier to read and allow everyone to keep track of whose comments are whose. Finally, just FYI, to start a new paragraph you have to make a double space (hitting the "enter" key twice, rather than just once) between each paragraph, otherwise all the text will run together. Thank you, —Politizer talk/contribs 14:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Politizer, Thank you for all of your responses above. Thanks, too for the tips on dealing with the formatting on this page. I, too am a volunteer and a contributor. I asked questions in order to get some sense of where you are coming from. I have been considering the policies and rules of Wikipedia, and my place in the culture of Wikipedia. It has been a very interesting experience, and I do want to thank you for pointing out again the COI and NPOV policies, as well as the verifiable sources rules. Also, I am well aware of the warning about merciless editing.I am leaving this note in response to all of the discussion above. I would be interested in the opinions of Arakunem and Orangemike, too. It's hard to tell tone in this type of discussion, but from what I can read in your prose (phrases such as "Mr. Lloyd will certainly accuse me...", and "your own website is neither of those things, as it and you have financial stake in how the artists are represented on Wikipedia", and "If you are suggesting that I am not "allowed" to edit "your" article" sound like I am corresponding in a kind of discussion that I just don't want to have. I will reconsider my participation in the world of Wikipedia, and if allowed by the administrators, I will withdraw ALL of my edits, content, and contributions. I wish you the best in continuing to volunteer on Wikipedia. FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to explicitly "withdraw" all of your edits, as everything done to Wikipedia can be further edited and refined—information that is found to be against Wikipedia policy will be removed or modified, and information you have inserted that is not against policy (such as the lists of books and other sources for each artist) will most likely remain in the articles and continue to be improved. All that's necessary for you to do is 1) for you to allow others to edit your work as well (i.e., not reverting when other people make edits that you dislike, and not removing cleanup templates the people place on articles you created), and 2) for you to agree not to edit in a way that violates the conflict of interest guidelines; to edit without violating COI, the general solution is just to entirely stay away from articles where you have a conflict of interest (although it is still permissible to watch the article for the purpose of reverting vandalism or factual inaccuracies that people insert, especially if those inaccuracies are malicious), but the specific resolution for your case is something for you to work out with administrators. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would like to hear from the administrators. Are you also an administrator? I know your discussion has been directed toward the policies and rules, but I am locked out of editing for "Spamming". So far, I have only heard a discussion with one person. I do appreciate that your tone has changed considerably: "There is no need to explicitly "withdraw" all of your edits, as everything done to Wikipedia can be further edited and refined—information that is found to be against Wikipedia policy will be removed or modified, and information you have inserted that is not against policy (such as the lists of books and other sources for each artist) will most likely remain in the articles and continue to be improved." But because of the tone of your previous comments, and the lack of response from anyone else, I doubt that I will continue to participate in this forum. I will give the matter some consideration, but for right now my intention is to ask that all of my contributions to Wikipedia be withdrawn. By the way, it's not a matter of "ownership", as I have plenty of experience with seeing my published articles and website all over the internet, repeated without citation in lectures and presentations, and cut and pasted in students' papers (many art professors refer their students to my website). It's really about something else: your tone and manner was really far too aggressive and harassing. The proof is really in the histories, and it's here in your comments.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone else interested in this, by the way?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message for Cbl62 informing him of the discussion here, so he should be available for comment soon. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Politizer, and perhaps we might hear from Orangemike, Arakunem, and anyone else who read the Notice of Conflict of Interest? It still seems like a very closed discussion between you and me. And, just so I understand this Notice board, the concept of discussion, and the culture of Wikipedia correctly, are you friends with Cb162? Is objectivity and civil discourse and exchnage of ideas going to be the intention of your discussion? I hope so, becasue that's what I have as my objective.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not personally acquainted with Cb162, but he and I frequently collaborate at DYK, the project responsible for populating the "Did You Know?" section of the front page of Wikipedia. As for Orangemike and Arakunem, I am not familiar with them, but I have sent them messages letting them know that their input is requested here. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And what would prompt someone to nominate the an entry to DYK?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I ask this because the initial response from Cb162 was"I nominated the above article for a DYK entry on the Main Page." But I guess you noticed that?FrankLloydGallery (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

DYKs are new or recently expanded articles on Wikipedia that we deem may be interesting to a broad readership and probably have not been seen by many people yet (since they are new), and we choose a fact from each DYK and feature it on the front page. Cb162 contributes frequently to DYK by patrolling new pages and nominating all those that he thinks might be interesting; it was not until after nominating the Craig Kauffman article that we noticed the conflict of interest issues with it, and were therefore unable to feature it. That DYK nomination then brought my attention to the rest of the articles you have been involved with, which is why it took me until now to tag your articles. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been considering all of the above, I decided to review my contributions to Wikipedia. I now noticed that all of them have been tagged with warnings in November 2008--including postings that I made 23 months ago. Is there a way to determine who has posted those?I ask this because, to my way of thinking and writing, a biography such as the one I posted about John Mason is a model of NPOV, and provides an extraordinary amount of reference material for the interested student or viewer. Maybe it's too much, in fact, and I would like to take it back. Try reading it, the way it was originally posted, and tell me why that's not NPOV, and why it's COI. One thing for sure, the tags are a sign from someone who is recently vigilant, and could that be you, Politizer? FrankLloydGallery (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If it really is neutral, another editor will dispute my tag and remove it; this happens frequently. A tag such as that is a request for cleanup, not a permanent taint on the article. Unfortunately, because of the situation with the Peter Shire article, all of your contributions have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized. This is not a criticism against you personally; it's just an unavoidable consequence of the relationship you are in with the artists about whom you are writing. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that your primary purpose in these discussions has been to advise me of the rules and policies of Wikipedia. All of that is referenced and is useful for me. I would encourage you to read the article about John Mason, as an example, and to note (as you have done before) the large amount of sources that I have left for the reader. I don't taken the tagging as a personal criticism, but I do find the tagging quite different from a comment based on sources, additional and verifiable knowledge, grammatical errors, a different point of view, or other things that are justified in another world: journalism. It's a new experience to have "all of your contributions have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized." Wikipedia, it seems to me from this experience, differs greatly from academic discourse, the rigors of having one's work edited for publication, and the time-honored letter to the editor.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my COI and Spamming notices are absurd when compared to other art dealers' entries on Wikipedia. Neutral point of view? try these two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Painter, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Boone. Why do I feel like I am being singled out, even though my history is of contributions? Take a look at those two entries and tell me there is not Conflict of Interest.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the existence of articles that are worse than yours never qualifies as a valid defense on Wikipedia; see the article WP:Other stuff exists for more information. If other articles are bad, that doesn't mean articles that aren't as bad should stay; it just means those bad articles need to come under scrutiny as well. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The issues are Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View and Spam. An article about the owner of a business, Patrick Painter, with links to the artists that he represents, and with only one external link to his own website isn't "worse" or "bad" as you describe it. It is an advertisement. When my articles "have become suspect and even those that appear to be purely factual need to be closely scrutinized", yet that one is still posted, and without any tags, it's absurd.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am only one person and can't be expected to fix every bad article and advertisement on Wikipedia; all I can do is deal with the articles that I come across, when I have time. It just so happens that I came across your articles a few days ago and not the Patrick Painter and James Mason articles; that doesn't mean that I'm unfairly discriminating against your work, only that I saw your work and not the other work, as I am not omniscient. Every other Wikipedia contributor is in the same position. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect you, Politizer, to fix every bad article, and the issue is Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View and Spam. I see from your contributions page that you are quite active, and I recognize the value of volunteers on Wikipedia. I am entering this into the discussion because I find the label of "Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming" is still there. I sent e-mails to Orangemike, and am awaiting his administrative decision. So far, as you know, it has really been just two people discussing this. Although I know you find it tedious and long, sometimes I wonder why our talk hasn't been joined by anyone else. I'll thank Athaenara, an administrator, for her kind attention to my request for the deletion of all of my copyrighted images.But I am still waiting for comments from anyone else. Not that I haven't learned a lot from this, don't get me wrong, it has been a really important experience.But I have repeatedly, as you know, wanted to get others to comment. At any rate, I do thank Athaenara for attending to my request and for citing the appropriate point in the Speedy Deletion file.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent). Sorry for my absence from this discussion. I have endorsed your unblock below, though you will likely have to change your name. The username policy generally does not like any name that implies a connection to a company or organization as it could be seen as a promotional-only account.

On the COI issue, the crux of it is that if you (the generic "you") have a close connection to something/someone, it is very easy to have your edits stray from neutral, whether positive or negative. It is generally suggested that those with a connection not edit any articles so related, but sometimes those users have the best information. Thus, the COI policy does not prohibit such people from editing. In those cases, you do need to make sure that your edits are neutral (WP:NPOV) and that any information added can be sourced (WP:V) from a reliable, third party source that is unrelated to the subject (WP:RS). It is this last policy that Politiizer was referring to when he mentioned what sources were valid. Ideally we like to see newspaper stories and other published works to establish notability (WP:N).

I look at it this way: When I write an article, even one where I know about the subject inside and out, I always write it based on what other people have already written. That assumption immediately forces me to find sources for the topic. And in the case where a possible COI exists, basing my text on others' works dulls the tone that might otherwise be seen as promotional.

Hope this helps! ArakunemTalk 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

unblock I have read and understand the Wikipedia files that are cited above by Arakunem and Politizer. I know that by definition a Conflict of Interest is perceived. However, I think that a review of my history, and the neutrality of the contributions I have made to biographies of living persons are points that should be considered by administrators. It has been pointed out that my history began in December of 2006, and the contributions have been viewed and altered by several editors since their original postings. It has also been pointed out that I have provided a large amount of reference material for any other user or editor. I request that I be allowed to change my screen name for Wikipedia, and I am willing to refrain from posting entries that promote a business. I do, however, ask for some clarification from the Administrator that blocked my account, and request that the discussion shown above be given some consideration.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins: I know this is ultimately your decision, but I just wanted to say, as the person who originally leveled complaints against this user, I would not be against unblocking him and having his username changed, or allowing him to continue editing under a new account. Given this user's willingness to engage in discussion and familiarize himself with WP policies, I think he can probably be a valuable contributor, with new experience gained from this episode; some old concerns that I raised about editing conduct (such as removing templates and reverting) I think will probably not be problems anymore, again because the user has demonstrated a willingness to learn more about WP policy. Of course, he can't continue editing under this username because of rules against using a company name as a username, but I wouldn't object if he were to continue editing under another name, as long as he discloses his relationship to artists whose pages he edits. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stand by as I request comment by the blocking admin. FrankLloydGallery, it would probably help if you told us what contributions you intend to make if you are unblocked and renamed. Sandstein 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment for blocking admin. As a slightly involved party (from COIN), I endorse the unblock of Mr. Lloyd. I do not get the impression that he is here for purely promotional reasons, and he is absolutely willing to discuss his edits and how they interact with policy. I do think the username could be seen as promotional, but an unblock and name change request would solve that. I feel he has valuable information to contribute, and especially given his attitude towards discourse, will be a net asset to the encyclopedia. ArakunemTalk 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

* I also support unblocking. — Athaenara ✉ 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to offer my thanks to Athaenara, Arakunem, Sandstein, and Politizer for support in this process. Second, I would like to apologize for not having informed myself of the COI policies as much as I should have. In line with that, I must commend Politizer for giving me an extended tutorial, and engaging in discussion (recorded above). As I said at the outset of that discussion, I expect to learn a lot. In making the request for unblocking, I kindly refer anyone to the contributions that I have made, and their histories. Other than the obvious COI (and lack of sophistication with inline citations), they seem to have stood with further editing and provide a resource for learning (references). Finally, as for my plans in the Wikipedia community, I would like to edit and contribute in other areas of interest: Architecture (specifically Los Angeles post-war modernist architecture), Sports (specifically baseball), and History of Art (ceramics, painting, and sculpture). I now have a much greater understanding of the policies, and would not be involved with edits that constitute COI and Spamming.I hope that answers all questions.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled your unblock request because the blocking administrator has unblocked you. Welcome, again, to Wikipedia, and thank you for your patience and understanding. Sandstein 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also nowkied out the "blocked for spamming" category as it no longer applies. ArakunemTalk 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you attention, Sandstein, Arakunem, and Politzer. I'll proceed with the name change and my learning process on Wikipedia.FrankLloydGallery (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * archived by UserArtarch (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)