User talk:Greenapple22

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Guinnog 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image permission problem with Image:Esm loves you.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Esm loves you.jpg I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

July 2013
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Who decided that these publications listed in this article are regarded as "minor"? Who gives someone the right to make a judgment like this considering they may or may not have browsed these periodicals? There was no mention in any earlier reincarnation of this article about any of these books as being major or minor? Why label them all as "minor"? Self-rightousness is very evident in what you have done here and unjustified. This is not a self-promotion and never has been. There have been many people who have conributed to this page and I have enjoyed in a "minor" way watching it develop. Why suddenly destroy something that you may not know anything about? Street Art is not for the average viewer but it is an artform I find very interesting to read and learn about, now this groups work has been reduced to "minor publications"? What a joke. I own many of these books and I can tell you right now that a publication released by the Victoria & Albert Museum is not "minor". Thames & Hudson is not "minor", "Gestalten" is not minor.

Thank you for your time,

GA


 * On second thought, you're right. It shouldn't mention the articles at all. Simply stating that an artist was mentioned in a periodical only serves to make the artist look more important without actually offering any greater insight into the topic. If these periodicals are important to an understanding of the artist, they should be included as sources, not as a trophy-case. If you feel they are important publications, write articles about them. It's not up to me to decide if they are minor, and it's not up to you, either. Find reliable sources or leave it out of the article.


 * Furthermore, including sentences like "In fact, he's so good at poking fun of consumerism and the media that even the most jaded person must laugh at the ridiculousness." is against Wikipedia's policy of writing everything in a neutral point of view. With sentences like that, do you see why I felt the article was too promotional? As I have already explained, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. It doesn't matter if it's self-promotion, or if it's done by total strangers: promotion is not appropriate here. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of this is from actual articles from these mentioned publications, not any sort of promotion for promotion sake. It`s information for information sake which is why people come to wikipedia.. I am a huge fan of this artist and simply letting readers of wikipedia know where one might find or read more about esm-artificial. How is this wrong? I have been lucky enough to have many of the books and articles about esm-artificial and wanted to share because I personally could not find much on them. I would greatly appreciate you adding more to this article because this is an artist I find I would like to know and hear more about and there isn`t enough information on the web about him but much published work in printed matter. I went to a museum show on Street Art at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London and saw his work beside Banksy and Shepard fairey yet there was no mention of this and wanted to share it with wikipedia readers. I thought that since there was a publication made and it was a show that hit 10 museums in Europe, it might not be something just "minor".

I read this below from wikipedia and wondered why you made such a huge edit, deleting over 75 percent of the article. It has stripped it back far too much. Please reconsider a lesser edit. Thank you for your time, GA

Instead of deleting text, consider:

rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge


 * I know my edits seem harsh, and I'm not out to hurt you are the artist. Again, I'm asking, do you see why the original was too promotional? If you are unhappy with how I changed the article, then you can fix the issues yourself, but don't just revert them back to how they were without fixing the underlying problems.


 * If you feel there are some points that published material in your collection makes about the artist that belongs in the article, then you may be able to use that material as a source. If you are not sure how to do that, I can help you with that, or you can read about it (Help:Referencing for beginners) or you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or a number of other options.


 * If the point you are making is that his work was in an important tour, then you need to find a review of the show, or an article about the museum that specifically mentions him, or something of that nature that established that it was significant, and use that as a source. It's always better to have a source that is not WP:PRIMARY. It has to meet WP:RS, and it has to be something more significant than name-dropping or a brief passing mention.


 * As for the list of publications, I think a select few could be included in a further reading section, but it would need context and details. You would need to include enough info that a moderately determined person could track down the book or magazine. This is especially important for works that don't have Wikipedia pages of their own. A reader who wants more info has no way of knowing what 'Poison-Control' is, or where to find it. Do you see what I mean? The name of the publisher, publications dates, and ISBN numbers are useful.


 * Again, not to harp on a point, but this has to be written from a neutral point of view. You can't put that his art is "Always humorous, poignant and thoughtful", as was in the previous version, but you can say that notable reviewer from notable newspaper said that his 2009 LA exhibit was humorous, poignant and thoughtful. The corollary is that if another notable reviewer says it was dull, dense, and vapid, so be it, we don't get to cherry pick.


 * I hope this has been useful. Grayfell (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell

Thank you for your very useful information. It is a lot to try and understand what is right and what is wrong to add. I have a great deal of material that I would love people to know about on this artist but not sure how to do that. Some of the books are simple enough to find on amazon or at a Library but how do I properly insert this information. Would I write that he is included in these books, then add a citation or would i need to do my own take on something that is written in these books? Can I simply pick a section of that book to back up what I am writing about the artists or does it need to be a quote, then a reference to where I got that quote?

For instance, there is this article from a book which is also on the authors webpage : http://www.deirdrecorley.com/books/a_nice_set.html "Placing pop culture on a pedestal and then promptly tearing it down, the work of Kenn Sakurai, aka ESM, is proof that one needn’t hide behind pretense when you’ve got talent to spare. Lowbrow subject matter is skewered and satirized with clever results in Sakurai’s silk screened prints and street art, which has drawn comparisons to the man who started it all, Warhol" I would like to add to this by saying that the work isn't necessarily low-brow, because many artists that are considered low-brow don't show in the same sorts of institutions that Sakurai or the other street artists do. Not to put down low-brow on any level but his work has a graphic element that many low-brow art doesn't have. this seems to be a legit interview link that was also taken out : http://www.domogeneous.com/kenn-sakurai as well as this one : http://halfempty.com/wp/2004/04/commissioning-street-art-esm-artificial/ and this one : http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O112415/print-esm-artificial/

Any of your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your time

GA

Also, I have some National newspaper articles that were very well written that I would like to inclue part of but not sure how to do that. Do I include the name of the article, The interviewer and the name of the newspaper/date? Do I write a comment about that article, then cite it?


 * Hello again. The idea is that you are writing your own neutral point of view interpretation of what the sources say.


 * References can be overwhelming, no doubt about it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate directory of info on a subject. If you want to add a specific point, you can use reliable sources to back-up those points. If you want to add a bibliography or further reading section I think that is a noble goal, but be careful not to overload it. Take a look at the article on Banksy (sorry, I know it's a cliche to compare a street artist to Banksy). You'll notice that his bibliography section only has works that are by Banksy, or works about Banksy and nobody else. I think that looks pretty good. The guidelines are at Further reading and Manual of Style/Lists of works.


 * Avoid direct quotes, but if you really feel they belong, be sure and say where the quote is from in the article, with specifics in a citation. For the most part, quotes should be short.


 * I would hold-off on the lowbrow quote. Wikipedia makes a distinction between primary and secondary sources. Things that are directly from the artist would be primary, and they are much less desirable here. Bluntly, we don't care that much about how wonderful people claim they are themselves. If other people, (critics, journalists, historians, other notable artists who aren't collaborators, etc) say he's wonderful, that might be worth mentioning. The Warhol blurb reads like a PR piece. It might be different if Deirdre Corley was a recognized authority in the field, but I don't believe that's the case. It's not enough that she is a good writer, or that she is saying interesting things, her opinion has to be specifically significant to the subject. Does that make sense?


 * It's important to remember that the external links section is not intended to be comprehensive. I removed a few of the interviews from there because they seemed too light-weight to be included. Removing the domogeneous one was a mistake on my part, I think I may have thought it was one of the dead links. The half-empty one is too short and doesn't really add enough info, and the V & A link is just a catalog entry. Maybe I'm missing something, why would that be included? Again, sorry to throw a bunch of links at you, but the guidelines are at External links.


 * I'm not sure what you are asking about the newspaper articles. Do you want to use them as sources, or simply mention that they exist? You might find this page useful: Citing sources/Example style


 * Good luck, Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)