User talk:Judyholliday

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); 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! DVD+ R/W 22:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

For Your Work on Andy Warhol, a Flower
Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Vaginal Davis
Good work on the editing of the Vaginal Davis page. As you know, separating fact from fancy is rather difficult. One thing I would note, though, is that there is a recent trend in Wikipedia disapproving of trivia sections -- see WP:TRIVIA, and suggesting rather that those facts which are important be incorporated into the main body of articles, or reorganized into more narrowly focused lists.--Larrybob 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy Name
Hello there. You seem to be interested in Warhol and to have materials on him. Could you possibly take a look at the article on Billy Name (one of his superstars or hangers-on or whatever)? It seems dreadful in various ways (see its talk page too), but I lack the reference materials or (sorry) the interest that would let me fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving Andy Warhol
Hi, JH! I posted a response to your July comment in the Andy Warhol talk section. My suggestion is to attack the Warhol article a section at a time, and within each section, a paragraph at a time. There are several benefits to this. First, changing an entire section overnight isn't feasible given the hornet's nest that would stir. Second, the length of this article and difficulty of the subject make a wholesale approach daunting and given the first point, not likely to fly (too many people rightfully have a "stake" in the article). Third and also related, the wiki approach doesn't lend itself to this kind of "originality." The exception is new articles, which generally do not involve broad collaborations.

The section/paragraph approach would be work as follows: The lead would summarize the section. So for the 1960s, the open would read something like "The 1960s saw Andy Warhol transition from a highly-regarded commercial illustrator to one of the century's most successful - and controversial - artists. It was also his most productive period creatively in terms of originality...etc." From there, each successive paragraph would lay out the chronology, for example, the bridge from his 50s drawings to his early experiments with pop art, his first forays with iconic subjects, the tabloid photos, the soup can/supermarket series, his early portraits, the focus on film, then the shooting. In some cases, it might take several paragraphs to cover the thought, but in any event, each fact reported would be a "top layer" item. No trivial enounters or sidebars. And, of course, everything must be sourced, or as I prefer, multi-sourced and single cited. Also, to make clear, each paragraph would be written, vetted, and inserted individually, replacing existing material that covers similar ground.

Frankly, the usual wiki process of working in relative isolation and adding a fact or edit at a time just doesn't cut it for improving a "mature" piece like this one. What I think might work is to build a list of the prime facts (something like a timeline), reach agreement amongst the collaborators that this is what needs to be said (along with conclusions/implications), and then use these points to build the paragraphs. I don't think it would take an "authority" to do this, either, just some able editors and solid sources, of which there are many on both fronts. By the way, I'm two years new to Wikipedia, but I have a fair amount of writing experience and a thorough knowledge of Warhol's work. (I've dated and sourced 95% of his art from 1960-87, though I'm only generally conversant with his life.)

I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. 72.237.31.195 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I was signed in but got bumped in the time it took me to write the above. Also, I did a quick edit to replace a poor choice of words. And now, here's the sig... Allreet (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback notice
Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Judyholliday. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Human Resources Los Angeles, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a member of the collective, Human Resources Los Angeles. All of my edits have been in the interest of maintaining factual accuracy. HRLA is a collective, there are no paid staff. A very large number of people in Los Angeles's arts community have involvement with HRLA. Finding a person with knowledge of HRLA but without connection to it would be very difficult. That said, I am more connected than most, as HRLA's former managing director. (Note: I did not put the quote from me in this entry, and am thinking of removing it — but that is one place where I thought my making that decision might represent a conflict of interest.)


 * I'm a scholar of performance, and have been contributing to entries since about 2000 — though not very regularly. I find that women, feminists and LGBT editors get policed to a higher level and I'm not always up for dealing with that. I am, however, always open about my identity and my link to subjects in my work with a range of pages. Most of the time people with really intense connections to pages, and with very intense points of view are making edits without owning their bias. In any case, HRLA's page is a work in progress, and I'm just trying to bring some coherence to it, and make sure it is accurate.


 * I started working on HRLA's page because the name was wrong and misleading, and because the overview of HRLA's performance program was not only random but in spots it read as homophobic (singling out work w/ queer content as "bizarre" — when that work was, in fact no more or less bizarre than a range of things presented at HRLA). Judyholliday (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My warning on the subject is mostly pro forma but I wanted to be sure you were aware of the policies. We have Wikipedians here that go on crusades against editors with apparent CoI issues due to fears of slanted content, which have slipped past us in the past. I've made many edits to this article due to my involvement in Wikipedia Meetups in Los Angeles and my desire to save the content from deletion. I do wish to explain that it was I that characterized Dawn Kasper's performance as "bizarre" because after watching the video I concluded that any reasonable person would agree. Granted I am a cis-gendered white male with probably far too much privilege but I thought the performance could benefit the readers interested in the subject. The link to the video supported that sentence. Without the sentence there's no need for the citation and link. No homophobia was involved. We as a community welcome your editing. Just please be mindful. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Homophobia is rarely intentional in these contexts. For the future, when writing about the work of an LGBT artist presenting work within the context of a queer performance program, think about the words you use to frame it. Why that work, and that word? What makes it "bizarre"? That is a very subjective word. As is the idea that "any reasonable" person would find something "bizarre" or not. (It would be fair to say that Kasper works with the sense of the "bizarre" but that would take some explaining.) To cite Johnnie's Pokeman project, as a counterexample: that was also, in its own way, "bizarre" but that isn't a fair or neutral word to describe the work. It's dismissive. As it is with Kasper. Bias might have had nothing to do with your process, but it does shape how people read what you write. So it's about not only being aware of one's own thinking, but also of the way things read to a general public. Also, there's a not good effect for an artist of tagging them with a word like that. That "reasonable person" standard — "any reasonable person would agree" — is exactly how bias shapes what people see, feel and think. Ideally, language in this entry would avoid making aesthetic judgements, and center more in frank description and naming HRLA's meaning and importance in the scene.

I encourage reading work in queer studies/art history/performance studies if you want to nuance your sense of how sex/gender matters to thinking about art practices. It's fun and rewarding. :)

Anyway, the page still needs work. It's good that it exists — really great that it wasn't deleted. Judyholliday (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Heteropatriarchy
Hi! They are trying to delete again the article about heteropatriarchy. Could you help to improve the article or to take part in the discussion? Thanks a lot! DaddyCell (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)