User talk:Kwhitehouse

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stikman (artist) (July 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stikman (artist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stikman (artist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stikman_(artist) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stuartyeates&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stikman_(artist) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Stikman (artist)
Hello! I found your draft and cleaned it up a bit for publication. You can see it at the above link. Thanks very much for creating the draft and your contribution to Wikipedia. --- Possibly &#9742; 15:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Possibly: Thanks for working on this and getting it published.


 * One question: Why call the works "robot" figures? I see no evidence that the pieces are, or are intended to be, robots. They're simply humanoid figures.


 * At any rate, thanks again. Kwhitehouse (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! They are called robot figures, or "robot-like" frequently in the sources: "At intersections and in crosswalks around downtown Terre Haute, angular robots quietly watch as traffic drives by and pedestrians walk past." This Washington post article title is "If you’ve walked over an alien robot plastered to the street, you’ve met stikman". Cleveland19.com says "In a few clever places around Cleveland, you may find a yellow skeletal robot-looking figure or you may just unknowingly walk right over it". WPLN.org says "It was about seven years ago when she looked down and noticed a small, robot-like creature stamped onto the street." Cincianttirefined.com says "The stikman, a tiny robot-like figure, is guerilla street art done by an anonymous artist". Cleveland.com says "While many media outlets have pointed out that his figures resemble robots, he (stikman) said they are actually "little men made of stiks."" But of course, robots like this are humanoid as well, so it would be correct to use both terms, but robot or robot-like should be there, as it is mentioned so often in the sources. Even thought the artist doesn't seem to intend for them to be called robots, per the last quote, the sources call them that routinely. We go by what the sources say, not by what the artist would like them to be interpreted as. I made a few little tweaks to clarify the above.   --- Possibly &#9742; 17:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Possibly Thanks for the tweaks. These are helpful. I appreciate your point. A number of sources do, indeed, informally refer to the pieces as robots or robot-like. And it's true that we can't (and shouldn't presume to) know the artist's intentions. It seems fine to use "robot-like" as a textual description. My concern is the section title "Robot figures," which makes it sound definitive (which I don't think it is). Can we change the section title to "Humanoid figures" or, better yet, "stikman figures" -- and then optionally use "robot-like" in the body copy? Kwhitehouse (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * hey I changed it to "street art". if you get a chance you should add some material about the non-sticker works, as described in your excellent article. The catch is that you need to use independently published sources, otherwise it would violate our WP:Original research policy. ALso if you want to discuss this more, let's do it on the talk page for the article. that way the discussion is preserved close for future editors of the article. I hope you write more articles, you would seem to be a natural for this. It's just a matter of learning some of the arcane policies and guidelines!  --- Possibly &#9742; 21:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your work on this. It's great to see the article out in the world. You can't imagine how long it took me to figure out enough of the arcane details of Wikipedia to create the brief stub I originally authored.


 * I appreciate the WP:Original research constraint. The challenge, in this case, is that the more esoteric stikman pieces have recieved little coverage. Many people know about the figures embedded in asphalt. Most street art aficionados are also familiar with the paper works and the small stick (stik?) figures. Few people, however, are aware of the glass bubbles and even fewer know about the abstract works and the constructions of found objects. One of the reasons I wrote the article was to outline the extensive range of the artist's work. Hopefully this topic will get more traction over time and will appear in outlets that can be cited in the Wikipedia page.


 * If I have additional substantive comments, I'll add them to the article's Talk page as you suggest (if I can figure out how to do it :-)


 * Thanks again. And thanks for the barnstar, too! Kwhitehouse (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: I have taken out the "On Technology and Media" source, as we don't typically use sources that are self-published by Wikipedia editors. It's a nice piece but we need sources to be independent of the editor and of the subject. if it were in salon.com or some third party publisher, that would be fine per WP:SELFCITE. --- Possibly &#9742; 17:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)