User talk:Madeofstars

Guide to referencing
Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Editing
I've posted a general guide at the top of this page, and a guide to referencing immediately above, which includes details on how to format a reference properly. Only material in the source can be used with the cited reference. I removed the fact that David Roberts acquired the Stella Vine Kate Moss painting, as the reference only said that he had acquired her work, but not which one. If there is another source that specifies this painting, then that can be used.

External links should not go in the main text, unless part of a reference, and they should not be duplicated then in the External links section, which is kept for material additional to that which can be put in the main text: see WP:EL.

The first section of the article is the lead section and is a summary of the main text which follows it. See WP:LEAD.

 Ty  03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. Stella Vine: there are too many quotations in the article. These should be used sparingly per NFC. The article should be based on secondary sources. Although the subject's own statements can be used in a limited way per Sps, it is not an article by the person, but about the person, according to what secondary sources have said.  I notice you have removed some material without explanation. Please use the edit summary to justify edits or raise points for discussion on the article talk page. You might like to check out WP:NPOV which is a core policy for using sources. Multiple uses of the same ref do not need to be typed out in full each time, but can use a shortcut, as explained in the referencing guide above.  Ty  21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  Ty  04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ross Newell
The article Ross Newell has been protected from re-creation (also known as salting) because it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion here. Please be advised that further re-creation of the article could lead to a block. If you would like to contest the deletion of the article, you may do so at Wikipedia deletion review - please reference the deletion discussion when doing so. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You made this statement to Philosopher: "I am getting increasingly concerned that the user Ty (Tyrenius) is trying to block his page by suggesting Newell was not in fact a genuine musician. This is just not fair." I have made no such suggestion, nor have I in any way attempted to block the article on him. Quite the opposite: I found the references that established he had contributed to Read My Lips (album), which other editors had not found. See Articles for deletion/Ross Newell. Up to that point, editors were !voting delete on the article, as it obviously did not meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO or general requirements of WP:N. It still did not, even with the references I found, but rather than having it deleted altogether, I suggested the material on Newell should be incorporated in the article on the album, and the article on him redirected there. This would preserve the information that would otherwise be lost. Your action of recreating Ross Newell immediately after the AfD has now resulted in it being protected - blocked from editing. This has now made an extra difficulty, which I am trying to overcome, in order to keep material on Newell's musicianship on wikipedia.  Ty  04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments  Ty  which have correctly highlighted that I had completely misunderstood your part in the closure of Ross Newell's wikipedia entry. I now understand that Newell will not be allowed a page here until he has proven himself to be of more notability in his career choices. I am very sorry for any upset this has caused you, and hope you can accept my apology. Best wishes.

Madeofstars  13:02, 13 December 2008 (GMT)


 * No problem. As long as things are cleared up, that's all that matters. I've added suitable material into Read My Lips (album) and a note about your authorship for GFDL copyright purposes.  Other editors may feel differently about the material, but I would defend its inclusion as relevant referenced material and per WP:NNC. It would be advisable to watchlist the page. Should there be adequate sources concerning Newell at some time, then the article can be recreated, but to do so hastily would be counter-productive, as you probably realise. PS Use colons to indent talk: one colon indents one space, two colons indent two spaces. You might like to put something on your user page; it's not obligatory, but it stops your user name coming up as a red link, which often indicates a new user.  Ty  06:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvios
You've uploaded some photos which show artworks in copyright. This is a copyright violation and the photos will be deleted from wikipedia unless there is permission from the artwork copyright holder, presumably Stella Vine, for the photos to be used. This permission must grant a licence such as GFDL. Non-commercial or wikipedia-only is not sufficient. There is some information about GFDL at User_talk:VAwebteam the authorised agent for the V&A museum. If permission is given by the copyright holder, an OTRS ticket will be issued, such as you can see at the top of User talk:VAwebteam. The easiest way to do this is to obtain an email from the copyright holder, as shown at User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content or the copyright holder can email permission directly. It will be for the copyright content in the photos to be licensed as GFDL (and/or Creative Commons) for those specific photos only. The URL of the relevant image(s) should be stated. The email address to contact is permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. In addition, if permission can be obtained for images of other artworks, such as the ones currently in the article under Fair Use, that would be even better and allow for an image gallery of paintings to be included in the article. The permission can be stated to be for that file size, which can be low resolution.  Ty  13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments  Ty  I will contact permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org now regarding this to make sure the photos will not be removed as the artist is happy for her work to be shown in this way on Wikipedia. Best wishes.
 * Madeofstars  14:16, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Incidentally  Ty , I noticed you uploaded an early photograph to both this Wikipedia site and also Wikiquote site, which also shows artworks in copyright. This is a copyright violation and the photos will be deleted from wikipedia unless there is permission from the artwork copyright holder, presumably Stella Vine, for the photos to be used. The title of the photograph you've uploaded and which is currently showing on Vine's wikipedia pages is called Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg

Do let me know your thoughts on this, as the photo is showing Stella Vine standing in front of a number of her paintings, which are within her copyright. So we may have to try to get this photograph cleared too, otherwise it will have to be deleted, no? It's really good that we are sorting all this out to get everything referenced and formatted correctly for this particular page as it's already looking really great! Speak soon. Madeofstars  14:23, 15 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Edit conflict. I was just adding to my post: copyvio applies to photos whose subject is the artwork specifically, but not necessarily where the artwork is incidental to the scene as a whole, per Mike Godwin (Wikimedia legal counsel). Additionally, Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg is released under GFDL as a still from a video, which has implicit permission, as Stella Vine is interviewed in it.  Ty  14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok I see. In that case, surely the ones I've added are also OK as they too are video stills which I filmed at Oxford in 2007, so Vine once again gave me her implicit permission? Madeofstars  14:53, 15 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Hi again  Ty . I was also wondering about a consent form for videos. Usually when someone is filmed, when its not for personal use only, the person filming has to get the person being filmed to sign a consent form to say they are happy for those videos, or video stills, to be used, screened or shown in public. I know I got a consent form when I filmed Vine. I was just wondering if you have such a consent form too for the video still you have used? I will raise this question now with Wikipedia too. I look forward to speaking to you soon. Best wishes.
 * Madeofstars  16:06, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

(another edit conflict) I probably wasn't clear enough there. The key point is that Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg is released under GFDL by an external site, so they take responsibility for issuing that licence, not us. We're just re-using it under the terms of GFDL. I was just noting additionally that she obviously collaborated with the making of the video: but that is not the crucial point.

It is seen a bit differently when an anonymous wikipedia editor both uploads and image and grants the licence, as there is no proper accountability. Anyone can claim anything, and no one knows who they are, so it's a question of establishing validity to the satisfaction of other editors. You can state that the images are stills from a video which you had permission to make, but I suspect this will on its own not be enough.

As things stand, it could be argued that the subject of File:Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg is Vine and the scene in general, showing other people at work etc, with the painting itself as incidental; and that the subject of File:Stella Vine inside Modern Art Oxford.jpeg is the gallery and the subject is not the paintings themselves. It's a grey area and a matter of judgement.

With File:Stella Vine selection of paintings.jpeg, File:Stella Vine's glass cabinets installation at Bailiffgate Museum 2006.jpg, and File:Stella Vine T shirt range for Top Shop 2007.jpeg, the only subject is copyright material and there is no other reason for having the photo. The last two are not taken at Modern Art Oxford.

This is just a heads-up to warn you of the problems posed by the images. I am not trying to get rid of them: I am advising how they can be kept. As things stand, some of them at least will not be. FYI, I uploaded the other images to the article under Fair Use in the first place, prior to the recent new ones added.

 Ty  16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further information  Ty  It is fine, I have written to Wikipedia and am getting an email from Stella Vine and her studio to grant us use of these low res images for the purpose of making her Wikipedia page as interesting and factual as possible. I expect to get this by the end of this week which will be wonderful as I think the page is looking really good now. I'm such a big fan of Vine's art and haven't been able to update the page before but am happy I have been able to add all the depth of information as she has achieved such an amazing amount in a very short period of time, and I wanted to help show other fans details they wouldn't have previously known. As I am in contact with Stella Vine's studio regarding this matter, I will endeavor to find out from them about this other image you've previously uploaded as to wether or not its something they are unhappy with, and continue the discussion with Wikipedia.


 * Madeofstars  16:48, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Maybe you could get permission for the use of the low res images of the Kate Moss and Princess Diana paintings also, as inclusion of other images will weaken the Fair Use of them. It seems Stella Vine is not happy about anything to do with the Stuckists nowadays, so I don't imagine she will be happy about the image I uploaded. However, wikipedia is here, as you say, to be as interesting and factual as possible, and it is wikipedia policy, not the subject, that determines the content of an article.  Ty  17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok good idea. I will ask Stella and her studio regarding the other images too, as like you say it would be a shame for those to also be deleted, as it would leave Vine's page rather colourless. Yes I totally agree Ty, about wikipedia policy being king on wikipedia! Without these rules wikipedia would fall apart, and as a new user I am still getting to grips with the rules. But eventually I hope to know just as much as you do about all these rules so I too can help future generations of wiki users. Also why when I have to indent my talk, do you not have to indent your talk? Can you further explain this talk process to me? I've been indenting all my talk, as per your previous suggestion. But this latest comment by you does not seem to be indented - it's all a little confusing for me, so much learn here on wiki, but we'll get there won't we! Interesting comment there, what makes you think Stella is unhappy with the Stuckists?
 * Madeofstars  17:29, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

I take it, bearing in mind what's said in the wikipedia article, that last remark was in a humorous vein. I've also been doing research into press coverage.

The basic idea is that different talk posts are not aligned with each other. Often they are progressively indented, one colon for the second post, the next two, the next three etc. The columns get thinner and thinner, till someone goes back to no colons, often starting their new post with (unindent). However, for just two people posting, it works if one indents and the other doesn't. You've indented and I didn't, so the posts are not aligned. However, you didn't indent your signature, so I've done that immediately above: then it makes it clearer. See WP:TPG.

Feel free to ask me or other editors about policies or guidelines. It can be confusing when editors make changes which seem whimsical, but are in fact just the application of some arcane policy point. The talk page of WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post to get the attention of editors working on relevant articles. You are welcome to sign up for this project, or watchlist it to see the latest concerns. You are doing a good job with contributions overall. Two guidelines worth studying are WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL, as the writing mode is different to the way people would normally write.

 Ty  18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding image permissions, it should be adequate to send a copy of your consent form to the relevant wikipedia email address.  Ty  01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this Ty, but I don't fully understand? Even if I send in my video consent form signed by Vine, does that still not mean we need Vine's approval for the use of copyrighted images of her paintings? Although, you are probably right, but I wouldn't want Wiki to get into any legal trouble, so I think it's still the best idea that we ask Vine for her permission on all of the images currently on Wiki.
 * Madeofstars  10:18, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Hi again Ty, my comment regarding why you would think Vine remains unhappy with the Stuckists wasn't actually meant to be humorous. All I meant is that why should you and I assume Vine no longer likes the Stuckists group. All the press comments you and I have been referencing are years old, nothing recent or since their old arguments. For my own experience, one would usually just move on with their lives and forgive people that one feels may have done wrong to them in the past. I just think it's important that we state the truth on wikipedia, the truth as far as we can ascertain via secondary sources, so we shouldn't allow there to be any suggestion or inference that we think Vine remains unhappy with the Stuckists group at this point in time, nor, on the other side, them to her. This is just my own thoughts on the matter, and a point of discussion for us, but from all the press coverage I've been reading over the recent weeks, Vine never saw Thomson nor the Stuckists again after September 2001, and her last comments in a public forum such as an interview in a newspaper on the matter were around 2005, 2006 and the last recorded time was in 2007 during one or two interviews for her major solo show in Oxford. We can check this together but I imagine the last time Vine talked of her side of the story would have been July 2007. Therefore it's not entirely fair for the wiki page to suggest their disputes are continuing, or ongoing in 2008 or into the new year.

This brings me to another point of clarification on the current wiki introduction, which currently says "Disputes have continued with him and the group" regarding the leader of the Stuckist and Vine, the comment here that the disputes "have continued" should perhaps be rephrased to make it more factually coherent. Can we change this comment somehow to make it somewhat clearer? Madeofstars  13:34, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Good point. It seems to have tailed off after Modern Art Oxford and the concurrent Stuckist show in July 2007. I've only found two mentions: "The artist Stella Vine is about to renew her long-running hostilities with the Stuckists." 13 Feb 2008, The Independent (2nd story). Thomson mentions Vine in The Oldie, Summer 2008, but only referring to 2004. However, it is better to state facts. I've modified the lead per your suggestion.


 * Re. "Vine never saw Thomson nor the Stuckists again after September 2001." I've found sources that state they separated (finally) on 20/21 October 2001 (can't remember which off hand), and in the following two years saw each other once in an art shop. Also she was in a Stuckist show in Paris that ended 16 November 2001.(bottom of page)


 *  Ty  12:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I see, well that article from Feb 2008 has absolutely no comment from Vine, it is made perfectly clear from that article that it is now a one-sided argument, as it is the Stuckists putting on shows inspired by Vine, so I am happy you've removed the suggestion that she has any problem with the group. I vaguely remember reading a blog she wrote a while back, I think from 2007, saying she wasn't at all bothered by them. I'll have to try and find that to show how she has moved on, since having become a successful and popular artist, while the Stuckists clearly haven't. In my opinion, it looks like the Stuckists just continually try to use Stella Vine's media platform to promote themselves, it's quite amusing really, all in all. If I were Vine, I'd be flattered!
 * Madeofstars  13:55, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * I'm afraid editors' opinions are not valid sources.  Ty  14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No of course, which is why I'm not posting my opinion on her page. Although it would appear you are very happy to try and promote Charles Thomson's name as much as you are able to on Stella Vine's page, what with your latest addition to the photograph to include a hyper link to his page. Again this is just my opinion, but it amuses me your dedication to using Stella Vine's wikipedia page and the interest her page must receive in order to promote Thomson. I also don't understand why you keep changing back the date of Vine's hampstead school of art attendance which is clearly stated in numerous public sources, (including Vine's own biog) that she went there in 1999-2001, and had started painting way before meeting The Stuckists. Anyway, no matter as luckily the truth is currently up on the page and I will ensure it remains so.Madeofstars  14:37, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Just found the last comment. Severe. I trust we've moved on from there now. Fairly standard wikilink as far as I can see. It's particularly relevant in the context of that section and the relationships involved. If there's still an issue, we can get outside opinion. FYI, article views for November 2008 were: Charles Thomson = 807, Stella Vine = 1,241, Stuckism = 9,959, so, to reassure, you Thomson has little to gain from Vine, but she will obviously benefit from Stuckism. So it's not all bad. Just to put things in perspective, Michelangelo = 219,246, Andy Warhol = 309,239, The Beatles = 1,249,379, United States = 1,478,954. You can check here. By the way, you haven't moved the page: you've just copied and pasted. Cut and paste would at least mean it was in one place at a time...  Ty  10:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvios (Part Two) approval from Stella Vine herself
Hi  Ty , I've started this new heading, as I have a few as yet unanswered questions to you above, and didn't want them to be overlooked.

THe great news is that I have just had an email back from Stella Vine allowing us to use the photos that I uploaded this week. I have sent this over to the Wiki permissions department over email. I will list below the ones she has give us permission for, any others she did not mention. I hope this helps and what great news we can keep all these wonderful images up on her Stella Vine wiki page. She approved the following images to be used low res on her wikipedia page:

Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_installs_her_painting_Diana_branches_in_Oxford.jpg

Rosy.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosy.jpeg

Stella Vine T shirt range for Top Shop 2007.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_T_shirt_range_for_Top_Shop_2007.jpeg

Stella Vine selection of paintings.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_selection_of_paintings.jpeg

Stella Vine inside Modern Art Oxford.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_inside_Modern_Art_Oxford.jpeg

Stella Vine's glass cabinets installation at Bailiffgate Museum 2006.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine%27s_glass_cabinets_installation_at_Bailiffgate_Museum_2006.jpg

She also approved the use of the two Fair Use images which are currently being used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Vine: Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg

Vine-Holy-Water.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Holy-Water.jpg

Best wishes, Madeofstars  16:10, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Image copyvios (Part Three) approval from Stella Vine herself
Hi again Ty, ok it turns out the email I had from Vine and her studio only approved the use of the images for Wikipedia, and obviously that is not the correct license we needed so for the time being I am going to remove the pictures I added, until a later time when we either get approval from Vine for a GFDL license or when I can get images that don't infringe her copyright. I've sent the relevant information over to her studio with regards to the GFDL license and how it works, but I do worry that maybe they won't approve it, as it looks like a GFDL license allows the images to be used on other websites which she might not be happy with. I'll keep updating you, thanks again for your help in pointing out this matter as I had no idea about it before we spoke. Best wishes, Madeofstars  10:28, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * Check out User_talk:VAwebteam. The licence can be given for a specific low res file size if needs be. A 400 or 500 pixel tall image is not going to be much use to anyone for commercial exploitation, if that is the problem. The advantage is considerable further exposure for the work, and I read recently that she said she wanted to get the work out as widely as possible, so this is an excellent way to do so on one of the top ten web sites in the world. Fair use images must be severely restricted in articles, but when they are released under a free licence, it's possible to show a good representation.  Ty  14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Vine sadly, but I would think she would not want to enable other people to then be able to use the images on their own websites if it was not restricted to just Wikipedia, as god forbid someone might use the images in a way that Vine would not be happy with, so to prevent things like this happening, I imagine her studio will not allow Wiki to use the images. I guess what with all the regular media coverage and the popular books that Vine has/will put out in the future with images of her art, then she doesn't exactly have a problem in showing her work to a mainstream audience anyway so far. If you look at other pages such as Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin, she does not give use to wiki of her work images either, so I suspect this may well remain the case for Vine too. Also I hear she is doing an exhibition at Eden Project in 2010 which has audience figures of 1 million.Madeofstars  14:29, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Stella_Vine
I was about to format the references currently in the Drawings section. However, neither of the two references given contains any of the information they are supposedly verifying:
 * Vine exhibited a series of pencil drawings, in hand-painted blue frames, for her solo show at Modern Art Oxford in 2007. Subjects included Gina, Vicky and Anna (2004), Count Axel (2004), The Bionic Woman (2005), Kitty Fisher (2006) and Joan (2006).

I'm leaving the passage there for now to see if you have references to suppport it.  Ty  18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Ty, I took this information from a brochure at Modern Art Oxford which detailed all the exhibits at the Modern Art Oxford 2007 exhibition Stella Vine: Paintings. Can you let me know I properly referenced this then? I decided to use links to images on Vine's website of the said installation of drawings in hand painted blue frames as a visual reference to show these drawings existed. But surely there must be a way of referencing to something that is in print but not online? Please advise.


 * Madeofstars  18:41, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

No problem. In the reference guide above (click "open" on the orange bar!) there is a section "References not online". I've inserted one or two such print refs in the SV article already. It's not a good idea to link to those pages, as the linked page could well change with different work, which would be misleading to the wiki reader. The first link goes to a collection of photos, which is already confusing. Anyone wanting more information can go to the EL to find the official site and then look at drawings  Ty  19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I am so happy to learn we are able to use references like that on wiki. I will research into it now and create the correct references for the drawings section. I also have found some other examples of Vine's drawings which will excite you I'm sure, as you, like me seem to have such a fascination into Vine's art. It's great to find someone else who shares my drive for helping people learn more about her art. I find her such an inspiring artist, and I'm sure that millions of wiki readers around the world will find her, and the story of her life, just as inspiring. I saw a film the other night called Changeling starring Angelina Jolie and I could see parallels between Jolie's character and that of Vine's own life, effectively a story of hope. Good will always win out.
 * Madeofstars  09:58, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Update for Ty, I have added in the relevant references needed in the drawings section. I am also going to ask Vine/her studio whether they will allow the image of the drawings displayed at Modern Art Oxford in hand painted blue frames to be used on Wikipedia as well, as that way the image won't be lost if a website changes etc, as you mentioned. Although to be honest, when you consider it, all websites have the possibility of being changed or deleted at any time, so I'm not entirely sure why it was a problem to link to those images as I had previously done. But either way, I agree it's better to have referenced the Modern Art Oxford brochure which was at the exhibition as this is a better reference anyhow, more serious. Also I found this website link to Ebay, where someone was recently selling a Vine drawing: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stella-Vine-original-Pencil-very-rare-Hume-Hurst-Emin_W0QQitemZ230304364131QQcmdZViewItem I guess this link is not worth being added to Vine's page as a reference? If you think it is useful let me know and I can add it, otherwise I think it's looking good now. Best wishes, you wiki friend,
 * <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  14:39, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Check out User_talk:Madeofstars: "A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true." The article said she had drawings in the Modern Art Oxford show, yet you used as a reference a page that just had four drawings on it and no mention of the Modern Art Oxford show, so it's an invalid reference. We don't know what those drawings are, and that page could easily be changed with different work on it. If it actually had text that validated the article content, then it could be used.  Ty  14:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I understand this now. Brilliant! So if the page I had previously referenced has contained text with names of drawings or the fact they were exhibited at Modern Art Oxford, then that would've been worthy. Totally fair enough. At least I was able to find a print reference from the brochure handed out at Modern Art Oxford as it would've been such a shame to take down the Drawings section of the wiki page article on Stella Vine as I think it shows what a diverse talent she is, as even though she is most well known for painting, she has different sides to her artistic practice. <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  15:39, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the two above replies from the Stella Vine wiki page talk page to here, where any other else previously following this thread will be able to see the positive outcome of our debate.
 * <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  15:42, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * This is why it's a good idea to have the thread in only one place, and just link to the other place. It will soon have to be archived on article talk page, which is getting too long.  Ty  19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For fairness, I wanted to move the thread. I believe there was a thread on your personal page before which has now moved too no? '<font color="#880088">Madeofstars '' 19:46, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * I cut and pasted the whole thread, so it is no longer on my talk page. Cut and paste is OK for user posts as it shows the author of each text. What I'm saying is that it's normally best to avoid two identical threads in different places.  Ty  02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not move your talk page
You moved your talk page to User talk:Stella Vine. Presumably you meant to move it to Talk:Stella Vine. Whichever, it is totally out of order. Do not pull a stunt like this again. If there is any relevant ongoing conversation on your talk page which is important for another page, open a new thread there, or if needs be, copy and paste the talk. However, if you do this, you should state this is what you've done, and also copy all the relevant posts from that thread, not just selections which may misrepresent other users. Most of the things on this page do not need to go anywhere else.  Ty  11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ty, yes you are correct, I was trying to move a few of the Stella Vine related threads to the Stella Vine talk page to allow other moderators of that board to see the full range of conversations we have been having. I mistakenly ended up moving it to user talk:Stella Vine which doesn't even exist. This is because I new to all this, and am still learning. It's ok I will talk to another administrator once I have a chance to go through everything and work out what I can and can't do. But for the time being I will try and copy and paste the talks, I think the threads here about images are very important for the Stella Vine users to see.

<font color="#880088">Madeofstars  12:14, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * To save clogging up the article talk page, you can just put a link, e.g. User_talk:Madeofstars. There's no point duplicating, unless other user input is needed, in which case you can just state whatever it is that is still an ongoing issue. Excuse me getting twitchy over the page move, but things like that can cause technical complications. See WP:MOVE.  Ty  12:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally understand, I was upset at myself when I did that move as I didn't mean to do it! Oh ok... I've just copied the sections, but maybe I can link them instead. Gosh, so much to catch up on, and I have some revision to do, so might not be able to do it all today. But I will tend to all this stuff. Best,
 * <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  12:44, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

StellaVineFame
You might want to sort out this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StellaVineFame.jpg or it will get deleted. Because there is no camera data shown, it is assumed it has come from a web site, and does in fact seem to have come from stellavine.com, so is a suspect copyvio. To remain it will need a free licence such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA.  Ty  16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I can't help you out with this matter Ty, as if you look into the History file on the Stella Vine page, it was not me who uploaded the Fame image. I guess you'd have to contact whoever it :was that uploaded that image. I had assumed it was you in fact, how funny! Best wishes, :<font color="#880088">Madeofstars  16:15, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * I checked for you just now Ty, and the user is called Ilovedust that uploaded the Fame image, hope this helps you on your quest. best wishes, <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  16:22, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * I know that. But as you are in contact with Stella Vine, you might be able to get permission for this along with other images, if permission is forthcoming for any of them, that is.  Ty  16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Ah, well I've had an email back and they're going to look into it, but they said they're not happy with the part of the license that says: "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws." As the potential for misuse of those images is too great, but if they come back changing their mind, I will of course let you know. Also I don't know why Stella Vine has an interest in the Fame image as it's not one of her art works from what I can tell. best wishes, <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  19:11, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Have you read User talk:VAwebteam or referred SV office to it? It shows safeguards. 1) You can apply the licence to just a small file size (pretty useless for most commercial purposes) 2) if you use the GFDL licence, any re-user has to include the licence as part of the conditions; otherwise normal copyright applies. The GFDL licence is about 5 pages, which precludes the use of a GFDL image on a postcard, and most publishers would rather pay the normal fee (besides which a low res image would be no use to them anyway). 3) Most people who reuse images or modify them (usually for size) are already doing so regardless and will continue to do so.

It looks as though the Fame image was taken from the SV web site, and therefore it's assumed in the first instance that she has the copyright. If not, then the uploader should upload a file with the photo data embedded to prove ownership. Or else email wikipedia to get an OTRS ticket to validate s/he has the right to grant a licence.

 Ty  19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I did reference Vine and her studio to the GFDL links which is what they are looking at currently, but I still get the impression from them they are not comforatable with people having the right to use her paintings in any way they see fit. And with your comment about other websites, yes you are correct, but if Vine's legal team deem it fit, then I'm sure they would be able to control websites which use her copyrighted images without permission. Your comment has actually highlighted a strong point, I will let them know that it might be worth instructing Vine's legal team to look into any websites which currently use her images without permission, as I'm sure there's one or two websites which might be using her images in a way that is not fair, or that Vine herself has not consented to. best wishes, <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  20:39, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Hi Ty, I noticed that whoever uploaded that Fame photo has since removed it. It's obviously becoming apparent that we are not going to get approval... which is a shame but also I guess it's best for Vine to protect her images to stop people using them in derogatory ways. I was looking at her own website and I guess what will happen is, that website will just become more a visitor attraction due to the depth of information there and clear images. So it's good we are able to point wiki readers to her website if they wish to learn more about her achievements and what her paintings look like. '<font color="#880088">Madeofstars '' 14:44, 18 December 2008 (GMT)
 * Why, have you heard back? Maybe they're still considering it.  Ty  18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had one email in my inbox this morning saying they weren't keen on it, but still had to read the agreement. Today's email said they weren't yet sure if they needed another resource for images, as Vine's books have images and her website has consistently high number of hits. But it's not a complete no yet, it just looks that way. Let's wait and see. best wishes, <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  18:26, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

Charles Thomson
I reverted your edits to that article, as it was the same material as on Stella Vine and it's not in a satisfactory state as yet. It needs more work and there's no point doing two articles at the same time. Also it may need to be adapted to fit the different subject. Let's get one right first.  Ty  18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto Stuckism.  Ty  18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, if Wikipedia is a democracy, then surely you don't have ownership over those two pages? As you told me the other day? So I should be allowed to edit as I please. I was going to add in some phrases to help them fit in, but you have removed them before I had the chance. I also don't even think they were that out of context when you consider the opening paragraph of Thomson's page contained the comment he was briefly married to Stella Vine, but the remainder of the article has no information. The sections I added are fully referenced, showing both sides of the debate and all very clear as fact. I look forward to speaking with you. <font color="#880088">Madeofstars  18:43, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

I will take the above comments and the edit summary "I have been prevented from editing this page" as a misunderstanding on your part through lack of experience. Please refrain from pejorative edit summaries with no basis in fact. You have a habit of jumping to conclusions. You have not been prevented from editing. You have done so. So have I. Your edit was to insert material. My edit was to remove it. We are now discussing. A perfect example of WP:BRD. The material was copied across from Stella Vine. For one thing it's a violation of GFDL as it's not stated to be copied from that article, so there is no credit to the work of other authors who may have contributed to it. However, worse than that, it has bias and inaccuracies and needs more work on it. In that state, there is no point in it being in three articles and having to do every edit to the passage in triplicate. Does that not make sense? I suggested getting it right in one article, namely Stella Vine, first.  Ty  19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please keep conversations in one place. You've put this on Talk:Charles Thomson and Talk:Stuckism in addition to here. We don't need to have a conversation in triplicate. You didn't even give me the chance to reply to one thread. It is not good practice on wikipedia to do this.  Ty  19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.  Ty  19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - if you want to draw people's attention to a thread, it's better to post something like "Your input would be appreciated here." at the places where you're trying to get peoples' attention. Note that in the example, the portion before the # is the name of the page, the portion after the # is the section header and the portion after the | is the text you wish to display. This allows all discussion to happen at one place and avoids the confusion that may occur otherwise. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the substance of your issue w/ Ty, I would agree that you need to attribute GFDL work - at the very least you need to say "copied from x article" - and only rarely will there be a section of text that is both sufficiently broad and specific to be in several articles. If you have a dispute as to the actual substance of an article, I'm afraid I can't help you - while I do a decent amount of work in biography articles, they are almost exclusively politicians and educators - I have virtually no experience (or interest) in editing articles of artists or poets as I usually don't know enough about the subject to contribute intelligently.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help again, I very much appreciate it. Ty and I are working it out now. best wishes, '<font color="#880088">Madeofstars '' 22:21, 18 December 2008 (GMT)


 * In case you haven't seen it yet, WP:AGF helps to stave off a lot of potential problems, otherwise caused by WP:ABF.  Ty  08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Log in
Please log in with your user name when you edit. It is not permissible to alternate between an IP and a user name to edit per WP:SOCK.  Ty  09:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuckist disputes
I've rewritten this section by going through the sources chronologically. I hope you will agree that it presents the positions and points of view according to the sources. In order to avoid copyvios, I have paraphrased wherever possible. If you don't agree with the wording, please consider whether it does in fact embody the meaning of the source text. If you feel the need to change it, you should avoid as much as possible using segments of the source verbatim, unless shown as quotes—which should be used judiciously, not as an quick substitute for rewriting.

The 2004 section needs to be taken as a whole, as there is, I think, more emphasis on Thomson in the first part, then on Vine and support for her position in the OFT section. That's just the way the sources panned out. I should mention that I've tried to keep the material here to things that relate to art issues, and left personal disputes and behaviour out (for the marriage section), unless they relate to the artistic dispute.

The article is getting to a length for WP:SUMMARY, which is already effectively happening with the Rosy Wilde gallery, and I think should also soon for the Stuckism section to free up space in the main article.

 Ty  09:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP
We've already had a discussion about edit summaries. In case you're not fully aware of it, WP:BLP is a policy that forbids unsourced contentious material on living people. You might like to read it. This edit summary is your opinion and insulting to the individual named. Don't abuse wikipedia editing privileges in this way in edit summaries or anywhere else on the project. Thanks.  Ty  06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I point you to this policy after the edit you made to Stuckism. There is no substantiation for the statement you made and it is unaccepable. You do not seem to be taking this policy very seriously.  Ty  13:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you carry on like this you are likely to be blocked from editing.  Ty  13:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vine and Thomson not seeing each other
You are quite mistaken in your edit summary:
 * You are so trying to make it look like Vine and Thomson saw each other when it's FACT that they never saw each other again since 2001. You are misleading

I am surprised you don't realise the importance of making it clear when information dates from as you posted higher up on this very page:
 * All I meant is that why should you and I assume Vine no longer likes the Stuckists group. All the press comments you and I have been referencing are years old, nothing recent or since their old arguments ... I just think it's important that we state the truth on wikipedia, the truth as far as we can ascertain via secondary sources

The situation as regards their seeing or not seeing each other is exactly the same. The only verification available is from June 2007. Therefore, what happened since then cannot be included in the article. You seem to think it is a "fact" that they have not seen each other, but there is no source to substantiate this, and per WP:VERIFY a source is essential. Read the policy: wikipedia does not include "facts" but "verifiable" content. This is not my inclination, as you state, but simply non-negotiable wikipedia policy.

I have posted on Talk:The_Stuckists,_Charles_Thomson_and_Stella_Vine about this issue. I think that article talk page is a good place to centralise discussion, as it is the article where the issues can be examined in detail; and it is best that non-content issues are kept for our user talk pages.

I'd like to point you to TPG. Writing in capitals and similar mark-up is not good practice, though I realise you would most probably not have been aware of this.

 Ty  18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For your attention
Talk:Stella_Vine. Thanks.  Ty  02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Restore
You're quite right of course that it wasn't an exact restoration, but I thought I would follow your lead in paraphrasing the part which seemed appropriate to do. However, I do think it's a stunning quote, which brings the text alive.

Regarding the commented out fair use text in the article, it's just not necessary and doesn't do any good at all. I used to put it in, but don't any more. I was the one who put it in the Vine article to start with, in case you hadn't noticed. The key thing is to have a sound fair use rationale on the image page itself. Use of fair use images is severely restricted, and if the rules aren't followed, it is likely to backfire. There are some keen image deleters, sometimes acting before consulting. You're quite right, I don't want to see the image deleted. I bothered to upload it in the first place. But you will place it in jeopardy if you insert it willy-nilly in articles.

It should only be used where there is specific critical commentary about it or some exceptional circumstance, which must be justified in the rationale on the image talk page. Each use has to have a unique rationale. See WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Use free images wherever possible.

Excellent addition, and a glorious Freudian slip in the edit summary. True though.

 Ty  20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More on editing
As you've expressed a wish to develop your skills in editing, here are a few points, which I hope will be helpful. You've been marking a lot of edits as minor edits, when a number of them are not. If there is possibility of doubt, don't mark as minor.

Wikilinking should be done when the term appears in the lead and then when it is first used in the main text. Generally, that's enough, although sometimes it may be appropriate to wikilink again later on.

The text on Vine's show at Modern Art Oxford seems rather excessive. Even if the article gets to featured article level, I can't imagine that amount of space being justified for one show, however interesting and media-worthy it was. I would have thought about 25% of that length. It is a general article about the gallery and should have its whole history.

I'm assuming you did some copying and pasting from Stella Vine to enter the content to Modern Art Oxford. If so, then it is essential to note that you have done this, at least in the edit summary and really on the MAO talk page as well. This is to preserve the GFDL licence, and failing to do so, i.e. using GFDL material without crediting the author(s), is a breach of copyright. All writers contributing content under GFDL retain copyright to their particular contribution(s). They grant a licence for that work to be used, provided the terms of GFDL are followed, one of which is attribution of authorship.

If you are sure that every single word copied and pasted is your own work, then the preceding doesn't apply, but I would think this unlikely in an article that has been worked on over a long period of time, and it's still best to be on the safe side.

 Ty  03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And more on edit summaries
This edit summary doesn't do you any credit: I've commented on the "mislead" part at Talk:Stella_Vine. You've made clear in the past your support for Stella Vine and antipathy for the Stuckists, so the "lovely film star pic" can only be seen as facetious and sarcastic, in line with previous edit summaries:
 * about photo of Charles Thomson, "Either we get an image of Thomson from 2001 when Vine last saw him or else we don't mislead the public with dates such as 2004 on this lovely film star pic"
 * when you added to image caption of A Gallery "more facts added to this lovely picture"
 * when you added an inappropriate picture of Scientology building to Stuckism article with incorrect information in the edit summary, "A lovely photo to make this section more enjoyable for readers. Thomson's art group the stuckists sold their art in a Scientology run gallery in 2007",
 * when you added an A Gallery photo to Stuckism article, "lovely photo added",
 * when you moved a photo of Mark D, "Mark D's lovely photograph ... Brilliant shot this one!"
 * about a photo of Charles Thomson, "correct formatting on this lovely photo",

Edit summaries concerning Stuckists have tended to highlight negative aspects. I'm not going to quote them all, but this edit summary, for example, is a derotarory editorial remark about the subject in violation of WP:BLP: And this one is makes a statement for which there is no verification that has been found:
 * "Details on the works that Thomson called 'with no expression or emotion' He clearly has no understanding of her art"
 * "Oh dear, all the refs here were wrong, meaning that large sections regarding Stuckism's collaboration with the Scientology gallery were missing. All corrected now! Phew!"

Such summaries are a distinct contrast with ones about Vine:
 * "photo of notable Germaine Greer who has supported Vine publicly"
 * "other notable debaters invited to debate with Stella Vine at the prestigious Oxford Union society in 2009"
 * "Oxford Union prestigious debate for Vine!"
 * "Stella Vine to debate at the world's most prestigious debating society the OXFORD UNION in 2009!"
 * "yet another new reference to show more depth for the successful fashion range Vine made for Topshop store in 2007"
 * "tracey emin link is valid as both artists were associated with the stuckists and childish but managed to successfully separate themselves from them and be successful"
 * Uffington Horse artice, "added famous british artist Stella Vine"
 * Charles Thomson article, "Addition of Thomson's marriage to successful English artist Stella Vine"
 * Stella Vine article, "add back in the Tracey Emin link as it shows a similar experience has been shared by two of the most prominent English female artists of our time"

I can't say I particularly appreciated personalised comments in edit summaries either:
 * about my image upload "lovely recent photo ... thank Ty for such effort,"
 * "Let's balance this phrase out, and restore it's full original context. Unfortunately Ty wasn't able to do this. Luckily I am"
 * "putting back in reference to Emin which is in article and Ty has removed"

Edit summaries are there to inform other editors in a neutral and objective way about the content of edits. They are not a vehicle to express personal prejudices. Everything on wiki stays on record and is evidence of a user's behaviour. You have stated your bias and it is up to you to demonstrate that you are able to set this to one side: passion for a subject as a driving force can be a good thing, as long as there is a stronger passion to set aside personal preferences in favour of wikipedia policies, and act in accordance with them.

Wikipedia is a steep learning curve. You have made some substantial additions to the project, and, I'm pleased to say, mastered the fiddly business of reference formatting. You have successfully taken on board the basic wikipedia protocols, and displayed the ability for collaborative editing. I hope you will continue on the upward trajectory.

 Ty  05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<div style="padding: 10px; background: #6495ED; border-style: ridge; border-width: 4px; border-color: steelblue; text-align: center; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%;"> '''WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

Verification requested
Please see Talk:Stella_Vine.  Ty  08:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos of stella vine and her gallery
Under what terms did you take these photos?Geni 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Madeofstars! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Crispin J Glover -
 * 2) Richard Norris (musician) -

Proposed deletion of Sean McGhee


The article Sean McGhee has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I find no sources to unambiguously address WP:MUSICBIO using GBooks or GNews and the only hits I find in a general Google search are gig notices and self-promotional.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fæ (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Paper and Glue for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paper and Glue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paper and Glue until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Noblesse Oblige (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noblesse Oblige (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Noblesse Oblige (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sid Busby


The article Sid Busby has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Notability issues, no other information added, no discography

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-variant:small-caps;color:#FFFFFF;background-color:#F49259;letter-spacing:1pt;">Jennica ✿ / talk 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Princess Julia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princess Julia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Princess Julia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- wooden superman  12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)