User talk:Rggallery

Orphaned non-free image (File:Crystal Ram 2009.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Crystal Ram 2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Untitled (Crystal Ram), 2009.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Untitled (Crystal Ram), 2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rashid Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Rashid Johnson was changed by Rggallery (u) (t) deleting 29664 characters on 2009-07-14T20:21:45+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Quantpole (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Crystal Ram 2009.JPEG
Thank you for uploading File:Crystal Ram 2009.JPEG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rashid Johnson
Regarding your edits to the above article, I'm afraid that just because you have a relation with the subject of the article it does not give you any rights over the content of the article. In this specific case, you have drastically changed an article, which has been recognised as one of wikipedia's best, to a poorly referenced work, overwriting many hours of work by many editors in the process. Please compare the different articles, and see which one is more encyclopaedic. As you have self identified as being a promoter for the artist you should also check out WP:COI, which explains what to do if you have a conflict of interest. We do take concerns over inaccuracies of biographies of living people very seriously, so if there are problems with the article I advise you to raise those on the talkpage. I am restoring the article to its previous state, and would appreciate it if you do not revert this again. Doing so might be deemed vandalism. Quantpole (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Are you affiliated with Wikipedia? The content of the Rashid Johnson entry you continuously revert back to is not necessarily "encyclopedic" - in fact, it relies much too heavily on quoting outside sources at length, most of which are pieces of art criticism. Criticism by its very nature is opinion based and is therefore not reliable. I will point you to the second to last paragraph beginning "Despite Artners' generally..." in which not only is the apostrophe misplaced, but the entire thought becomes one that pertains much more to the career and writing of Artner than it does that of Rashid Johnson. I strongly urge you to reconsider and further investigate the biography of the subject. Rggallery (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)RggalleryRggallery (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am no more affiliated with wikipedia than you are, but I have been here longer so probably know more about how things work around here. In general, we much prefer to rely on independent sources, that are not affiliated with the subject, to try and avoid introducing point of view. If you have specific concerns about some of the sources then I suggest you raise these on the talkpage, or if you have doubts about reliability, you could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Unfortunately, independent commentary of artists is likely to include criticism as well as praise. Looking at the article, I don't think Artner's views should be ignored, but you may well have a case that undue weight is given to Artner's response to the art. In terms of the apostrophe being misplaced, you are more than welcome to correct those sort of mistakes! I haven't been involved in this article at all, so if you do want to discuss this further, I suggest you do so with TonyTheTiger, who has been the major contributor to the article. Quantpole (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)