User talk:SylvoRuu

February 2021
Hello, SylvoRuu. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.   RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:SUMMARY and WP:V for why you edits were reverted, even if you claim to not have a conflict of interest (removing the conflict of interest warning on the top is rather suspicious, though). In short, you added much content which was excessively long and unsourced, as well as written in a non-neutral manner with copious amounts of editorializing, ex. things such as "working class family" (that's a barely relevant detail); "seminal midcentury surveys";... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

- - -

Again, RandomCanadian, your COI rationale has no basis in fact, and there's nothing suspicious about removing a COI warning when, by the end of my edits, 90% of the content had been either added from scratch or completely revised, with the remainder having been vetted, meaning that the COI tag no longer applied, if it ever did (because, again, I don't have a COI). Is the COI warning supposed to stay at the top of the page forever, even after that page has been totally revamped by someone with no COI? Of course not.

Calling my edits "excessively long" is equally absurd. You may lack a personal interest in the developments of a particular artist's career, but that doesn't mean those developments aren't worth noting. Your claim that my additions were unsourced is also ridiculous, seeing as I more than doubled the number of citations in the entry and used a much-improved range of sources. (Indeed, I even added a "citation needed" tag to one of the few assertions still remaining from the original entry, because that assertion was particularly subjective and speculative. Ironically, you've now restored it without that tag.)

Meanwhile, asserting that an artist was born into a working-class family is not "editorializing"; it's stating a relevant fact—the kind of fact biographers and curators routinely note, since one's economic background helps explain and contextualize the choices one makes in life. It's also a fact that the litany of shows I dubbed "seminal" *are indeed seminal.* They occurred at the most important arts institutions in the world, at the height of several of the most enduring and important art movements of the 20th century, with catalogs spanning a who's who of midcentury artists. It is not "editorializing" to note that Krushenick's work was included or to note that those shows are seminal.

Your charges that I've failed to properly cite the changes I made and that those changes are overly editorialized themselves lack any authority or objectivity. Your suspicion that I have a COI, like your claim that it's suspicious to remove a COI warning under these circumstances, is false and baseless. You extol the virtues of truth and justifiability while casually tossing them out the window.

You now have a chance to regain your lost integrity. I suggest you take it.

- - -