User talk:WriteaboutArt

Your submission at Articles for creation: Josh Lord (Artist) (January 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas 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:Josh Lord (Artist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, 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=User_talk:WriteaboutArt Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:WriteaboutArt reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please understand WP:Wikilinks and WP:Citations
You're headed in the right direction, but you're not yet understanding how to link to another Wikipedia article (note: it is not by pasting the full "http://en.wikipedia... link), or how to make a footnote.

Please see WP:Wikilinks for how to link to another article, like so: Dadaism. And please see WP:Referencing for beginners for how to make a footnote. Please apply these fixes to your draft so we can move forward with reviews. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Josh Lord (Artist) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Josh Lord (Artist). Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I'm really excited that I am getting closer, I will get into the Teahouse on the weekend, or sooner. Would you be able to elaborate on the formatting issues? The Facebook references, I will have to either find alternatives for or delete.

Thanks again. WriteaboutArt (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Josh Lord (Artist) (February 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 Caliburn 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:Josh Lord (Artist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, 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=User_talk:WriteaboutArt Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caliburn&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:WriteaboutArt reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I'm really having trouble understanding how to ask for help here. As this has been declined twice should I just give up? Is that what most people do? I don't want to, but am unsure from the comments what exactly is wrong. Can someone just say, you need to take this out, or this out???? WriteaboutArt (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

--George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Josh Lord has been accepted
 Josh Lord, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:WriteaboutArt help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

I cannot believe what the user Flat Out is doing to my article, it is not constructive and they stripped it down to nothing twice. It is not justifiable as it was an accepted article. All the sources are reliable and the first time it was stripped they left in paragraphs, the second time it was stripped they removed different paragraphs, it does not make any sense at all.

It seems a personal attack and I cannot believe it is allowed. WriteaboutArt (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi WriteaboutArt I have left detailed messages for you here and I have also opened a discussion on the article's talk page to try and get you to edit by consensus. My changes aren't a personal attack. Your article is a biography of a living person and everything you say needs to be supported by a reliable source that supports the statement made. The problems you have are 1. that there are statements with no sources, 2. that sources are referring to someone other than the subject of the article, and 3. most of your sources are passing mentions of Josh Lord in exhibition listings. What you really need are articles written about Lord himself and professional reputable reviews of his work. Simply ignoring the concerns raised by other editors isn't helping. I also wonder what your relationship to Lord is seeing as he is not a notable artist in Australia.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Lord
Hi and thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia.

After your request at the teahouse re: orphan status which was resolved with an addition of Lord to the list and link from List of Australian artists, I noted a few issues with the article - especially the use of wikipedia articles as sources. To be honest and with all due respect to my hardworking peers at AFC I feel this article isn't quite ready for publication. Please note I have:
 * deleted references that cite wikipedia
 * deleted references that don't support the prceeding statement. For example if you say that an artist exhibited at a gallery, the source needs to say that - not just that the gallery exists.
 * two lists of solo and group exhibitions have been cut back to three each even though they don't seem to be notable.

Remaining problems are these:
 * The only sourrce that is close to reliable is this interview. The other 3 are exhibition release notes on industry sites.
 * There are no independent reviews of the artist or his work.
 * I believe this is a case of too soon and that the subject doesn't meet WP:BLPNOTE or WP:GNG.

I am happy to help you with this article if you would like to work together but you will need to find independent, secondary sources that talk about Josh Lord. best wishes  Flat Out  let's discuss it  01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Josh Lord


The article Josh Lord has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article doesn't meet the standard set at WP:NARTIST by which we determine notable artists. Most sources are exhibition release notes. Is unlikely to survive at WP:AFD.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Josh Lord for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josh Lord 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/Josh Lord 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.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Josh Lord, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  08:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out, I am not ignoring the so called concerns of ‘other’ editors, namely yourself; I was appalled and insulted by your brutal handling of my article. As a first time contributor you have turned my efforts into an unpleasant experience.

When I began writing the article I received nothing but good advice, constructive criticism and encouraging words from all the other reviewers/editors that provided feedback, even if it was declined twice, they motivated me enough to keep going and provided instructions that helped me to build a better article. I received comments like “you are heading in the right direction..” or “I don’t want to decline the article because with some adjustment it could be accepted”. Other reviewers/editors helped me with the technical issues on how to link properly and provide citations and how to format correctly.

I sought advice from the Teahouse and received constructive feedback again. I worked on my article laboriously to ensure I followed Wiki guidelines and rules. All the work paid off as it was then accepted on 1 March as a ‘Start Class’ article. I am well aware that it is just a start and believe that many articles commence very basically, but given the chance I could build it to become a very well constructed Wikipedia.

Then you came along ‘Flat Out’ and stripped my article down, no explanation, not offering advice or suggestions on how it could be fixed, just deleting 3 quarters of it, leaving a meaningless skeleton. Your methods were brutal and insulting. I don’t believe you are following correct protocols in how to handle new contributors, are you supposed to scare people away, put them off enough so they don’t continue their efforts to contribute or become new editors or Wikipedia authors? To quote wiki guidelines when thinking about deleting an article “The fact that you haven’t heard of something, or don’t personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion.”

I am in fact a writer and since January 2014 have published 64 out of 65 reviews on Theatre / Music / Travel and Events). After your first edit of my work I continued to work hard to ensure that my article was notable and reliable. I have been researching the artist for about 8 months now and have a lot of material and resources, but I have been careful as to how I add them to Wiki, wanting to stick to the rules.

I changed the article and I deleted paragraphs that were truthful; yes he does combine live music with art exhibitions a lot and it’s a great mutual support of local artists, both musicians and painters a like, but I had less reliable sources for these sections and the list of 44 exhibitions the artist has participated in, I pulled that down, although these were accepted initially. I understand that many galleries have closed and it is hard to find references that are reliable when they are no longer in operation.

I was happy with my amendments then out of nowhere, no explanation, no feedback you tore my article to bits AGAIN – from 16 reliable references you stripped it down to 6 references and 10 lines of writing, despicable handling of a person’s hard work. Bully tactics again. You are not even credible in your amendments as the first time you damaged my article you left paragraphs and references in there, saying that they were the only reliable sources. The second hacking of my work you removed those very paragraphs you left there in the first place. How can I not think you are just attacking it for the sake of it without any logic or reason.

Not only are you undermining me, but you undermine the judgement of your fellow editors, whom found the article worthy of start class. You are condescending to me and to them, it seems very much like power play to me, you seem to only be exercising your authority for the sake of it. As for your concern about my relationship with Lord where you have quoted “I also wonder what your relationship to Lord is seeing as he is not a notable artist in Australia”. As a start I don’t know Josh Lord personally, but I keep myself totally informed and up to date with all matters pertaining to art in Melbourne and Australia, and I am particularly interested in the artists that take the next step and attempt to seek work abroad. I regularly attend gallery openings and have a great understanding of what local artists are doing.

As you insult the artist once again by saying 'he is not a notable artist in Australia' – he is in fact notable in Australia and in many parts of the world. The artist does in fact meet the WP:NARTIST criteria. 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers and successors. YES

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. YES

3. He is not the subject of an independent book or feature length film NO (Neither are many visual artists that I know of).

4. The person’s work (or works) (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition YES, 44 exhibitions in fact, Australia and worldwide. (c) Has won critical attention YES.

I proved all the above by referencing quotes from the Wall Gallery owner – by displaying that he has partaken in worldwide exhibitions and galleries, by showing that a huge volume of his works have been sold by world premier auction houses and by showing that his work was featured as part of the Design Files magazine, this is notable.

This is why I reinstated the content that you deleted of my work, I believe your action was unjustifiable and somehow vindictive, a personal attack, on me, on the artist and on the judgement of your peers.

You continue to insult by saying that “most sources are notes on small exhibitions”. Is that right? SMALL? At Lords latest solo exhibition at D11 in 2014 80% of his work was sold. The opening was jam packed with attendees and the red dots were going up by the minute. Not small at all. An artist is lucky to sell 1 or 2 pieces of work at a solo show. Exhibiting in galleries in Amsterdam and the USA is not small either – In fact if you read any of my writing and clicked on any of the links you would have understood that Walls Gallery was an exhibition of 19 artists from all over the world, not small at all. Remember the quote I referenced - Wall's Gallery wrote, "With ' Thrill & Suspense ' Walls Gallery presents its new exhibition of works by 19 young and talented artists. Hereby I like to give special attention to Stephen Elledge (USA), Rolina Nell (NL) and Josh Lord (AUS). These three artists have made their mark abroad and are now shown for the first time in Amsterdam, and that in Walls Gallery."

Let me also say that in my continued research of the artist I have learnt early on that he won two Octavian Art grants – 1 in 2000 to exhibit in UK and Berlin, the other in 1997 to exhibit in the US. Finding reliable sources for these has been hard, that’s why they are not in the article. Also missing from the article is the fact that Lord has completed 6 public commissions; 3 in Melbourne and two in 1997 – The Master Vision in New York and the International House in New York, another at Ronald McDonald House in Hong Kong. I am just trying to source reliable material for these.

So I have just about given up hope and I know that the article will be deleted. I started this project very enthusiastic, wanting to become a wiki author and put my own experience and writing into good use, very ready to contribute to Wiki. I believe they are seeking more female contributors and I am female. But thanks to you I have now been discouraged and deflated. Due to your approach I have no desire to attempt anymore wiki articles, I will use other avenues to write about art. So thank you for your feedback. How Wikipedia allows you to treat new (and existing) contributors like this is beyond my understanding. You are a poor promotion for what wiki stands for. WriteaboutArt (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you see things this way. I actually posted here immediately after editing the article and offered to help you improve the article and I did give clear ideas on where there were problems. I also assisted you at Teahouse and resolved the orphan issue. I know you received a lot of suggestions during the AfC process but once the article is in mainspace it is there for anyone to edit and it needs to meet WP:BLP. Every edit I made had a clear reason (eg removing references using wikipedia) or referencing other other artists but not the subject of the article. If you can find sources for his awards then he will meet WP:NARTIST. Sometimes its just too soon to write about an artist because there isn't the sources available to support their body of work. While the artist might be notable there are insufficient sources available IMHO that support that. I any case, don't stop editing on my account I am happy to leave you alone if that is you wish. I have withdrawn my AfD nomination as a sign of good faith but I strongly urge you to make a copy of the article that you work on in your userspace, then cut the live version of the article to a stub like this one using the radio interview, blog article and perhaps the best exhibition source to support it. As a stub it is more likely to be left alone while you find other sources. I am more than happy to explain in detail why there are issues with some of your sources and you will find that all the editors at AfC who declined your draft have found these same problems. Best wishes  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flat Out and thank you for withdrawing the nomination for deletion, I really appreciate it as I believe the article is so much more worthy than that. I am in the process of finding more information about the Octavian Awards, I sought out newspaper articles and reviews, as you suggested, and after going through archives I found them and added them. So I will continue to edit and I don't agree with the article being a stub. I will take your advice and remove citations to other artists, I thought it was courteous that if you mention an artist to reference their web was the right thing to do. I will leave wikipedia references however, as the ones I have are actually very relevant to my article. I know your work is difficult in trying to monitor masses of information. Best wishes to you. WriteaboutArt (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)