User talk:Xywood

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

(2) Re: "Florence Biennale" vandalism

Dear Xywood:

Please let me introduce you to this principle: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." 

• Your "contribution" is simply a collection of deliberate false statements, anonymous personal opinions, and links to substandard speculation. You seriously disrespect the neutral nature of the article. I have no connection to the Biennale and do not present personal opinions about the quality of the art nor whether it is worthwhile to participate. My facts are supported by citations. Therefore, I am not "promoting" the event. After ten years and five successful exhibits, the Biennale is internationally recognized as a legitimate art event, and in no way can truthfully be labeled as a "scam."

Here are a few examples of your false and biased statements:

• Your statement: "anyone who has an art website is almost certain to be invited. In this way, with few exceptions, the artworks being displayed are of very low amateur quality." is obviously false and biased. Your belief that this is a valuable contribution to the article is misguided. I personally met several artists that sold work to major buyers. Also, a brief glance through the 900 page full-color hardbound exhibit catalog showing many well-established artists' biographies and illustrations of their work disproves your statement.

• Your statement: "Each participant paid 2400 euros (about $3500) for an exhibiting space of 2.5m x 3m. The organizers provide a shipping service, which may cost $3000 for shipping one 1m x 1m painting from overseas." is false and misleading. Many international business and organizational sponsorships pay portions of the fees for many artists. It is possible to participate with little or no personal expense. Your shipping information is also wrong. For example, one artist paid about $1600 US for door-to-door specialized art shipping; Italian customs documentation and duties clearing; set up at the exhibit hall prior to opening; and then return packaging and shipping for three paintings to and from Florence to New York State, USA. After researching other options, this cost was seen as a reasonable choice.

• Your statement: "However, many participants are happy to use this opportunity to get a Florence exhibition entry on their C.V." appears to be a snide personal remark that has no place in an article.

I will give you an opportunity today to correct your facts, add citations, and remove your personal bias from your contribution. However, if the entry remains as vandalism (deliberately and repeatedly adding false statements), then tonight I will delete it, as that is the correct procedure to follow.

Regards,

Web.Writer (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xywood:

My editing and corrections are based on attendance at the 2007 Biennale as a visitor over an eight day period, attendance at the awards presentations, and discussions with organizers and artists. I have researched facts and will add more citations soon. It was a fantastic experience!

In good-faith, I have edited my entries to include issues that you raised and added the citations you requested.

Please stop deleting my edits by reverting "Florence Biennale" to a version that contains false statements, bias, irrelevant information, and link policy violations. End the edit-warring and make some useful edits with citations and facts.

Why do you have such a "sour-grapes" attitude? Can you provide some actual facts to illustrate your points, or are you simply providing your personal speculation and innuendo?

Act professionally, and please undo your most recent "Revert."

3RR CAUTION: Quoted from Wikipedia: Three-revert rule:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block.

Your recent Reverts:

1) 21:47, 19 December 2007 Xywood (Talk | contribs) (1,725 bytes) (revert back to the version before vandalized)

2) 10:41, 20 December 2007 Xywood (Talk | contribs) (1,447 bytes) (revert back to yesterday's page before vandalised by an anonymous user) (undo)

Sincerely, Web.Writer (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)