Mrdnartdesign
Meriden, Connecticut and other cities edit
Hello. Your recent edit to Meriden, Connecticut appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please also see WP:USCITIES#Notable people. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the information is embedded in the person's work at the Miller Company. You are showing bias, a lack of basic BA-level research, and it is shocking.
- Magnolia677 is correct: WP:USCITIES#Notable people applies here. At this point, I advise you to stop edit warring. Given the nature of a majority of your edits, disclosing any conflict of interest would be beneficial. Also, based on your comments here and at Magnolia677's user talk page, I recommend taking a look at WP:NPA. --Kinu t/c 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Read through the whole page. the Miller co initiative was done by two people, her and Burton Tremaine. Unlike some other who random edit, I only touch content I actually know something about.
- In addition to Kinu's comments, your edits to Montecito, California, Madison, Connecticut, and Meriden, Connecticut are disruptive, in that they are intentionally contrary to the inclusion criteria agreed upon by a consensus of editors at WP:USCITIES#Notable people. I urge you to please revert your edits, and engage in a discussion on each article's talk page, as was suggested at User talk:Magnolia677#"Not notable" - Emily Hall Tremaine, Madison, CT. Thank you for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I replied to your message on YOUR page. Temary has a wikipedia page, and you deleted that. As stated above Tremaine is on the Miller Co page-- it was largely her initiative. But this is another issue I via Kinu hope to bump up. This pulls in people with historical knowledge, there are a number of notable people not yet on Wikipedia; it takes a specialist to write a page. I can think of 5 people, big in their time, and in specialist history, that do not yet have their own dedicated pages, but do on other reputable websites.
- artdesigncafe.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
So now I am considered a spammer after this pursuit of "notability". Yes, I do research on things that end up with various sources as contributions, including artdesigncafe. For example, I am probably the most knowledgeable person regarding several design histories. Does that not add value? Otherwise there's nothing at times on wikipedia. If you have the power for a spam assertion, which I presume you do. Please take action to have every contribution I have ever made to wikipedia deleted. Can you do that? If I knew how, I'd delete all of it if I could press the button. This is insanity.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said on the other talk page; see Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content; that is, Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. If you wish to remove any links you added in violation WP:COI, you need only look at your contribution history. A full list of links to artdesign is generated here; this list includes contributions by a few other likely COI editors; see this earlier report. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no COI, a volunteer effort. I want my contributions to be blacklisted. All of it off-- as much as possible. Please initiate the process. I want as much removed as systematically possible ASAP.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mrdnartdesign, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. If you want my advise, try asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red to help you drafting the article about the disputed individual. They will be probably able to help you, and this will also solve other problems you encountered. Concerning "blacklisting" your contributions, as you have are made aware of, this is not possible for legal reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for your response. The problem is, the content would be almost exactly the same as the Miller Company Collection of Abstract Art page-- it would just have a different page title, and everything "with her husband". And then what about him: a new page "with his wife"? Hehe But then her work got shut down in ways I have not seen or imagined in any context in 35 years in humanities research. If my contributions are to be treated this way, I really would prefer to just be blacklisted for protest purposes. Consider me a humanities spammer. HeheMrdnartdesign (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hilarious-- I just got an automated message about my 1000th contribution and thanks from Wiki-- on today of all days!Mrdnartdesign (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry, art collectors is not really a topic I understand very well. The easiest would be to ask around at Wikiprojects.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. No problem. In my sphere, the process put worth with this bizarre situation is really crazy and my time is best spent on more productive things. Wish me luck, after today, I want to get blacklisted so everything I've done disappears as much as possible. It's not worth the time, conflict and effort now:-) Mrdnartdesign (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
>>> I am not totally up on Wiki protocol and code referencing. Below was added to "artdesigncafe.com" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam page. For any comments in multiple places to get a full picture, I guess one must be able to search wikipedia in a certain way. Really not into this...
- Note: previous discussion about this site can be found here. --Kinu t/c 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding above, this is first time I am aware of this. There's a lot in the somewhat internal message. It wasn't scraping. The content mentioned were books by academic John A. Walker. Things like a guide to films, another a glossary to art & design, so sections / chapters by topic. I'd think the hard-copy version referencing would be there. He kept the book / guide copyrights, and wanted it on online and on the old artdesigncafe (like some other colleagues then; if you are younger, it was a different era. All of us wanted our hard-copy publications also online). There was a spat and I think he moved it to scribd. It might be there if you want to link to it. It's good stuff. He's now deceased. Ten years later, some of these dead links still come in, but very irregularly, as even over 10 years, no one has updated these pages. Maybe 1-2 / month per topic per month. I see the commentor, for some reason, couldn't find them in the system. If this is still the case, an estimated list could be made, if helpful. I imagine there could be strays with a visit in coming months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
(Former mrdnartdesign above)
Also see, as I'm learning about Wikipedia processes, and frankly politics, rules, alignments, and procedural placements, after an almost exclusive focus on content, as I leave it: "Request to have all Wiki contributions blacklisted" string initiated by me on 24 November 2021 on "Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents"; and my request for senior management review starting with how this got here: '"Not notable" - Emily Hall Tremaine, Madison, CT' on 24 November 2021 on "Magnolia677" user talk page. This was I recall my first dispute, certainly with any conflict, at Wiki. In this first and last process involving detailed wiki processes, and learning through experience what this "consensus" thing really means, it took many, many exchanges to find out, clearly, by an administrator: "There is no senior management. There is no management at all" to realize what I've been dealing with. It also better explains why, as a casual contributor of various things certainly beyond links to various sites, why less active content pages here look the way they do-- often a mess for years; how others' additions at times were removed that seemed reasonable, and never re-added due to the requirement of consensus, versus quick one-stop editorial decision-making. I presume there is not enough interest in engaging in the consensus process involving many people. I never said anything, thinking a management of sorts made the decision, like non-Wiki environments. In the end, through this process, I and the colleagues in my sphere want, respectfully, nothing to do with Wikipedia content additions in future, and effectively 360-degree assessment "throw something into consensus" dynamics, which can be abused. I wish all contributions of mine in the past could be removed, and I wish this process happened earlier as that time clearly was more productive elsewhere. We have no interest in widespread consensus, instead working with like-minded individuals. Best. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It also should be noted, that in the past few days, I've had a couple of people here on wiki approach me and say "oh, we wish you wouldn't leave", you are effectively a NEWBIE, and "oh, the content you contributed to is really good; would be sad to see it go". Well I now I get it-- a diversity of views, sometimes strong, on things and it works itself out via time-consuming "consensus". Well, that is clearly what you /wiki does, but noting, it's not for everyone and in conflict, not for me. I now appreciate good senior management that can sort something out quickly like never before. And if I cleanly could go back in and start deleting recognizable contributions, I'd do that, just to get rid of it. In the end on the administrators page, I was told about the "common license", and unwanted contribs would all weed itself out. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: In this system, it does not seem possible to resolve a conflict with steps forward
quickly, which would be ideal, and seem possible in other decision-making contexts (my misunderstanding and mistake). Note that various contributions were made, including a lot of inline citation correcting and links to various sites as well as to artdesigncafe, based on the content, when perceived to add value, considered contributing to a communal effort, but mistakenly though to have some frame of traditional, non-wiki editorial processes. Wiki is fine, just very different. It seems only things related to artdesigncafe are under question by certain individuals. I get in now-- fair enough. As there is question, ideally all previous contributions would be taken down quickly, just like in a non-wiki environment. This has been repeatedly requested just as a resolution, but an administrator said in the wiki system, things would just get weeded out in the normal way of diverse opinions of consensus editing. For future, there may need to be a "Dispute with Wikipedia" page on the artdesigncafe site, visibly linked at the top, which can be referred to. Wiki content contributors are asked NOT to link to this site in future.
Coming from the rock n' roll art world, some feel recently that that site is a '"spamblog" of low quality'. This is not nice, but it is very rock n' roll. :-) A number of visual arts professionals think otherwise. (Former mrdnartdesign)
In the spirit of diverse opinion, respectfully, photo right. (Former Mrdnartdesign)
Wikipedia edit
Hi Mrdnartdesign, I see you saw my ping and posted at Wikipedia talk:Women in Red. I was about to drop you a note here but got called away from my keyboard. I would be sorry for us to lose you and your expertise, but I think like many experts you've misunderstood some aspects of how Wikipedia works. One small thing is that unless a page gets actually deleted by an administrator, its history—what changes each person made and when, and what it looked like at each stage—is readily available from the "history" page. So I looked at your additions to various pages to see what references you had added; and I find that this talk page was started with an informational "welcome" template that is useful for looking up our policies and terminology as well as for ways to ask for assistance: see this first version of the page.
Larger matters: we aim so far as possible to have independent references for everything, and define notability largely in terms of the existence of such references to the topic. original research is frowned on, and notability does not come from associations, but from coverage of the actual subject. Emily Hall Tremaine illustrates this: her notability is established by the press coverage of her life, including the NYT obituary and any other obituaries, the Santa Barbara magazine piece, and press coverage of her activities in the 1930s and earlier; plus the existence of a book about her and of at least one art history journal article by the book's author; plus any other coverage all about her. Her association with the Miller Company collection is tangential; if all she had done that was worth writing about was influence the selection of pieces, then she would only merit mention on that page, so the "Easter egg" link you have been making to that page undervalues her as well as misleading the reader; she merits a red link to suggest a viable article topic. Similarly with her input into the Marilyn Diptych; that should be mentioned at the page on the art work, and in an article on her, but that single collaboration with Warhol is not a big contribution to her being notable; and your linking there to the Miller collection article was misleading. In addition, the main objection at the Diptych article was to your sourcing the information to the site with which you are connected, which doesn't have much standing as a reference. Instead, cite a book on Warhol or an article published in a peer-reviewed journal; this is the general guidance for experts writing on Wikipedia, to cite secondary sources that you would either use for research leads or cite in an introductory text, since Wikipedia is a similar sort of publication to textbooks or survey works. Having already written about her on Art Design Cafe, or been editorially involved with coverage of her there, whatever it is, you appear to have fallen into a trap that gets many experts, not realizing that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has different criteria for notability and different sourcing requirements.
As to lists of notable people associated with places, the underlying problem is that most places will have a huge number of notable people who were born there, died there, or lived there at some point, so there has to be some triage of those lists, and it's not a good idea to add the same person to multiple such lists as a nudge that an article is needed, and a very bad idea to put an "Easter egg" link in such lists. If one does add a red link to such an article section, it should be because the person is or was closely associated with that place, and the addition should be with a good reference making that connection very clear.
I hope that helps a little bit? Sorry to have used the "Easter egg" term without explanation; as well as Wikipedia, I'm familiar with it from elsewhere on the internet; we probably have an explanation of its history somewhere ... yup, Easter egg (media). Expertise such as yours is valuable to Wikipedia not just because of your depth of knowledge but because you know of topics such as this that should be included in the encyclopedia but aren't in large part because nobody else is aware of them. So I've lit a small fire where it will hopefully be seen, but I very much hope you'll stick around yourself and help us remedy this kind of deficit in the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi: I appreciate your detailed response, and I wish you well with your work re. Emily Tremaine. I couldn't read everything but I'll address a couple of points: The Miller Co and her work with that is a big deal. If you search "Painting toward architecture", there's are some detailed explanations and good sources. There also is the book by Hitchcock and an article by former MoMA curator Barry Bergdoll. I've had a conversation on this end and the wiki situation is more than it's worth on this end, and therefore there is a request for deletion of all links to the artdesigncafe site, and that none are able to be added in future. All I can say is good luck finding sources elsewhere for certain things. There is no way to block any incoming traffic. Kind regardsMrdnartdesign (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure where you're based, but I live near Middletown, Connecticut. I'd like to echo Yngvadottir's sentiment that it would be a real shame to lose you and your website.
I would be happy to help resolve this misunderstanding if that is still a possibility. Either way, I do plan on writing Emily Hall Tremaine regardless if you still decide to leave or not. I also assure you, her husband will not be taking center stage and her achievements will be properly credited to her. When it's all done, I'm going to nominate it for the front page of Wikipedia to show the article off.
I am always here if you need me!
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi: Thank you for your kind words. I smashed my guitar on the table and am done with Wikipedia. My efforts are better placed elsewhere, and besides I focus on specialist research. I wish you both success with this drafted Tremaine article. I started out with "notable" links to the three places Tremaine lived and worked: (a) Montecito, CA (c. 1918-43); (B) Madison, CT (1944-87); and then because her work was officially based out of Meriden (1944-87). For Montecito, the Pener article, I don't know how you'd get it, shows that best. There also was Elza Temary with wiki page, a Berlin silver film star in Montecito in 1933-37. The only thing online is the Warhol diptych article mentioning her with Tremaine, which is not precise. Otherwise nothing online. I've got 3-20 sources on that here, all offline. Elza got kicked out as "not notable" like Tremaine in that quick sweep. If you have time, I've heard there are quite a few dead links to artdesigncafe in wikipedia somewhere, an earlier version, and those should be removed. Best wishes (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)