WikiProjects |
Freshacconci (talk | contribs) remove personal attack |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Please remove the COI tag from [[Julia Friedman]]. And please remove the warning tag from my talk page. Why? Because a COI tag clearly states "Please discuss further on the talk page." My user page is NOT this article page. In this case your COI comments should have been directed to this talk page. Which they were not. Your edits and comments were NOT on this talk page. Hence, your actions (2 in this case) again are AGAINST wiki policy for all editors to see and read. And, I do not appreciate inappropriate threats made against my good-faith actions on behalf of this article. Yes, my actions were good-faith because they were in accordance with Wiki policy. Every other editor will soon see and read all about your bad-faith actions against this page. --[[User:Wwwwhatupprrr|Wwwwhatupprrr]] ([[User talk:Wwwwhatupprrr|talk]]) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
Please remove the COI tag from [[Julia Friedman]]. And please remove the warning tag from my talk page. Why? Because a COI tag clearly states "Please discuss further on the talk page." My user page is NOT this article page. In this case your COI comments should have been directed to this talk page. Which they were not. Your edits and comments were NOT on this talk page. Hence, your actions (2 in this case) again are AGAINST wiki policy for all editors to see and read. And, I do not appreciate inappropriate threats made against my good-faith actions on behalf of this article. Yes, my actions were good-faith because they were in accordance with Wiki policy. Every other editor will soon see and read all about your bad-faith actions against this page. --[[User:Wwwwhatupprrr|Wwwwhatupprrr]] ([[User talk:Wwwwhatupprrr|talk]]) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Please read the important confession from a wiki editor == |
|||
It may interest every editor in this discussion to read the written confession of the wiki editor who started this unnecessary procedure: |
|||
::''"are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that [i.e. read the [[Julia Friedman]] article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)"'' |
|||
Now we all can read that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it was about an editor trying racking up the wiki edits. How wonderful. --[[User:Wwwwhatupprrr|Wwwwhatupprrr]] ([[User talk:Wwwwhatupprrr|talk]]) 05:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Tone == |
== Tone == |
Revision as of 13:46, 28 May 2016
Biography Redirect‑class | |||||||
|
Women artists NA‑class | |||||||
|
Visual arts NA‑class | |||||||
|
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Notability is self-evident; whereas lack of notability has not been justified.Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The following are important points to keep in mind about this significance of this wiki-page:
- I have many cited sources: The Times Literary Supplement, Observer.com, newcriterion.com etc
- This person is closely associated with many important figures: Dave Hickey, Wally Hedrick, and Alexei Remizov etc
- These sources establish notability.
- This art historian has published with many important institutions: Northwestern University Press, Warburg Institute, Artforum, Huffington Post etc
- These institutions establish notability.
- This art historian has taught with many important institutions: Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University etc
- These institutions establish notability.
- This page meets general notability guidelines and biography notability guidelines.
- These sources are true, verifiable, and claim significance
- These important sources and venues are likely to persuade many of the commentators against deletion. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reading an article before posting a deletion tag in articles is a function, too. Perhaps, making honest, good-faith suggestions before posting delete tags on extensively documented articles is a function, too. I believe these actions were unhelpful, inappropriate, if not just plain uncivil. May I point out that User talk:reddogsix used just six words to attempt to delete my extensive article that I spent hours working on. Next, I would really like every editor to consider this action. Was this editor's actions really a good-faith edit? I don't believe so. Why do I think this? Because he didn't read the article. How do I know this? Because I refuse to believe that any learned person would dare call The Times Literary Supplement trivial? I am referring, of course to an extensive, lengthy, heady 2500 word article published about Julia Friedman and her 2 recent books that was just published May 27. But, perhaps this editor does not have any idea what the TLS is after-all? The TLS is only the leading international weekly for literary culture in the western world. In plain terms, the TLS is the opposite of trivial. Seriously. Next, what about giving a lecture with Dave Hickey at none-other-than the UCLA Hammer Museum? Would anyone think this is a trivial action. Most certainly not. Then what about lecturing at Stanford University? Is lecturing at Stanford University trivial, I don't think so. Is teaching at Waseda University trivial? Afterall, Waseda University is the so-called Princeton University of Japan -- where Obama is right now. Waseda is not trivial. Is publishing with Martin Kemp (art historian) about Leonardo da Vinci a trivial act? I don't think so...I could go on and on but I will not. These important sources, institutions and publishers are likely to persuade many of the learned and responsible commentators against deletion.
- The following are important points to keep in mind about this significance of Julia Friedman's new wiki-page:
- I have many cited sources: The Times Literary Supplement, Observer.com, newcriterion.com etc
- This person is closely associated with many important figures: Dave Hickey, Wally Hedrick, Martin Kemp (art historian), and Alexei Remizov etc
- These sources establish notability.
- This art historian has published with many important institutions: Northwestern University Press, Warburg Institute, Artforum, Huffington Post etc
- These institutions establish notability.
- This art historian has taught with many important institutions: Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University etc
- These institutions establish notability.
- This page meets general notability guidelines and biography notability guidelines.
- These sources are true, verifiable, and claim significance
- These important sources and venues are likely to persuade many of the commentators against deletion.
- The following are important points to keep in mind about this significance of Julia Friedman's new wiki-page:
- If I can be of further assistance to any learned editor, please contact me --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You failed to respond to my question. Instead you created an WP:UNCIVIL response to my valid question. Wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY does not equal "real world" notability. Once again, Wikipedia Notability is a function of meeting certain criteria. The criteria is defined in WP:N. Please demonstrate how the article meets that criteria. I suggest you try to refrain from comments that are contrary basic Wikipedia concepts. reddogsix (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I failed to respond to your question? Please forgive me. This is the first I have learned that there is "another world" other than "the real world". Please forgive my ignorance. So can you tell me, in your world is it your belief that The Times Literary Supplement is a notable authority or not? And, next, have you read the article in question to determine its credibility? If so, can you tell me anything about the contents of this invaluable article whatsoever? I look forward to your reply Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Removal of the COI Tag
I am removing the COI tag because, as I stated in the first edit that is not justified because:
- "COI tag appears to be unnecessary at this time given the fact that no edits whatsoever have been challenged, offered or even contested." -- 5:06, 28 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-22) . . Julia Friedman
Honestly, how can you demonstrate a point-of-view or conflict-of-interests when none have been offered? This is irrational if not patently absurd. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Editor has refused to discuss COI tag on the Julia Friedman talk page
Please note that editor reddogsix has not discussed the COI tag per wiki guidelines on this talk page. Instead he makes threats on my user page, such as, "Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing." This is not where a COI discussion should take place. Nor is it where I have made good-faith comments. A COI banner clearly states: "Please discuss further on the Julia Friedman talk page." Really, is this good-faith wiki editing? --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the COI tag from Julia Friedman. And please remove the warning tag from my talk page. Why? Because a COI tag clearly states "Please discuss further on the talk page." My user page is NOT this article page. In this case your COI comments should have been directed to this talk page. Which they were not. Your edits and comments were NOT on this talk page. Hence, your actions (2 in this case) again are AGAINST wiki policy for all editors to see and read. And, I do not appreciate inappropriate threats made against my good-faith actions on behalf of this article. Yes, my actions were good-faith because they were in accordance with Wiki policy. Every other editor will soon see and read all about your bad-faith actions against this page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Tone
"These writings highlight verbal riffs of Hickey blasting away at digital natives and his online-audience." Could I ask the page's author to rephrase this a little? It's current phrasing is a little non-neutral. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)