Talk:Max Shertz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Multiple issues template

Although this article has existed for a long time, it has some serious problems with it. I might also note that the editors who have done the most work in creating and adding to the article have been single-purpose accounts. In any event, the most serious problem is the lack of sources - and they need to be independent. There aren't any. In addition, although the article isn't badly worded, it still reads like an advertisement for Shertz's work, not an encyclopedia article about his work. I'm not sure the collector section should even remain, but at a minimum, each collector must be supported by a source.

If the article isn't sourced soon, it will have to be significantly cut back, probably to a stub. It can't remain in its current state.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was removed without any reasonable basis for doing so. I've reinserted it with two changes. First, although the few sources that have been added are either self-published or unverifiable, I've changed it from no references to improve. Second, I've added a conflict of interest tag because it would appear that the editor working on the article is somehow related to the subject, if for no other reason his ever-changing story on the copyright of the images.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not create this article or know of it's existence until a short time ago. Most of the article was not created by myself, although I did add all the refereences in the article and make substantial edits to the biographical section. That area has been re-organized in a chronological manner, with facts gathered through research or his offical site, which I believe to be maintained by his surviving relatives. Second, due to my inexpeience I did modify the copyright notices on the images several times, I wanted to ensure that they are correct and in accordance with the standards set on Wikipedia.

I have removed the conflct of interest tag, becuase there is no evidence of a conflict of interest and I have none. I never knew or met the deceased Mr. Shertz. In no way am I presonally or finacially benefitting from this article, nor do I have a bias. My edits are not personal leaning in any way, please see that that the majority of the quotes provded are all properly sourced, and can be verified, if any editors are williing to do research. Yes, the refernces are not "easily" verifiable, but that isn't the same as not accurate accurate. Considering, the man lived the last 25 years of his life not selling or displaying any of his work, the references are going to be old. Again, I provded the only refences for this article, and agree more needs to be added. For example I did not contribute to the creation of the collector's list.

I am also doing substantial research in the area of off-reservation Indian boarding schools, and have begun editing some articles, and will continue to do so. The Max Shertz page lacked references, which I added, lacked artwork or inforbox, which I sought permission for and added, and lacked a chronological timeline, which I adjusted for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien06 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue of the images in the article that you uploaded. I'm assuming you uploaded them from Shertz's website. These image files now say that the copyright owner (whoever that is) has dedicated them to the public domain and waived all of his or her copyright rights. I don't see that anywhere on the website - so, what is the basis for your assertion?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images were taken from site, errors made in trademark status. Contacted owner and received permission sent email to permission-commons and placed pending ORTS on file. Was also informed of additional references and verification relating to a complete survey and appraisal of all Shertz's work right before he died that occurred in Oct 2010. This information was originally on the page well before I edited the article to better organize chronologically as well as add quotes and references. Also corrected name of second wife, which was due to my error in attempting to collection of information. Additionally, removed advertisement tag since information is factual and chronological. More importantly I did more research and found that artwork is not for sale anywhere I searched and no links or references link to a site that is selling or profiting from his work. Do agree more needs to be to done to remove peacock terms, however, most are inside quotes.Thank you for your critiques and in improving several articles--Damien06 —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]