User talk:Acvinci

Wikipedia Articles

The three Wikipedia articles were all American artists in the twentieth century. The three American artists I chose was, Georgia O'Keefe, Alice Adams, and Mary Cassatt. The reason why I chose to narrow down my choices is because the format they use introduces similar contents that our Wiki Project might use. The first artist is Georgia O'Keefe. IN this Wikipedia article it used two elements that are extremely useful when learning about artists. The first is the idea of a Legacy; what impact did the artists' work have on society and/or individuals. Secondly, in the information box at the top, they had a section explaining her influence. This is imperative in understanding the artists' work because it gives the viewer a sense of how the artist thinks and what may be important in his/her work. The categories for O’Keefe provide a wide range of options, here are a few that are noteworthy: American women artists, flower artists, Precisionist. These categories are helpful because they address art, objects of art, and techniques of art. These are relevant to O’Keefe because they represent exactly what she was in the art world.

Next, I analyzed Alice Adams, another American artist whose main focus is on land art in the 1970s'. I chose this article because land art is what we, as a class, are focused on. In addition, I found this article particularly as a bad example of format. There were no pictures displaying any of her work, as compared to the other two Wikipedia articles I viewed. When explaining art on a Web-based Encyclopedia it is important to view an example of the art that is being discussed. If one cannot view the example, then they may not fully understand the concepts addressed in the article. There were seven categories listed at the bottom: Land Art, Contemporary Artists, Columbia University Alumni, Living People, 1930 Births, American Sculptors, and American Women Artists. I found that the categories Land Art, Contemporary Artists, American Sculptors, and American Women Artists were all useful to this article. The reason why is because all of them are broad categories that clearly fit the content of the article allowing the reader to understand the basics of what is being explained. However, 1930 Births and Columbia University Alumni are extremely broad and are not critical in understanding the purpose of the article. They are not straight to the point like Land Art. Clarity and specificity is important when picking categories because it gives the reader and better understanding of what the article is about.

The third article I viewed was Mary Stevenson Cassatt. The format for the article is the same for the previous two artists. The format includes, Early Life, Impressionism, Later Life, Legacy, See Also, Notes, References, and External Links. One of the strengths of this article is using a See Also tab within the format. The reason this is important is because it is located right by the references and Notes section. If the viewer what’s more information about something specific then they can just click on the link to obtain more information. Another strength that is in this article, much like O’Keefe’s, is the use of pictures. It is important to use pictures, but not too many that will distract the reader from the text. This article used a too many pictures. Overall, three categories that I found in these three articles that will be useful to our class project are Land Art, defining gender art (female/male artists), and type of art (sculptures, painting, etc.). The reason why these categories are beneficial is because they offer an insight into what the content will be describing. In addition, an important feature of artist articles, are incorporating the right amount of pictures.

SIRIS

The Smithsonian’s public database (SIRIS) was fascinating. They have a plethora of information about their collection online. I enjoyed being able to browse their collections because they had a wealth of information, accompanied by pictures of the artwork. Also, I found it interesting that the search engine already had a phrase typed in the slot. For example, when I first opened the page, the search tab had “butterflies in art” already typed. At first, I thought that it was strange, but I found it to be useful as a first time visitor to the page. It helped to generate ideas as to what type search I should use. One feature that the SIRIS page used was a “make your own” slideshow. I think this was a neat idea, but I did not understand why they put that on the front page. The only reason is to interact with the visitor. If this is the reason, then it is a clever idea. However, they should move the slideshow into a different category, such as under the Arts and Design link. While visiting the site, I found that they used an ample amount of internal links. This allowed the viewer to venture further into their website and their collections, giving their collections accessibility to the visitor. Another type of accessibility that is present in SIRIS is the use of emailing information to the visitors email address. For example, when I clicked on the W. Oscar Sullivan Papers 1900-1960, it was broken down into simple categories (similar to Wikipedia articles). At the bottom of the page, there was a place to send the resource in an email to myself. Overall, this information system is extremely helpful in getting their collection out to the public and letting the public know all of the resources and information available to them. Accessibility is one of the main functions of this information system. However, I can’t help but to wonder how much of the public actually knows this system exists. This is where availability is lacking. The Smithsonian needs to market this site more effectively to the public, possibly through schools and libraries.

SOS

After reviewing the PDF file for SOS Save Outdoor Sculptures in Indiana, I discovered that “although the Indiana survey has been complete, there may still be outdoor sculptures that have not been documented.” I found this statement to be unbelievable. If there are still outdoor sculptures not reviewed, then the Indiana survey is not complete. Furthermore, I found that examples of what the SOS handbook considered to be outdoor public art was different than what I thought. For example, they consider grave markers and headstones as public art. Most people overlook the art used in making headstones, especially headstones made before the 1950’s. Also, some of the approaches to conserving these works that are in dire need of treatment seem to be more community-based projects. IN addition to their ideas, a suggestion might be to incorporate these problems into colleges. Specifically, it would interest and helpful to the students of Archaeology to do some fieldwork in preserving these historical works. The government might offer an internship to students involved in restoring and preserving these outdoor public arts.

http://www.in.gov/history/files/7026.pdf

Acvinci (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fountain

Hi Acvinci, would be nice if you could write how large the structure is. The other point would be to localize the fountain on the campus. I added a coordination tag, but only in hiding, and I only used the coordinates of the whole campus, because I do not kno where that fountain is on the campus. --Stone (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the image. Can you help me and describe where on the campus the fountain is.--Stone (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — ξ^xplicit 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:PYRAMID FOUNTAIN.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:PYRAMID FOUNTAIN.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Nancy ^talk 12:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:GIVE AND TAKE.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:GIVE AND TAKE.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Nancy ^talk 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CORROSION FOUNTAIN.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:WOOD PLAZA.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:WOOD PLAZA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:PYRAMID FOUNTAIN.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:PYRAMID FOUNTAIN.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space

Hey there Acvinci, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Acvinci. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:G AND A.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:G AND A.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:G AND A.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:G AND A.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:G AND A.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:G AND A.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)