User talk:Artwriter111

Welcome!

Hello, Artwriter111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks so much for your help with this issue. I would like to take you up on your offer to proofread this article so it might be accepted. I have disclosed that this is about me, Matthew Israel, and I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Artwriter111 (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artwriter111. Its not so much the proofreading, its the fact that the sources you have provided do not show you are notable yet under WP:NARTIST. Qcne (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks so much for your feedback. However I wouldn't be considered under ARTIST as I am not one. I am an author and I believe I would qualify for notability for a CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL or ACADEMIC due to my work on The Art Genome Project, which is on Wikipedia, and where I am widely cited as being connected with it. Artwriter111 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you're quite right- you're under WP:NAUTHOR. That was a typo. Do you have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (not interviews, not affiliated with the Art Genome Project) that discuss your work? Qcne (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I listed many of them in the entry.

I also have more here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/11vZqqBkJLSkzrSg_ijQX84TFDl7R5lDELT2jJ0EkDIg/edit# Artwriter111 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original draft had 5 sources, only the NYT one was acceptable for showing notability.

You've just linked your resume, but I presume you mean the links on pages 12 and 13. Choose three sources from that list that meet every one of these criteria:

devote significant coverage to you (not just a listing, or a brief mention).
are independent of you (not an interview, not from your employer).
are from reliable places (not random blogs, or forums, or social media).

Qcne (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is so strange. There were originally a lot more sources added.

I just reviewed the history and it seems this user removed the sources:

cur prev 08:30, 15 July 2024‎ Jimfbleak talk contribs‎ 2,923 bytes −6,604‎ massive over-referencing inluding multiple inappropriate refs to his own publications, hardly independent third-party sources undo thank

I don't agree with their feedback. I have seen other pages use references in these ways. And the only references I applied to my own publications were the ISBN numbers.

Thanks again for your help! Artwriter111 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been told to check what we accept as independent third-party sources, and I'd be interested to know how your own publications are independent of you. Also see See What about article x?. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your advice and help with this. I will review the policies again and the article you suggest and make the further changes. Artwriter111 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artwriter111 Jim has given good advice above about what we consider independent sources. The best way forward is to give me three sources that meet the 3 criteria I listed above. That'll give some steer on if you pass our notability threshold or not. Qcne (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again for your help with this. Here are a number of pieces which meet the above criteria. (Note: I have included some sources like The New York Times and The Boston Globe because of their influence, even though my mentions were not as substantial there.):

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/arts/design/artsy-is-mapping-the-world-of-art-on-the-web.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/mapping-the-art-genome-105201397/

https://newspaperarchives.vassar.edu/?a=d&d=vq20130901-01.2.18&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN--------

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/08/13/why-jeff-koons-is-so-difficult-to-please-the-strange-venice-biennale-selection-process-and-which-collector-is-a-game-changer

https://aestheticamagazine.com/a-year-in-the-art-world/

https://galeriemagazine.com/11-fascinating-art-books-fall-2020/

https://globalnews.ca/video/4430747/showcasing-emerging-montreal-artists

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/whats-happening-in-the-district-of-columbia/2017/09/12/a32fae84-82c5-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2017/05/01/10-events-that-will-make-you-smarter-this-month-3/

https://whitewall.art/art/contemporary-art-in-10-works-the-big-picture-by-matthew-israel/ (Interview)

Looking forward to your thoughts. Artwriter111 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Artwriter111. I asked for three. Looking at those sources, most of them fail the independent criteria I set out, as they are based off interviews with you. Interviews do not count towards notability. There are a couple of non-interview sources, but these talk about your book- so would maybe confer notability to the book but not the author.

Again, we'd need three sources that are:

devote significant coverage to you (not just a listing, or a brief mention).
are independent of you (not an interview, not from your employer).
are from reliable places (not random blogs, or forums, or social media).

Qcne (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne. Thanks so much again for your help with this and your continued feedback. Apologies; I thought more would be better. And I included interviews based on the current reality of arts journalism—that so many profiles are interviews (as they are easier to produce). Based on your reply though, I would go with these three. I am adding NYT because of the notability of the source.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/arts/design/artsy-is-mapping-the-world-of-art-on-the-web.html

https://newspaperarchives.vassar.edu/?a=d&d=vq20130901-01.2.18&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN--------

https://issuu.com/originmagazine/docs/issuu_origin23

I also have bios about me for book launch events were hosted as prestigious venus such as the New York Public Library, the Strand Bookstore, and the Art Gallery of Ontario. Would these qualify?

https://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/big-picture-nicholas-baume-adrienne-edwards-jens-hoffmann-matthew-israel-arezoo-moseni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GHABo6OAWw&ab_channel=StrandBookStore

https://soundcloud.com/agotoronto/ago-talk-matthew-israel-2017 Artwriter111 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Artwriter111. I am trying to prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE or WP:NWRITER. So when I am looking at the sources, I am not discounting them as good sources or not, I am purely trying to see if they provide significant independent coverage of you as a person.

NYT: a reliable source for sure, but it's mostly about the Project. The reference to you is fairly brief, and I wouldn't call this significant coverage unfortunately.
Vassar Quarterly: another reliable source, which is mostly based off an interview with you (so not independent) but does have a little bit of commentary so I would call this borderline.
Origin Magazine: forgive me, but I only find a single reference to you, a brief blurb written by yourself on page 29.
NYPL: a useful review of your book, and I think this could be a borderline source for proving notability.

The other two are just interviews so cannot confer notability.

I think we're close. What we're really looking for is a source that provides significant coverage of you through the use of discussion, commentary, debate, analysis, transformation but specifically not based on an interview.

The alternative angle is to create a draft page for one of your books, and see if it can pass WP:NBOOK. The barriers for books are certainly lower, as literary reviews easily provide that significant, independent, reliable coverage which is what we are looking for. Qcne (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne, Thanks so much again for your help with this. I don't think I have such an article and this is probably due to my own hesitation towards self-promotion (versus promotion of my books and projects). Maybe I will have something like this written about me in the future but now I don't have it, so I will pause this effort for the moment. Again I greatly appreciate your help with this. Artwriter111 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, @Artwriter111. It is genuinely difficult to prove notability for people, and we have this strict criteria otherwise Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with spam. You can certainly try again in the future (many do). Qcne (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew Israel (art historian) (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sorry, not quite passing out notability criteria with those sources. Please read the link to understand our criteria: WP:NPEOPLE.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matthew Israel (art historian) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Artwriter111! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Qcne (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]