User talk:SKHfineprintsexpert

May 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Robert Kipniss. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, SKHfineprintsexpert. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further information, June 2023

I have received and read your email. Unfortunately, it shows some misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works, so I offer the following comments, in the hope that they may help to clarify things for you, and to save you from experiencing problems which might come from those misunderstandings.

You told me in your email that you are the "authorized representative" of Robert Kipniss, thereby confirming that you are subject to the provisions of the conflict of interest guideline, and presumably to the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use relating to paid editing, but you have continued to edit Wikipedia in ways which don't comply with those requirements. You need to make sure that any future editing you may do does comply with them.
You have told me that there is nothing promotional about the material you posted, because it is true. However, whether something is true or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is promotional. It is perfectly possible to write true facts in a plain and neutral manner, or to post the same true facts in a way clearly designed to give the reader a good impression of what one is writing about, which is to say in a promotional way. The material you posted was unambiguously designed to portray Kipniss in a way which would give readers a favourable impression of him, which is to say that it was intended to promote him.
You have restored the promotional material, and you say that if I revert it again you "will have to take this complaint further". You are welcome to take the complaint as far as you like, but I can perhaps save you the trouble by informing you of what the outcome of doing so is likely to be. You, on the one hand, are an editor acting in violation of Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest and the policies on neutral point of view and promotional editing, and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use relating to paid editing. I have no reason to doubt that you initially came here in good faith, unaware of those requirements, but you have continued to act contrary to those requirements after having been informed of them. I, on the other hand, am a Wikipedia administrator seeking to enforce those requirements. My first step in doing so was to revert the editing in which you had unwittingly violated those requirements, and post you a message explaining why, so you could avoid making the same mistake again. Now that you have done the same again, this time after being informed of the relevant policies etc, the next step is to warn you that if you continue to violate Wikipedia's requirements you may be blocked from editing. Naturally I hope that won't happen, and it may help you to avoid that outcome if you read some or all of the following pages, if you haven't already done so. Most of them are linked in the message above, but for your convenience here they are again: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations.
You have told me that some statements in the article are outdated or incorrect. Obviously, if that is the case then we should endeavour to put them right, so please say what particular statements those are, and provide corrected versions, preferably with citations to reliable sources for confirmation if possible. You can do so in the way described in the conflict of interest guideline, but it may possibly save a little time if you post the information to me, so that I can assess what you suggest and see whether it seems appropriate. Please bear in mind, however, that anything you propose must be written from a neutral point of view, and do not post the changes into the article yourself, as doing so would be contrary to the conflict of interest guideline.

As I said above, I am offering you these comments in the hope that they will clarify matters for you, and help you to avoid future problems. If anything I have said needs further clarification then please let me know, and I will attempt to offer further help. JBW (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another important point which I somehow failed to think of when I wrote the message above, even though it is really more fundamental than any of the points which I did mention. It is fundamental to the way that Wikipedia works that in most circumstances any editor can edit any article. Anything you post to a Wikipedia article may then be edited, modified, or removed by other editors. You don't own the article which you have edited, and you do not have the right to determine what it should contain, or to deny other editors the right to make further changes. If you wish to publish material about your client and retain editorial control over that material, then you will need to do so somewhere other than Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paid contributor disclosure

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

SKHfineprintsexoert (talk · contribs) has been paid by Robert Kipniss on their behalf. https://www.robertkipniss.net/contact.

. SKHfineprintsexpert (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional changes/erroneous statements

Tacyarg.Changes were made in good faith, without foreknowledge of COI policies. The intention was update outdated, missing, and/or erroneous information on the page. Kipniss is 92 and rarely uses computers. At this point it is a bit of jumble of what I wrote and reversion to the original. Most of it is now correct, but additional factual corrections were made on 8/7/2023, primarily having to do with the date on which the artist stopped making lithographs. There is a persistent error in the literature that it was 1990, but it was actually 1994, see for instance https://onlinecollections.syr.edu/objects/41837/april-leaves?ctx=c23b03bbfc19e524f9aee129e60c43ddc88956c1&idx=7 SKHfineprintsexpert (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2023. SKHfineprintsexpert (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]