User talk:Martinishot77

Recent edit to Themed Entertainment Association

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Themed Entertainment Association, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, I'm NatGertler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, really, stop it. Your posting the same messages about the same two books on dozens of pages, mostly of people who were covered widely. I'm just going to go through and undo these additions. Please save us both the time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello NatGertler, I left a message on your talk page, but am leaving it here too. I've added the info (with appropriate references) about The Artist Within to the various pages of those artists who agreed to be in the project not as promotional - but as a reference point, because the books serve to document those artists within their creative working spaces. In that many of those artists have now passed, the collection of artists within the books serves as an important reference point of popular artists of the 20th century. It has become enough of a reference point, that venues such as the Academy Awards, the Eisner Awards, and publications such as The Atlantic Magazine, The Washington Post, and Newsday have utilized the portraits within it.Martinishot77 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The people you are adding this information to have generally been covered in large numberof interviews and such. The information you're adding does not tell us anything about the people, it is not being used as a reference for further information. Outside articles focusing on these people are not likely to mention that there were some photos of them in a book - as nice as the book is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Floyd Norman. Stop it before you get blocked. At the very least, read WP:BRD so you can understand how to deal with having your edits reverted. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NatGertler. I'm not trying to get in an edit war with you and apologize if the edits are crossing. The books do not contain interview material. Rather they are a unique photographic reference point of showing these artists and their native creative environments (their studio). Studios and processes are sometimes described within pages/articles, but the Artist Within collection shows those artists and their individual spaces. Outside articles and other venues as I referenced have used the portraits from within the books. I hold that 1. being included with the overall collection of artists assembled is significant and not trivial, and 2. That the portraits of the artists within and depicting their native studio spaces is also significant as documentary reference on those artists and how they work/worked.Martinishot77 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC) I will refrain from adding the info further, but how should we resolve this? Martinishot77 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

if the pictures from them were online, it might be worth adding a link to those pictures in "External links" section of the individual artist's article, because then you're leading people to the picture. But you're using articles about the books as reference simply for the fact that photos exist, which is not substantial information. As for how you move forward, read WP:BRD; what that tells you to do when your addition to an article gets reverted is to raise the issue on the talk page of that article and find consensus for inclusion before readding. That way you get other voices than mine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

NatGertlerI'd agree that pointing to the photo would be optimal. I'd disagree that pointing readers to the fact that the artists are included in the collection and the photos exist is not substantial info - especially as a reference point (it's the same reason we do citations). Don't believe the entirety of the collection is online, only smaller sized versions of some of those portraits. In that there are over 200 some artists collected across the two books (and I believe that the existence of the photo documentation in the collection is a reference info that could be added to each artist's page), it seems WP: BRD is quite laborious to institute for consensus on a page by page basis. Do you have a suggestion for a consensus that would apply here in a broader sense of adding this information? Perhaps the info just needs to be reworked? Perhaps if I create articles for the books themselves and add the info more as a citation? Would you feel more comfortable in that respect? Something like: Kirby was one of the artists photographed in his studio for The Artist Within published in 2017 with a book cite? That way it wouldn't feel as promotional? Martinishot77 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've raised the question over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Appropriate?; while not everyone you've tagged this way is primarily a comics person, enough are that it's a relevant project, so a discussion there may set some base. But realize that even editors that are not involved in that project are free to object to the inclusion on any given page, and if you just keep reinserting it, your edit warring, which will get you blocked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NatGertler! As mentioned, I'll refrain from adding the info to pages further until we get some more consensus, and I'll watch the discussion there. I may start trying to sandbox an article for the books themselves. I do appreciate your willingness to talk this through. Martinishot77 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What is your relationship to Greg Preston? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Jason A. Quest None. I don't even own copies of the books, although, with all candor, I shook the man's hand once at an event. There is no ulterior motive here. I only dd info/edit pages/create articles where I think information is missing, and felt this was something I could contribute. If consensus is the info shouldn't be added to those artists pages, I'm willing to go with that, or if it needs to be reworked so as not to seem less promotional, then I'm open to that suggestion too.Martinishot77 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pete's Dragon (1977 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Adding information to articles, especially information for which a source should be provided, typically does not constitute a minor edit. It's somewhat difficult for me to believe you would assume otherwise. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)