User talk:Cynthia Artin

Cynthia Artin, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Cynthia Artin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Cynthia Artin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, 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 help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself[edit]

Ms Artin, welcome to Wikipedia, but it is not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves. It is a quite different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles, and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Wikipedia user pages are not like those at social-networking sites. Their use is explained at WP:NOTWEBHOST:

"Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account."

You can find out more about Wikipedia at the WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction. Some other pages that you may find helpful are:

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Cynthia Artin. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lorrie Goulet, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is a completely non-profit initiative - for an amazing artist.

I am not being paid, neither is anyone on the team.

I value Wikipedia's integrity and my own!!!

Hi again everybody and thanks for your careful reading! I can assure you there is zero conflict of interest and am happy to provide any documentation required. A group of volunteers is helping Lorrie Goulet, an 89 year old American artist, share her work and philosophy, history and contributions to the art world. Please explain the rest of the process to me so I can contest this as so many people have worked so hard to put all this together, from 50 years plus of her writings and ephemera. To me Wiki is the PERFECT place to share this and I will do whatever is necessary to conform with all the rules and so forth. I love Wikipedia! I am new - so I appreciate your patience. Thanks, Cynthia

I need help challenging a conflict of interest statement on the Lorrie Goulet Wikipedia page. I need to initiate an appeal and am new to this so appreciate a good person's guidance in how I can move to get this accusation removed as it is without basis.Cynthia Artin (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

(edit conflict) I understand from your deleted user page that you are in the marketing/PR business. Please understand that Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind, and paid editing on behalf of clients is very strongly discouraged. Before editing about any of your clients you should read the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Note in particular that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Thanks I am still learning and will comment on edits as I go along today. I did take out a lot of content per suggestions. I am having a hard time adding citations. I need to take the full tutorial. I have a lot to add to the citations section but need a few hours to bone up!

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Lorrie Goulet does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shared account?[edit]

In your recent edit summary you say "we" please note that Wikipedia accounts are strictly for the use of individuals only. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

OK. I'll remove them.Cynthia Artin (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the photographs you have added to the Lorrie Goulet article state that you took them and own the copyright can you confirm this? It seems highly unlikely, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. My husband scanned the originals with Lorrie Goulet's permission. Only one of her photographs included attribution (stamped on back in the 1950s) and since she said she paid for all the photos, she believes she owns them. Should I edit WikiMedia and put her there as the source instead of myself? We did not include the photo with the stamp on the back - we believe the photo studio has long since disappeared. This is getting more complicated that I thought! :) Cynthia Artin (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning the originals with Lorrie Goulet's permission is not sufficient. The copyright remains with the photographer known or unknown. They should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CITATIONS FOR VERY OLD INFORMATION - Looking For Suggestions[edit]

I am developing the Lorrie Goulet page and being asked for citations about events that are "pre-Internet" or at least "pre-Web". I have printed materials but none are already available online to "point to" for a credible citation. Should I scan the printed materials, put them online, then point to that URL? Lorrie Goulet's work has been shown since the 1940's so it's more challenging to be able to provide information online in order to back up every statement. Should I just cave in and take out information that cannot be proven via a secondary source available online? I fully understand and respect the need to ensure quality, verifiable information on Wikipedia so am sincerely trying to sort this out - committed to getting the article right and to also spare Ms. Goulet the pain of seeing her accomplishments questioned (she is 89 years old and the content for the article has come from her exquisitely maintained record since the early 1940's, mainly paper).

References do not have to be online but they do have to have been published somewhere. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and figure it out. Going to meet with Lorrie today in the city.Cynthia Artin (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to delete anything that the community is worried about. I've sent an email to the WikiCommons to have all the photographs I posted taken down. Thanks for your guidance, this is a lot more tricky than I thought it would be!Cynthia Artin (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sent an email to info@wikimedia (commons) and was told the email box no longer exists. I cannot figure out how to delete the images I posted there - but removed them from the article on Wikipedia due to all the concerns. I feel like a criminal already! Which is ironic since I attended the NYC premiere of the Snowden documentary as a full supporter of his courage! Life is funny - now those of us who are doing our best to preserve and share history including this story of a woman pioneer in the art world are being challenged about our motives and sources. We realized quickly we will need to develop our own domain with Lorrie Goulet's story so we are free to share her work, her vision, her philosophy with a world of hurt waiting for a little artistic healing. Cynthia Artin (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that no one is questioning Lorrie Goulet's accomplishments or notability as an artist. This encyclopedia needs an article about her. But certainly, you will want it to be a good article that complies in every way with Wikipedia's standards. Our policies and guidelines can be difficult for new editors to understand at first, but they have a logic and structure that leads to much better articles.

References need not be available online, but they need to be published and reputable. A profile in Art in America is excellent. Correspondence with galleries and museums is not acceptable. Such correspondence could be the basis for original research published elsewhere, such as a reputable art journal. Then the journal article can be cited on Wikipedia.

Please do not scan printed materials and post online. That is in itself a copyright violation, and we can't knowingly link to such a site. It is far better to build an article on five rock solid references than twenty references, many of which are dubious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]