Talk:Jim Gary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was SPEEDY KEEP. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Cleaning up 2 NPOV tag 3 errata of edit and request for reverting to previous edit 4 Restoring deleted text

[edit] Cleaning up

This artice survived a vote for deletion on January 22. It was nomination by someone who seeing the relative poor quality of the article did not recognize that Jim Gary was a very notable sculptor. I've started to clean up the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. There's still a long way to go. The references in the "External links" section might be a good place to start. Crunch 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• The only useful line in the original article was "Jim Gary is the only living sculptor ever invited to have a solo show at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History," and it was buried in the final paragraph, so ease up on making me look stupid for calling an AfD, but I know you have good intentions. Just get rid of all the nostalgia present, summarise his career highlights, see if any pictures of his art are copyleft or fair use. Harro5 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

The current wording of this article is way too complimentary. Is this guy the Mother Teresa of art? Because that is how the article reads at present. Too much flattery, too many inate details about career progression. Isn't this just the first awful anon post, but wikified? Quotes like "His abstracts consistently won the cherished top prizes when submitted in the professional show circuits of New York City" - references? cherised prizes? - and "they had universal appeal—to toddlers through grandparents" - this isn't encyclopedic.

The article is currently too much like his eulogy, and should be shortened to a biographical summary, with headings and sections to organise into personal life, teaching, and artwork. More work is still needed. Harro5 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please define "inate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.21.95.139 (talk • contribs)

headers inserted and words "offending" harro changed, tag removed for next administrator's asault -- 2006.3.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.210.82 (talk • contribs)

looking good !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.210.82 (talk • contribs)

Best to give up and learn to love the pretty tag...

… this seems to be a personal issue with harro, the one who had no idea who the guy was -- and -- never bothered to look him up before demanding a deletion. I figure he can not get over the humiliation and wants to overcome it by bullying and pushing his weight around. (read the notation and look him up in the editor section -- obviously an adolescent with great compensation needs... at the expense of the organization)

Recommend moving on to another article where your writing skills will be put to good use, if you are interested in staying involved after such inhospitable treatment. For my part, and I have been a professional writer and editor for thirty years, the material contributed is well written and informative and it now has been organized well for this encyclopedia – thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.158.195.118 (talk • contribs)

Despite your attacks on my motives, which I will accept as being born out of frustration, the objections I raise still stand. This article focuses on every minor detail of Gary's career, and while I know he is notable and deserves a great article, even Pope John Paul II has some bad things written about him. We call this neutrality, and it's one of our five pillars of Wikipedia. I just want to see a balanced article which doesn't gush about Gary's achievements - as the current article does the whole way through - and once this is done I'd happily remove the NPOV tag. Thanks. Harro5 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, this is no place for this article, too positive, have cut it to a stub for others to build upon... am withdrawing the original for a better venue. Will edit anything added to make sure the facts are correct. ---

[edit] errata of edit and request for reverting to previous edit

use of a trademark rather than a name

TIME is a trademark and a logo, not a name. Wikipedia does not present the trademarks and logos of subjects in its articles, therefore the name of the magazine, as would be properly reported in research is, Time with an internal link to Time (magazine). Please see Wikipedia articles below for examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Magazine "Time (whose trademark is capitalized TIME) is a weekly U.S. newsmagazine, similar to Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. A European edition (Time Europe, formerly known as Time Atlantic) is published from London. Time Europe covers the Middle East, Africa and, since 2003, Latin America. An Asian edition (Time Asia) is based in Hong Kong. A Canadian edition (Time Canada) is based in Toronto. The South Pacific edition, covering Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, is based in Sydney."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report "Its two primary competitors—both of which have greater circulation—are Time and Newsweek. It is generally considered to have a more right-of-center editorial point of view than the two others. It has also marketed itself as being a serious-minded journal more consistently focused on important matters than its competitors, at times directly criticizing their occasional cover stories on celebrity or entertainment news competitors—both of which have greater circulation—are Time and Newsweek. It is generally considered to have a more right-of-center editorial point of view than the two others. It has also marketed itself as being a serious-minded journal more consistently focused on important matters than its competitors, at times directly criticizing their occasional cover stories on celebrity or entertainment news."

Grammar 101

Nothing is worse among editors than making a correction to replace it with an error—the correct verb form which was changed to an incorrect tense, is shown in previous Wikipedia articles, such as,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Andretti "...Andretti is the only person ever to win the Indy 500, the Daytona 500, and the Formula One World Championship."

This is the correct tense of the verb for this statement. The main phrase of the sentence is Andretti is the only person… Even if he were dead the sentence would be correct—until someone else achieves the same feat, when it would be changed properly to, Andretti and Mucdimuc are the only persons ever to win the Indy….

Now, there is a compound variant of the sentence that would allow for your choice of tense, Andretti was the only person ever to win the Indy500, the Daytona500, and the Formula One World Championship until Mucdimuc joined him in that distinction in 2009—but until there is another, he is the only person ever to win… and once there are two, the correct form would be, are, in the original form, Andretti and Mucdimuc are the only persons ever to win the…. Was implies that an action happened in the past, but this phrase does not express an action, rather it discusses one having achieved an enduring mark of distinction or an appellation.

"Cream is a dairy product that was used on the cereal served to me yesterday at the Snooty Hotel, instead of milk,” is a good rule of thumb to use to clarify these uncertainties as they arise in your writing.

We strive for the highest possible quality!

The citation for the item the editor wants to delete follows in the links at the end of the article.

Wikipedia does not require a strict style of citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources “Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place ^{[citation needed]} after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of under-cited articles, and inserting many instances of ^{[citation needed]} is unlikely to be beneficial.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia. Therefore, if you already use a particular citation style, especially the preferred style by scholars in a field related to the article you are editing, please use the citation style of your choice."

The perceived motivation seems to be consistent with a previous perception of the same editor’s negative bias and leads one to remember the Wikipedia discussion against malicious editing… in an attempt to avoid seeming obsession and a lame edit war—request reverting to the previous edit of 20:21, 28 March 2006 63.232.119.237 because that stub was correct in its facts, references, and grammar. Nothing seems to have been added to this article by the next edit (although the perception may be a misunderstanding of a Hanlon’s Razor situation), but the article seems diminished suspiciously by the edit.

• The article is fine at present, and I'll remove the {{citeneeded}} tag. Please sign your comments in future with four tildes (like ~~~~) so editors can easily identify who is talking on discussion pages. Thanks. Harro5 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Dear Harro -- Please define "eary" -- is this another Vogon term? "inate" "eary" —spell check before saving is recommended by Wikipedia. Here is yet another example of what seems to be an obsessed editor "correcting" another's work that—was correct—striking material that was informative—and insisting upon using his own copy containing an error. The result smacks of malicious editing again. It seems to be personal exercise of power alone that is pivotal. Is there no oversight of the malicious intervention of an administrator who is diminishing the quality of Wikipedia entries by others—presuming that the philosophy expressed is realistically followed and that other editors are free to create entries that benefit the encyclopedia? Please cite the regulation allowing rigid control by one administrator who doesn’t even know anything about the subject—to the point of creating an entry containing errors? Why would one editor without any knowledge of the subject be tolerated as an apparent “bully” who can impose his will over other participating editors in a “encyclopedia anyone can edit.” The discouragement of new participants providing worthwhile information is evident in this topic. Readers have suffered. The information base of the encyclopedia has been diminished. Luckily there is plenty of information available on the Internet about the sculptor, Jim Gary — and insistence upon a paltry entry in Wikipedia on the topic will simply send readers and researchers elsewhere. The article does not at all seem fine at present.

[edit] Restoring deleted text

On 27 March 2006, an anonymous user User:63.158.193.167 deleted almost all of the article, reducing it to a stub. This was being bold, but it doesn't seem such a very bad article, and this doesn't do much to encourage new editors to improve their articles. This has been coupled with accusations of heavy handed administration (though the administrator is not the one who deleted all the contents). (See also Talk:Stained glass).

So, I'm going to be just as bold (but a little less anonymous) and restore the entire deleted text. Doubtless I have introduced repetitions and so forth, but I'd like to encourage the original contributors to improve the article, to add sources and so forth. Most of the article seems to be things that can readily be verified, and as such even though they are positive they seem eligible to stay. If anyone can find criticism of this chap, it belongs too. Now, let's be civil, and let's try to turn this into an article to be proud of, rather than a battleground.

I would strongly recommend that anyone who feels the need to revert changes instead go to this talk page and try to achieve consensus, assuming good faith on everyone's part. No doubt it will take a little while for the original editor(s) to regain their confidence in the system, so be nice, and have a little patience. Notinasnaid 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)