User talk:Rosensnamn
September 2016
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Fluxus, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 11:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
January 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Rosensnamn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edits for which I have been blocked were external links that I systematically added to Wikipedia entries on artists and composers in the Fluxus group. These external links are two sources of documentation on the work of the artists and composers in the group known as Fluxus. One is the Fluxus Performance Workbook, a collection of performance scores by several of the Fluxus artists. If you go to the deleted link, you'll find the underlying document. As you will see, in each case, the document represents the work of the linked artist. This was originally published in the peer-reviewed journal Performance Research, published by the academic publishing firm Taylor & Francis. The document is now available as a free, open access edition. The editors of the journal called on scholarly experts who examined and reviewed the contents of the document. The other document is a free digital edition of a scholarly reference book originally published by Wiley, a 200-year-old academic and professional publishing firm that is now part of the Wiley-Blackwell group. The book contains writings by art historians on the group and on individual artists. After the book was out of print, the only way to get this material was to buy used copies on Amazon at a high price. The editors retained the copyright and they have now made the book available in digital form. The book contains an extensive chronology and bibliography. If you go to the linked book, you can see the material for yourself, especially the information in the bibliography and chronology. These aren't commercial products. They make peer-reviewed and previously published scholarly information on the Fluxus artists available to Wikipedia readers. For this reason, I have been going through the list of artists systematically to add this information to the external links category. My previous edits were primarily improvements to an entry on Fluxus artist and composer Dick Higgins, clarifying the bibliography and text and adding material on his work by different scholars. Fluxus is a group. The two documents in the deleted external links cover many of the individual members of the group. This means that the same external sources will be valuable for many Wikipedia entries. If adding external links is inappropriate, your deletions should stand. If, on the other hand, adding these links is useful, I was planning to complete the entries. Please let me know. There is another request that I'd like to take up here. In checking the entries just now, I see that you have deleted all the external links -- if this explanation is reasonable, I'd appreciate it if you would revert the deletions. If you believe that the deletions should remain deleted, please explain and I will not repeat this kind of work. It takes a lot of time to shape repeated entries on members of a common group. I do that often when I teach, so if this is not welcome and useful, I will not do this in the future. There is a second set of edits that you also removed. You have apparently deleted everything I have added to Wikipedia in the past month. This includes carefully composed, individual edits to the entries on Fluxus artist Dick Higgins, Fluxus artist Ken Friedman, and composer Richard Maxfield, as well as individual links and small improvements to the texts on other artists affiliated with Fluxus. The major amount of work involved additions discussing Higgins's work and providing quotes and information on his work from recent articles in Artforum, Kirkus Reviews, Hyperallergic, and a discussion of Higgins's relation to the development of intermedia. These were specific, carefully written entries. I'd appreciate it if you would restore the individual entries, even if you find that the repeated external links violate Wikipedia policy. I hope that this explanation is reasonable and that you will remove the editing block. Thank you. Rosensnamn (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Rosensnamn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Mr. Ballioni, My apologies. In my earlier note, I stated that I would not repeat my edit action if you found it inappropriate after I explained my reasoning. I was simply explaining why I did it. I am a university lecturer with a PhD who has written articles for paper encyclopedias and books on new art, especially Fluxus, as well as for exhibition catalogs and academic journals. If every artist from a specific group whose biography appears in a reference book has been included in an important exhibition or catalog, that information may appear in each individual artist entry even though it is a repeated item in each individual biography. I now understand that this doesn’t meet Wikipedia rules. I was applying skills I learned in working on paper reference books. Your administrator page is generous and inspiring. Wikipedia document tell people to be bold in making edits, and the Wikipedia documentation asks that editors and administrators assume good intentions on the part of those who contribute. I made a bold attempt to apply the standards that would apply in a paper document. It takes hours of work to research and prepare edits to improve biographies. I felt sorry to see this work discarded with a universal revert striking all my work from Wikipedia. I am sorry that you did not read one of the actual entries for which I wrote a major contribution, for example, the Dick Higgins entry. It seems to me that the last version prior to your revert was an improvement over earlier versions. You seem to assume that my purpose is to be disruptive. Since there is apparently no way to demonstrate my good intentions, I will terminate my Wikipedia account. Wikipedia is a great project. I hope that other working art historians will find it easier to contribute than I did. RosensnamnRosensnamn (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- (Non-Administrator-Comment): The short statement by me: WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Why? I took a look at your contributions and your statement here. Furthermore, i've took a look again at Wikipedia:Spam. Yes, it is forbidden to excessive add external links to Wikipedia. I have a question for you: do you have any connection to "Fluxus"? If so, please review WP:COI and also WP:PAID. Furthermore, your request here shows me that you dont read WP:Spam before you wrote this, as it says there at the very beginning: "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. " Furthermore, I cant imagine what you would edit if you get unblocked, can you give an example? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)