Hello, Gladderz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!  Brendon ishere 09:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A tag has been placed on Patafunctions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NottNott talk|contrib 10:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment they left was:

To satisfy Books Notability, focus with adding any additional amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall and also visit WP:Referencing for beginners.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Patafunctions (book) 2015 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patafunctions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patafunctions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:COI. If you have a connection to the article subject at Shaun Gladwell or Patafunctions, which seems very likely from your edits and user name, you need to stop editing these pages. It is against policy, but probably more important for anyone in the giant ego-driven art business, it can lead inadvertently to very bad press. Just google "edits own Wikipedia page" to see what kind of adverse effects are possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and happy editing! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Storm Sequence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Sequence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard of some pages you have edited. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galdderz, you are clearly the aritcle subject, as evidence by, well, much evidence. Please stop editing your own page. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for your artistic ideas, and it takes time from valuable subjects to revert your self-serving edits. Happy editing! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HappyValleyEditor, Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically for Gladwell with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, and thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for a senior editor that could provide advice and help with NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio? Apologies for this distraction. Should i just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?

User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whitelely et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gladderz. (love your username, btw). Thanks for acknowledging your COI at COIN.

I would like to slow down a bit and understand the nature of your relationship just a bit more. You say that you are his "biographer." What does that mean exactly? And what are the financial relationships here? (I am not asking you to identify yourself, just to better define the relationships at play.) Once we figure that out, we can identify the nature of the COI and figure out, together, how to manage that in Wikipedia. Thanks very much for working with the community. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Firstly, I think it's clear I need to request a user name change in order to separate myself from one of my key subject matter, Gladwell. Beginning a project with a username that is clear (s)language of the subjects surname was not a clever move. Secondly, I am an academic that has for the past several years, researched Gladwell and currently write a biography on the artist. I'm not being paid by Gladwell or his gallery for this project. it is independent research, but I will eventually publish via a commercial imprint (early 2018). However, i have been given unrestricted access to Gladwells studio as per the description on my user page. My biographical 'methodology' is the book 'Acute Misfortune', Erik Jensen's biography on Australian Artist, Adam Cullen-A very thorough scanning of personal and professional material. However, i would like to point out that Jensen's biography was published by Black Ink, a subsidiary of Schwartz City. http://www.blackincbooks.com/books/acute-misfortune With research, one will find that the publisher, Morry Schwartz is the husband of Gladwell's Australian Art Dealer, Anna Schwartz. I am not under contract with Black Ink and will be publishing with an imprint without any economic interest in Gladwell and the Schwartz publishing empire. After 4 years of research, i now consider myself one of 4 or 5 experts on Gladwell's works but uncertain if this fact alone opens me to COI or WP:OWN is another matter. I'm writing a very balanced (often critical) view of Gladwell as per Jensen on Cullen. Gladderz (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a very clear and honest explanation. I'm not sure if you have COI, but I certainly appreciate your intentions and the way you explain them. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for that explanation, Gladderz. Complicated/tricky. You are definitely what we call an "expert" and we love having experts in Wikipedia who are willing to engage with the community and to learn the policies and guidelines that govern content, simply and without freaking out. And you are being awesome. In my view, with all that disclosed, I would say that you have no COI but, if I may, you need to be careful of the following things, which experts often fall prey to here:

• WP:OR - it can be tempting to write what you know, rather than what reliable sources say (here is a [{WP:CLUE|clueful, experienced]] expert editor talking about their process, to try to teach someone how to avoid OR when they edit in their area of expertise)
• WP:SELFCITE - it can be tempting to cite yourself a lot, which is COIish
• WP:UNDUE - experts can sometimes blow up content on the topic of their expertise beyond what is reasonable weight - please keep an eye on how other artists of Gladwell's stature in the field are treated in WP, and try to remain in line with that.
• WP:ADVOCACY - you have given a bunch of your life to studying Gladwell so you clearly think he is important enough. Please be self-aware of your stance there.

The key "check" on all that stuff is listening (really listening) to other folks when they object to edits on any of those grounds. Based on your even-keeled and dialogical approach so far, I trust you will do that. Oh, you may also want to read WP:EXPERT which is super useful.

Does that seem reasonable Gladderz? To you too, HappyValley? 02:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor Thank you for this information which I will now certainly work within. I have put in a request for a user name change to tazertooth and do hope I get this, in order to allow easier separation from the artist/subject. It's a very complex situation in that I perhaps have greater access to Gladwell's archive at the moment but am not the 'official' biographer. This guy is yet, they are not on wikipedia to my knowledge: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qq22gmblk0am3dk/0.0_GLADWELL_DOUBLE_WAR.pdf?dl=0. After more research into other artist biographies, I would hope the biography would neutralise by overall reduction and taking on more criticism as per Bill Henson and the 'controversy' section, or the Damien Hirst section 'critical responses to conceptual work.' As for WP:UNDUE Gladwell is clearly nowhere near as 'present' as Hirst, and does not warrant that much commentary however, Bill Henson is a much closer coordinate.

Additionally, I feel the whole 'Bowie portrait' section is WP:OR and could go.

Apologies again for the very bad editing (not logging them etc) and not researching WP guidelines from the outset and..unwittingly setting off every possible alarm-bell through my ignorance and stupidity. I will now process guidelines before any other action is taken. Gladderz (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may need one of these! best regards. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant , Thanks. My recent moves already appearing drunk I'm sure, but I do luv en tournants (Merci à mon iPhone pour les fautes de frappe) Gladderz (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gladderz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gladderz. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Patafunctions (book) 2015".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]