Talk:Millard Sheets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Millard Sheets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620035926/http://www.saalm.org/wildflower.html to http://www.saalm.org/wildflower.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219011723/http://www.saalm.org/sheets.html to http://www.saalm.org/sheets.html
*Added  tag to http://tlcfairplex.com/art/index
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926030407/http://tlcfairplex.com/ to http://tlcfairplex.com/
*Added  tag to http://oralhistory.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198%2Fzz000905qb&title=%20Los%20Angeles%20Art%20Community%20-%20Group%20Portrait
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310204251/http://californiawatercolor.com/customer/home.php?cat=253&type=original&artist_type=original%2F to http://californiawatercolor.com/customer/home.php?cat=253&type=original&artist_type=original%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've opened this section to request that User:JoooJay provide justification for "tagging" these citations and links as "better source needed."  What exactly is meant by "better source" than the referenced archive organization?  No argument or justification is presented by Jooojay, and stating merely "weird-ness" is NOT valid, it's just a cover for the absence of a WP-based defense.  Absent such, these tags should be reverted.TashaB (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The cites used are all sourced from one website, "Public Art in Public Places". The user Shabehr/TashaB has a COI notice that went unanswered on their talk page. Also of issue are WP:EL#ADV, WP:SPAM. The website in question appears to be created by only a few people, it's not mentioned anywhere on the internet. Recently there has been a campaign to add spam links to Wikipedia as whole. Nobody tagged anything for "weirdness", it comes down to a COI, spam links, and not a RS and all of these links need to be replaced with better sources. Calling someone out with a threat and their username the way you have on this talk page and my personal talk page, fails WP:PERSONAL. Jooojay (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The above claim is questionable.  What is meant by stating that an online public archive "appears to be created by only a few people"? Where is the support for this claim, or is it just your opinion?  And further, it's off-topic - such has nothing to do with RS criteria.  If I'm wrong here, state your case.  And I believe the Public Art in Public Places organization is mentioned on the web - I've read it is a Google Cultural Institute partner and Google Arts & Culture hosts its online exhibits (everyone knows this).  So again, be specific - "better" source??  You still do not address the reliability of THIS source.  Why are you avoiding doing so? TashaB (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing here is personal - a great starting place for reviewing the points of the discussion are here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places. Jooojay (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The use of "Public Art in Public Places" seems a bit dubious here, as the source is run by one or two people, and it has been linkspammed quite a bit of late on Wikipedia. It may be accurate but there are also signs that it is being pushed in a non-neutral way. I think we would do well to replace the "Public Art in Public Places" with something that we are more certain is independently produced. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the references for those Millard Sheets public artworks that I originally contributed, until there's better consensus.  I don't think it'd be fair to leave the references there without greater support. TashaB (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with "Public Art in Public Places" citations 

message: I think the Sheets mosaics on the Rainbow Tower at Hilton Hawaiian Village should be mentioned. I believe they are in the Guinness Book of World Records as being the two largest murals in the world. 2603:800C:1100:179:5CF0:71FA:41E2:5EFF (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!, I've added the the Rainbow murals under "Other notable work". --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Tower mosaics at Waikiki