Talk:Sarah Morris

message: There may be an excessive number of illustrations of similar subject matter used in this article. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Placement. There may be a case to produce a separate gallery.--Artiquities  (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner#Artworks for an example of a gallery. Ty 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As this article stands, there is "sandwiching" of images (two images directly opposite) and this is something that is specifically discouraged in MOS--see: WP:IMAGES--hence, it would make sense that some work is done on the use of images in this article.--Artiquities  (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe i've fixed Accotink2 talk 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it stands this article has got too many illustrations--one per section is a typical on WP. Try creating gallery as Keith Coventry.--Artiquities  (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of illustrations included in article

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:1932 Rings.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Endeavor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Red Owl .jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Vogue Kate Moss Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:Sarah Morris SM Initials.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sarah Morris SM Initials.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sarah Morris SM Initials.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:Sarah Morris Install Yourself.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sarah Morris Install Yourself.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sarah Morris Install Yourself.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: (moved here from my talk page)
I did revert a bit on the films - if we removed everything where a link died then most of Wikipedia would have to go, links die every day. One has to AGF that when the data was added then it was correct (of course if it was very controversial or negative then maybe a different approach would be needed - by consensus of course). Wikipedia:Link rot says quite clearly -   Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (Oops, moved this here from my talk, but forgot to reply). Yes, , you are right of course. However, I suggest that good faith has its limits, and that with an article with such an extended history of WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO as this one, it is also important to ensure that any- and everything in the article is supported by a reliable reference. I've recovered the "dead" link (it was actually malformed, not dead). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The poor article has been through the wringer! Someone complained at OTRS that a valid ref was removed, and your only comment was "rm 1 dead ref not recoverable via archive.org", hence the revert. C'ést la vie.   Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I didn't know we submitted to external pressure of that sort, , and find that I am sort of disappointed to find that we do. Anyway, if you are in contact with that someone, would you kindly ask if he/she has ever edited this article; and if so, under which of the many WP:SPA usernames with obvious COI that have edited here, including the latest one (assuming in momentary good faith, that is, that there is in fact more than one editor behind them all)? Do you find it at all curious that two editors obsessed with this person found their way here via Getting started suggestions, when Getting started apparently specifically removes BLPs from its suggestions, and there's no  tag on this article? Do you think an SPI would get anywhere? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We only listen to what they have to say, and see if they have any genuine cause for concern - we rarely do what they ask, we just (try to) point them in the right direction - we don't add content for them (although there are plenty who want that!). In this case I know who they are and I can't say - that's OTRS privacy for you - but I don't know their username or IP of if they have ever edited as they didn't say. SPI might work, as they are fairly new accounts it might not be worth while - you might not see them again.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I agree with what you say, but may try it nevertheless, even though the earlier SPAs will surely be declared to be stale. Oh, and of course privacy has to be respected; my suggestion to the contrary above should be treated with the scorn it deserves. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: Given the long history of WP:COI editing in this article, and the possibility that recent edits are a continuation thereof, I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sarah Morris. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest editing

message: Morris is known for her abstract paintings that feature bright color fields and graphic line work. Her paintings often reference elements of architecture and take titles from bureaucratic institutions.http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=22999 
: Great source, good paraphrasing, but just had one category for "Work" since both of these sections are small.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintings 

message: Morris makes films that focus on particular cities or individuals. Films like Midtown, Chicago, and Rio depict urban scenes, focusing on the architecture, politics, industry and leisure.http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/interview-sarah-morris/ Other films describe a place through the viewpoint of an individual, like psychologist Dr. George Sieber describing the terrorist event at the Olympic Stadium in Munich in the film 1972.http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/sarah_morris2/
:Also --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films 

message: Her films include:IMDB, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1637813/
* Midtown (1998)
* AM/PM (1999)
* Capital (2000)
* Miami (2002)
* Los Angeles (2004)
* Robert Towne (2006)
* 1972 (2008)
* Beijing (2008)
* Points on a Line (2010)
* Chicago (2011)
* Rio (2012)
* Strange Magic (2014)
:I know that IMDB is a somewhat dubious source, but a list of films would be useful for people who would like do further research. If there is a better way to cite these films, or if it's not deemed encyclopedic, I'd be happy to talk about it.
::Have you check out any of these news sources that are a search on her name and film OR films?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: In 2011 Morris was sued by a group of six origami artists, including Robert J. Lang. They alleged that in 24 works in her "Origami" series of paintings Morris had copied their original crease patterns, colored them, and sold them without permission. Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings, but felt that the changes in scale, context and meaning was great enough to constitute fair use.http://observer.com/2013/05/beneath-the-fold-the-twisted-tale-of-origami-v-sarah-morris/ The case was settled out of court early in 2013; under the settlement, the creators of the crease patterns are to be cited when the works are displayed.http://www.langorigami.com/copyright/sarah_morris_attributions.php
:Two edits to the Controversy section to improve accuracy and NPOV. The first is to express Morris' legal position in the lawsuit and the second is to change the language "given credit" to "cited" for clarity. The settlement was to not to share the authorship of the paintings, but to include "Based on the origami crease pattern of..." at the bottom of the label when certain paintings are exhibited. For that reason, I think "cited" is a more accurate and appropriate language. Proposed edits are in italics.
::Comments were attributed to Morris that I didn't see in the article. I modified the content based upon the information from the source to: "Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings. Julie A. Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and the rest of her legal team "struggled to pin down the aesthetic value of the CPs" (crease patterns) from a copyright and fair use perspective.http://observer.com/2013/05/beneath-the-fold-the-twisted-tale-of-origami-v-sarah-morris/" Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've noted above where I've inserted the requested content, modified the controversy text for your review, and asked for better sources / summary above. Let me know your thoughts and if you're able to find additional sources. Thanks so much for submitting the request.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , If you can find secondary sources for the films, I would be happy to add them, just add another  for that part. In the meantime, if you'd like some changes made to the rewritten bits, I would be happy to help out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much for your help! I will work on getting more sources and will add another request edit when I have everything ready! Parallaxstudio (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, !--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: :Proposed addition of a Filmography section.  are these sources ok for the films? Let me know if they work. Thanks!
==== Filmography ====
* Midtown (1998)
* AM/PM (1999)
* Capital (2000)
* Miami (2002)
* Los Angeles (2004)
* Robert Towne (2006)
* 1972 (2008)
* Beijing (2008)
* Points on a Line (2010)
* Chicago (2011)
* Rio (2012)
* Strange Magic (2014)
Parallaxstudio (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 18 April 2015 

message: * Midtown (1998)
* AM/PM (1999)
* Capital (2000)
* Miami (2002)
* Los Angeles (2004)
* Robert Towne (2006)
* 1972 (2008)
* Beijing (2008)
* Points on a Line (2010)
* Chicago (2011)
* Rio (2012)
* Strange Magic (2014)
Parallaxstudio (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: I would like to request that an edit to the controversy section made on April 20th 2015 by  be reverted to its previous state. The removed text was:
:Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings. Julie A. Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and the rest of her legal team "struggled to pin down the aesthetic value of the CPs" (crease patterns) from a copyright and fair use perspective.
The edit causes a problem with WP:NPOV because it gives voice to the people making the allegations in the lawsuit, but does not give voice to the defensive argument. The case never went to trial, and therefore there was never a judicial ruling that would give credibility to the allegations. Therefore to maintain neutrality, both sides of the argument should be represented in the article.
, I see that this aspect of this article is important to you, and I'd be happy to work with you to make improvements and hash out any perceived biases. Let me know your concerns and I will do my best to address them.
Parallaxstudio (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Obviously both sides of the dispute need to be represented. I have restored the text. CorporateM (Talk) 07:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit to Controversy on 28 April 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sarah Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429221040/http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf to http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sarah Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429221040/http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf to http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, 
I am a graduate student in art history and this is the first page that I have edited on Wikipedia, so bare with me as I do not know all of the ins and outs of Wiki protocol! Over the past few months I have attempted to update and expand the page for Sarah Morris, as I believe many of the stats on it are out of date, and the description of her background and artwork needs expansion. After a few initial bumps in the road re: sourcing, I eventually got a handle on the protocol for proper citations in Wikipedia. Since then, I have provided edits to the page that I believe offer a more vivid understanding of the artist, and most importantly, make the page more accurate. I carefully considered the sources that I used to ensure that they were reputable, and I only included information that could be directly cited. In some cases, my edits were purely to update lists that were incomplete, such as the list of the artist's films, her exhibition history, and institutions that hold her work in their permanent collections. With these edits in particular, I think it is irrefutable that they are anything but objective, factual updates. I also attempted to provide more detail pertaining to the artist's style of work, and her background as an artist.
To my great disappointment, the entirety of my edits were deleted by Justlettersandnumbers. This user made a baseless claim that I had a conflict of interest with the subject of the page, which I have reiterated is not true. I find this confounding and frustrating, particularly in that my intention with these edits was to make the page more accurate, rather than boost the reputation or legacy of the artist. In their blanket deletion of all of my edits, I feel that Justlettersandnumbers has blocked content that I believe improves the article's veracity. Their treatment of my edits and their demeanor towards me feels counterproductive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission. I would really appreciate someone's help with this matter, as my intention is only to enhance this page with no ulterior motive. I have spent a lot of time researching Sarah Morris in my graduate program, and I used the sources and knowledge that I accumulated in that process towards the realization of my edits to this page. Perhaps I am still not fully aware of the intricacies of Wikipedia's policies and so I at least ask for engagement and  feedback that is useful and productive.
Fetterw (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone Justlettersandnumbers's revert. Rather than reverting the entirety the contributions to a page, editors should address individual concerns on a point-by-point basis and ideally edit the page in question to make improvements rather than simply reverting the entirety of the changes whole-cloth. See WP:ROWN and WP:DONTREVERT. Much of the material reverted by Justlettersandnumbers was seemingly non-controversial and apparently well-cited, including a lengthy Filmography section. Paco8191 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions pertaining to complete deletion of edits I made to page "Sarah Morris"  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Propose improving section Further reading by adding links to sources when they are available. This will assist readers finding the sources:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Please comment. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Background: This change was made on the main article, then reverted with this edit  - DutchTreat (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sort order in the Futher reading section should be reviewed. The top half is almost chronological. The complete list should be sorted either by date or by level of importance. I would also like to replace cited works with  templates which provides a consistent format. Any concerns about these changes? - DutchTreat (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in ''Further reading''