Talk:Peter Gric

message: Quote:
Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub; speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
The article has only just been created!!!!!!
And is referenced by and references several other articles.
:Withdrawing tag. Cheers. =) Berserkerz Crit 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You guys are quick to delete articles that you don't even have a clue about!!! I do know this topic, and it is Notable. I am researching a topic that you guys have no experience with, which is evident by your vigour to delete said topic.
I will provide Wikipedia with external verifiable sources. eg, books with ISBN, magazines, publications.
Book - Metamorphosis
Catalogue
Both of which have ISBNs. You'll have them.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Give me a bit of time please. Some of us have a life outside of Wikipedia you know.  ;-)
:We understand. But please also understand that there are a lot of new articles people create so we have to watch out for the authentic ones from spams and nonsense. This is authentic and fit for WP but it still lacks the assertion of notability in the lead sentence. Please encapsulate what he is most famous for in Czech in one to two sentences as the lead paragraph. ^_^ But I will be removing the tag now since it looks alright. Berserkerz Crit 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead looks great. Establishes notability right away. If you need any other help (getting acquainted with other WP policies or help on your other articles), I'm just a message away on my talk page. Berserkerz Crit 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Peter Gric article 

message: It has a mention in the publications, as Mr. Gric is a contributor. I believe that the external link to the project is commercial, but the anonymous contributor who added it disagrees. Doesn't the site exist primarily to sell one book? JeffJonez (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This same anonymous user -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.114.145.127 -- has removed the review link I've added twice now. Without third party intervention, the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, right? JeffJonez (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  commercial link removed one more time, citing WP:EL, in one last ditch attempt to avoid an escalation.JeffJonez (talk)
Hello Jeff.  You have done a good job trying to bring the discussion to the talk page.  Please continue working the dispute here instead of on the article.  To summarize, we're talking about angeexquis.com (described as a "collective project that Gric participates in") and if it's appropriate for this article.  I've invited 84.114.145.127 to discuss the relevancy.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Any thoughts?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have looked over the link in question.  Does anybody think the ange link should directly link to Gric's sub-page?  The sub-page is here:  http://www.angeexquis.com/english/artists/gric.html .  Jeff?  Would that be an acceptable compromise?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very small biography with a few thumbnails. Does it really add to an understanding of the artists or his works? I'm open to alternate opinions, but in my judgment the link adds nothing. JeffJonez (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Leo_Plaw It has relevance as it shows the associations of the artists in this movement. If you want clarification, this point expanded upon in the article, this can be done. Please consider the comment of JeffJonez "I believe that the external link to the project is commercial... Doesn't the site exist primarily to sell one book?", if one actually investigates the site, one will see it is about the overall project, the artists, the exhibitions and finally the catalog. The site exists for the project, not the book. I would further suggest that that you also take a look over the history of the article and you will see that JeffJonez has on several occassions attempted to add a link a site that he owns. So who's out for promoting their own ends then?  —Preceding comment was added at 10:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Lucid Skin review is no longer online, at request of Mr. Gric, so that's no longer an issue, is it? I haven't directly addressed your obvious wp:coi troubles with this article, or your Visionary_art-area edits in general, since there is some benefit to your contribution to the Wikipedia project. Nonetheless, I don't believe you made a coherent argument addressing the commercial status of the Strange Angel link. - JeffJonez (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  There's been no actual defense for keeping this link. Only a kind request of compromise, and an ad hominem attack on my ability to evaluate the link. Without at least a half-hearted attempt to explain how a website about a collaborative commercial work with sparse, non-unique bios deserves an external link -- in seemingly clear violation of wp:el -- the edit war seems likely to return. - JeffJonez (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reasoning for it to be removed is very weak. It is a very common practice of any website today to sell something, and if that were the criteria for removal then wikipedia would lose half of its outgoing links. The said item for sale on the site, is a catalog of the exhibition concept and project, for which the website exists. It also goes on to list the participating artists, their contributions and where the exhibition can be seen. I will be most happy to bring an arbitrator in on this.User:Leo_Plaw 26 February 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Être Ange, Étrange

message: Claims of influences, stylistic similarities and education should be sourced, which I why I removed several unsourced elements last month. They were replaced without comment, or -- more importantly -- proper sourcing. I'll remove them again, pending documentation. - JeffJonez (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Details 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Gric. 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/20100810215958/http://leoplaw.com:80/2008/06/14/peter-gric-catalogue/ to http://leoplaw.com/2008/06/14/peter-gric-catalogue/#.UvYmqfl5OSo
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 19:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified