Talk:Gina Bold

message: Gina knew Thomson but she never agreed with Stuckism.  Thomson said she didn't have to believe in the group to hang paintings in the gallery. To read more about her early life visit www.ginabold.com
I doubt that Hamond has ever met or spoken to Gina Bold. She was already 43 at the time she met Thomson and had been doing creative work including painting well before she met him.
The comments written about Gina by Thomson are not factual.  There doesn't seem to be any 3rd party information as Thomson was consulted for those publications.  
The only time she has given comments on her art are 'The Camden New Journal' interview and the 'Born to be Bold' press release.
Ann Bukantas from the Walker Gallery agreed that Gina Bold was not a Stuckist which is why she withdrew her work from the gallery.  It would be unfair for an artists sold work to be in a show promoting an art group without the artists consent.  
Look back on past Stuckist shows. Gina was only ever listed as a guest artist. 
She was never a member of the group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.113.193 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay now we are making progress. I don't see why the article shouldn't mention what you just wrote. A few lines stating that although her work was displayed at Stuckist shows she was only listed as a guest artist and does not self-identify as Stuckist. That would clear up the confusion and ensure that the article is in line with policy on neutral point of view. When she rarely comments on her work and she is listed as a participant in past Stuckist shows we need to explain what is going on. Simply removing that information is not okay. Basically what I'm asking for here is a paragraph that explains what you just wrote above. It puts her connection with the Stuckists into perspective and informs the reader about what is going on. Without it the reader is left to speculate about this rather than be informed. Such a paragraph would be a valuable addition to the article. I'm sensitive to the BLP concerns regarding sourcing but this needs to be explained in the article. From a policy point of view I'm actually far more concerned about the undue emphasis on her personal issues. I don't think the article should put so much emphasis on that. Though it may be important to understanding her career and work I think there is too much emphasis on it in the current version of the article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that sound advice. Unexplained removals, or edit warring will only lead to the article being protected. There must be a form of words that is acceptable and verifiable without constant revision. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's Right...Gina Bold was never a stuckist 

message: Is Keithmb no longer the authorised representative for Gina Bold as stated on Keithmb's discussion page as arranged with JZG? Is 62.56.113.193 now speaking for Gina Bold? 62.56.113.193 is making claims without providing any evidence for them. 62.56.113.193 is removing the same material that Keithmb removedand which was replaced by EconomicsGuy. In fact there are several numbered addresses doing this:
62.56.100.222
62.56.113.193
62.56.58.172
62.56.119.30
62.56.119.30 altered the article on 18th of March with a statement with defaming implications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Bold&diff=prev&oldid=199013888 
Now 62.56.100.222 has made an even more libellous statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuckism&diff=next&oldid=210675652 That's not the story I heard, but I'd better not repeat it here. 
These two posts have been changed, but I still found them very easily, mainly because on the history page it's got a header. These things need to be deleted from public access completely. I've tried but it can't seem to be done. Someone must have access to the underlying data.
This user is disrupting every article they come across and using wikipedia to make libellous attacks. Can they be stopped from doing this? 
No, I'm not saying who I am. I have no intention of having these kind of attacks directed at me, thank you very much.  But I do know that Gina Bold showed in a lot of Stuckist shows and took part in Stuckist demonstrations, as well as telling other people in the group how the Stuckists should be promoted. Funny guest then.
Actually I can't find where the article ever said she was a stuckist. It said she was in Stuckist shows and demonstrations. 
Hamond
:You could put these forward at :WP:CU; they are all registered to Demon Internet, so someone's ISP. If necessary this can be reported as abuse to Demon and the individual identified. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel edits 

message: Stop reverting each other. Further revert warring will be met with full page protection and blocks of gradually increasing durations. Please read WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS and concentrate on drafting a new sourced section about her relationship with the Stuckists. Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only reiterate this, a particularly dim view is taken where the article flip-flops between two versions - and always ends in protection. The talk page is for resolving these issues. A start was made (above) at saying Bold appeared in exhibitions as a contributing guest of the stuckists, rather than a full blown associate. Can this be worked into consensus for a draft statement with verifiable sources? Kbthompson (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop revert warring