User talk:Jfksfoatx

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Garry Gross, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Tacyarg (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your TLC. Are you familiar with Gary Gross and the Brooke Shields controversy? If you are just using Wikipedia to cross reference this, it's incorrect and a lot needs to be done to verify it.
Gary Gross is not Richard Prince, and other than to sell him the copyright to the Brooke Shields photograph in 1987, Gross is not a collaborator and what he did was wrong by all moral standards and illegal by contemporary standards: the photograph published of shields when she was ten goes against present-day revenge porn legislation.
Moreover, Gary Gross rose to prominence as a celebrity and animal photographer, not a contemporary artist. His "contribution" to art history is not verified anywhere in the canon. It seemed like something added to his page to flush out content, but should not be what he is remembered for or that anyone should be remembered for.
A section should be added saying simply that Richard Prince purchased the rights to Gross's photograph of Shields in 1987. That's the only event of any relevance. The rest has been sourced from tabloid-style journals and headlines older than I am. Nearly every reference describing this event comes from a tabloid. It doesn't do justice to any of the people involved. Jfksfoatx (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 2025

[edit]

Nota bene* Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Rhonda Roland Shearer, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page, seen here in this diff: Please do not edit this page if you do not have literacy in art and methods of contemporary art, or revert, this includes all from b4.

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create and/or significantly expand, and you need to respect the work of fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Jfksfoatx (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I am actively owning it. That's a metaphor. This page only harmlessly doesn't belong to me .

alas nobody has "owned" this page since 2008 due to the hardness of art historical method when applied here. Most artist's wikipedia pages present exhibition histories or activities otherwise promotional. Shearer is representing an art historical discovery, not an artistic achievement, using the work of more than one artist, some of whom are dead, through late career work. If you don't understand this, explain it to someone on the talk page.

This isn't to take for granted the experience or seniority of Wikipedia editors. Were editors not competent, this page would not have stayed in such a slump state for so long and also survived. For years it was unable to be improved, stuff was consistently flagged for removal, at the end of each attempt to triage, you guys voted to keep.

Doubtless the editor who removed the word "appropriation" from Richard Prince's page, on the grounds it was too loaded a term for something like stealing, was as competent as the next contributor to talk about what medium this artist works in. (Hint: starts with an "A") So often in art words mean something different. That doesn't mean less accurate or less factual.

At the risk of coming off as subordinate, let me explain: automatically generated content is often scraped from Wikipedia. This information then gets used by other agents. Over the past ~3 years, mainly since AI creates content, verifying primary source information on art and artworks has been met with more difficulty because art is an oral tradition except for when its an object. Incorrect or false information doesn't just suck for the humans that have to be respresented this way, it sucks for the whole system. My request wasn't that people not contribute, just please don't touch the work on display. It belongs to the public.

So in the future, please do not leave comments like that again in the edit summary field, as I wasn't looking for an excuse why you left that inappropriate comment, but rather an acknowledgement that you will strive to not do it again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)
Thank you for your attention! Is there a way to classify pages as 'sensitive' to re-edits without being a totalitarian about it? Xo
I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to the question you ask.
On the Talk page of Rhonda Roland Shearer, you say the person who this page is about is annoyed that many of the references on her wikipedia page are fake after I published .... Do you know, work for or represent Rhonda Roland Shearer? You used "we" on the Talk page - is there more than one person using your account, or do you represent a group of people? Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't represent anybody, I'm referring to multiple editors who have contributed to this page Jfksfoatx (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Jfksfoatx. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Rhonda Roland Shearer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you guys upholding policy, but I'm an open-source contributor (this is not the kind of writing I get paid for) who was asked by the person the page is about to try to get the page to represent her, as opposed to whatever it was before, which was not a representation of this subject.
This page has had issues for over a decade. I'm so glad you guys are putting attn on it now. There is not a commercial org represented on this page save for Ample financial which is a public benefit corp-- so I'm not sure what advertising, publicizing, or promoting for a profit other than a comprehensive overview with references that are high-profile enough to make any publicity motivation on wikipedia laughable considering the effort that's been taken to compile it.
The incomplete or misrepresented info is causing problems for scholarship in art history and contemporary art. Jfksfoatx (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rhonda Roland Shearer (July 16)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Rhonda Roland Shearer instead.
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 after they have been resolved.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jfksfoatx! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Spiritual America (Art gallery)

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Jfksfoatx. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spiritual America (Art gallery), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]