Talk:Jon Coffelt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I asked the editor who wrote this to establish notability since the previous versions came off as vanity. Looks like he came through. Dude is legit. Formatting this will take more time than I have tonight, so if anyone wants to take a whack, go for it. It be midnight here, mateys.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added back the info about Absolut since this is one of the reasons he has gained notoriety and this is in no way an advert for Absolut. Think people its just another place his work was seen. These right wingers Geez!!!

OK, that seems reasonable. I tried to be pretty selective in what I cleaned up, and I have nothing against Absolut itself, in fact right now I own two bottles, one nearly gone and one waiting. Sometimes these product-placement guys and spammers can angry up the blood, the balls they have. Maybe I'm more susceptable to being annoyed because I'm new here and the bloom hasn't worn off. I'll let the "right-winger" comment go by because on a few subjects you might be right, but wrong on lots of others. Regards. --CliffC 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links that add nothing[edit]

I've removed the following links, which seem to say little or nothing about Coffelt:

I've removed the following links, which are dead:

Hoary (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to non-existent other-language articles[edit]

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Coffelt&diff=172453813&oldid=172453412 this pair of edits, I removed links to eight non-existent articles on Coffelt. (I wonder if the links were to fictional pages, or to pages that have been deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These pages were most likely blog pages that change quite regularly or older pages that are reset by galleries either way they worked at one point or they wouldn't have made the cut I suppose. The key would be to find articles that have set pages. Artintegrated (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were to non-existent articles in other-language versions of Wikipedia. And now that I take the trouble to look, I find that they were added by you, Artintegrated, in this edit. Did the articles exist then? -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"many prestigious public and private collections"[edit]

The article now tells us that:

Coffelt is included in many prestigious public and private collections including American Express, ASCAP, Birmingham International Airport, Birmingham Museum of Art, Capitol Records, Lord International US Headquarters, Mercedes Corp, Parisian, Progressive Insurance, Saks Fifth Avenue, Time Warner/Southern Living]], among many others.

In this recent edit, one editor slapped "{{Unreferencedsection}}" on it, with the edit comment EVIDENCE that his stuff is in each of these collections, please.

A few hours later, a second editor removed this tag in this edit, with the comment same reasoning, presumably referring back to his or her immediately preceding comment: Artists simply cannot possibly prove every single collector without an articlbut you it is listed in a CV and Bio then you can take their work for it or personally contact the collectors

I find this only hazily comprehensible but it seems to be a complaint about the unreasonableness of expecting artists to prove that their works are in collections, and it's certainly a claim that one should believe what an artist claims about him or herself.

I reject both. I don't expect the artist to prove anything. (Indeed, I expect him to keep clear of his own article, other than to correct mistakes or remove nonsense.) Where's the disinterested evidence? While you can't provide this independent evidence but expect that you'll be able to do so, you leave the tag where it is. When you've given up expecting that evidence will be produced, you remove the claim. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding cites as I find them since the article is a shambles now. Artintegrated (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment from a linkedin.com page[edit]

This page has been offered as a source. However, it's clearly a CV and work-wanted page created by Coffelt himself, so it's hardly a source for facts about Coffelt (though it certainly is one for claims made by Coffelt).

Still, it's interesting in at least one way. Here's a small sample:

I organize and curate the Book Arts Program for SDCA (Seaport District Cultural Council) to be exhibited here in Manhattan at SPACE a SDCA concern as well as travelling these Book Arts Exhibitions across the country to other interested venues.

The prose is a bit tortured, and in a way that seems eerily familiar. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book artist?[edit]

I removed "Category:Book artists" no evidence was presented that he was a book artist. Now the category's back, with as evidence a single photo, sans comment, in a single web page. Is this all? -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost three years later, and he's still in this category, though we read nothing about any book by him. -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing -- April 2010[edit]

I've removed a great deal of content that's either unsourced or poorly sourced. Please source future edits to significant coverage ine in publications meeting WP:RS, not other Wikipedia articles, unsubstantiated associations with other artists or non-notable organizations. Flowanda | Talk 05:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 -- Edits, sourcing and notability[edit]

I question edits made by at least two editors -- User:OneMarkus and User:Artintegrated -- to this and other articles about artists and organizations of questionable notability. As edits I have made related to WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N and other Wikipedia policy and guidelines have been reverted, I have started discussions here and on other related talk pages to discuss the future edits and existence of these articles. Flowanda | Talk 05:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 edits[edit]

I am again removing a great deal of unsourced or poorly sourced content per WP:BLP that needs to be adequately sourced or discussed here before readding or reverting. Flowanda | Talk 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But are you perhaps getting a little bit carried away? Consider the edit of yours that happens to be the latest as I start to write this; your summary is removed dead link -- website does not meet WP:RS anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the link looks as if it might be worthwhile (if it only existed). So then you go to the Wayback Machine and look for it. And yes, here it is. (If the Wayback Machine is temporarily indisposed, as it often is, you wait till it recovers.)
Does a dead link look as if it's worth chasing up, or doesn't it? Well, what's the claim here? As I understand it, it's that Coffelt paints, sculpts, sews, makes book arts [sic]. The source, for what it's worth does confirm the last part. This is a gallery that doesn't seem to be run by Coffelt claiming to be exhibiting his "book art". So this could be reordered: Coffelt creates book art,[insert reference here] paints, sculpts, and sews.[citation needed]. What would be wrong with this?
Well, plenty could be wrong with it, if it were not all that different. For example, if the gallery claimed that the exhibition had already taken place, that thousands of people had come and that his books had been sold for 10,000 a pop, then I'd want a better source. But for a simple claim that gallery X had exhibited (or had been about to exhibit) object Y, the word of gallery X seems adequate to me.
A skim reading of this page will show that I have been highly sceptical of plenty of the claims in this article in the past. But baby with bathwater and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is going to stick until the COI and ownership issues are dealt with. Ninety percent of this article is non-notable, along with 90 percent of the non-notable people it references, and the 90 percent of the non-notable articles created, edited and protected by the same pack of attack COI editors that has bullied and disparaged other editors for years. I think it's time for the abuse to stop so these articles can stand on their own. What say you? Flowanda | Talk 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that pair of diffs, Flowanda. They're delectable. Consider:

  "bullying" "disparagement"
Author Artintegrated OneMarkus
"Laundry list" metaphor "What you have done to many of these articles has been nothing more than to render them laundry lists with no nuance nor [sic] interest." "Flowanda all you do is create laundry list from the information you take away for the articles."
Telling non-art people to get lost "you should stick with editing things you know about. You dont know enough about art and/or the art world to edit here. I suggest strongly that you edit elsewhere where you may have a wee bit of knowledge." "they, like myself, and many others think you should maybe edit articles you know more about. Art is not among those articles. [...] Consider many others advice and stick with what you know."
Syllable omission "shanigans" "verbage"

And apparently you create (a?) laundry list (s?) from what you "take away for" (from?) the articles. Hmm. I find this prose style as baffling as I find that of the man himself. (Consider the following gem from here: Opportunity is imbued the viewer to continue this conversation of past, present, and on-going dialogs of aesthetic theory to a uniquely personal level. Uh, come again?)

Hoary (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Coffelt&oldid=1195433960"