Talk:Liz Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


[edit] Link to photos & video of Bodywork project

This site has photos and video of Cohen's Bodywork project which aren't available elsewhere on the web. I feel that this provides additional useful information about the project for which the subject is most notable. The site is accessible to the reader , relevant to the content of the article, likely to remain a functional link and the information can't be added to the Wikipedia article directly due to copyright issues, therefore it should be in the External links section. I have no conflict of interest here, I'm not affiliated with the site in any way. I have considered this link on its merits, using the External links guidelines. While I am going to re-add this link because I don't doubt the appropriateness of it, I am explaining my reasoning on the article talkpage to solicit comments from other editors. --Versageek 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning works IMO. ViridaeTalk 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • has photos and video of Cohen's Bodywork project which aren't available elsewhere on the web. Really? To some other Wiki? Unlike, say:
  • here,
  • here,
  • here,
  • here, or
  • here?
Yep, really hard to find. Including that video, which is, you know, the same YouTube video I linked above.
It's spam, on behalf of a long-banned spammer. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The artnet.com site is nice. While it doesn't have all of the still images, it has most of them. It also has a good narrative.. I suppose that it & the direct youtube.com link would provide roughly the same content as the one link to mywikibiz.com.. but then it's six of one, half dozen of another. --Versageek 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (p.s. The only person I post on behalf of is myself, I got involved here while reviewing reverts performed by my bot.)
The audio interview with Don Barsellotti is republished on MyWikiBiz with permission, the photos are used with express written permission from Liz Cohen, and the YouTube video embed is just a helpful bonus. Calton, you should watch what you're saying about MyWikiBiz. I've never known their operation to be a "spam" site. Have you ever received an unsolicited e-mail or phone call or direct mail from MyWikiBiz, asking you to visit their site? You seem to have a long history of doing "battle" with the site. Here you have TWO admins telling you to calm the fuck down, yet you just keep railing. So, MyWikiBiz has about 15 links from Wikipedia now. Yes, it's a commercial site; but at least in this case it's properly obtained all the needed permissions to make this Liz Cohen page a one-stop destination for people who want to learn more about Cohen -- per Cohen's own request! What about other commercial "spam" sites like Amazon and Wikia, with their tens of thousands of links from Wikipedia? Are you just too weak to try to do anything about that form of blatant spam, so you just go after the little guys? - Shelborne Concierge (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never known their operation to be a "spam" site. Hell yes, oh brand-new-userit's a spam site: note that User:MyWikiBiz was personally banned by Jimbo Wales hisownself on those grounds, and Kohser's various attempts to return to Wikipedia and spam his business get blocked tout d'suite. He's certainly easy enough to spot, what with brand-new users offering aggressive attacks, tortured logic, bizarre and inapt comparisons, and claimed personal testimonials -- you know, kind of like your posting above. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Jimbo Wales hisownself also unblocked MyWikiBiz. But you selectively tell half the story, a failure of WP:NPOV. Do you know why MyWikiBiz was re-blocked by Samuel Blanning? Could it be because Blanning was still holding a grudge for being made to look like a fool based on his own half-crazy AfD assertion that the second-largest coal mining company in America (a Fortune 700 firm) wasn't worth inclusion in Wikipedia? It looks like you're outnumbered here, anyway, Calton. Thank heavens for consensus. -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with linking to the page in this article. It's important to distinguish between the relevance of some page to an article and the on-wiki reputation of the page's author. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good resource and a valid link to me. I don't see the problem. Tyrenius (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is a not brand-new user, and I just restored the link, since it helps Wikipedia readers (that's who we're here for, right?), and since 4 admins think it should stay as a resource versus only 1 non-admin who thinks it should go (and who has a history of contentious editing and tone). -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't make editorial decisions on the basis of users' block logs, and ad hominem arguments are best avoided. Calton has done a lot of work for the project (I gave him a barnstar) and I'm sure has the best interests of the project in mind. He has an argument that needs to be considered. It has been and, on this occasion, consensus seems to be otherwise with five users who consider this is a valid link per WP:EL, four of the users being admins, which doesn't give them editorial prerogative, but it does indicate they are experienced and should be well acquainted with policies. Tyrenius (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
  1. Yes, keep the link. No-brainer.
  2. Greg (Shelborne Concierge?), stop picking fights and trolling. See the note I left one of your other personnas. Your rude comments above were way out of line and unworthy of you.
  3. Calton, I recommend you just leave Greg Kohs, MyWikiBiz and MyWikiBiz links alone. If MyWikiBiz links are being spammed, that's one thing. If established editors are adding them, that's totally different. An important goal of our spam mitigation effort is to clean stuff up as unobtrusively as we can without ruffling the feathers of our regular editors. If MyWikiBiz develops good content, then our regular editors will want to add links to it over time and we should let them.
  4. As I've said before, I think it best if Wikipedia goes its way and MyWikiBiz goes its way. None of us need these little dustups.
--A. B. (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)