Talk:Roy Nachum

Tag

I do not see reason now for the tag at the top of the page. It is all NPOV. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's getting better after my recent edits but your additions in particular are what I would call dubious promotional puffery. Please declare any connection you have to the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have zero connection to the subject, promotional or otherwise. Never met him. My additions were all referenced. And were mostly refs actually. And the text was not puffery - just bland facts - please point to what you have in mind. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

This large deletion is not appropriate. The material deleted related to his signature success -- he received a Grammy nomination for this work. Plus - it is heavily covered by RSs, as reflected. One editor's disparaging view of the importance of that does not override the significant RS coverage, and the Grammy nomination, which shows why it is appropriate to cover. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You;re puffing up the importance of the subject by excessively covering one item. The two sentences we have now are fine; it does not need a long quote, a detailed description and a lot of puffed up language. We are a summary of notable things, not a directory of every detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say I am excessively covering one item. Please point to my edit that did that. I think you are completely incorrect. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained it for you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No - you have most certainly not. I did not add an edit excessively covering one item.

That is completely false. Point to a diff that supports what you say. There is none. You are making that up. These are all my edits - and they do not do that in the least. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You are using multiple IPs. I'm not going to bother to argue wiht you, as you will be on to the next IP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My computer does that on its own - I do not ask it to. But I never edited this article before in my life, or saw it before in my life, or met him or anyone who told me they know him, or heard of him before in my life. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You just tagged the article for conflict of interest based on my edits? After the discussion above? After I said LOOK AT MY EDITS. Who in the world (even if you are calling me a liar) who has a conflict of interest would make the bland changes with supporting fns that I made? You are assuming bad faith, saying even after I answered your that I am a liar, and not even being logical. Why? 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy Vio

The article has material directly copy and pasted from the artist's website, specifically:

"One recurring subject is the child with a gold crown covering his eyes (The King, 2010), suggesting man’s blindness caused by displaced values and desire. In his Fire paintings (Fire, 2011), Nachum utilizes Braille text and ash; the works are executed with the participation of people who are blind, leaving fingerprints as documentation of human contact."

The WP:CV material should be removed or modified to adhere to article guidelines. I have fixed the issue in the lead, but there is still problematic content. Netherzone (talk)

Copyvio needs to be delted, would you like to tackle that? I always call on Diannaa in cases where I am not sure which came first. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I will take care of it. Netherzone (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not add that as you can see. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)