User talk:Peripatech

Hello, I'm ERcheck. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Julia Kaganskiy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. Often such edits are reverted.I However, I edited the page and added a a citation Please make sure that your future edits have a reliable source included. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing thanks! Peripatech (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Eyebeam (organization), without citing a reliable source. In this case, your edit was reverted.Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. If you would like to restore the edit, you can do so, while including a citation. You can check the changes in Julia Kaganskiy for an example. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Psychogeography, you may be blocked from editing. You added unsourced content to Psychogeography in front of sourced content without adding a citation. The existing source did not mention locative media art at all. Please be more careful in the future not to simply plunk content into a paragraph; you need to add a citation for new content. Netherzone (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but there are a ton of citations on the locative media art page talking about psychogeography. I am not just plunking down content, I have been heavily researching this for an assignment. I have been fixing preexisting citation issues as I go. The Eyebeam edit was my first edit, which clued me in. I've added a citation to Psychogeography and will re-check everything else. Peripatech (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Peripatech - Thanks for adding citations. I looked at your most recent one and made a few modifications - updated the year (it was not on the page that was linked, but the year was on the author's CV). Typically, for a citation for a source available on the web, add the "access-date" parameter. If you want to make sure that the citation remains valid, you can see if it is on archive.org , then add"archive-url" with "archive-date" to the citation template. — ERcheck (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Peripatech, thanks for your response and for adding a citation. Verifiability is one of the key policies of WP. See WP:V.

Therefore if new content is added that is not supported by the existing source in a paragraph (which was the case in Psychogeography), the new content must be sourced to a citation that does back up the new material. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained at a high level.

BTW, I'm quite familiar with locative media art (which I find really interesting), so I appreciate your efforts on the LMA article as a contribution to the encyclopedia. However not all readers are familiar with that niche genre, so it is best practices to always source content. Happy editing, Netherzone (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change links in articles from Locative media to Locative media art. It is clear that you want readers to see your article, but it is not cool to do this as drive-by edits.

If the source does not specifically say "locative media art" or "locative art", then please do not change the text to LMA; leave it as "locative media". If you wish to additionally add "locative media art", you would need a source for that.

Here is an example where the change from LM to LMA is not correct, since the source does not specifically mention LMA.[1] The reason is that the linked website (the specific URL) does not mention locative media art. It says: kazys varnelis (contact), ph.d. conducts transdisciplinary research and practice. trained as an architecture historian, he is also an artist and designer exploring the impact of technology. recently, he has been involved in landscape design with native plants. It does not mention locative media art. Even if he does make LMA, the source would need to say that. Perhaps there is another place on Kazys' website where it does; if so, then LMA can be added.

Here is another example where LMA was added when it's not included in any of the sources: [2]

Here is an example where it was OK to change LM to LMA, since the source specifically says "locative art" and "locative artwork".

Please go back through your contributions and correct these errors. Thanks, and hope this clarifies why some of those changes were problematic. Netherzone (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, that makes sense. The sources for PIPS actually do talk about it, but it wasn't an explicit reference. I added that and also cited a paper by Varnelis that talks about LMA. I'll go through the others. Is it ok to add LMA in the "See Also" section? Peripatech (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine to add a link to the "See also" section. Netherzone (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

--

Basically, I did a search for articles linked to "locative media," and if those things were artworks, I linked to LMA. If the source says "locative" and it says "art," but not necessarily together, it's not enough to qualify? Peripatech (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source should specifically call it "locative art" or "locative media art" because those proper names are niche genres of locative media. Additionally locative media is much greater usage in books and other reliable sources. This Google n-gram is a good illustration of this: [3] Netherzone (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've cleaned up after your mass changes to genres that were made without first gaining consensus or adding a source that backs it up. Please, in the future, do not push your preferred genre, as it is a form of non-neutral point-of-view pushing. WP:NPOV is a policy of the encyclopedia and is non-negotiable. It's clear that you are a big supporter and advocate of locative media art, which is wonderful, (I'm a huge fan too), however making sweeping changes without discussion or sources that verify is considered disruptive editing. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]