User talk:Modernist/Archive3

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ronaldreed

Just a note that I slightly reformatted your message at User talk:Ronaldreed so it doesn't parse the {{hangon}} template, otherwise it shows up as at CAT:CSD. Regards – Zedla (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, thanks..Modernist (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bacon (painter)

Please could you explain why you reverted this edit? I brought the heading capitalisation in line with the Manual of Style, and I removed a random headline which, apropos of nothing, had been stuck in with the references - how does that belong there? Thanks, 81.151.191.208 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, Thank you..Modernist (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York

You had participated at the original discussion of the People from Greenwich Village, New York category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30. The original decision to delete was overturned at WP:DRV and is now being discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#New York places categories. Your participation will help ensure that a broader consensus can be reached on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pong

Mail....Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to email you the pdfs a few times and my mails keep on bouncing. Strange. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...I have gotten emails there recently. I've been meaning to ask you about the legacy section. Maybe we should add it. It can be worked in the article I think. Modernist (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try the mail again. Let me have a crack at the section again tonight; but yeah we should transfer over fairly soon. Over my dead body, by the way are we going to loose the Arcimboldo image! Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its totally apropos...I'll check my mail tonight..thanks.Modernist (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don'T bother. Bounced again :( Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the article has some specific mentions of Miro paintings that were influenced by the garden - maybe you can mention them in legacy, if I know the paintings I'll write something more about them. I was hoping that the article mentions Dali too. Modernist (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Moray article? Kafka Liz (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Liz thats my understanding..Modernist (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it to be quite as helpful as I had hoped it would be, but perhaps you can get more out of it. She mainly discusses "The Tilled Field" and "Catalan Landscape" (which she considers primarily influenced by 'The Haywain". If you email me, I can try sending it on to you too. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a "Dali + bosch + JSTOR" google gives 1 and two. <a-hem> There is also this, which tells us Herbert Read analysised the connection between the two. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we should have a little Dali in there for flavor...I'll give Liz a buzz.Modernist (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mail all round. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You the [Wo]man! Thanks!Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I got the article from Liz, but only the text from Ceoil's message, the attachments didn't come through. I think it might be easier now, I made some adjustments. Modernist (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, I think the text is ok now to carry into the article. Can you do the honors and we can take it from there. Nice work on this by the way! Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Wow, now we've got a legacy section..I was a little worried about the refs - but you guys were both brilliant, high five. Modernist (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some reading tonight and tomorrow, I'll add something if it's needed. Thanks again..Modernist (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm delighted; result after a torturous few days! Um, can we add a Dali or Miro img? Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miro would be great, lets add both. I'll write text if the pictures are there...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dali would be preferable as it is mentioned. When we get to the satge of discussing both (and we will), we can add the Miro. Can you give me links though, Modernist, as I'm not familiar - or interested - in surrealis and don't know the work. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Persistence of Memory is Dali's most famous image: [1] peruse the Salvador Dali page. There was a painting I was looking at a few days ago in conjunction with something I read about Bosch but the Persistence of Memory with time melting relates to the refs...this one - The Great Masturbator was connected to Bosch in one of the essays on the work page.. [2]Modernist (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the images will be fair use, we'll have to tie them in fairly closely in the text though. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have cites for Magritte and Ernst? Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - Ernst apparently published an article about the artists including Bosch who were influential to him, I recently read about Magritte also being very high on The Bosch paintings he saw. Not surprising because he's Belgian and I'm sure Breughel and Bosch were a presence in the museums there. I'll try to ref them, and if you see something grab it. Modernist (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do...Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Excellent work! Kafka Liz (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosch

	The Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	Awarding this barnstar to Modernist for all his/her contributions, hard work and effort in bringing The Garden of Earthly Delights to FA. In particular, the work you did in creating the legacy section was very impressive. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was great working with you again, Modernist. Next please! Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated...Thank you. Modernist (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimmtastic

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicas of Michelangelo's David (2nd nomination) was offensive, and seemingly unfounded. Please do not make the assumption that number of edits equates with the credibility of a particular user, nor with the credibility of the actual person behind the user. User:Swimmtastic appeared make multiple attempts to address the arguments with some amount of logic and reasoning founded in WP policy/guidelines. While I can't necessarily agree with the deletion, Swimmtastic made the effort to respond to users in a manner consistent with the purpose of the debate. If that user is in fact as new as the account is, then as an experienced editor you shouldn't be "biting". And if not, then perhaps the user has had other accounts and more edits than you or anyone else in the debate. Aside from that, I fail to see where there are "a lot of complaints". The Swimmtastic userpage has only two comments on the same issue. The issue of respect isn't applicable in the debate, in part because the debate is not a vote. The mistake was leading each comment with a "delete" or "speedy delete" apparently in response to the preceding !vote. A critical aspect of the debate is to pursue multiple and opposing points of view, even if one of those is only represented by a single user. It appears that by nominating this article, Swimmtastic has helped to improve it, attracting attention and bringing focus to a previously poorly constructed piece. And perhaps the opinion not being respected is that of Swimmtastic by a group of editors working in visual arts, not open to even the possibility that this article could be deleted. The cooperation of many people reaching a consensus is a key element of WP. Consensus doesn't occur without discussion and debate. I sincerely hope that you reconsider your attitude towards editors that appear and may or may not be new.--Jefff99999 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input..I'll keep it in mind. Modernist (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Ty 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be remarkable sudden cluster of new editors all supporting each other with advanced wiki ability and yet somehow making edits that appear to conform to policy and whose end result is disruption. Ty 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that - which was actually why I made the comment..It looked like an experienced editor - Thanks for that input, Ty, clearly there should be another rule - Don't Bite The Regulars...they do work hard. Modernist (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, then perhaps the user has had other accounts and more edits than you or anyone else in the debate. - interesting comment. Modernist (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the other "delete" in that debate at User talk:Wiki11790. Ty 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty - Same guy that handed out this barnstar [4]. I noticed his blanking mania during the AfD, (you worked overtime on that one) undoing his damage, - and I'll keep an eye on the AN/I. Modernist (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine Chapel

Hi Modernist, any interest in working together on the above. It will be a difficult one, but I think could be very satisfying as there are so many angles to consider. (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Ceoil[reply]

A big job - It's not my best subject, I'll give it a look - there is this too: Sistine Chapel ceiling and several related articles as I'm sure you know..Modernist (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice was the ceiling, and I bought a few books on that during the week. The interplay between Michelangelo and Julius was very bitter and dramatic, I might scale down to that yet, but for the moment I think this might be a good "summary style" page. We'll see. Thanks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights/Influence

Was this subpage meant to be kept somewhere? I don't think it's meant to be in mainspace. Just asking u as you were one of the editors of it, assume someone moved it there recently. Thanx--Bsnowball (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its our work page for the legacy section of The Garden of Earthly Delights. Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk), Kafka Liz (talk) and me. I'm not sure that we are done yet so it should probably remain there for a while longer. If you can add information, then please work there also. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Arts Template

Curious why you reverted my edit where I added a visual art template to types of visual art (i.e. Drawing)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Rodgers (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here:[5]..Modernist (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Years of Art

Thanks for the thanks and the tip on "inuse" - yesterday was the first time I had received speedy deletion notices and was worried with the number of pages I was creating that I would be spending more time defending the content than actually creating. I will keep that in mind for the future. I'm just happy that all uncreated articles under List of years in art have now been created (albeit many are stubs). Whew! It's been fun - and I appreciate all you've been doing in this category as well. Enjoy! Keithh (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information about an External Link for Surrealism page

Hello Modernist.

I noticed that you've done some work on the Surrealism page. I just wanted to propose for the External Links on that page a site I created devoted to information about Surrealism.

Many years ago, I contributed to Wikipedia, but haven't lately. Rather than adding the link myself, I thought I'd introduce it to people who have been working on the Surrealism page to see if you feel it is appropriate. I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link for the Surrealism page. I feel it offers a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Surrealism.

Currently on the site, there is some promotion of a book of surrealist plays I wrote, which will be there for a few more months. I don't know if that is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. In any case, I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link.

I really appreciate your time, consideration and the work you put in at Wikipedia, which I find a very useful site. Thanks again.

bashkiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.81.16 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting site:[6] and I placed the link. Modernist (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brown

Hi Modernist, I had written in the discussion about Dan Brown claiming to be a christian. If it was concerning his 'race' we could confirm it definitively; However, an ambiguous claim to 'religion' we have to call a 'claim'. Thanks for you time. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Modernist: Thank you for your kind words--I see that you are taking a sabbatical, too. I have elaborated on my talk page. Do feel free to stay in touch. Best regards, JNW (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed working here with you. Please send me an email, if you have the mind. My computer has been damaged and I'll also be on a break..for a while, Happy Fathers Day, by the way..Modernist (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you removed

some text from the sculpture article. I googled a chunk of what you had deleted and it showed up here. http://www.ikonicarts.com/sculpture.html Good call. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garden

I added to the FU rationale at the pic - it may need further boosting, in which case you probably need to hire a lawyer, the way these things are now. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just did hire a lawyer the other day....man they are expensive.Modernist (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed; and thought the removal reason given in the edit summary was weak. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last ten months this guy averages about 160 edits per mo and that counts his own talk stuff. Hmmm...Modernist (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I see the FU arguments have been strenghtened since anyway. Hope the reason you had to hire a lawyer wasn't too messy, bty! Ceoil ^sláinte 00:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its never fun, but not too bad..just expensive..Modernist (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted Mosaic for a while now; and as a suggestion I think its a page you could make a significant contribution to. Is not far from being fine; I think you could do good work here. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I've been doing a lot of rl stuff this weekend, hopefully I'll have time this week. Thanks Modernist (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't notice. All in good fun! Ceoil ^sláinte 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go us! Last night I was trying to remember what was happening on the 14th, we're gonna get sooooo much vandalism though, thanks.......Modernist (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I expect lots and lots of vandalism. Still, its exciting, no? You can track the hits with this tool. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing chart, Ceoil, yeah it's exciting..hopefully the article will survive the publicity...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The net difference after main page is slight on content, but some good catches re MOS, spelling etc. Surprisingly little vandelism. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told I was also surprised by the grammar, spelling catches and the light hits.....whew! Modernist (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too surprised by those...we're not wonder women, and its a relatively big page. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy on the talk page - who thinks he knows so much sounds like a troll to me, man does he want to control that corrigan quote...Modernist (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok with the cut? I dont think what was lost added to the argument of the section. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the cut ends the trolls rap I am appreciative of your diplomacy, and I think the Legacy section is still virtually intact, the cut eliminates the sentence that he objected to, I'm okay with that..hopefully the objections won't escalate...nice work..Modernist (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't cut to appease; I though the last few sentences took Franger's interpretation to its extreme limits. But we lost little, so its fine, IMO. Ceoil 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, I'm sad to say this, but the Dali source fails RS, and will have to go after all. We tried anyway, at least. I rather liked the quote, but I think the section is still strong even without the Dali connection. It still strikes me that this section was by some distance the most difficult I've encountered on wiki yet. Oh well, you win some you loose some. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree - although I think it's really ok, because the Dali stuff was an afterthought anyway. But - for instance there is another important source out there somewhere - might be another self-published book - it's by Max Ernst in which he apparantly discussed Bosch's impact on his work in the early 20th century it is out there somewhere..but I'm not gonna bother looking for it partially because I'm busy right now with other things and because I think the Clay essay just got trolled and I don't like what happened. Modernist (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we could find publisher info for the Clay essay, it would be ok. I had a look and found nothing. Tbh, I'm in the "not gonna bother" camp too; I'm sick of working the article by now; might be something I'll revisit in 6-12 months, but not now. Take care. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we all did a long, hard, job there, time to move on...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He; I'm proud of the work we did there together, but its funny articles are like ex-girlfrieds, once its over you just don't want to look back. That sounds trite, but I never have the stomach to revisit old pages, save odd vandal fighting here and there. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Museum of Art header image

Hi -- I noticed that, in the past, you replaced (with a photo) the illustration in the museum infobox on the Metropolitan Museum of Art page. Your edit made reference to some pending discussion on the illustration ... has that been resolved? User Simon Fieldhouse has reinstated the illustration, but I didn't see any discussion. Personally, I prefer the photo, but that's neither here nor there. Best, -- Docether (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found here:[7] - Modernist (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Best, -- Docether (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cross

have you read this nonsense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Cross#Culture you are edit warring over. WP:3RR Artlondon (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be_bold Artlondon (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art of the United Kingdom

And not sure what this one is about. The edits I made have been maintained and build upon by others. I found this article last week. It was in a terrible state. Since then a few people, including you, have helped to improve it. Artlondon (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets do our best...and WP:AGF Modernist (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume all edits and comments were made in good faith, and have stimulated some improvement, which was certainly needed. Ty 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so..his blankings are a bit much..Modernist (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed this particular situation, but the general rule is that users are allowed to blank on their own talk pages (but not article talk pages). Blanking a warning is taken as an indication that the user has read the warning. Selective blanking is not allowed if it distorts a conversation and puts talk by other users in the wrong context. If a user doesn't want to discuss an article on their own talk page, it can be discussed on the article talk page, where other editors can also contribute. Ty 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just try and cool this down before it escalates any further! Ty 23:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18th century

I think our goal for the 18th century page is to try and find five more entries for each area (non "Western" that is) and then add a few more portraits (non "Western" that is). I think that might "balance" the page some more. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually add what is important and appropriate 5 more or 3 more or however more...as long as they are important to the period, Eastern or Western....Modernist (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more than five from China and more than five from the subcontinent. I tried to pick only those that created movements or were involved with historically important projects within their own culture. That should help balance out any bias. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done good work there, thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I left out the Middle East. Thats a large region. I'm sure there are at least five scientists, philosophers, or writers that can be found. And Africa. And South America. There are some large regions that are missing. Gah. I wish I wasn't working on so many pages at once, or I could devote a larger portion of time to this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple link

Could you clarify the rationale for this change? I was reading the article and was curious about how soon after Columbus the pineapple may have come to Europe, where in the New World it was cultivated, etc. The pineapple article answered those questions, so why would a link be a bad idea? I've looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and it strikes me as something that "significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic", but perhaps you see it differently? Kingdon (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we simply cannot link every word that leads to another article, when we were writing the article that link was discussed and we passed on it...the article is about an Hieronymous Bosch painting not about the importation of exotic fruit into Europe....Modernist (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I guess I won't continue the argument, but the pineapple doesn't seem as peripheral to that section to me as it does to you. Thanks for the explanation. Kingdon (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Modernist, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui 16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

van Gogh

i noticed in the discussion page for Vincent van Gogh that you've made several contributions to that article. i posted a note there a month or so ago regarding a font i created of van Gogh's handwriting. if you think it's appropriate, i'd like to have a link to the font put on the van Gogh page. i'm not selling anything, there aren't any ads or anything, i'd just like to share it with other van Gogh fans. thanks much for your time. --c.j. 64.202.255.15 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure handwriting samples are appropriate for the Vincent van Gogh article. Try Signature, Graphology or Handwriting. Modernist (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Let me know if you have any further problem. Ty 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Modernist (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry yourself. There will be..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe009009009 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your request, I protected your user and talk pages against moves, and semiprotected them against vandalism. I also blocked User:Joe009009009 for the above threat. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again...Modernist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressionism

Well done on the images, but Image:Camille Pissarro 007.jpg doesn't look like an example of Pissarro's pointillism. I think the image would be better in the main text, and something obviously Post-Impressionist, like Van Gogh, in the P-I section. Also "On the Terrace" and "Woman with a Parasol" butt up against each other and create a white space in the text on a low res screen. It might be worth trying the "upright" parameter on some images with the syntax:

[[Image:Claude Monet 011.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Claude Monet]], ''Woman with a Parasol,'' (Camille and Jean Monet), 1875, [[National Gallery of Art]], [[Washington, DC.]]]]

Ty 05:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll give it a shot..Modernist (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Patch of Grass"

Please use the article talk page for discussion, rather than edit summaries. Thanks, Tomer^talk 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad magazine

Why did you remove my {{subsections}} tag from the History section? That section is one looooooooooooong block of text that really could use subsections. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your talk page! Modernist (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how my tags are WP:IDONTLIKEIT at all. Much of the Mad article is still unsourced (hence the tags), and like I said, I think the History section should be split up. Most people don't like looking at a huge wall of text without any subsection breaks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a little too many tags...and what was this redirect all about [8]? Modernist (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a mistake on my part actually. I had seen some sources just calling it a "Fold-in", but most seem to refer to it as a "Mad fold-in". I've re-redirected to "Mad fold-in", as "MAD fold-in" was the wrong capitalization. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, lets just do our best...Modernist (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad Magazine issues et al.

The subpages don't need to be in Category:Satirical magazines of the United States. They're already in Category:Mad (magazine), which is a subcategory of Satirical magazines of the United States. Putting the subpages in both categories is redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever....Modernist (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jaffee and fold-ins

How is that harassment? I removed some unreferenced information, which is perfectly acceptable. We don't need a list of every tribute ever made to the Fold-in, especially when there're no sources to verify it. Also, I removed some PoV issues (such as the constrained writing for the Fold-ins' paragraphs) and added a {{fact}} tag to something that didn't have a source. How is that "harassment"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, how is it harassment? You seem to be acting as if I'm trying to make you mad on purpose. All I'm doing is removing unverifiable, unsourced, unencyclopedic information. Please quit making false accusations of me or I will report you to the administrator's noticeboard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if its unsourced its unsourced - maybe you can add a cite when you re-add the material and that solves the whole problem -- Tawker (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite added, we'll see if the nonsense stops...Modernist (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Gate and other Millennium Park articles

Thanks for your participation in the Cloud Gate GA reassessment. Currently another feature of the park is at WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1. We are having an issue with the controversies sections of these features. In particular, there is an issue over the payment of $1.5 million dollars by corporations to rent the park for two days. Can you possibly take a moment to comment with your thoughts on the controversies of the park on this Peer review since it may set the policy for Cloud Gate. Do a search for "Controversies" and comment at your leisure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I'll take a look..Modernist (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad

If there are still issues, the best thing is to spell them out clearly on the talk page, so that others can see what they are without having to go through all the diffs. The lead should be a summary of the main points in the article. I have watchlisted. Ty 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll say something on the talk page. Modernist (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the lead should contain the main points of the article (and not usually introduce new material), i.e. a summary. NY1 isn't even mentioned in the article. The anon's edit summary is valid,[9] although it would have been more politic argued on the talk page. Unless it's a major channel, like the BBC, I don't see TY1 has a place in the lead, and recommend removing it from there and putting it in the main text instead. Budd Mischkin doesn't even have an article. I would have thought the fact, for example, that he does most of his work by hand was a significant point that should be in the lead. Ty 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In NYC NY1 is a major channel,albeit on cable. It basically is the channel turned to immediately on a 911 or other major news event. It's not national but it's a major station. I'll take your advice and reverse my edit.

I was also surprised to learn that Budd Mischkin doesn't have an article. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think the best thing is to get it in the main text, then consider what features are the salient ones to highlight in the lead. Should Colbert be in the lead or the National Cartoonists Society Advertising and Illustration Award, for example? Re. NY1, then possibly it should be, but as it's been challenged and is turning into an edit war, the moral high ground would be to put the case, if you wish, on the talk page, get the anon's response and TPH. If that's not satisfactory, then open an article WP:RFC to get non-involved editors to comment. Patience is essential! Ty 03:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you - I had Colbert and the awards in the lead the other day and either anon or his buddy -10 hammer pound - deleted all of it a few days ago, these fellas have a thing about MAD. I left remarks on the talk page - we'll see if a response is forthcoming..Modernist (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see material from the NY1 site being incorporated into the article. When the text is 4 times its present size, then a lot more material will be justified in the lead. Ty 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, patience for now...It's a good idea to add text to the article and in the coming days I will work on that..thanks Modernist (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's working out. Ty 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moore

Whats your honest assestment? Do you think its do-able? And can you merge galeery from "Reclining figures" and "others" - the division is ugly. Ceoil ^sláinte 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, needs references, context - how did Moore affect 20th century sculpture in the 1960s and later, etc. I'll try to assist. Modernist (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take care of cites first, and worry about about context later - so as to avoid pile up opposes from the fact checker! I have Grohmann in my hands, but thats all I have. Searching Questia now. This is an important article to save. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the infobox and fixed the gallery...I'll check it out - add refs.Modernist (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, infobox? I really dont like these things, I dont think it adds much to the page. Please take back out. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Diego Velázquez, Hieronymous Bosch, El Greco, Francisco Goya, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Rene Magritte, and Jackson Pollock all have the boxes - it's MoS for these articles, I don't like em either but DON'T remove it, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT doesn't fly.....I'm done - do it yourself! Modernist (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Modernist. Its a preferance only. It would be great if you stick with this, as a save is not something I can do on my own. Til be like the auld days! Ceoil ^sláinte 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Not a problem....Modernist (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting legacy article here. A good basis for revamping that sect. Not so sure about as his "wealth" vs "age"; the former indicates hubris. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific link! Like him or not - he was an important influence on British sculpture. Anthony Caro always acknowledged that as have other British sculptors; I think Moore was somewhat full of himself, hubris, whatever...We can do a legacy section. Give it a try, I'll read the Tate link. Modernist (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Lynn Chadwick's Winged Figures pictured in the article oustanding. Should defianetly should try and include it. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A legacy section might have an image or two by one or more of these artists:(the list of artists directly influenced by Moore that are on Wikipedia include) - Anthony Caro, Phillip King, Lynn Chadwick, Eduardo Paolozzi, Bernard Meadows, Reg Butler, William Turnbull, Robert Adams, Isaac Witkin William G. Tucker and these others not on wikipedia Kenneth Armitage, Geoffrey Clarke also. Modernist (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, I'm not sure if I'm correct in describing the geneation after Moore as a "new wave". Can that term be used genericall? Ceoil ^sláinte 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that earlier, it's not accurate as a term to describe those times and those artists but it conveys the idea; it's a term used today, I left it - it's ok but if you think of something better put it there...I'll think about it too..Modernist (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. We need to work in an image from the "Geometry of Fear" exhibition; I'm inclined towards Lynn Chadwick, but you might have a better suggestion.[10] Ceoil ^sláinte 03:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - good choice, go with the Chadwick piece you like, Chadwick is one of the best known of the group..Modernist (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fountain FAC

I know we cross paths on a lot of modern art. Do you not do sculpture. I could use some commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty - I have little to add there. I write about what I find interesting.....Modernist (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolete Gray link

Hi Modernist, why the undo of my wikification of Nicolete Gray on Abstract art? Hotlorp (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it was red and misspelled, my mistake..Modernist (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed red when you edited: I'd wikified it in order to click through to create the page, which was online 10 minutes later. Sometimes I wish admins had a 24-hour delay on trigger-happiness! Hotlorp (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just a coincidence of timing..I'd just come on line and saw the red link. No harm done. Modernist (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal captions

Re images of Terry Fugate-Wilcox works: I can't find it this instant in the MOS, but am I right in thinking there's an official preference for art images that don't have internal captioning like Image:Holtun-wethrd.jpg? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so...the precedent by virtue of other articles indicates less images, less complicated images, smaller size images etc. Make sure they have the correct copyright tags and Fair Use Rationales also. Modernist (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I'm sure I've seen a guideline to that effect somewhere. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the images and uploaded two other versions on Commons: Image:Holtun-wethrd-1.jpg and Image:Holtun-wethrd-2.jpg. Ty 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly the article is beginning to improve..I like the horizontal image, and she (Terry Fugate-Wilcox's wife) seems to be pleased with the help. I removed one of the tags but somebody reverted it, I'll remove a different one..when it shows some more improvement. Good job Ty. Modernist (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Ty 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ettinger

Post on AN/I the message you left me. Listing the IPs and asking for a range block on them would be a good idea. Ty 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WP:ANI, the thing is its hard to keep track of all the IPs they look similar..Modernist (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more talk about in on AN/I in a new section (Part 2). Ty 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just noticed...The IPS are growing, I think admins have to start blocking them wholesale. Modernist (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will get sorted in due course. He probably has rather a lot to hop around on. Ty 05:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like a computer factory...They tried to delete the Ettinger article a few days ago with a prod, there's more targets connected to that IP also. User:Amire80, then got threatened on his talk page. Modernist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So business as usual on wikipedia, then. Ty 06:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at AN/I: "I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes." Did you write it yourself, or is it a quote from somewhere? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twas me..Modernist (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice, it's poetry. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Modernist (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jaffee again

The way you had it wasn't really summarizing the article; it was presenting facts in the intro that aren't present elsewhere in the article. By moving the sections around the way I did, I've created an intro that summarizes the article better, and keeps the info that you contributed. I don't want to be involved in another edit war with you again, so please talk it over with me a little before you revert. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but could you please not refer to me as a troll? Cleaning up articles, removing unsourced info, and copy editing are hardly trolling, and that borders on an attack to call me a troll. I'm sure that you're trying to improve the article; you and I just have a different opinion of what's right. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If we can work it out I will be happy to refer to you as an experienced and capable editor..Modernist (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that my version is an acceptable compromise, since it leaves in all the information that you added, just in a different place. Like I said, by putting the critical praise of Schulz and Aragonés only in the intro, it doesn't follow a summary style. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead...I've asked others to look at it...My best advice is to lay off that article.Modernist (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jaffee

Please stop repeatedly reverting edits on this article. Instead, discuss the contentious edit with the person who is also editing it. That is likely to be more successful. Thanks! —Sean Whitton / 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sean, we are trying to work it out...very cool banner though. Modernist (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ettinger

I'm skeptical of her importance even to French feminist theory - she's not in [11] at all, she writes in English, and she's not French. That suggests to me that she probably doesn't belong in that list either. Irigaray and Kristeva, the other two people mentioned in that sentence in 20th Century French philosophy both are in the anthology. For Feminism in France Kristeva, Irigaray, Cixous, and Wittig are all in the anthology, the others aren't - but given that she's not French and not a sufficiently important feminist theorist to be in the Norton anthology, I'm skeptical of including her there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil I'm not an expert in your field so I can't really say for certain. I've replaced her where I think she goes, and yes initially and truthfully I was somewhat surprised by all the places Ettinger appears also. My expertise is mostly the fine arts. That said - I've been doing some deep searching - and I saw a picture with Giselda Pollock with her arm around Ettinger, I saw pretty much links to most of the stuff she claims. Pictures of Lyotard taken by her, had to be in the 90s. I removed her from a few obvious places where she is in over her head, but I've returned her largely to where it makes sense that she's had input. You gotta just trust your own judgment. I'm trusting my judgment as well. So far you have done a spectacular job. As to Feminism in France she lives and works there, and has for from what I can tell most of her life.....That's one that common sense says she belongs.Modernist (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for returning Guernica to the 1939 exposition page. I almost did it myself, but sometimes the pictures people can be quite persistent and hard to deal with. Let me know if you could use any help. Smallbones (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noland images

I haven't deleted anything- I have removed an image which was not aiding the article. Infoboxes about painters should include an image of the painter- not an image of their work. An infobox on the work should contain an image of the work- it's not rocket science. The other change you reverted was tying the image into the text, which is required for the image to pass the non-free content criteria. You seem to be using a lot of stock copy-and-paste rationales, which are just not appropriate for a lot of uses. You have to be certain that the work you and providing a non-free image of is discussed extensively in the text, otherwise you just end up decorating the article with non-free images. Non-free images are not here to decorate, they are here to further the readers' understanding of the text. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove images contrary to the non-free content criteria where-ever I see them, it's up to you to convince me why we should ignore it in this case, not the other way around. However, I have joined the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise how impolite this is? Not only are you reverting me without comment, which is basically calling me a vandal, but you're layering non-free images into an article for no real reason. If you have an issue with my edits, discuss it with me, don't just treat me as some kind of dirt. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss the matter with anyone, but as a precaution the images should be removed in the mean time. My primary objection to the images on the history of art page is that they are used in a gallery format, which is not appropriate for non-free content. As I said above, non-free content has to expand the readers' understanding of the text, and galleries are very much 'standalone' sections. I appreciate the need for non-free images on articles about contemporary art, obviously, but, as non-free media, the images must be treated with care. If the images (or the style portrayed in the image) is discussed at length in the article text, a low resolution image inline with the text is wholly appropriate. Galleries containing tens of non-free images are never appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I liken enforcing the NFCC to just the same as enforcing any other policy. What's wrong with inline image use in long articles? It would make them shorter- galleries take up a lot of space. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually inline is fine but the galleries take up less space in this instance..We are covering a lot of territory in History of painting. I have made sure every single image is discussed in text there, by the way. Modernist (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to be shocked...

Wow. Just wow. That is exactly what Wikipedia isn't. Since Wikipedia was founded it has always been about inclusiveness, allowing anyone to edit and welcoming all, no matter their opinions, areas of expertise or abilities. In any case, what's to stop me employing the same logic? I'm not challenging you on art issues (one of your areas of expertise)- you're challenging me on fair use issues- one of mine. Why don't you stop meddling with fair use images? Why don't you 'get off my turf'? Please, let's be reasonable about this. I don't pretend to be an art expert. Frankly, it doesn't matter- I'm not a music expert or a mushroom expert- I've never studied either, but I write a lot of articles about them which are respected by other Wikipedians. Let's judge each other's comments on what they are, rather than who is making them. That's the point of Wikipedia's consensus building process. It's not about voting, it's not about convincing some central council, it's about discussing it and reaching a conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we begin to see eye to eye. I don't want my turf encroached on, and you don't want your turf encroached on. I do not agree with your interpretation of Fair Use, and you don't agree with my use of important imagery depicting the history of art. I am doing my best, at this volunteer station - and I accept that you are doing your best at this volunteer station. I would like to find the middle ground with you.....as would most of the visual arts editors, give some, bend some, and so will we.....We are creating something that has never been before - new territory demands new approaches and opened minds...If I begin to reform History of painting as you suggest - it's an enormous task, and I probably will need the article restored so I can work on it. Thanks for your comments.Modernist (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is still available in the page history. What are you proposing? You revert back to the gallery version so that you can begin to place the more relevant images (remember that, currently, there are perhaps too many images- placing them all inline would look just as bad as the galleries from an aesthetic and non-free point of view) inline with the text? I have no issue with that- if you're willing to donate the necessary time to reformatting the images. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline means the reader has to do, well according to your estimate, 100 clicks to see the images, and would be totally unable to make easy comparisons or see an overall visual lineage. Ty 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using my best judgment, I'll try some inline, some smaller galleries if I can make them work...The images are in place so I can work with them. We'll see how it goes..Modernist (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As J Milburn has removed every non-free image, his judgement is that the article should contain none at all. Also there is the view that there should be no non-free images in galleries. You might find your efforts somewhat problematic, unless a consensus can be reached about this. Ty 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like an impossible task and somewhat absurd set of issues. I'd like some input however they are saying non-free imagery in-line is acceptable and I'm saying I might still need 'slimmer' galleries in order to depict the subject correctly. That seems like a reasonable compromise given the scope of the endeavor...Modernist (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think (much) longer gallery captions are probably the answer; these are probably easier than working each image into the text. Didn't that work at s***-p*******? Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an option...Modernist (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific approach. Ty 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

I'd hold fire for now. Let's continue with the discussion, so we can establish the right protocol. It is a good opportunity to build up the text and see how much can be achieved by that means. Ty 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm restoring the article but every Fair Use image is on hold, pending our decisions. Modernist (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a big job but thats the plan - to slowly integrate images with text...and a few smaller galleries if need be. Modernist (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice, which format do you think best - within text or gallery? Ty 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the galleries..partially because each represents separate articles that are related and linked by subject. Modernist (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the case for galleries should be advocated at WPVA as first option and see how it goes. Ty 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At Vital articles? How do we do that?...I'm all for a fair chance...Modernist (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete serendipity - it was very bad shorthand for wikiproject visual arts! Answer - I don't know, but I'm sure you can find out. Ty 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We need some Vital articles..like History of painting.. :) Modernist (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Willard Wigan advertising.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help..Modernist (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Clarke

Have you seen this? Ceoil ^sláinte 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im open but not normally excitable about dance and ballet, but very taken here. Its hard to makes sence of the low res clips on the site, but it does seem: just great. The movements are very circular and free, and I think she has captured, and developed the mood in quite a unique way. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks pretty out there and interesting...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrise over the Sea, by Friedrich

Um, thanks for the note, but by the time I got it Tyrenius had already cropped the image. It was unopenable in photoshop, so he may have used a screen capture program. I don't know, but whatever he did it reduced the size of the image from about 2mb to about 800kb. Lithoderm (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masaccio

I won't pretend to know the Italian translation for that, but I'm betting that the Florentines, colorful though they were, did not traffic in 21st century adolescent slang. JNW (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Blake & Newton

Do you see any relevance or value to this? He added the same material earlier today and I removed it as inappropriate. Blake's opposition to Newton's philosophy is entirely too complex to attempt to sum it up in a satirical poem by Auden. Unless he has a great deal more to add, this is rubbish. I cannot imagine we would want to keep the Auden, regardless. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO don't revert the section; that can always be done down the road, leave a message for him asking for more relevant and conclusive reasons for inclusion..He indicates that it is a work in progress, let him fill in the blanks. Let him know what your reservations are....Lithoderm makes a point on the talk page as well with the Bloom...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I will comment on the talk page tomorrow when I am more lucid. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits / undoing contributions

Hello Modernist. Thank you for your effort in improving Wikipedia articles. It would also be very kind of you to remember to notify users about their edits being reverted and contributions undone by you. I'd expect a friendly Wikipedian to discuss any such move before actually going ahead with it. This is a free encyclopedia. Thank you. Denghu (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the quick reply. It wasn't an image of the same statue that you removed. It was a different statue. Go to the history page to see the picture. OK. I will get the information about the artist and the date a bit later. Denghu (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, they looked awfully similar...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27 This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m

I have to ask. It's been puzzling me for some time. What does "m" mean in your edit summaries? Ty 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when I make a little mistake, and make a minor change I through in "m" - maybe it means "mistake," maybe "minor" or maybe modernist or maybe a little of all three...mostly just minor. The last edit I wrote "nice work" then I saw that Sandy wrote the same thing, so I changed my note to "nice job" with the em...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wondered if it was minor, though it doesn't usually qualify technically for that. Mistake makes sense. Ty 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on Henry Moore on WQ, by the way...I started the page and the images make sense to have there also. So much drama there...glad its seems to be over.....Modernist (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed it was you - well done on that one. Ty 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m

Before we engage in a 're-formatting contest', let's have a dialogue on the importance of the 1947 Paolozzi collage and its relative image position in the "Pop Art" article. having equal prominence with Hamiltion is justified given that the importance of the Paolozzi piece is well-documented from many credible art historian sources. Whereas it may not be as well recognized publicly as the Hamilton work, that is precisely the point of the Paolozzi work being placed in a justifiably prominent position -- to make people aware of the work and its historic significance. Therefore, its position in the article should be equal to Hamilton, not appear subservient. Please clarify why you feel it should be "secondary" to the work of Richard Hamilton. FYI - Richard Hamilton was in the audience of Paolozzi's 1952 Independent Group "Bunk!" presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezignr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I just put some info regarding the Pop Art article at the following link: [12] Dezignr (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I gave bad link info above -- Here's the info I posted Wikiproject Visual arts page: 4 - Having a separate Independent Group section works well and puts Paolozzi's piece in a more focused context. I added more content to the Indepemndent Group section with inline citations and sources. Since the Pop Art page layout was very disjointed and visually bothersome with lots of white space between sections and around images, I took the liberty to fix it through a combination of adding more verifiable content (with inline citations and sources) to the United States section, rearranging some other content that was out of place and adjusting images so that they would still be located near their specific references, while enabling the text to better fill-in the former white space areas. the article now looks more unified and has more in-depth content. Dezignr (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Dezignr (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lichtenstein image at 200px width resulted in a hanging sentence fragment which looked terrible. I was able to correct the typographic problem by increasing the width by only 5px to 205px. The change in image size is not discernable. Dezignr (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

180px is the recommended size especially if the article eventually moves forward to Good Article or Featured Article status; otherwise its not a big deal..I left it at 180px actually not 200px. Modernist (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for technical accuracy, the recommended size is simply "thumb", which renders by default to 180 px (no need to specify that figure). Ty 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...I've got a request now :)

Modernist, thanks for the support at RfA. I clicked on your userpage, and I notice that we have similar interests. In particular, I was wondering if you have a chance, would you be willing to comment on the open peer review for the Louvre article? The article failed an FAC in May, and I am trying to get as much feedback as possible before renomming. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look...Modernist (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. It turns out that I was wrong about the length of FA: I had misinterpreted the "length" guidelines to read 50kb maximum. In fact, the ceiling is 50kb of prose. The topic size of the "Louvre" allows it to be longer than others (say: Tropical Storm Diana). This permits the article to be expanded nearly two-fold (it is currently about 27kb of text). I had just cut swaths of text out in order to be under the guideline. All of this translates into: I will be returning to your talk page some weeks from now, after the article is expanded. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind adding those subjects about the art in the collection that I suggested to you. Let me know if you need a hand....good luck..Modernist (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Modernist, for your note. It's been easy to run up the edits, especially since they've been mostly vandalism reversions and warnings. It serves a purpose, but it's not to be compared with the substantial contributions you make to content. In fact, I confess that I find the sheer persistence and volume of vandalism such a voluminous deterrent to establishing a quality project that it makes me wonder...Anyway, my very best wishes, as always, JNW (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star

I think this should be on your page for ongoing dedication. Ty 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the work on visual art and related. Ty 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised, thank you Ty...Modernist (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Ty 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again! It's a pleasure to be working with the high calibre/caliber of arts editors. Ty 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I didn't even know that barnstar existed! Ty 15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to find.....:)..Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm sure you're used to that by now... Ty 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm beginning to get the hang of it...sort of..Modernist (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange world, that's for sure. Ty 16:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understatement...these days, you never know...Modernist (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hello Modernist. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 01:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you, also. And thanks for looking over the Louvre! Lazulilasher (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Modernist, for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Best regards, JNW (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, that guy sounds seriously weird, Modernist (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich

I think that between yourself, myself, Whiskeydog and Liz we can take the Friedrich page to FAC within a few weeks. You have a talent for tracking down the influence taken by later artsists; so can you look after, and generally add to the body. At a later stage we can call in Johnbod and JNW. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep lookin.....Modernist (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the text under the art section is riddled with OR, or poorly sourced, or so obtusely stated and confused I dont know what the hell it it means. It would be a serious f**king grind to entangle it, so I'm thinking of ditching the whole thing altogether and starting over. What do you think? Ceoil ^sláinte 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't focused on it, I will, though maybe a little this weekend, write something up on the talk page, or on an extra page - or a sandbox before ditching it all......the article is beginning to get good. I like your additions..Modernist (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll sandbox. Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smithson

Thanks for the edit. Do you have any informaytion on Land Art and artists associated with Artpark? Pustelnik (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of information? I know a little, - see Michael Heizer, Walter De Maria, Nancy Spero, Dennis Oppenheim James Turrell etc. Land Art - Earth Art same thing...as to Artpark I'm less familiar. How else can I help you? Modernist (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and goodbye

Thanks for your note. It took me almost three days to get the pun on Job-job. Just another example of why I need a break. Had to email a new password to login and edit your talk page..... counter-productive, really. Thanks for your help/advice, and in parting I wanted to make sure you were aware of this humorous userbox...... You can display it.... or not....... I hope to be back some day, maybe this winter break, maybe not until next summer. Please don't bother to reply...

Userboxes … This user is addicted to ellipses and has been known to use them indiscriminately...

Lithoderm (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1950s Topps

I have been removing a questionable image that Libro0 keeps placing in the article. This image he claims to be a logo, but it is not and has no place here. He is doing this intentionally so I would violate the three revert rule. It should not apply here, as the image is something that does not belong and it is yet another deliberate attack by Libro0 on me. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked, "why hasn't he(BCG) been blocked or even warned by an administrator about his abusive and appalling behavior"? He has plenty of times. No one realizes it because he blanks his talk page so one is made to believe he is getting only his first warning. Among those currently on his talk page the following have also been issued A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L. I think people have been inappropriately lenient with him. Furthermore people make statements as you have - "stop these two from continuing to tie up every article they touch". I take issue with inclusive comments like this especially when people haven't done their homework. So far only one person has. His findings. Forgive me if I sound coarse. I appreciate any efforts to untie the affected pages. Libro0 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments...I actually tried to help you out..but I'm done now...good luck. Modernist (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New user

WP:VANDAL is only for deliberate attempts to violate the project, and does not apply to good faith edits, even if they are counter to wiki's policies, which can easily happen with new users: WP:BITE. In this case, guidance is appropriate. I've tidied up some edits. Ty 11:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I was hard on him last night, but he was doing several crazy things that he finally toned down. Thought he might be User:ArtLondon in a new identity..because clearly he Knows far more than a newbie, from the start. Thanks for keeping an eye out. His user page is beyond strange...kind of scary..Modernist (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a major problem. He appears to be raising valid points and discussing them sensibly. However, the article talk page is a mess. Ty 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to AGF, until proven otherwise (and keep a watchful eye!). Ty 10:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll stay cool..Modernist (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Max Lawrence

I think the socks were "too close" to the subject-at-hand to properly step back and apraise this article.. and definitely they did not understand the meanining of COI in their sourcing (chuckle). However, I have given the article a MAJOR SANDBLASTING since your comment at the AfD. It was a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find proper sources... but I think the subject might now been seen as having a (very) minor notability... once I pulled that HUGE ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best, Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look, and thank you for your hard work..From what I have seen - both sides being off the wall there aside; the central character is a step and a jump from being an art student. This is not an accomplished, mature artist....yet. I alluded to that in my comments..I will check it out one more time though. Modernist (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Rivera

I recieved your message about me removing the Diego Rivera category called "Mexicans of Jewish descent", but before someone added the category I already placed a category which said that Diego Rivera was of jewish descent, the category was called "Mexicans of Converso descent", a Converso is or a Descendent of A Spanish or Portuguese Jew who was forced to Convert to Catholicism during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. the category "Mexicans Of Converso Descent" is the same thing as "Mexicans of Jewish Descent". Thank you (La convivencia (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Then I stand corrected...thank you..Modernist (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Research Method

I've left a note at User_talk:Research_Method#Your_edits_2. Obviously American art is not going to be removed from Western painting, as it's an established part of the tradition. Ty 11:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your note there is much appreciated by me..Modernist (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archiving

Painting article

Arnoutf is an administrator, and as far as I'm aware, he has been involved with that article for quite some time. So, I placed the following comment on his (talk) page -

" I made an edit to the Painting article, after noticing that the definition in the first paragraph had been altered from "applying colour", to "applying paint", which clearly makes it more narrow. Instead of merely reverting it, I replaced it with a referenced definition (from Merriam-Webster), that surely ought to have been accepted as a reasonable compromise. Instead, it was immediately reverted by User:Research Method, with no explanation. I'll also say that this sentence in the first paragraph -

"When used in western painting, "painting" means also the use of this arts activity in combination with drawing, composition or abstraction and other aesthetic means in order to manifest the expressive and conceptual intention of the practitioner."

- is entirely unnecessary, in view of the opening of the next paragraph. And there is a statement about calligraphy, not at all conforming with common definitions and that seems out of proportion with its importance, in that part of the article anyway. From the discussion at the Talk page ("Research method" also signing with "Peas & Luv") it seems quite clear to me that the user in question does not show constructive intent. What has happened there practically amounts to vandalism. ΑΩ (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Image article just now and found this: Revision as of 23:52, 28 October 2008. Whereupon follows the insertion of several random images. User:Modernist removed this vandalism. And then yet another random image was inserted by user "Research Method". Reverted by User:Tyrenius. It would seem quite certain, then, that the changes made by "Research Method" to the Painting article are not exactly made in the most constructive of spirits... ΑΩ (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, reverting an edit by a user that is allowed to vandalize an article is senseless.

"Tàpies started as a surrealist painter, his early works were influenced by Paul Klee and Joan Miró; but soon become an abstract expressionist, working in a style known as "Arte Povera", in which non artistic materials are incorporated into the paintings. In 1953 he began working in mixed media; this is considered his most original contribution to art. One of the first to create serious art in this way, he added clay and marble dust to his paint and used waste paper, string, and rags (Grey and Green Painting, Tate Gallery, London, 1957)."

Now, some would perhaps say that incorporating these materials into a painting would tend to make it less a painting. Most fascists, for example, might, for what I know, deny that an "object" like that is a painting at all. I'm still a bit surprised though, that this view has been (as far as I can see) more or less blindly accepted here. ΑΩ (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

I've had no reply. And I've made no further attempt to counter the vandalism to the article. I just don't think it makes much sense to be "feeding trolls". I find it odd, to be honest, that User:Research Method has not been blocked some time ago. ΑΩ (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's very odd, but I think he means well... My major concern is that he seems to be pushing some sort of metaphysical view as objective truth- his edit summaries are always things like "dematerialising the image", and the fact that he refers to himself as "an oak tree" on the WP:WPVA project page makes me think almost that he's experimenting with WP as a performance medium, like Penn and Reichert. I wouldn't attest to that, though, as he has made useful contribs. Lithoderm 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction between making some useful contributions, while at the same time experimenting as if this were some kind of a performance medium. I guess an act like that could be allowed too, if abiding by the "principles of policy". I just don't think he does. As for useful contributions, a well-versed troll might also do that. So, it doesn't really say much. Without at least some variation and credibility to their act their "game" would soon be over. The Oak Tree... From what I've seen it's merely a reference to a conceptual work of art, and an article created by the same user. The style of the artist Craig-Martin, the creator of the "Oak Tree" art object, is referred to in that article as "detached conceptualism". The statement about "dematerializing the image" does seem be to part of a similar "project" - about "deconstructing" (Western) Painting - the Painting article made a victim to it.