User talk:Tyrenius/Archive10

Ze Khodz

I wanted to check the page about a band in Egypt called "Ze Khodz" but appearantly it got deleted by you. I would like to know if the deleted content is retrievable. Since I don't have a wiki account you can't contact me, but I'd be delighted if you reverted the old content since this band is of great significance of the upcoming rock scene in cairo. (or maybe being famous is exclusive to the US, then it'd be a different thing of course) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.177.131 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BAND for criteria for articles on bands, in whatever country they are. You might like to register an account, which is free and simple to do. Ty 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuckists

Hi Ty, there seems to be a very angry editor at Art of the United Kingdom who doesn't recognize Stuckism, and he deleted the YBA template that I added to the article. I left this message on the talk page: [1] Modernist (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, This guy is being very disruptive - User:Artlondon, the anti-stuckist, he has less then a thousand edits and he's been around about a year, everything he says on his user page is a lie. He deletes what he doesn't like from his talk page as well.Modernist (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, User:Artlondon seems to have quieted down and I think we're beginning to settle it down now, thanks.. Modernist (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets face it - this guy User:Artlondon is a problem...I don't think he's getting it yet..I think he should be either banned or blocked..I would describe this guy as a Troll...it's a matter of time...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Fairey

Thank you for your assistance in re-instating THE PHILOSOPHY OF OBEY book in the Shepard Fairey page. I do not understand why it was deleted in the first place...

Best

Park West Gallery

Thanks for your great work on this! --A. B. ^(talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, please see my comments to A.B. at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#PWG and the NYT letter from Saturday: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/l10auction.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkWestFan (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Talk:Park_West_Gallery#Balance. Ty 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your blocking that vandal, a particularly weird character. Modernist (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, he's back [2] making threats..I think my talk and user pages might need protection...the funny thing is I didn't even block this nitwit...He got blocked before I had a chance to file the report, by his own racist statements..Modernist (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, the original admin who blocked the guy in the first place - User:NawlinWiki has blocked the third inncantation of this guy and he has protected my user and talk pages...Thanks again...hopefully things will quiet down. Seems OK for now. Modernist (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This came out of nowhere. Did I make some egregious citation mistake that prompted it?--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I only bother with formatting when I'm trying to get an article through FAC or GAN, since standards change so quickly. Otherwise, I just go with whatever seems most intuitive for the citation at hand.--ragesoss (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIRA

Tyrenius, when you get a chance could you take a look over [[3]]. I've no idea what the objections to the inclusion of the IMC report are, and the WP:IR participants are refusing to state it. Bastun^BaStun not BaTsun 07:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the RIRA and its two factions" makes no sense, as would have been clear if you had read and understood the article. If you need to be spoon-fed through editing articles that are too complex for you to understand, please recuse yourself from editing them in future. Thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to advise. I suggest the procedures in WP:DR. However, Domer, your post here is not civil. It helps to create a collegiate editing environment to comment objectively on edits, not insult editors. Ty 09:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, its been a time since I posted here. I have expanded on my above comments here. This follows on from the discussion here, and the advice offered in the edit summaries here, by three editors. As you will see, when an editor says they have "no idea what the objections" are, you must be prompted to ask why they then keep reverting. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you'd wonder why someone would keep reverting content out when they won't state what their objections to the inclusion of relevant reference material is. (Sorry for the late reply, missed this on my watchlist). Bastun^BaStun not BaTsun 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, both parties make sure that you've stated your case clearly and it is understood what the issue(s) is (are). If you then can't agree, then make a statement summing up the points and get outside evaluation from non-involved editors, like an article RfC. If you do that, give the outside editors a space on the talk page to respond to that summary without arguing with them. Just see what they have to say. Ty 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions of NYRB ext links

You wrote "del sub site" in removing an ext link to the New York Review of Books site from the Paul Krugman article. I restored it, taking your ES to mean that you were deleting it because it was a subscription site. That, by itself, wouldn't be sufficient reason to delete, but the main reason I restored is that no subscription is needed. Some of the NYRB links give a few hundred words of the article, with a subscription needed for the rest, but even that much may be worth ext linking. Some of them, like the Krugman link that you deleted -- Michael Tomasky essay on Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal from The New York Review of Books -- give the whole thing for free. Your deletion of so many of these links seems problematic. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second the above. You pleaded "del sub site" (whatever that means) for a feature article on the Kashmir war in the NY Review of Books. The link works, the entire content is available. You seem to be one of these Wikipedians in a bubble, speaking in arcanities to keep out the uninitiated. Next time, please give a clear justification for deleting links to information rich, thoughtful content. You could use the article's talk page -- and reference that comment in the edit summary. Hurmata (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a user nearly all of whose edits are adding external links to the New York Review of Books and the sample that I checked out all required payment to view the content. You might like to read the guideline on this at Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration. As you don't seem familiar with it, here is the wording:

Sites requiring registration

Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them.

A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.

If you think something is useful, then you can replace it. The ones I checked out were not. There's no need to panic or start making personal accusations.

Ty 06:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't known about the other user's actions. Mass additions and mass deletions both disturb me.

Most of the links I've checked out had at least one free article. All had some free content. The Krugman link that you removed went to a specific review about a Krugman book, but many of these links are to an "archive", a listing of multiple NYRB articles by that person. For example, I pulled at random the Elizabeth Drew archive, and found a list of numerous articles. Some, marked by a symbol, require subscription, but most are available for free. A list like that is worth linking to even if not all the content is free. JamesMLane t c 08:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Tyrenius) (1) I suggest that every time you make an edit motivated by Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration, you invoke it. I suggest this as an edit summary: "Delete subscription site per Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration". (2) With your reply, you have given ground for another criticism. You wrote at enough length to justify yourself -- and justifying oneself is fine -- but you were not gracious enough (gutsy enough) to ACKNOWLEDGE, and respond to, a point which touched on that justification. What you *ought* to have written was something like,

"I took a sample of the mass edits and the sampled instances were pay to view, so I deleted all the edits. But now that you bring it to my attention that many more of these external links were free content, hmm, that's something to think about."

Hurmata (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I can write is that all these links were inserted by an editor whose only interest was clearly to spam the site. It is usual to revert such links, because they have not been made judiciously and they have not been made with the benefit of wikipedia as the criterion. Therefore I don't have a problem with deleting them. The only ELs I removed were ones placed by this editor User:Reader34‎. Please check his contributions. Furthermore, the sample ones I checked could only be accessed with a payment. I understand that some others had partial content available and the rest of the content available only with a payment. This is not suitable for an EL. I understand some of them actually had free content. In that case, another editor knowledgeable about the subject can review to see if it genuinely is merited as an EL. However, we are not here to make a list of EL, but to write articles, so it should be considered whether content can be added and the link used as a reference. There is of course no problem with using pay-to-view sites/links as references. If you still have an issue, or don't see why spam should be removed, you might like to consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam for more input. Ty 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you have just suggested, "it should be considered whether content can be added and the link used as a reference". While we wait for a volunteer editor to get around to assimilating some (possibly) long external Web page and then working some of its information into the Wikipedia article, the "External links" heading is the perfect place to park the imminent new source. Hurmata (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the purpose of the EL section. Put it there and it stays there for ever more and never gets used for article content and referencing. If it's of potential use in the article, then put it on the talk page with a suggestion that it has useful content which should be incorporated in the article. Then something might get done about it. Ty 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an author who's had a significant number of pieces published in the NYRB, a link to an archive page seems appropriate to me, even if some or all of the specific articles are pay-only; a free list of articles is a reasonable ext link. Do you agree with including those links? I don't know what fraction of the total meets that description but there are probably a fair number. JamesMLane t c 10:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the link is to a list of indexed articles, which have to be paid for or require registration to access, then an EL is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. EL should only be to content which is freely available. A mere list is not going to be very useful to a reader. If some of the indexed articles can be viewed without payment or registration, and some require it, then it's a judgement call. There is nothing to stop the material being used in the article, e.g. "X has written whatever number of articles in the NYRB" and using the index to reference that, if it is important information. If it's not, then it mitigates against the EL anyway. Ty 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stoopit. He, Tyrenius, deleted a NYRB link in Helen Vendler's article which has some really good stuff noted. You do have to buy some of the articles but several are free, and the link pointed to a free page. You cannot apply this rule of yours to the NYRB. Nuff said. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my rule. Read it yourself please: Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. It applies to all sites, including NYRB. Also the link you reinstated has no free articles,[4] just a few letters viewable and a mass of pay-for articles linked. I've removed it again. Please don't reinstate. "Del sub site" = delete subscription site. Ty 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reinstated. There are several free pages served with Vendler's comments, and the beginnings of the articles are available. It is also VERY useful as a selected blbiography. Please stop being disruptive by following guidelines and general policies with a far too strict interpretation. WP:IAR when a rule prevents improving wikipedia. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using that link. Are there any more you have reinstated or intend to reinstate? If so, then I think we need wider input into this. Ty 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, most certainly. I have been quite naughty on this subject. Developed something of an NYRB link fetish I must say. Seem to be drawn to that particular external link. What ever shall we do with myself? Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh

I could use a hand here - an out of control admin wants to change the article into ........his better vision. Hmmm, I added the picture to the legacy section and hopefully the issue is settled..Modernist (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorucci

As an admin myself, I felt it was accurate to remove the CSD given, as you point out yourself (as do most on the AFD nom), the article is clearly not a candidate for speedy to begin with. Circeus (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Weddle

Hi TY, I was helping out with the Kirk Weddle article when you deleted. Not sure if any of my changes showed up or not. I think I can work with it enough to show that he is notable. Is there anyway to get what was started back? MTV.com states that the album art which is based off of his photograph is a iconic album-cover. There are also some bits and pieces about his past and about his life that can be found from articles about the boy who was in the photograph as a baby. It seems the article may have suffered from the person who created it not giving enough info. What do you think? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

saying it's vanity = BLP vio?

• I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a WP:BLP violation. If you want to call me to task on my voting history, that's fine, but I stand by my behavior and don't believe it to be wrong. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain

Thanks for adding your opinion on the video sculpture at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain. Did you have any thoughts on the viability of the article as a WP:FA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pearce

Thanks for your help laying out the Michael Pearce page so it looks like a proper wikipedia page. Awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.16.93 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Original research - Uwe Wittwer

Hi. Thanks for your input on my contribution. The NOR issue on Uwe Wittwer would effectively mean we'd have to delete the entire article - does it not? I was unfortunately not aware of WP:NOR when I created the article. What course of action do you suggest? Kind Regards, Kevin —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

Hi Ty, strangely the Al Jaffee article about a Mad Magazine cartoonist is being harassed by an ip and a would be admin - User:TenPoundHammer. The guy tagged the article as being too short, I lengthened it with referenced content and he deleted the additions. Then he put an infobox on the page, I added content to the infobox - and he deleted the content, - he didn't tag it - he deleted it, saying it was unreferenced. I reverted his deletion, and referenced the content, now the ip (either him or one of his friends) deleted referenced material saying the reference isn't valid. This is a current story running about Al Jaffee on a major New York City cable station - New York One. NY1. Please take a look over there. Thanks Modernist (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TY once again this IP User talk:24.239.178.59 reverted the Al Jaffee intro, the edit about NY1. For a different reason tonight then the reason given yesterday. Yesterday he said the information wasn't notable enough because NY1 wasn't a TV station that he was aware of, and tonight he cites WP:LS, clearly the IP knows wikipedia better then most, because he seems to know what he's doing and my guess its an ip of an account, it looks like edit warring to me I reverted twice myself so far, I've asked for comment on the talk page twice now - please let me know what you think...Modernist (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the anon's edit...although NY1 is a major station in NYC it's not national, but an important local channel, millions watch it. thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is "Anon." I'd missed yesterday's messages but will keep an eye open for further updates. The NY1 issue seems to be settled, but I'll be glad to discuss those or any other concerns with you, Modernist, or anyone else. I've been an anonymous IP on Wikipedia for several years because I've seen too many debates turn sour, personal, and/or ongoing. I'm happy to see this minor bubble burst before it developed into much.24.239.178.59 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there's no need to speculate about my diabolical motives (though you can certainly attack any of my edits). Not only am I no "buddy" of any particular Wiki user (nor an anonymous alias for same), I also disapprove of some of the heavyhanded editing that's been going on. Since it seems to be a team effort, I've largely sat it out for now. It all seems like a passing storm. But if more of a consensus develops in the opposite direction, I'll be quite happy to assist. Your Pal, Anon24.239.178.59 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to have misjudged the editor above...I appreciate this dialogue..Thanks.Modernist (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About supposed insults

I don't like to insult somebody and I didn't, I only noted the reality and, I'm not wanting to repeat myself but, you fit in that, because you, again, don't understand what is written, do not investigate anything and take hasty decisions. Xesko (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About see WP:DUCK

And by the way, I'm not American, if I wanted to forge something, I will do it in an intelligent way and whitout nobody knowing, and I can guarantee you that I can if I wanted, but obviously I didn't. your's incompetence takes me having no will to do publications in the English wiki.

Kindly don't insult another editor (in this case a respected and experienced one who has contributed a lot to the project) just because he has made an edit you disagree with. Re. the amazing coincidence of you being User:Xesko and having the same birthday, occupation, and place of residence as Xesko, as discussed on Talk:Xesko, see WP:DUCK. Ty 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Xesko (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated

See WP:HYPHEN. --John (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rutter etc

I've had a look at the museum's internal databases and can't find any images or information about Frank Rutter or Allied Artists Association. All I could find was AAA listed on the National Art Library's database http://catalogue.nal.vam.ac.uk/#focus Sorry, I couldn't be more help. VAwebteam (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank Rutter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLAGS

That is cool. I learnt something new. How did you clear them so fast? I'd like to be able to do that too. AlexGWU (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Got your answer. Thanks. I was thinking along the lines of possible automation. AlexGWU (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW nice detailed work on the book article 'Journey of Souls' and covering all it's bases (image update etc.). When creating that article I was tempted to remove that redirect but I wasn't sure if that was an admin task or anyone could do that? AlexGWU (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ettinger

The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back.Modernist (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punky Meadows article deleted Feb 04 2007?

Hi--I saw a deletion log for Punky Meadows from 04 Feb 2007 but couldn't find any discussion or anything in your contributions log for that time. I was going to request a deletion review but then saw that I should contact the person who deleted the article. Was it you? What was the deal--reason for deletion?

I feel that Punky Meadows meets all notability guidelines. If the article was a stub or too short, I have plenty of links and references for a thorough and complete article.

If it wasn't you, how do I find the actual deletion discussion, or was there one? Or what do I do next?

ThanksMickmastor (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had just started the article in my sandbox. All that's there is just a rough start from one sitting. Most of the bio info is left over from my previous article because I don't have the info yet. I'll review what you did and try to understand the referencing method you used.

I found the info on Cat colons. Didn't quite know what you meant at first.

Another question. This seems dumb, but how do I get to my sandbox other than finding it in my edit history and clicking on it, or adding /Sandbox to the end of my user page ip address?

Thanks Mickmastor (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty--Of course re: user subpage(s). I haven't used my User page for anything and forgot it was an editable page. I would have figured it out eventually and shouldn't even have asked. Sorry to bother you about that.

Your suggestions re:article sources and referencing are well-taken and appreciated. I've written one article that I'm still getting more info and trying to find a public domain pic (Robert Mac) and my Sandbox article was everything I had on the person that I could start with. I basically did that all in one sitting and am trying to flesh it out more. I used to work on documentation for an engineering firm.

I've also fixed up the article on Angel, clarifying some things and adding a number of references. Maybe someone could check it out and see if it meets referencing requirements now (it has a ref statement that maybe could be removed now). Thanks for all the help, Mickmastor (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Requested Regarding User 212.85.12.211 and Others

Please take a look at the John Michell (writer) Discussion page as I believe this user is attempting to discredit a living author with non-pertinent, untrue and inflammatory detaills and may well be a meat or sock puppet. It's hard to assume good faith on this one. SageMab (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from your user page to your talk page. I hope you don't mind. Verbal chat 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Verbal. Sorry Tyrenius, I did not mean to post this on your user page. Any help keeping any eye on this anon user would be appreciated.SageMab (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it. I've commented and watchlisted the page. From what I can see the IP is making good faith comments, unless I'm missing something. Please stress WP:BLP however, as that needs to be adhered to. Ty 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ty. I have been stressing WP:BLP but things have gotten worse. I believe there is a big pov push by a group of editors who have a dislike of what they term pseudoscience (dab admitted) and what may be a puppet master. Please take a look at both the John Michell (writer) article where large blocks of type has been removed (a last paragraph that had good points about John Mitchell's work by Dr. Michael Vickers in Nature backed up by a quote from a professor emerius from Viginia Polytech and anohter largish quote from John Michell that explained his first involvement on the path of his writings) and the article talk page which looks like a non BLP chat room. I have been trying to be polite to these fellows but there is persistant agressive behavior from more than one of them. SageMab (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user 20:46, 28 August 2008 Moreschi has been removing large blocks of important text from the article without reason nor discussion. Please help with this situation. Thanks! SageMab (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Good advice, thanks Ty. William Blake "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." SageMab (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to bother you with this again. I took your suggesions very seriously. I rewrote and clarified the paragraph which contains vetting evidence. Moreschi has been removing it and replacing it with one no citation and no source sentence. Looks like vandalism. I asked him why on his talk page. I took it to the group on the discussion page who keep reiterating their dislike of what they call pseudoscience. I even posted a small bit on Jimbo's advice on verifiability. It keeps getting removed. 16:41, 29 August 2008 Moreschi is the page edit (one of several of the same by him today). What to do? Please take a quick look. Thanks, thanks. 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

The page of this John Michell (Writer) article was essentially blanked out by Moreschi. I restored it to an earlier edit of mine and tighted up the article, removing many quotes and removing NPOV issues on several words that seem pseudo science fan driven. Can you lock in this edit? 18:49, 29 August 2008 SageMab (Talk | contribs) (16,224 bytes) (restored content of article much of which was removed by Moreschi, edited down for pertinent information, removed several NPOV issues) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

Al Jaffee

I'd appreciate it if you might keep an eye out here. The vandal has returned - in the guise of ten pound hammer with an apparent vendetta. He trolls mad magazine articles like Mad Fold-in. I don't want to engage in an edit war with this guy - User:TenPoundHammer, thanks Ty. Modernist (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How the heck am I trolling? I'm removing unsourced info and copy editing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Al Jaffee. You're both edit-warring and you could be blocked for that, so please stop. This is a trivial matter. It doesn't have to be decided in two minutes. It can be decided in a week or a month. Leave it as it stands for now, which is TPH's version. I have no preference: that's just the latest version. Please note that although the lead is a summary of the article, it does also allow for special quotes, so if conformity to the guideline is the reason for removing them, then they can stay. Or maybe one can stay, or whatever, but it needs to be discussed. If you can't resolve it on the talk page, get a WP:3O or file an article WP:RFC - very easy to do. I would, however, like to see in future that you both follow WP:BRD. Edit-warring is not acceptable.

Re. Mad Fold-in, I can't see this edit as grievous. It's explained and it's not referenced: material which isn't referenced can be removed, though that shouldn't be done tendentiously. I don't see that it is in this case - the content is virtually OR. Also, Modernist, please leave off the "vandal" bit. Seriously, it is a personal attack and only applies where there is blatant vandalism, not good faith editing, which you disagree with. You're a good and committed editor: maybe a walk round the block?

Ty 00:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TY, a long walk might do me some good in relationship to that situation. Modernist (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all need one from time to time. Ty 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got both articles watch-listed. If there are any others with potential flash points, post a link here and I'll add them. Ty 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bracha L. Ettinger

Dear Ty I was notified by Bracha Ettinger that her name was systematically taken from Wikipedia. She suspect that this is the work of a political fanatic person who is opposed to her activism for the palestinian and to her activity against the Israeli occupation. because of her political opinions she is monitored by some strange list on the Internet, by people who are declaring her a self-hating jew etc. This is probably a political persecution of a courageous artist. There is no need to prove Ettinger's notability. If somebody can prove that she is not notable they are invited to do so. They can check Google Books and Google Scholars just as an example. I am going to proceed to put back her name, she was removed from lists of artists where she belongs, books in which chapters were written on her, and such absurdities. I hope that this work of hate against a major feminist and artist, whether political hate or personal hate, will stop and not be allowed by aministration on the Wikipedia. I hope that you will check this and help on this. Best wishesArtethical (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Inquiry

Can I just ask why you changed a Mondrian painting from Fair Use to Public Domain?? The template of published before 1923, as I understand it, only refers to mass produced objects (records, magazines, books) not individual artworks. These would only become copyright free 70 years after the death-in this case, 2015. There seems a continual temptation by wikipedians to confuse the two. ??? Or have I been bothering with long winded reasons for no reason???Franciselliott (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg

FYI, please see User talk:Nv8200p#An old image closure: Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg. By the way, I came across this image purely by chance today (honestly, right now I even don't remember how) and didn't notice you were the uploader until after I'd made the replacement. Anyway, I hope you'll agree with my action here, and don't take this as anything confrontational. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPAS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPAS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Brut External Links

I got your message. I dont necessarily agree or disagree. But I have put the matter on the talk page of the article so that others can comment. I suspect most will support your view of the Raw Vision link but did feel the need for further input. No disrespect intended. Kind Regards Setwisohi (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barn star!

And it's my birthday as well! Thank you very much. I exist always on the precipice of going OFF on Ottex, but my true interest is solidly in making a better article.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi, one editor tagged the Image:Girl sufferedwithburnwounds.jpg for speedy deletion. I am not well-versed with images. Could you please look if the image copyright is ok or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the commons page, there is not speedy deletion tag in commons page. But the articles in which the image is present, showing the image is a candidate for speedy deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_India. The caption below the image shows "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, 12 September 2008". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been added now and wasn't linked when I tagged it. I request you not to consider my edit to hide CLEAR facts. I sympathize with Namrata - the little girl. But I don't let emotions and solidarity overwhelm my wiki-edits. The image was unsourced and hence I nominated it for relatively speedy deletion. Wikipedia needs such images to depict gruelling violence but not at the cost of copyright infringement. Thanks. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt the source which is Rev. Abhiram Singh 's picasa account. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view on the legitimacy of the source. You put a notice on the image thumbnail in the article that it was due for speedy deletion, but there was no nomination for speedy deletion on the main image itself. The latter must be done to make anything happen; the former is merely a courtesy notice. Also if you think it should be deleted, that must be done on Commons, not on Wikipedia. If you go to the image page you will see it has been transcluded from the Commons and is not hosted here. Ty 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? See this edit. I had put the notice on the main image itself. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice when you clicked "edit" that you got a blank edit box? That's because, as I've said above, the image isn't hosted on wikipedia. You can't delete it here, because it is only transcluded here from Commons, where you will find the edit history of the main image.[5] You have to nominate it for deletion on Commons. It's their responsibility to sort out the correct permission, as that is where it is uploaded. That's why it says on the WP page, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below" with a link. Ty 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I didn't know about that. I used Twinkle and did not realize that I was creating a new history over here. Apologies :( --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

... for the revert. Wonder which spammy article he/she had lost? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add more advice for newbies

Could you please add more advice for newbies to your user page?? Maybe more of the practical advice in editing or all of the other things that somehow get lost in the 100's of pages that us neophytes are told to read, memorize, recite and comprehend when we arrive here.aharon42 (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much. Please let me know how I can return the favor. I enjoy doing research if you need it. aharon42 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:S-awards

Template:S-awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Method

Hello again Ty and thanks for the helping hand. I had intended to move all of the references on the Atelier Method page down to the proper place but am still a little leery of messing with other's edits. I also think you missed one in the last paragraph. I'm wondering if sight-size ought not to be a stub of the Atelier Method page as well? Then again, it might leave the main page a little bare. Cotswald (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fletcher and Isabel Reichert

Dear Ty,

I'm writing to personally thank you for contributing your time and attention to the Wikipedia entry about us. Since we found the page, we've been using it to try and create a new piece. This is probably quite evident from the page's history.

It's a bit difficult, since there are some understandably strict guidelines about what is and what isn't acceptable in a Wikipedia entry. We thought that the discussion tab would be a place we might use to frame this piece... but I can also understand there being guidelines about what is and isn't acceptable on that page.

Anyway, I think it's important to tell you that I admire your contributions, and that it isn't an intention of ours to undermine the Wikipedia project, "play games", or otherwise slight what's happening -- quite the opposite.

Since you've written about contemporary conceptual art, we hope that you'll also see the relevance of using alternative spaces to frame a work of art; particularly projects that leverage the intersection of life and art.

So, any suggestions you can give me that would enable us to realize this work would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sean --Sean.fletcher (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis St. Lewis

I'd have closed this as a delete rather than relisting it again. All but one of the keep "votes" are from new or unregistered users. I won't revert you, but you may (or may not) wish to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking any notice of the SPA keeps. The nominator posted to WikiProject Visual arts yesterday, requesting input. It was also listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts only yesterday, where it should have been from the outset. I note the keep was from one of the best art editors we have, whose evaluation is not to be taken lightly. He is the only one in the debate to point to the significance of the Florence Biennale. (However, the SPA does make a valid point about museum inclusion.) In the light of these aspects, I believe it is in wiki's best interest to allow time for more editors with specialist knowledge to look at this article. Ty 09:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Italian artists pages

Upon your segnalation I have gladly signed up for the visual art project. I have a specific knowledge on italian 20th century art (from futurism to '70). From time to time I will try to translate in English italian wiki pages of the artists considered to be masters. Of course my english could be better, so, could you suggest me a way to "call for a revision"? For example: I've compiled two pages as test, Mario Radice and Manlio Rho... the first have been fixed, but the second still waits. I'm quite new on wikipedia so maybe there is an easy way to do it.

Thanks, ArtDMaster

ArtDMaster (talk) 10 September 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always check the reference

Why didn't you check the reference before doing a rv on Marilyn Monroe and leaving the summary "rv, unless there is confirmation this is in the reference"? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake.[6] Ty 10:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Ward

Please wold you check out the copyright status on the gallery here. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the acronym AAO meant

On 11 Aug, I inquired of a division of the Royal Navy as to this acronym. (This was a gamble because they suggest that people with challenging inquiries engage professional researchers.) One month later, I have received a reply, albeit this information is not in the form of a citable publication. I am told, "His position as AAO in the Admiralty would have been Admiralty Administrative Officer." Hurmata (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gore

Should Tipper Gore be included in this page? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ty 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 720dd860485dfcc20f9c93c447a127f9

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Which doesn't work. Ty 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Moore

Hey Tyrenius, Modernist and I are working on the Moore article and are trying to decide on an image to include from the Geometry of Fear exhibition. Any openion? Ceoil ^sláinte 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. [7] [8], [9]. Would appreciate your openion on this. Not my area either, although its comes across as a big find. Interesting parlell with the contemporary school of london who were expressing similar notions.[10] [11] Ceoil ^sláinte 04:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion [12] is incredible, thank you very much. But likely will be deleated by bots within days; I'll like very much to bring this in, but dont have the FU smarts. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its late here (and there too I expect) so let me take care of the supporting text in the morning. That image is disturbing on so many levels; but its just brilliant. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre the Giant Has a Posse

Hi Ty, I could use your excellent assistance here: they are again trying to delete the 'Philosophy of Obey' sentence. I have put it up on the discussion page, but they do not seem to recognize that "deletion" is not "discussion" -- even when the book is the history of Andre! and Obey and Fairey! Thanks, --Baby fu baby (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Moore Template

Great work. It took some expertise to put that together. After the first line I would have been lost. I hope to see articles for more of his works in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony, great work..Modernist (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only a small effort though. Ty 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Market Group

I formatted the article using javascript, in conjunction with the manual of style. I fixed the inline citations, and capitalization. These are all in line with Mos. However, though I do not know of a specific rule stipulating that there should be no space between level 2 headings and text, I find that I normally remove the unnecessary whitespace. It merely adds to clutter on the edit page, and is normally formatted out be automated tools. As far as the manual of style is concerned, I know of no rule. I just think it looks neater. Hope that cleared it up for you. --Jordan ^Contribs 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a point for consideration. Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verily, that is true. I shall indeed take that into account. Thank you for your hint, and for your pointers. I will avoid making the same mistake in the future. Jordan ^Contribs 13:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M

I use the "m" so much because I make a lot of mistakes - sometimes I write first and read later..just one of my many shortcomings...:) Modernist (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Images

Many apologies for causing you concerns with the copyright of the Bevan and de Karlowska images. I am afraid that it is my lack of understanding that has caused the problem. I am the inheritor of their estate, own a number of their works, and am keen that others should see them. If you can explain (in novice speak) how to go about it I would appreciate your assistance. Colourman (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Dennis

The text I added about Felix Dennis is not nonsense - it is taken from the Times interview with him linked to in the article. I don't think there's even a libel issue as this is what he said himself (The Times interview quotes him verbatim and has it on tape). So I have reverted it. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Reid (museum director)

• Thanks for the tip regarding citations. I guess I was too bloody lazy to figure out how to do it. I'm changing them right now. --Jack1956 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. The Guardian says he was born in Dulwich [13] --Jack1956 (talk) and so does The Telegraph [14] 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a fantastic job you have done on Reid - many thanks for bringing it up to scratch. I am very impressed also with your work on J B Manson - makes mine look quite sub-standard. I think I'll avoid Tate-related articles in future! --Jack1956 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again. Thanks for your encouraging comments. Regarding Aitken and the smog, will this do? [15] Regards --Jack1956 (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to keep the dates consistent, habit probably carried me away at times. The Gazette is the definitive record for official appointments and so on, and (although pdf may be tricky for some) has the advantage of being free and online. Personally I think the sub-heads make it easier to quickly tell the articles apart, rather than have all of them entitled "Sir Norman Reid" or whatever. The instructions for citations say that we should give as much information as possible, I can see you rpoint to some extent on the archivngin point - though the templates force you to do this, so again I was falling back on habit to some extent. David Underdown (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of American artists 1900 and after

Hi Ty - A newbie editor: Dooder333 (talk · contribs) is in the process of adding several questionable additions here, and several new articles about what seems like commercial illustrators billing themselves as painters, can you check it out? He apparrantly is a long time art director for Walt Disney and is adding himself and other Disney artists.Thanks...Modernist (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About articles

Hi. I am fine with the articles. I was planning to write to you but I lost connection for some minutes. (I checked both article with 11 minutes difference due to the connection problem). Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Norman Reid (museum director)

On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Reid (museum director), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

What a nice surprise. My gratitude and very best wishes, JNW (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm surprised and grateful...you've rescued all of us time after time, this is appreciated. Modernist (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nechvatal

Hello there, you may recall that some time back you had problems with one Rydernechvatal. I believe Valueyou to be one and the same and have encountered a similar attitude with regard to wikipedia guidelines, verging on contempt. I have filed a sock puppet report and user check, you may see a pattern, though a number of connections have not been confirmed it seems obvious from the list of socks what is happening here.

puppetry report check user report

If you have anything you might like to contribute to this issue or believe there is an effective way of addressing ongoing abuse please leave a comment here. Cheers. S Semitransgenic (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has nothing to do with Joseph Nechvatal. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with a friend of mine Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see talk page at Noise music) This was done to me in spite and will not stand. I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's bully tactics. Cheers Valueyou (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year period, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.

Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.

This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to their talk page. Ty 12:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, things seemed to have cooled off a bit. Cheers. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes perhaps you are right. But I believe the "I am a new user" line to be entirely disingenuous, irrespective of what this statement implies with relation to WP:GF, this user has been around for some 2 years operating under various guises. Sorry, but as much as the ethos here is that I should swallow my pride and smile like a Buddha, I will not be playing that game. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not that I have failed to notice the users potential, and yes I can be unesscessarily stern - a softly softly approach would probably give better results. But, I'm learning. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! S. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charles Aitken

On 11 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Aitken, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Valueyou

I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. While I am here to beg your pardon Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massurrealism Update LAgurl

I added a semi-live link to the article written by Nancy A. Hitchcock "Massurealism yields unique new vision". I say it is semi-live because it appears on a collective database (on a Ukraine server) of articles written by her. The article that she wrote on massurrealism is not there, and I presume that it will appear as the admins of that site develope it. If you want, please take a look. I defer however, to your suggestions. --LAgurl (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, I got your message. I will occasionally check in with that server to see if they have placed the article to that link. regards, --201.252.44.20 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved

		The Guidance Barnstar
		User:Tyrenius: in appreciation all of your tireless assistance to all of us Modernist (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/USER request for signature

Hello Ty, I would like to file a WP:RFC/USER for Valueyou and as you commented on this individuals user page regarding their conduct perhaps you will offer your signature. I will be petitioning the other editors involved also. My statement will read as follows.

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious but very much to my point that Semitransgenic acts like a bully. For me all that is in the past however (per his false sock-puppet charges against me). My request that he is now seeking retaliation for was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which User:Verbal has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. (see Noise music talk page). If Semitransgenic, you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. Semitransgenic seems only to cry out for endless citations for every line of text and never provides any. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. Valueyou (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I shall comply. Valueyou (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

Both Eva Struble and Eric Sall articles claim they were in the Saatchi Gallery, "The Triumph of Painting" but I suspect they were'nt - though of course they have Saatchi online pages, which don't mention this. The SG website doesn't seem to have a full list of the artists - do you happen to have any way to confirm or refute the claim? Same thing with Marc Swanson, which you worked on. All created by User:Infoart who I think you've come across. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'd forgotten he was WP's inside man at SG. I deprodded Eric who had a minor museum link added by Ethicoaesthete, but left Eva prodded. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a Thank You & a Question

I just wanted to thank you Tyrenius for the way you and User:Verbal handled the tiff I was experiencing. I would like to ask you now a general policy question that is haunting me. Is the goal with a wiki page to have a book citation after every sentence? It seems that that is the trend I was experiencing on the Noise music page and I wondered if I am alone in finding this somewhat of a hinderance to the reader. For example I find the Noise rock page over burdened with footnotes. Can you guide me here please? Thanks again. Valueyou (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did not know that citations do not have to be from a book but can come from an online source. Is there a specific style choice in referencing the web? Valueyou (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Prize articles

I shall be going back and improving the format for references on 2008 Turner Prize. I've made a better job of references on 2007 Turner Prize and 2006 Turner Prize. As regards the form of the rest of the article, I had a feeling I'd meet resistance. I realise the layout isn't in the style of an encyclopaedia. However I feel that putting that material into paragraphs will bow to dogma but at the very great expense of clarity.

I guess my feeling would be "show me an encyclopaedia style page that puts across the information either as well or better" and then I could copy the form for future Turner Prize pages. But I feel no motivation at all' for changing it myself.

It occurred to me, after I completed the first one that someone may wish to radically change it. I accept that anything I put on Wikipedia is subject to that. If it happens I will probably take a copy of a historical version and host it elsewhere and provide it as an external link. Then for future TP articles I think I'd cut out the middle man and just create it as an external page at the outset and link to it from Wikipedia. This might be the better option as there is much I find in my research that I'd like to include but realise would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia page (more quotations that describe the form of the work, as opposed to merely the value judgements).

Not sure what to do... but I leave you with the challenge of changing the layout with no loss of depth and clarity. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

about the ladder that has remained in place since before 1852? Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Status_quo Kittybrewster ☎ 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image:Woman with a White Collar.jpg

It's at IfD now, you're welcome to discuss the deletion there. The image did not, to me, look like it was being used as a specific example of his work to demonstrate his style, it just looked like it had been thrown in decoratively. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kongthin Pearlmich

Hi, thanks for the work on the page but I'm puzzled - you say it may be a hoax. What exactly? The artist? The work? The offer to sell it? The work obviously exists... and it was made by someone. So, is the name a pseudonym? Please be more specific:) Thanks, Malick78 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit better now, though the Kent News would not usually be as reliable a source as the Telegraph (which didn't suspect a hoax). Malick78 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi

Ty, Just in case this diff escaped you - removed by same IP 3hrs later [16] Johnbod (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - my subjects don't talk back, fortunately! Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not - they've been safely dead for several centuries, in nearly all cases :) Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re emails - I have received, but not yet replied as my mail server doesn't seem to believe in the reply button at present and I am too fragged to copy over the text onto a new mail. Unless you wish for the discussion to be kept private, I can respond here - but in the meantime I can confirm that I have a couple of previous mails from you regarding the matter in 07, including the contact name at that time. I don't mind being either cc'ed any new correspondence, or taking the lead as needs be. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeakbox

I am getting irritated. RFC? Arbcom, independent 3rd eye? admins incident? noticeboard? What? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tery Fugate-Wilcox

I want to thank you for pointing out that the images we added to the article about me were uploaded by Fvlcrvm, which is the user name of me, my wife, Valerie Shakespeare, owner of the Fvlcrvm Gallery, which existed between 1992 & 2002 & of the archives of Fvlcrvm Gallery. Any rights reserved were reserved by us for the images we took of us or my art. Thanks again for your support. I hope to get Anna to revert the deletion.99.11.7.196 (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I see my name didn't come up when I signed this. Maybe I wasn't logged on. Fvlcrvm (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will do that. Just one question: What is a sockpuppet? Fvlcrvm (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Coltart

There is a similar problem / discussion going on at Image:Coltart1.jpg. It seems clear this is a permission granted but maybe you can resolve it. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton

There were clearly COI issues when I first looked at but Judging by the last round of edits the point seems to have been taken! Semitransgenic (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies

Hi Ty please watch this newbie because he is really out of control at the moment: Research Method (talk · contribs), albeit overly enthusiastic....this one also might bear watching: Search.nr (talk · contribs)...Thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if 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) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, He did reasonably well today, he's a quick learner..nice surprise..Modernist (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, check this editors edits today:Elisabeth Cottier Fábián (talk · contribs), what is happening? Modernist (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think her edits were actually intentionally malicious..strange - payback maybe, because she did not get her way here..at Talk:List of American artists 1900 and after more than a year ago...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius please watch Research Method (talk · contribs) I think he has an agenda and it isn't a good one..this article worries me Western painting..I'm getting a very bad feeling about his intentions, he feels like a Troll. Although he knows how to edit..Modernist (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input - we went at it rapid fire this morning and I don't really understand why, or what he's driving at. I am handling him as best that I can because he can be a good editor; I think he's got another persona..but I'm not sure who yet. Modernist (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, any comments that you can make here: [17] and/or here: [18] would be greatly appreciated by me. Have you seen this [19] and his comment about western painting? Seems he has an anti-American art agenda..Thanks..Modernist (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this conspiracy. When I try to change something manifestly wrong I expect reasoned argument, with supporting references, not ideological opposition..Research Method (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please examine the edit history for "Art Object" - for some reason Modernist deleted it 3 times.Research Method (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you calm down Modernist, and explain to him the meaning of Ad hominem.Research Method (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Kamali

I see this article has been deleted by you, but the old content is now unaccessible. I'm surprised that WP does not have an article. Do you have the old content? I'd love to have a starting place to rebuild the page. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scream

Hi Tyrenius: Seeking your input re: the most recent edits to The Scream. The recent research suggesting the role of Krakatoa's eruption in the sky's color was well-covered by reliable sources, including the NY Times and CNN, but it appears that WP:OR might be an issue here. Your thoughts/ suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, JNW (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The deletion of sourced content continues; I've restored previous version and bestowed a deletion warning, but given the direction this is taking, I anticipate page protection, eventually. JNW (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism

Hi, I think there might be a problem with William Blake#Dante's Inferno, but after reading the relevant WP policies I still can't tell to what extent simply rephrasing sources under copyright is permissible. It isn't a straight-out CRV, but the phrasing and what is said are very similar. As I can't figure out the relevant policy, I wanted to ask you to look at it before I make a fool myself on the article's talk page. I've put the texts side-by-side in User:Lithoderm/William Blake and Enlightenment Philosophy, my Blake sandbox. Thanks, Lithoderm (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		For your many contributions, including, but not limited to: writing, editing, advising, and overseeing the quality and objectivity of articles within the visual arts. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved! Modernist (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CARSHARING

Hi Tyrenius

I can understand why the entry for Charter Drive was deleted in terms of the Wikipedia Guidelines, but NOT in terms of precedent and consistency. If your job here is to help make Wikipedia a better online encyclopedia I respectfully request that you review all other articles on Car Sharing companies.

Please note that I copied the EXACT structure and in large part format of an approved article for two other carsharing companies (Streetcar and GoGet), so if my article is unacceptable then so is theirs - if consistent policy is a priority at Wikipedia.

Please explain the process I should follow to either (1) get my article relisted based on the grounds that it is unlike other approved articles on carsharing companies, or (2) request the deletion of other carsharing companies' articles on the grounds upon which mine was deleted.

Other articles on carsharing companies that are almost insignificantly different to the Charter Drive article:

GoGet Streetcar AutoShare – Toronto Communauto City CarShare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riggsi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tyrenius. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cher Doll Records

It's pretty thin stuff I'm afraid. Are there any articles that actually cover the record label instead of just mentioning it? Even if they aren't available online you can at least cite them. Anyway, thanks for adding the references and improving the article. I might take a stab at cleaning it up a bit... And FYI, I updated my vote and I would think it stands a good chance of survival. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little tired so I hope I did an okay job. I also had a couple questions: do you have a source for the quote "It was fuzzy and happy and catchier than heck. I like music that is actual songs--the shorter the better--and he got bonus points for 'Snow Song' sounding like the Jesus and Mary Chain." and are the label and the band based in Seattle? I kind of added that when I was trying to reword and sort through what was there... Would you have a look? I guess I better take it out since I don't know if it's true. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western painting

Please watch the article - love and peas or RM just deleted the lead twice...thanks..Modernist (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of new references to the lead, to the Vermeer image, and to the text that he complained about..nothing should be removed from the lead, if he objects it can be noted on the talk page..I appreciate your help, thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the 2nd sentence, the rest later if possible..This is now a lead with 11 references, plus one that I removed because of his objections although I may use it after I examine it. There are important articles like - Medieval art with no references whatsoever..Given this editor's vociferous objections to the United States via his edits to Anti-Americanism and elsewhere, and his antipathy to American art as exemplified by his own words over and over again, perhaps he should not edit articles with a biased point of view as he clearly claims to have about subjects which he does not have objectivity about...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Medieval art was meant simply to point to the hypocrisy involved with his focus at this particular article, now; and his strenuous objections to the Hudson River School earlier. I have said, over and over again that these articles are works in progress..The skeletons of earlier sections can be fleshed out by other editors adding well researched material. Because the Baroque is weak and Neo-expressionism not so weak that is no reason to weaken Neo-expressionism; but it is a good reason to strengthen the Baroque. I look forward to seeing all of those historical sections developed further. Eventually this article might have to be split into Western painting Part I and Western painting Part II...in my opinion..Modernist (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Hirst

The previous reference didn't work at all. Now it does. It's great to improve stuff, thanks for your help.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks 4 de pic:)Peas & Luv (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huvias

Hello Tyrenius. I would like to reply to a message I got from you, regarding my last wikipedia entry: "Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks."

- I can't see how I have been adding inappropriate external links? It's my first time editing anything in Wikipedia, so I do not know to much about the codes. I'm sorry if I messed up anything, that was not in any way my intention. I guess that it comes as no surprise that my name is Christian Bjørnø. I can understand that you read my simple entry as spam and advertising, but it was not.

The text added does not serve any lies: "2008: The unknown Norwegian artist Christian Bjørnø claims the wikipedia entry on conceptual art to be his conceptual product."

- I can understand that one dedicated to keep wikipedia as truthful as possible, would like to remove any entry that promotes a person. Still, I think that you have done a mistake here. My entry was a work of conceptual art. What differs this from a person adding his own painting to the wikipedia entry on expressionism, is that it's not up to him to decide that his art deserves a spot there. You could (and you sort of did) argue that the same counts for me. And I would agree, I think, on most other subjects but this one, and the specific spot I placed my entry. As said, I'm unknown. Why should an unknown artist get to write his own entry to a encyclopedia, claiming his own work to be a worthy example? Why should any artist, known or unknown? Because that specific topic, and that specific spot begged for someone to do something like this. It seems like no-one have done anything noteworthy in conceptual art since 2005. We both know that that's not the case. Still this topic needs to be updated. My -update-, is also a work of art that is strong enough in it's concept, to be included.

I guess you don't see it that way, but what you did by removing that exact entry, was censorship of art. In most other cases, what you do here on wikipedia related to art, is nothing like censorship, but more of keeping the entries truthful and as a quality sum up of the topic.

The reality is that I did not put ONE untruthful word into the text. It's a stating of facts. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that my name is unknown, the problem is that I wrote the entry myself and the problem lies in me not getting massive media coverage as f.ex. Damien Hirst . If say the mentioned Damien Hirst did the same thing, and got his usual media coverage, it would most likely stay (off course with some links to the coverage).

Even though I'm unknown, (naturally, since this is my first public work, and it was removed so fast that it's probably seen only by you) it does not mean that my concepts can't be as good, or even better than, any concept of an respected artist!? I'm not in any way critiquing you as a person. I do not believe that your action was wrong at the time it was carried out. You did a minor spam removal, and I love seeing that spam is getting removed from the pages of wikipedia, and since I love art, especially there! I wrote this to argue my case, in hopes that after reading these thoughts, you would see this specific case differently.

I do believe that this note is a good advocate for my work, and that you should reconsider. This conceptual work couldn't have been done any other way!

Thanks. -Christian Bjørnø —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huvias (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

He reverted an edit of mine calling it vandalism here [20], I consider this editor a provoking and disagreeable presence on this project; his tags are obnoxious and his edits are hostile...Modernist (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says Improve, or comment - he did neither. The list of artists is clearly lacking in global representation.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break...you've been asked multiple times to add to articles what you think they need rather than just complain..Modernist (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is a serious accusation and per WP:VANDAL should only be made when it can be shown that the intent of the editor was to undermine the project. There is no such evidence here, only evidence of a legitimate dispute. Research Method, you added the tag, but you did not address any specifics about what needed to be changed, only "so it can be improved, and become more representative." It needs a better justification than that, so I can see why the tag was removed. I think, however, you have a point, but you need to explain it properly on the talk page. Outline in more detail the faults and the corrections needed, so they can be discussed and/or acted on. It is not incumbent on you to make these, and if you show the tag is valid, it should stay, so that readers can be informed of the current state of the article. Ty 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I labelled it vandalism because he has persistently removed appropriate tags and red links. I think it important that people can see them, and either improve, or read, the article, or section, appropriately. Why else would such tags exist?Peas & Luv (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, he removed them because he thought they were not appropriate, not because he wanted to undermine the integrity of the project. That is a legitimate dispute, which needs to go to talk pages. There has been concern over your approach to editing, and as you are a new user, it is understandable that you may not be conversant with all the policies and conventions, so I suggest you exercise some caution, and think about using the talk page to raise points in the first instance. Ty 06:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ty's approach here and have posted a longer suggestion at User talk:Research Method. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions

Please see Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template formatting

I've been trying to figure out why the links in the first sentence of Vincent Cruz article don't act like the links in the rest of the article (the mouse pointer doesn't change unless I point directly at the very bottom of the wikilink). I think it's something to do with the infobox spacing, the problem goes away if I remove it or put a clear after it. Was hoping you might be able to assist. Thanks! Dreadstar † 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for looking at it! I tried a couple of earlier versions and they had the same problem. I'll check with DH85868993. Dreadstar † 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oleanna (play)

Hi Tyrenius, when you have a chance, would you check out the recent edits to this article? Several times I have reverted what is essentially a major expansion and re-writing, and it is now just a completely separate article grafted onto the original. It does not appear to be vandalism; on the other hand, the contributor shows no interest in explaining their rationale, or respecting what's already there. Your thoughts, as to whether any of the new content can or ought to be integrated into the previous text, would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viractualism

Hello Tyrenius. May I remove the banner as I added these references? I worked on the page in question today. There is no doubt that I know Joseph Nechvatal - but I am not Erica Nechvatal (That is his X wife!) - as I work in his studio as an archivist. So I have sources at hand. Christiane Paul, in her seminal book Digital Art, Thames & Hudson Ltd. discusses Nechvatal's concept of Viractualism on page 58. I will note that in the text. One of the images she chooses to illustrate that section on Nechvatal is titled: "the birth Of the viractual" (2001). Also, Joe Lewis, in the March 2003 issue of Art in America, pp.123-124 discusses the viractual in his review "Joseph Nechvatal at Universal Concepts Unlimited". John Reed in Artforum Web 3-2004 Critc’s Picks discusses it too in: "#1 Joseph Nechvatal". Frank Popper also write about it in his book: From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120. Then there is mention of the concept in "Joseph Nechvatal: Contaminations" a review by Patrick Lichty archived here: [21] The other 3rd party references already cited on the web can be checked.

Cybism has not been discussed in 3rd party books yet. Shall I put the Cybism aspect as a sub-division on the Viractualism page? Valueyou (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tyrenius. I seem to in a cul-de-sac at the Viractualism talk page - as all the information provided came from the books and web pages cited as references. I have written nothing original. I have reported what I found. Can we get your opinions please. Valueyou (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Adam Neate

On 22 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adam Neate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen %28talk%29 06:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

I'm keeping my eye on this [22]. It seems like a terrific solution; or rather a very viable potential option for what we've been discussing..Modernist (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is still also this: [23] Modernist (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

For the last seven months he has displayed none of those negative qualities that were previously dominant. This has surprised me, as he has had to put up with a lot of frustration in his appeal attempts. His behaviour has been exemplary.

This has since been resolved, but I find your comments very confusing so perhaps you could clarify for me. Are you saying that off-wiki, private correspondence from a banned user is supposed to reflect upon their on-wiki behavior that got them banned in the first place? It's geneally a given that a banned user begging to be unblocked is going to be extremely polite. And, since the community as a group cannot examine private, off-wiki correspondence, how does this material directly pertain to the problem under discussion? Please forgive me in advance if I am misunderstanding your reasoning. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is going to be allowed back, then we need to ascertain what his current attitude is. Obviously we know what his past approach has been, and that has been acted upon by the community as unacceptable. If the user is still in that state of mind, then there's no point in allowing them back. Some users do not show any indication that they have changed. Bus stop has demonstrated a significantly different and greatly improved response in his interactions with other wikipedians, in circumstances that have been very demanding and frustrating. These interactions have been in email correspondence. Let us hope this continues in editing. Ty 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I look forward to the "new" Bus stop. Since you are both members of WikiProject Visual arts, perhaps I could get your help on a number of issues facing WikiProject Hawaii in that regard. We have a large number of visual arts-related articles that need to have consistent formatting and oversight. Viriditas (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

The best thing is to post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts with specific information. This usually gets a good response. Ty 18:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may certainly be the formal method, and that might work well for you, and perhaps that might even get a response, but I tend to find the most active editors and address them directly rather than pursuing bureaucratic routes that could take more time. In fact, whenever possible I tend to deal with people on a one to one basis; So think of this as an informal notice that carries no weight. To be blunt: I've been babysitting many visual arts stub and start-class articles created by User:Wmpearl who has openly refused to work with WP:HAWAII and doesn't care about proper formatting, inline citations, image size, etc. So, if you are a member of the visual arts project and are interested in helping improve visual arts-related articles, (and there's quite a lot of them) please ask your project to review the contribution history of this particular user. Otherwise, I'm going to start de-tagging them from WP:HAWAII, since this isn't our primary focus and nobody from your project appears to be helping to maintain these articles. In fact, many of them are not even tagged by your project and seem to exist in some kind of netherworld. To conclude, if you consider your project "active", then please review this user's contributions, assess them as necessary, and start using User:WolterBot to help sort tagged articles in that set. Since you are apparently a representative of the visual arts project, perhaps you could discuss this with your fellow members when you have some free time. Or better yet, you could ask your friend Bus stop to help. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment sorry to butt in; but I have been working regularly on pages and images that User:Wmpearl uploads....I've been reformatting sizes and other material for what seems to be years now. His uploads are crude but extremely valuable..and I know other editors like User:JNW know his work..I wish there were more like him...He quietly gets his work done...Modernist (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need some help? I just looked at the latest batch of contributions, most of which are untagged by the visual arts project and contain improper formatting, huge images walling in text, no inline references, etc. The user has been asked repeatedly not to do this and leaves the work to others. For example: Maya_Cohen_Levy, and many, many, more. Furthermore, this is a huge problem with copyright tagging and violations, and many of their image uploads have been deleted. I haven't even touched the problem of copyvio text, which cannot be easily ascertained as many of the sources that appear in the reference sections are esoteric and hard to get a hold of from the average library. The user does not communicate effectively with others and is not interested in any policies or guidelines. I could go on and on, but hopefully, you have got the point by now. Or not? I'm not sure which articles you have worked on, but most seem to be untagged, unformatted, and lacking inline citations, and I must say, I seriously doubt the fair use exemptions being claimed will hold. I have tried (in the past) to work with this user in good faith, and they have told me to my face that they don't care. It would be great if the visual arts project could take care of these articles so that others don't have to worry about them. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think posting on a project talk page is particularly "bureaucratic". I'm a member of the project, but no more of a representative than any other active member. It is a project which suffers, like many arts activities, from a shortage of members, who do what they can (and also what they're interested in). They are volunteers, so no one can demand any particular action from them. I made the suggestion to post there, because I do not have any particular interest in Hawaii, nor the time to develop one, so it's not a good idea to ask me about it. The project page is likely to attract attention from those who do have an interest, and, as Modernist has pointed out, have already attended to the edits of the user in question. The mention of Bus stop is quite gratuitous and somewhat provocative in the circumstances. Please exercise a little more tact and consideration here. I'm copying the relevant portions of this text to the project talk page, because that is the proper venue for it, and this isn't. Thanks. Ty 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. You find it "gratuitous" and "provocative" to ask for help and collaboration? This is what I said: "since you are both members of WikiProject Visual arts, perhaps I could get your help on a number of issues facing WikiProject Hawaii in that regard. We have a large number of visual arts-related articles that need to have consistent formatting and oversight". I apologize, I thought you were more mature than you appeared. I won't bother you again. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you said was "Since you are apparently a representative of the visual arts project, perhaps you could discuss this with your fellow members when you have some free time. Or better yet, you could ask your friend Bus stop to help." What is better is to leave Bus stop alone. You have already made clear your negative view of him.[24] Ty 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wasn't going to bother you, but I can't allow you to willfully misrepresent me. I said exactly what I claimed.[25][26] There's no "actually" about it. I can see that you are well-versed in assuming bad faith. Furthermore, your claim that I have a "negative" view of a previously community banned (and for good reason) editor who has not yet returned to Wikipedia to make positive contributions is the height of absurdity. Let's simply agree not to talk to each other, as I find your intense desire to misrepresent and twist my comments incredibly sad and unbecoming of an administrator. I can't say I'm surprised. The facts are crystal clear: prior to being unblocked, nobody had a "positive" view of Bus stop except for you - a view you admittedly base on private, off-wiki correspondence that has zero bearing on the issues and concerns discussed on ANI. I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously. I want to also add that I find your comment, "I do not have any particular interest in Hawaii, nor the time to develop one, so it's not a good idea to ask me about it" to be the most off-the-wall, narrow-minded, and just plain silly comment I have ever encountered in my entire four years here. I'm supposed to read your mind and know what you are thinking? That's a good one. This conversation is over, and you are free to have the last word. Goodbye. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

I'm very sorry about the whole Brandt mess. It strikes a particular string with me because you nominated me for adminship and I failed your trust as a Wikipedian and more importantly as a friend. I apologize for that and will attempt to move forward as best as I can. Yanksox (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica removed

This seems to be another extension of policy. How do you feel about the argument in the edit summary? Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with its removal here and with the edit summary in the context of this article, but not as a general point. The text only mentions it briefly. If the text expanded on this as a significant aspect of the article, then I would see it differently. However, there are far more imporant aspects of the Spanish Civil War to be enlarged in the article, before the painting. Ty 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's just wrong - from the exactly relevant example of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use Images # 4 this is permitted as iconic. That the painting itself has an article is the new argument, & doesn't seem a reason to remove it to me, so I have reverted him. He removed it from Spain, which I won't contest. Amazingly, another of the imagepolitzei removed the famous Iwo Jima photo from Battle of Iwo Jima, despite it being the example in the policy of where a photo can be used! Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Dali is the next to go... It's odd that he didn't remove them both. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the images

User:PhilKnight removed all the images without discussion..sort of administrator recall material in my opinion..Modernist (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Pope.L article

Hi Tyrenius, Can I ask you to look over the rewrite on William Pope.L's article? Just wanted some feedback on whether I followed the Wiki guidelines. Thanks a bunch! --IsabelReichert (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments

Hopefully the emphasis will shift from trying to blame individuals, towards finding a workable solution. If you are saying there are specific images I should restore, then perhaps you could list them. However, I'm reasonably confident that most of the image removal from articles was done legitimately, that is within process, and in order to comply with non-free use policy. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long list

User:PhilKnight restored a few images; but there is still a long list that need restoration..[27]; [28]Modernist (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above administrator removed your comments about the Mark Rothko from his talk page..Modernist (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and sent you an email. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. The email is based on a misunderstanding of a post I made. There was an unintended ambiguity. Ty 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi and art

Good hello. Sorry to bother you but I've noticed your work on the Saatchi Gallery article and wanted to bring this to your attention. The most recent issue of Reason (December 2008) has a cool little sidebar article by Nick Gillespie entitled "Sharks Stuffed With Money: The Curious Economics Of Contemporary Art" that you might find interesting. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability question

Is Anne_Mondro notable? Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:'Roots', oil on canvas painting by Maya Cohen Levy, 2002, private collection.jpg

Image is restored. The ifd tags are still in place. I'd like to see what the nominator thinks. -Nv8200p talk 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Ty, I came on 10 mins ago to find I was blocked for over 24hrs because my ISP had been used by a vandal only a/c. Now that has gone. If (& when) you have a moment, could you look at my block log & see what happened. I don't have a shared or networked ISP & am puzzled & rather concerned. The vandal a/c might have been User:Sam Shorn - I can't remember the admin. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Thanks for the links, given all I've read, and need to reread ....I really have to better understand this issue - although they clearly seem to understand and want us to use Fair Use images of paintings and works of art, because that is the only way to educationally get them across; and they clearly acknowledge what we have been saying...the interpretations of minimal use and various other interpretations are the fuzzy areas that need to be thrashed out. Modernist (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Vine's page

Hi there Ty, I'm writing to question what you mean regarding this edit you made just now regarding Stella Vine's charity work section.

16:50, 15 December 2008 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) (50,675 bytes) (→Charity Work: WP:PEACOCK + remove 2 references that don't mention Vine. 2006 Higgins auction ref says "contributed" not "donated". There can be a difference.)

If Stella Vine gave a painting for an auction, surely this is a donation. Artists do not make a charity pay for a work and then auction it, a charity auction is by definition one where an artist creates a painting or art work and then gifts it to a chosen charity for them to auction to raise funds for their charity. Therefore, Vine did not just 'contribute' here, she 'donated' a work to the Terrence Higgins Trust. I look forward to speaking with you about this. I have looked into the reference you comment on here too, and I'm confused as this reference clearly states all the works from the show will be auctioned off for the charity, thus proving this as a donation by Vine. Thanks.

Madeofstars 17:14, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Sorry, just one further question to you Ty, in your comment above, you said the "2006 Higgins auction ref say "contributed" not "donated", can you show me this exact phrase or link me to the website as I have so far been unable to find this comment which you've stated. Thanks in advance!

Madeofstars 17:20, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Apologies, I saw "contributing artists" and missed "donated" at the end. I've changed it back. (In some situations there's an arrangement where a percentage goes to the charity, not the whole price.) The other 2 refs linked to pages where there was no mention of Vine and so didn't validate content. WP:PEACOCK is self-explanatory, I think. It's a wikipedia writing guide. If there's a reference that says she's well know for charity work, then it can be reinserted. Otherwise it's an editor's opinion. Ty 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IfD

There is no guideline or policy I am aware of that states an example of an artists work should appear in an article about the artist or that by definition having an image of the art will increase the reader's understanding and not having one will again by definition be detrimental to that understanding. The general requirement that a non-free image have referenced critical commentary to support use of the image. If this image is as important a work as claimed then there should be ample references to take from and create a good sized paragraph about the image itself that would make the image significant to the article or create an article about the image like The Starry Night. -Nv8200p talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept-Oriented Design

Hi Tyrenius. I'm a researcher with several peer-reviewed articles in IEEE and ACM conferences on the topic Concept-Oriented Design (COD). A few years back I started my first entry in Wikipedia on COD but it was deleted by you. That was fine if it was not following the standards of Wikipedia but at the same time, there is another individual creating entries for Concept-Oriented X and basically taking over the terms. His work claims legitimacy but has not passed academic peer-review and has been criticized both in Wikipedia and online forums alike. Additionally, it is overflowing into the academic world as I have received reviews saying I need to reference this individual when the work is related by coincidental name only.

I would like to be able to create an entry for Concept-Oriented Design just to avoid these types of problems. Would you allow my creation of such an entry or allow it to be undeleted so I can update it.

For example, see the discussion of the Concept-Oriented Model entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwingrav (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwingrav (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've created a simple entry and put in references. Let me know if any changes need to be made to keep inline with WIkipedia's standards or protocol. I've linked to three external references Concept-Oriented Design and added a note about disambiguating between Concept-Oriented Design and other "things" out there. Thanks for the help. Cwingrav (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosy.jpeg

You deleted this image. According to the image page, the uploader Madeofstars was the creator of the work and gave the correct CC licence. Is it the case then that it was not his copyright and the image was uploaded with a false statement? Some of the images he uploaded and said were his photos had Stella Vine's artwork as their subject, so her permission was also required, but this one did not. If it is his copyright, as stated, then it can be restored. Ty 11:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

Madeofstars said on each of the images he uploaded that it was his own work, even when it was from Ms. Vine. As a result, I am suspicious that this image may be in the same category. There is an ongoing OTRS conversation on the topic and I expect that it will bring more clarity to the situation. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ty and Stifle, yes I do own the rights to the image Rosy.jpeg, not Vine and none of her art works were pictured in that work, so you are correct in that we don't need to delete it. What with all the :confusion surrounding the images I had uploaded, I myself tried to remove them all, but it is safe to say we can re put that Rosy image back up if possible. Otherwise I can just reupload it. We don't need :Vine's permission for that image.

Madeofstars 12:31, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Incidentally, I own ALL the images I've uploaded. But we had to ask Vine for her permission as she owns the copyright to the images in the photo stills. So just to make it very clear to you both, I am the :creator of all those photos, and did not give false statements when I uploaded them.

Madeofstars 12:33, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

OK, you need to sort out with Stifle the deleting admin and post on his talk page. Ty 12:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you! Madeofstars 13:15, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

The image has now been reinstated, just to keep you up to date. Thanks.

Madeofstars 15:20, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Stella Vine, References, help needed

Can you help Ty? The whole references section from the Stella Vine page seem to have vanished off the page, can someone please help clarify why this has happened? Is there a bug? Best, Madeofstars 13:13, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

No problem! I fixed the problem, thank you anyway!

Madeofstars 13:29, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas to you!
	Have a very merry Christmas, and a great new year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Regards (and Season's Greetings!) from Madeofstars [ talk ] 14:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, and thanks again! Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nash again

I'm trying launch a DRV on the Nash image, but as usual the template instructions justr lead to a pile-up. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 - It doesn't appear on the main page at all. Any chance you can tidy it up - all the information should be there. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Nv8200p deleted the image, I'm surprised....Modernist (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - Phil Knight (the original nominator) fixed it. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Record label

After your work on Cher Doll Records, I thought you might be interested in Burnt Hair Records. I'm in way over my head. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I didn't mean to edit on top of you. It's all yours! And the UK review website has (old) contact info for record label/ guy if you want to see if the Hofmeister, Larry Hofmann, is still making music happen. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tired the e-mail it didn't work. Thanks for adding a good source and participating in the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary works of art

Hi, I've been cleaning out Category:Works of art & set this up for the otherwise unclassifiable, by me anyway. No doubt you can think of some additions. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and have a great New Year...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out all the deletions going on here [29] and here [30]..as well as the individual Fair Use Rationales. I've set them back in place unused at the moment...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Ty, nice to hear from you and thank you for the heads up. Happy holidays, Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Tyrenius -- Season's greetings. I thank you for your assistance with the predicament I got myself into. I will try to live up to the trust you placed in me. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Ty..in the spirit of the day....this is poignant:[31], this compelling: [32], and this just something I listen to a lot: [33], I hope you enjoy these..Modernist (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]