User talk:Tyrenius/Archive13

You reverted my changes to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

I thought my copyedit made this instruction page simpler. You reverted my changes. With one button click, you undid work that took me about two hours and restored what seemed to my eyes to be overly complex, confusing instructions. Regarding Wikipedia:Areas for Reform#Do we have a problem recruiting new, or retaining current, editors? there has been discussion about many editors leaving, since they don't know how to contribute effectively, and referencing is one of the problems. If we can get new editors to master referencing, they'll be more likely to contribute effectively, in my view. The inline formula using the reference shell is simple and powerful -- merely cut and paste urls, authors, dates etc -- and if we could emphasize that, then I think it would help new Wikipedians contribute more effectively. Please provide some kind of explanation why you think the old version is better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibattling

So, what do you think about the proposed referencing for beginners article? I used your thinking plus expanded on mine, and offer a vastly trimmed version. Do you want to keep the current article, and have the reduced one be a daughter article? Or do you think we could put the new one in place of the old or is that too risky? And wondering about the technical aspects too, since I think you know more about this stuff than I do; like, is the proposed shell or template or whatever it is a good one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above copied to Wikipedia talk:Referencing for beginners. Please keep discussions in one place. Ty 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even if we're going to wiki-battle over art and stuff most likely, I still think you're a COOL WIKIPEDIAN and I RESPECT YOUR EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTIONS even though we're obviously going to clash at times like women in a park whacking each other with purses like in a Monty Python skit. It's all part of the process, isn't it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your enthusiasm and good will. Ty 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for the wonderful blog entry from Wales about the culture of delete,[1] found on your talk user page. Ikip 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

corrected. thanks again. Ikip 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revamping of Georgina Starr

I've researched artist Georgina Starr and worked offline on a revamp. Please feel free to check out the proposed revamp and offer comments. Edit my sandbox page if necessary. If possible can we keep the admittedly somewhat long quotes because the artist's work is so different and unique that to give partial descriptions is hard to do without being inaccurate. Things I'm having difficulty with and need advice on are these: what movement is she? And is she best described as a video artist? Performance artist? Installation artist (is this a real type of art?) Asking for feedback before posting the revamp. And I couldn't find her exact birthday but several sources give her birth year.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes on Starr as you suggested. If ready for replacement feel free to swap what's in the sandbox to the articlespace. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revamping of Combine painting

Hi, I'm working on a revamp of an art article. If interested, check out Combine painting revamp and make changes as needed. User:Bus stop suggested the revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monet effect

Thank you for your fast response to my Impression, Sunrise concern. The effect might be obvious to an art or computer imaging enthusiast or expert, but not to general readers who stumble in from, say, the Beach in Pourville link on the main page. I figured someone wrote about it before. --an odd name 16:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seliger

Hi Ty I could use some advice concerning this [2]. I first discovered it after I created this article Charles Seliger, which I did after hearing about his death. I have left a couple of notes...Modernist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghuse

Why did you place them back??? They are dead links and the information is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackio42367 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and FWIW: WP:SPI/Johnyajohn. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massurrealism

Greetings Ty. Since you had worked a lot on this article, I submit this to you as whether on not it should be linked. I downloaded the .pdf copy of an MA Thesis introduction on the topic here: http://www.massurrealism.org/searching_for_a_sign/ and did some further investigating and got a confirmation from this professor at the University at Exeter http://www.sall.ex.ac.uk/english/staff-profiles/andy-brown.html that one of his students had wrote this. Based on the notability criteria can this be used in the wiki article even though it is directly linked from the groups website? regards, --SaturdayNightSpecial (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would IMHO be better if this MA thesis intro was posted on the University web server since the link would demonstrate more solid third party involvement, much like the lecture given at the St. Petersburg State University in Russia. I did however receive an email confirmation from Exeter which did verify one of their students wrote the thesis in 2001,and was accepted by the university. In the interest of checks-and-balances method I would encourage any other wiki editor to do likewise so we are all in agreement. If this is sufficient for you, then please advise how we shall use it in the article. --SaturdayNightSpecial (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got your reply. I will at some point place a link from the article to the thesis intro and leave messege here.

Brian Smyth

Great work Tyrenius....the article was kept after. Ceoil sláinte 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I emailed a local gallery for a pic I could use and that is what they sent me. Hmm. Anyway, I just go for a FU. Ceoil sláinte 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redgrave-Head.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Redgrave-Head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Damiens.rf 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ovenden

Sorry to disturb you. Protection's off: straight away getting IP edits (probably same origin as those pre-protection) repeating the additions of stuff not in cited sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE

It appears that Ncmvocalist is willing to edit war to place content in the wrong place on the AE report on MT, I removed and he told me to take it up with you, as you have previously informed them of this. BigDunc 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if involved editors like BigDunc and Domer48 repeatedly [tag team &] edit war to alter the context of uninvolved opinion so as to make it appear as if it's involved [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], there is something seriously wrong. The only reason that both of them were so reckless in pursuing this, despite it being a rule that isn't worthy of enforcement, is because their own views are at large variance with those stated in the uninvolved opinion of mine; they want my view to appear in the involved editors section and be given less weight (let alone readership). As I said, the main purpose of the instruction was so that only the result is published by the deciding admin - the section wasn't intended for arguing over the result, however, as it's uninvolved input that discusses it, that hasn't been an issue so far. Unless we are inflexibly applying rules to the detriment of this project, to the point that only uninvolved admins input is worthwhile to be considered uninvolved, then I see no reason why any editors should provide uninvolved input in the future. This is why I chose to ignore the rule as it prevents the improvement of the project (even in terms of decision making). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[modified at 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]
So only the section were you are wrongly placing your comments is worthy, thats BS, I couldn't give a fiddlers were you place them in fact I wanted to respond in that section also, if it is ok for you then it is for all. BigDunc 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to provide more evidence of your inherent inability to distinguish between involved input and uninvolved input, I'm not going to stop you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we already have evidence of your inherent inability to distinguish between an Admin and an editor, so knock yourself out. BigDunc 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this bleeded onto your talk page Ty; all of my input at AE has been with withdrawn to resolve this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous section is not for involved editors. It just says, "Comments by others about the request concerning Mooretwin." I'm not very familiar with AE and maybe my comment would be better in the earlier section, but I joined in the existing thread. One thing is clear though, that the later section says, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above", as I pointed out to Ncmvocalist on his talk page,[8] (but he said he was deliberately ignoring the instruction) so the actions to move his post to the previous section were quite correct.
BigDunc, I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to start swearing to make a point, but it comes across as indicating a certain amount of exasperation, and, if that is the case, you might be better off withdrawing from the arena for a while, until you feel more calm and objective about things. We are here to build an encyclopedia and do so by creating a collegiate environment, so it would be good to see the effort towards that.
Ty 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the swearing my apologies, I was starting to get annoyed and I did remove myself from it. So, sorry for taking this to your page. BigDunc 21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It is a good idea to involve a third party in issues. And of course nerves can get frayed, so I'm glad you recognised that. It doesn't help anyone. Ty 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much. I will check it out. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Benjamin McAllister

Hi there! Actually, I did tag the article, but the creator removed the AFD tag. I will leave a warning on their talk page. In any event, thanks for re-adding it. Cheers, Nick—Contact/Contribs 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is to thank you for taking the time and deeply reviewing my case [[9]].  Ashot  (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Deleted" list

I know I really shouldn't be poking at hornets' nests, but I couldn't help myself. But in all seriousness, that list is a misrepresentation and wanted to at the very least point that out. Thanks for the corroboration. I'm sure he'll delete both our comments, but oh well. freshacconci talktalk 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.

He?

You and your pal had the same section titles; I smell socks. Enough of that though.

Kindly keep off of my user/discussion page.

I don't want your wit and indeed I will indeed delete.

Cramyourspam (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)cramyourspam[reply]

I don't appreciate your accusation. Same section titles? You mean User:Freshacconci posted on my talk page with the heading "Deleted" list and when I replied on his page I used the same heading so he would know what I was referring to? There's no wit intended. You got something wrong[10] and it was just being pointed out.[11] You might see this as helpful. User pages belong to wikipedia, not to you, and if it's necessary to post on them for wikipedia business, then that will be done. Removal of comments is taken as a sign they have been read. A hostile attitude is not going to get you very far. We have a common goal of writing an encyclopedia. Ty 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That all actually is helpful. Understood. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)cramyourspam[reply]

Input

I appreciate your input. I was trying to help artethical out, but I also have similar questions about that subject. I'll try to contact artethical about your concerns on the talkpage. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointillism

Any particular reason you deleted my edits to add Matricism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnrandall (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reliable source given to verify material about Matricism. Per WP:V such material can be removed by any editor. See WP:REFB for referencing help. Ty 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Matricism does not appear to have any extensive acceptance or coverage. Wikipedia is not the place to initiate such coverage. Ty 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I signed on here too - [12]...Modernist (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Landy-Scrapheap-Services.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Landy-Scrapheap-Services.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kees van Dongen

Saw you amended my edit. I am not starting a war over this, but Delfshaven before being absorbed by Rotterdam did not at all qualify as being in the suburbs, if Wikipedia's definition of suburbs is correct. Not (residential/no work) but by origin a harbour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superp (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love outskirts. Perfect! Superp (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

work of art

Yuo reinstated the following unsourced text. It is nonsense. "The related terms artwork and art object, used especially in American English, came into use in the 20th century, especially to describe modern and post-modern art. It was applied to works without significant skill or craft in creating the physical object"93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no inclination towards that text, but your alteration was even worse.[13] Please sort it out on the article talk page. Ty 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hofmann

Please weigh in at the talk page...Modernist (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Baer

Please weigh in - those tags seem way out of line to me, lacking in WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leningrad School

I asked him to create an english version of this article - Leningrad School without realizing that it has been deleted from the Russian wikipedia, although I should ave known better...Modernist (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Herbert (artist)

Updated DYK query On April 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Herbert (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The color bar has been removed, can you check it out?...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speeder21

Hi. You removed the entry Max Temple 3D Democratization manifesto 1996 from the Art Manifesto pages. You wrote graphics as motive, but this is more about art and the possibility of expressing it than graphics. Would like to know why you want to remove it. I reposted it but if you have a good motive I have no problem accepting its removal. Thanks. Speeder21 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it has nothing to substantiate it, e.g. Google gives nil returns.[14] Wikipedia content needs verification with reliable sources. Ty 03:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insular art

Hi! I'm having trouble here from a new editor, who claims to be an alternate account - whose I wonder? They are effectively an SPA. I have added a lot of inline refs, which the article previously didn't have, but they keep reverting to a copyvio derived from a single para in an online Oxford encyclopedia, which they don't seem able to understand correctly anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Morris

Hello. Not too long ago I started to make some edits on the above mentioned article. The initial priority, I thought, was simply to develop a basic lead followed by some typical sections for such a biography. I made some edits and for sure there is plenty still to do. However, an editor seems convinced that an earlier version is preferable. I offered talk about excess images --for such a short entry-- but no discussion. The current priority, as far as I can see, is refs. --Artiquities (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly

Ty, you were right about the paper incorrectly listed as a Mid Valley Publication. It was not owned by them, simply printed by them. I thank you for the correction and want to say I have nothing against honest prompting for an article's improvement. That was legitimate and I have no problem with honest attempts at cleanup, which that was. You were right and I listed it incorrectly. Please know that I am not unreasonable, just agitated that the article wasn't really given much of a chance from the onset and that the arguments against it seemed to run all over the place as though there was a concerted effort to delete it for no reason other than these people didn't like my "confrontational" style. And I see that Modernist, you, PD Cook, and JNW have other articles you work on together, so obviously the others were "brought in" by JNW to sink it, rather than allow it time for further development. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I have had virtually no contact with any of these editors in the past, and I don't appreciate the accusation of some sort of conspiracy. If you believe this is the case, please provide the diffs where JNW "brought us in." P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look at this talk page (Ty) you will see Modernist runs over here all the time trying to bring Ty into the articles he so altruistically wants to edit/delete. It will take me a while but I saw lots of clues on the trail of a similar nature. If you like, I will regurgitate them here for you but it will take a while to compile all of it. And may I say that I did not come here to argue, but to contribute a worthy article, regardless of your opinions to the contrary. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, so it isn't gaining you anything to keep poking your stick at me. I will, however, continue to respond to your non issues as you post them. EVERY SINGLE ITEM THAT WAS CHALLENGED HAS BEEN CORRECTED, NOW WE ARE DOWN TO NOTABILITY and none of you have the experience or wisdom to perceive that this was a notable publication, FULL OF ARTICLES ON STAN LEE, QUIET RIOT AND A HOST OF OTHER NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED CELEBRITIES AND ROCK BANDS. That is NOT notable? Check the article references on the bottom of the page, all with citation coding and everything so you won't have a heart attack because the information is there, but it wasn't presented right. This is becoming something of a joke, really. I have never had to deal with a group as anally retentive as this one. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
  • Comment Ty, it occured to me that all the information in the introductory paragraph is contained in the Hughson Chronicle article. Would it be appropriate to put the reference to the Chronicle article at the end of it? Along with the Flipside piece, it would give two solid sources and I can continue to research it and add whatever else I find. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
  • Question Another dumb question: I've located Mr. Morbid (horror movie review writer) on Myspace and e-mailed him, resulting in confirmation that he is in fact the same person who was writing the column in VEM. Would it be appropriate to include his link to Myspace with something like "Mr. Morbid on Myspace" or would that be considered some sort of individual advertisement? I actually don't think this will add to the items needed to establish legitimacy for the article, but just something people might find interesting. I don't want to do anything until I have some feedback from some editors about it, though. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Ty, just wanted to say I saw the updates you made and it looks a lot better and is much more concise. I've also removed a couple of my comments from your page so it doesn't dirty it up so much with my constant questioning. I'll confine my comments to the area where "my talk" is from now on, though. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Thanks. I prefer to keep the history of the talk page intact for my reference, so I've restored the comments. I suggest starting a new section at the bottom of the page for any ongoing matters. Ty 06:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I referenced this talk page in an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nineteen_Nightmares.2C_continued_incivility_and_personal_attacks, just to let you know. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it

You, do not delete my crap. Why don't I delete your crap retard?!?!?!  — Unsigned comment added by Explosivo 123 (talk • contribs).

That's it

You, do not delete my crap. Why don't I delete your crap retard?!?!?!  — Unsigned comment added by Explosivo 123 (talk • contribs).

Dialogslussen

In response to your declining of my speedy tag on this page, I looked for sources to check whether the page was worth taking to AfD. I figured redirecting to Fethullah Gulen Movement was more appropriate, however a few minutes after I made the redirect I found that the original page was a copyvio of this page and is still in the revision history. Would deleting the page and recreating it as a redirect be appropriate? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Here is. (The New York, "Abstract Paintings". P.10 Oct. 17, 1977(MA3ARG (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reginald Gray (artist)

Might interst you, being school of London. Article was built by a relative or gallery rep; seems fine so far but needs eyes. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the person uploading (Reginald Gray would be in his 80s, its likely a son or grandson) understand the implications of FU. Teshirts, mugs etc! Thanks for the eye though. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of TVF Media

Hello Tyrenius, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, TVF Media, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Peppage. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Peppage. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Peppage (talk · contribs) 17:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it. Ty 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, Ty, for helping out with this request: [15], one among numerous beneficial deeds. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Abts-Veeke.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Abts-Veeke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fixed...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ty. Ty 12:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and sock

Thanks for reversion of vandalism to my user page.[16] The IP has previously only edited Talk:Joseph Vickers de Ville.[17] Recently there has been repeated blanking on this page by dynamic IPs and, as soon as the page was semi-protected, the same kind of blanking by D-MacDermott (talk · contribs),[18] whose edits have all concerned this subject,[19] who has previously been warned,[20] and has recently been marked as a sock (of the IPs).[21] To avoid perceptions of involvement, I left another warning, but I think the IP needs to be blocked, and also User:D-MacDermott. this is an extremely obscure subject, and the vandal edits are obviously by the same person. Ty 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went trough this in a bit of detail, and all i can say is Quack! To sum it up:
  • User:D-MacDermott was created on 24-05-2009 and started editing the article in question. All sock puppets were created a day later (25-05-2009), and all of them aimed at the exact same article.
  • The IP made this edit. D-MacDermott made virtually the same edit a day later
I have little to no doubt that the IP and Mac are the same users, and i have little doubt that the sock puppets are his as well. Combine those, and you get all the ingredients to create an indef block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ty 14:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly

Ty, could you peruse this article once again? I now have over a dozen references, including many articles or mentions in other publications, which I have added to the reference section with quotes, as you had previously suggested. There is also a mention of VEM on Answers.com now and I've added that link. I spent two days digging through everything in my garage and when I was through I discovered all the old newspapers from that era in one of my file cabinets! argh! Anyway, you will see that some data has changed slightly (all facts thoroughly vetted against hard copies to ensure proper dates, quotes, people, etc.).

Along with all the articles, mentions and references, and considering the list of contributors and interviewees, it seems it may finally be ready for WIKI. People can argue notability all day long. This article now has more print and online backing than 90% of the articles I have been looking at here. I badly needed the time to put this information together and I was doing so with bits and pieces, memory, etc., which was obviously a recipe for failure. I should have started this article as a user page instead of building it on the main page, but I didn't know any better. Basically I have spent two days doing the research, making notes and then yesterday and today I updated everything from notes rather than edit, save, edit, save, edit, save, though I managed to do that anyway just updating it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Cowboy?

Hi Ty and thanks for your valued input at my talk and the article talk. Have you been watching a lot of Western films recently? :) Take care, --John (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An_Oak_Tree

DEar ty, please have a careful look at the article, and the sources before reverting edits. The text was NOT originally displayed with the object, and did not claim that CM had changed the accidents of the glass of water. Please discuss at Talk:An_Oak_Tree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie

Hi. I don't know you and have not much noticed you. It seems to me that you're only seeing an edge of the encounters I've had with Wildhartlivie, namely the thread on talk:Scarlett Johansson. See WT:ACTOR#Filmography RFC and the 12 subsections. It's 242kb long. Since I tried to clean-up some filmographies two months ago, I've found WHL opposing everything I try and do regarding actor and filmmaker articles. I've sought input from a wide variety of folks and welcome your participation. I will prepare a RfC/U if necessary. If things can be sorted by other means, great. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention of your name on Talk:Scarlett Johansson is an accusation by you:
All quite typical for a WP:ACTOR-article. John, your edit resulted in a WP:WRONG-style version because it doesn't meet the WP:OWNer's standards. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I presume the "owner" is Wildhartlivie. If you make sound edits and they are undermined, then follow WP:DR with WP:3O or WP:RFC. Personal attacks are not an acceptable substitute for following proper process. If you feel it is necessary, then prepare a RfC/U, but your conduct will also be scrutinised. Ty 02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your not umpiring this. You seem to have gotten a taste below, and can see why. fyi, I'm one of the most scrutinised editors on the project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous

Just to clarify, there was a rather protracted RfC at WT:ACTOR about filmography tables. At no point during that discussion was there ever a mention of converting tables to sortable style. Consensus was to use the templates. Jack Merridew has taken it upon himself to go about converting these tables to sortable in defiance of consensus and attacking me for reverting his pushing his POV onto these tables. He has also developed a rather nasty habit of following me around, inserting himself into various discussions and making comments such as in the edit summary you noted, launches personal attack and disparaging and essentially harassing me. This seems to be the same sort of behavior he was engaging in against another editor which required ilntervention that led to his requiring a mentor when he returned from being blocked as a sock. He pops up everywhere in discussions that I am having to basically crap all over me as he has done above. See the issues that came up with his being allowed to return. This has more than exceeded the bounds of civility and proper behavior and it is far past time that his behavior and battleground attacks toward me stop. Any suggestions? I have gone to WP:AN/I before with no help. His accusations of ownership against me have become hypocritical given his edit warring to retain the non-consensus changes he is making and the personal attacks have become tendentious and intolerable. I'm sick to death of his wikistalking and incivil behavior toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like diffs to show this conduct? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I don't intend to umpire in this dispute. However, I suggest you follow WP:BRD and do not engage in to-and-fro reversions as have just happened at Scarlett Johansson. You should follow WP:DR and involve other editors, by posting on the relevant WikiProject and/or starting an RFC on the point at issue. I suggest you keep a record (off wiki) of diffs to show any problems you feel are there, so you can present such evidence when and if you think it necessary and appropriate, should for example a RFC/U take place. Ty 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just offering. Experience has taught me that civl discussion with Jack Merridew is pointless and exceedingly stressful and is full of having to tolerate bad faith, disparagement and personal attacks. He knows this, thus his conduct. He makes it up as he goes. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image

Hi Tyrenius; Would you be able to help with this request [22] to upload an image? I'm technologically slow, and don't want to do it wrong. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you both, the page looks excellent ! Greetings from the real Cote d'Azur and apology that my signature is not working --Cote d'Azur 17:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

Marvelous! I have added my own images, but am hesitant to bollix up someone else's, or inadvertently add something that doesn't meet guidelines. Thanks, JNW (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar For You!

The Barnstar of Recovery
For meritorious conduct and diplomacy in regards to the Valley Entertainment Monthly article. Good show and much thanks for your skill and prompt attention to the development and eventual introduction of the article to the Main Page. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]


Lithuanian biographies

Mmm. Could you send the same message to User:Pohick2? He said he was going to expand them. Personally if nobody is going to expand them then I don't mind them being deleted. But some of them are probably more notable than others.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I understand they all have entries in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia. it looks pretty notable as a book. However, some people have said that the criteria for inclusion in that encyclopedia is loose aso some biographies may not be as notable as others. I only started the articles in belief they would be translated from Lithuanian wikipedia and sourced to this encyclopedia. Unfortunately few have been expanded as I'd anticipated. I thought they would clearly all be notable otherwise I wouldn't have started them... The article you mentioned to Pohick has sources available like New York Times... I'll try to expand a few today then.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've begun working on them Some of them have sources such as this. The problem is that many of the "painters" are not painters. They are artists in other fields. The link I gave you is about a writer who happens to illustrate her works. Hardly a painter. That's why it isn't a good idea to create stubs in this way without researching them... Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be shame to have deleted them without researching them like Aldona Gustas. I'll propose it for a DYK when I'm done. The others can be quickly referenced and then expanded when I have more time. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Arth Daniels. I'm unconvinced he is notable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick googling gives refs. I'll add later. I think he looks OK. Ty 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know why a year is so remarkable, the list [23] shows the maximum is three years. the problem with an evolving reference standard is that no one wants to implement it. Pohick2 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible return of V&A contributions

It's been a while, but there is a possibility the V&A will return to their work on Wikipedia. In the meantime we are busy rebuilding our website and would like to know if it's possible to generate a list of links from Wikipedia to the V&A. Our urls will be changing with the new site and am guessing it will be frustrating for Wikipedia users to be sent off to broken links. We are hoping we could find all our links and replace them with working urls. Does this make sense? Any advice appreciated. VAwebteam (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious Editing

You should be aware that ALXVA has been systematically posting deletion notices on contributions by Drmissio. This has occurred after a heated discussion about Fred J. Strain and Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska. He won deletion for Fred J. Strain which was totally wrong. He lost deletion for the time being on Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska. He then has posted for deletion the following contributions:

ALXVA should be censored for his actions. To systematically look through a contributor's list of contributions and then attempt to get them deleted is malicious. This is why you will see that Drmissio has left Wikipedia for good. Drmissio (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Linda King

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Votruba

Hi - I undid your recent category edit to the Jiří Votruba (which I also started). He's an artist - some of his work is being displayed in Prague right now (at Praha City Center) and he's been shown at Czech Embassies in several countries. The work that is shown is not his commercial work, of which you may be familiar. Best, BWH76 (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I deleted the interruption: :"Further discussion" with an explanation. There is no need to interrupt a continuing discussion on the same subject. Nevertheless you have restated it. I left it since it is not crucial to the subject. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for you help!(MA3ARG (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)) i am sorry a but everything a new in this(MA3ARG (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

i am sorry

i very sorry ne in this ( Please take chance a but this painter!)(MA3ARG (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Serendipity

Press release from the Tate [24], we should add it...Modernist (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[25] Good find, by the way. Ty 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and an interesting lecture - part2, [26]...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User account deletion - question

Hi Ty. Just tried to log in to use Wikibooks and found my previous account (Ruharper) deleted - apparently by you? Would appreciate some indication of a reason for this and - if possible - re-instatement, please. Ruharper1 —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've done nothing on Wikibooks at all. Your account User:Ruharper on Wikipedia is still active. I mistakenly posted on one occasion to your (till that point, empty) user page, instead of your talk page. I moved my post to your talk page and deleted it from your user page,[27] but your account wasn't "deleted". Maybe you're using the wrong password to try to log in? They are case sensitive. Ty 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser... If I try to log in or ask for a password, the system tells me that Ruharper doesn't exist. I'll take my bafflement elsewhere, and please accept my apologies for accusing you of wiping me from the face of Wikipedia.--Ruharper1 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. No one has yet created the account Ruharper on Wikibooks.[28] You will need to register it, or else go to your preferences (tab at top of the screen) and enable "Global account", which will then log you in automatically to all the Wikimedia projects, when you visit them. You should log in on Wikipedia as User:Ruharper, which should be working OK, and then enable that name globally. Ty 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted. Thanks once again. --Ruharper (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)--Ruharper (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative Impressionism

Ty, Thanks for your help on the Decorative Impressionism. I will be working on cites on this. However, I have some images that I consider a little better in my files to add to this article. If its alright I will replace the Lukits image with one that he considered one of his "Decorative Portraits" as that was the term he used. The one you used was an illustration from his youth. I will keep the others and add. Book coming with lots of Lukits images sometime in the fall. I will add a Van Schneidau image and perhaps a better Reid that I shot some years ago which is perfectly descriptive which I need to look for. I have a very large image library and archive, thousands of images that will be donated one day to either Archives of American Art or the California Art Club for their archive. I have curated in the area of American Impressionism, so I am working to expand this area. ThanksArtnHistory (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, as far as frames, I have the two images you must be speaking about are in a large enough file size that I can put another one in without the frame, but I want to keep the Spanish one on the Dolores Del Rio painting. Now, actually some books and exhibtion catalogs are including the frames as they were often designed for specific paintings in the American Impressionist era. Only if they are original to the painting, that is the criteria. The Dolores Del Rio painting had a frame made by and designed by the artist Lukits. I have a large collection of frame photographs which I hope to do an article on one day. Many of them were designed by the American architect Sanford White at the turn of the century and framers in Rhode Island where there we many framers. Pendergast's brother was a frame designer too. The original White frames can be tens of thousands of dollars today. All the old designs would be well out of copyright now and contemporary framers use them all the time. Whistler designed his own frames too.ArtnHistory (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, yes, I was thinking that I should note it when the artist designed the frames. I owned a couple of Emil Carlsen's years ago and one of them had his frame, you are right, many of these people had very specific ideas. He liked silver, 12k white gold. The original frames on the French Impressionist paintings were virtually all taken off very quickly and I think few survive. Seurat did some really unusual painted frames and I have seen one, too out of left field for even the museums to display them in!ArtnHistory (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I am philosophically against sock puppets, on blogs, wikipedia anywhere. I have someone else who usually works from her home who helps me edit what I write, online and off. She often comes over to help me at my office as well. Hoping to eventually have four or five people working with me on California and American painters, a couple of which have a lot of credits, right now I just have two helping me.ArtnHistory (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice AfD Valley Entertainment Monthly

Valley Entertainment Monthly has been listed for deletion. I noticed that you had participated in a prior deletion discussion for this article. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valley_Entertainment_Monthly_(2nd_nomination). Thank you. Minor4th (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tyrenius. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Attempted AfD nom for Donald G. Martin

Ty, yeah, I messed that whole thing up. I thought Sarah (another editor) wanted it proposed again, and when "jessi0421" showed up reverting all the old sales language back to the sales language that had been removed, I went ahead and nommed it because I figured it would just be a constant battle to keep the article neutral and encyclopedic, which is exactly what is happening. I believe the subject of the article himself is using friends, family, whomever, to vote "keep" and any of a number of other shenanigans. It often happens when a "new" editor pops up out of nowhere, and restores or creates language favoring the subject, often with the obvious intent of gaining free advertising and linking via Wikipedia. The guy has his personal business and commercial real estate development company's sales sites listed as External Links one and two. I figured one of you supes would have figured it out by now, but I'm done shouting from the rooftops over it.

Let's look at the facts:

Me: seeing a Wikipedia discussion for an AfD and randomly joining in. I don't know the subject of any of the principal editors. Discover a nest of WP:COI and WP:NPOV violators obviously doing everything in their power to control the article down to the n'th degree and accusing anyone who questions anything of engaging in personal attacks and a lot of other nonsense that would be easy to refute point by point, but for some reason we don't do it that way. In any case, I spent a good two weeks trying to fight the good fight, let people know what was going on, etc., meanwhile a group of editors obviously working with the subject or for him accuse me of all kinds of miscreance and effectively get me banned for a day by making up lies about my behavior that goes uninvestigated.

The proponents of Donald G. Martin: Constantly reporting anyone who makes any attempt at removing biased language or sales literature from the article to supervisors for "disrutive edits." Claim that all the language in the article has been reached by concensus and that it can't be changed. I was even challenged to "take it to the discussion board" before I made a grammatical correction. Get that? No content change, just correcting some grammar. I mean, did we fall down the rabbit hole here or what?

Bottom line: the article should be deleted. I said it before and I'll say it again if necessary. It is a fluff piece on a non-notable person who developed some real estate and sits on some corporate or charity boards. Oh yeah, he's also an "author" as he published a collection of his own postcards. As for the article being kept, I think that was engineered by the subject but I went along with keeping it and tried to clean it up. Almost within a day, the sales data from the large commercial/business development that the subject has down in Texas was restored. I was accused of wanting to sink the article. I do. But I respected the decision to keep. My intent was not, as Balloonman mistakenly assumed, to try and delete it because I "didn't like the decision." On the contrary, it was proposed because it should have been deleted in the first place and through some shenanigans, the subject and others working with him managed to save it from AfD by canvassing for people to join in.

P.S. There have also been obvious socks, bogus accounts and masks used by this crew to make sure the Hero of American Industry, Donald G. Martin, is properly shown to be a proper combination of Abe Lincoln, Donald Trump and Ernest Hemingway.

But I'm leaving for a while. I tried. Have fun, kids. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Lucian Freud

Hi Ty,

Question: Does Freud's German and Austrian lineage qualify for inclusion under 'nationality', or is he considered British, period? Incoming. Best, JNW (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]