![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() |
Archive 1 |
This article is undergoing a major change concerning imagery per [1]... Modernist ( talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Current numbers of FU images down from 51 to 43... Modernist ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A template was added to the top of the page claiming excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. The editor who placed the template should indicate which images are excessive and which copyrighted material is being improperly used. Otherwise, the template should be removed. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Apparatus and hand.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apparatus and hand.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 20th-century Western painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a content dispute here between two respected editors. Could you maybe discuss it here instead of edit-warring? Maybe if you lay out your positions I can help you to find a compromise. -- John ( talk) 21:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—why can't opinion be stated as fact? In the visual arts there are prevailing opinions. You mean the reader can't be apprised of prevailing opinions? It is certainly true that prevailing opinions can be bogus. But that only calls for the introduction to the article of differing opinions. It is an understatement to say there are a wide variety of styles in the 20th century in the visual arts. It is "opinions" that try to make sense of the bewildering proliferation of forms assumed by works of visual art. And it is opinion that lends support to the value seen by some in the most bizarre creations by visual artists. How can sense be made of an all-white canvas? How about an all-black canvas? How about the painting that involves throwing paint at the canvas? There is an opinion to support that too. There are also opinions that undermine the validity of the paintings that result from throwing paint at canvas. And why is a Campbell's Soup Can art? I don't get it. And even if I do accept it as art—is it good art? Correct me if I am wrong but anything voiced about this is "opinion". There are prevailing opinions and secondary opinions. In my opinion the article is best written by presenting the counterpoints between differing opinions. Bus stop ( talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() |
Archive 1 |
This article is undergoing a major change concerning imagery per [1]... Modernist ( talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Current numbers of FU images down from 51 to 43... Modernist ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A template was added to the top of the page claiming excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. The editor who placed the template should indicate which images are excessive and which copyrighted material is being improperly used. Otherwise, the template should be removed. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Apparatus and hand.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apparatus and hand.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 20th-century Western painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a content dispute here between two respected editors. Could you maybe discuss it here instead of edit-warring? Maybe if you lay out your positions I can help you to find a compromise. -- John ( talk) 21:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—why can't opinion be stated as fact? In the visual arts there are prevailing opinions. You mean the reader can't be apprised of prevailing opinions? It is certainly true that prevailing opinions can be bogus. But that only calls for the introduction to the article of differing opinions. It is an understatement to say there are a wide variety of styles in the 20th century in the visual arts. It is "opinions" that try to make sense of the bewildering proliferation of forms assumed by works of visual art. And it is opinion that lends support to the value seen by some in the most bizarre creations by visual artists. How can sense be made of an all-white canvas? How about an all-black canvas? How about the painting that involves throwing paint at the canvas? There is an opinion to support that too. There are also opinions that undermine the validity of the paintings that result from throwing paint at canvas. And why is a Campbell's Soup Can art? I don't get it. And even if I do accept it as art—is it good art? Correct me if I am wrong but anything voiced about this is "opinion". There are prevailing opinions and secondary opinions. In my opinion the article is best written by presenting the counterpoints between differing opinions. Bus stop ( talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)