We're were wondering how long it would take until an art snob to change the article. What a wonderful exercise for my Graffiti Art class...the digital documentation of my Neo-Graffiti will do wonders...especially with someone threatening to block my IP with the username 'Modernist'. We will come in waves...and we have all the articles that you helped create.
Happy editing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.64.140 ( talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dearest Modernist,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
When you have a moment, can you take a look at Wetman's edits to the Romanticism article? I am not yet willing to revert him, because some of it seems correct. However, the following statement he added to the opening looks like an opinion:
What are your thoughts? And, what about his alteration of all the century formatting from [[19th century]] to nineteenth century? He changed every instance throughout the article. I would like the opinion of someone with a lot of experience with this article, like yourself, before I revert any of his changes. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
A tag has been placed on Paul Brach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. freshacconci speaktome 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out the templates at Template:Inuse for use at the top of articles you're working on to avert speedies and edit conflicts. Tyrenius 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Before you go reverting a bunch of my edits, have you bothered to read the Manual of Style regarding Image sizing? Wikipedia's guidelines for images state:
Thanks, Cacophony ( talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ta. The template, I presume you mean. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The picture in the Template:Impressionists or lack of it is always open to review. A point against inclusion is that Monet's painting then appears on the pages of all the other artists. For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I keep my settings on the default. Tyrenius ( talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must
protect, protect
Wiki
fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings
free
But
fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Modernist, those are beautiful images on your user page. The images in my card are a bit of a mixed bag as you'll see and my haikus ... well let's just say they're not high poetry.
Anyway, thanks so much for supporting my RfA. -- A. B. (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
MONDRIAN IN LONDON
For memories of Piet Mondrian in London from/by Charles Harrison, Winifred Nicholson, Barbara Hepworth, Miriam Gabo, Herbert Read, Ben Nicholson, Naum Gabo see http://www.snap-dragon.com/mondrian_in_london.htm
This is actually a hlepful link to scholars who wish to learn about Mondrian's time in London, of which little is known, althought "Modernist" believes otherwise. This info has been on this site for months, plus if we wish to be pedantic about links, etc. I will report all the images you have to DACS, ARS, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.218.157 ( talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your report of 78.49.10.36 for vandalism from WP:AIV as this doesn't appear to be vandalism, but instead is a content dispute. Can I suggest that rather than merely reverting 78.49.10.36's edits you engage in discussion on the article's talkpage and attempt to reach consensus? I am copying this to both Modernist's and 78.49.10.36's talkpages; the subsequent part is intended for 78.49.10.36. Please do not repeat the incivility you showed here and in other edits such as here. Civility is one of the key Wikipedia principles; please remember this. Comment on the content, not the editor. Apart from this, presumably you have reliable sources for your assertion that Mondrian used grey; I'm sure Modernist would be interested to see these. Tonywalton Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment would be useful here. Tyrenius ( talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Although my involvement has not been as deep or substantive as yours, I have enjoyed contributing. Maybe I will return soon--goodness knows that editing is a terribly obsessive pursuit, and it is near impossible to stay away--but I am tired of it right now. Best wishes and carry on with the good work, JNW ( talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The book is online - you might take the time to see that indeed the quote does not appear in the book. Tedickey ( talk) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Modernist, I was wondering why you added a link to Lewis' novel "It Can't Happen Here" to the See also section when it is already included in the bibliography? Jrs044 ( talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
All the best to you too - keep up the good work! Johnbod ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I left a comment regarding the year of the painting at Talk:Still-Life with Geranium. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, would it not be wise to discuss alterations to important pages like Post-Impressionism with other editors, before altering such pages? At present, we have many pictures on this page, others and more could be easily supplied - but would this improve this page? There we have a lack of detailed information to classify something! While everybody seems to be invited to post his private opinion via an image which (almost by definition) is open to more than one interpretation. Therefore, please think about the definite content you supply, and keep in mind: WP is considered to be more than a coffeetable-book. Illustrations are fine, as long as they illuminate the content - but there is absolutely no reason to include them just because they are at hand. - rpd ( talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I had problems to lock in, as I lost my password. So I created a new one, and hope to merge both user pages soon. For our PI-discussion I think it would be appropriate to continue on the PI-Talkpage. -- rpd ( talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius adviced me how to proceed, and so I did. I think you will find my advice on Post-Impressionism. -- rpd ( talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
New article FYI. Tyrenius ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your 2008-01-14t20:43:09z edit with a summary "rvv" where you reverted my 2 previous edits. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism on Wikiedia means. My two edits stated information from the reference [3]. After you reverted it it had him discussing painting with " Lee Krasner, Jackson Pollock", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions the " New York School", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. Your revert wasn't of vandalism, it was of information that the sentence's source said. After your revert the sentence contradicted its source.
Your next edit used Wikipedia's New York School as a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you need to source information from reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability - one of Wikipedia's 3 most important policies (the other 2 being Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). This edit also put back my mention of "the Eighth Street Club" which you'd just before called vandalism. Your summary had "see talk page before removing any more content!" - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The burden lies with editors adding information - unsourced and challenged information can be removed by anyone.
Your last edit left the following unsourced and previously challenged with a citation needed tag:
It also left the following unsourced and previously removed information:
In summary: don't revert edits that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, don't then call them vandalism, and don't put back unsourced information once it's been removed unless you provide a source. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15 t10:07z
Hello Modernist, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an info note. Take Image:Matisse518.jpg. Bottom of page shows 3 articles it's used in. Each article has to have a separate fair use rationale on the image page. Each FU rationale must link to the specific article. See Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg for an example. Tyrenius ( talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to check any images on pages you are editing. A common cause for possible deletion is just that the FU rationale doesn't have a link to the relevant article - even though there will be an automatic link at the bottom of the image page anyway. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be reverting valid edits, especially without any explanation. So far you've done it twice. The passage has legitimate problems, which either have to be corrected for it to stay in some form, or if it cannot, left out entirely. 69.230.120.39 ( talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
May you please have a look on the talk-page, before you continue? Thank you,-- rpd ( talk) 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Heads up, Modernist. You'd better rewrite the Wikipedia article on Arshile Gorky. It appears to have been written by contributors who were not "real people". The article clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist tout simple that you and the Real People hold him to be:
"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."
And the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration. The image does not belong — just a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong as the only image of a Picasso work in an article about cubism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandArtLover ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the rating at Caspar David Friedrich was arbitrary and not even intended to be a rating - I was just tagging the article with a Visual Arts project tag, trying to get as many visual arts articles tagged in a short time, I wasn't thinking about A,or B, or start, but gosh it only got a start - man oh man....golly, because there are a whole lot of Visual Arts articles being checked over by other forces at wp, and in the long run Johnbod suggested that we tag em and then rate em high, but oh my God you actually rated it too, wow that must have been hard for you.....after all, It's too bad you ride that HIGH horse and r so caught up in your own trip, give me a fkn break...those va templates were partially motivated by this [5] Modernist ( talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I have opinions, and because I like Wikipedia (in some ways) like you do, I have recently been expressing them more, because I'm concerned. You are making me out to me some kind of elitist, which is unfair. Clearly you don't like my style, but I don't think you should get so mad at me because you aren't able to defend many of your own edits. You just said up above that the edit was arbitrary. Can you not see why that's a problem? Anyway, you don't have to answer that, but you've upset me as much as I appear to have upset you. Whiskeydog ( talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Modernist, I sent you that mail finally; but my mail client is acting a bit weird these days, so let me know if there was no attachment and I'll get somebody else to send the article. Would you mind archiveing this thread by the way; its resolved, your self an Whiskeydog have worked well togeter more than a few times before, there are no hard feelings now; we should just forget it and move on. Thanks........ Ceoil sláinte 13:25, 28 September 2008
Hello Modernist. I am a beginner here, but have high education in fine arts and contemporary culture. I have noticed your interventions on almost all the pages that interest me too, and they were always full of knowledge, balanced and intelligent. I am writing to ask if I can contact you when I doubt some informations and believe that they should be deleted, or when I have some suggestions that I cannot apply yet. Best regards Artethical ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you keep placing two images at the heading of the Unicorn article. Angel the Techrat ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Hi Modernist. If you are interested, you might want to lend a hand to the '21st century' section, as well. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. Is there any specific reason why you reverted the work I had done on this subject ? Maybe you know someone who will do the cleanup so the article is understandable worldwide. Lars 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Pourquoi? For one thing, the article is once again categorized as a template... Sardanaphalus ( talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Tyrenius ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. Your thoughts re: the current editing disagreement at Art would be appreciated. Thanks, 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) JNW ( talk)
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi modernist, can you look at the change in Rothko page from: 02:33, 25 February 2008 24.47.208.127 (Talk) (58,755 bytes) (→Suicide: added external link to Marlborough Gallery (Marlborough Fine Art)) (undo)-------is this the place for a link to this gallery site? I don't know yet how to think on such matters--will you have a look? Contemplating21 ( talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added some Mayan paintings. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent assists and sharpenings. You do an immense amount of work on wiki, and as a grateful user I wanted to express my appreciation. Fenbaud ( talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public
Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on
the invite list.
BrownBot (
talk)
03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What, if any, are your thoughts on this fellow? I have, quite frankly, grown tired of his penchant for adding links to " Asemic writing" to every article he thinks it is somehow relevant. It seems that his whole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to promote this so-called avant-garde movement. I intend to put a stop to this. First, I am going to put the asemic writing article up for AfD. After that, it will be much easier to justify reverting his edits because I will have shown the movement to be nonnotable. Have you any thoughts on the matter? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The starting point is 17,200 google results. [7] This is a large number. It appears in some credible, even if arcane, places:
The Rustle of Language - Google Books Result by Roland Barthes - 1989 - Language Arts & Disciplines ... finds no textual contour; the code is simply interrupted: an asemic word is created, a pure signifier; for example, instead of writing "officer," I ... [8]
Dissemination - Google Books Result by Jacques Derrida - 2004 - Philosophy ... the complication according to which the supplementary mark of the blank (the asemic spacing) applies itself to the set of white things (the full semic ... [9]
Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments - Google Books Result by Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart - 2005 - Religion - 424 pages ... a purely physical text from which all trace of meaning (the logos) has been removed, in which no meaning could ever appear — an asemic text. ... [10]
Joseph G. Kronick - Philosophy as Autobiography: The Confessions ...As an excess that belongs to any semic entity, the fold folds back, creasing the blank or virgin sheet, to use Mallarmé's metaphors for asemic presence. ... [11] (The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower Library)
The Philosophical Imaginary - Google Books Result by Michele Le Doeuff - 2002 - Philosophy - 335 pages
Conversely, the polysemic—asemic trait which we have been observing betrays the fact that the text is not directly receivable in its intended univocity. ...
[12]
Premises: Essays on Philosophy and Literature from Kant to Celan - Google Books Result by Werner Hamacher - 1999 - Philosophy - 408 pages
... of the asemic, ...
[13]
Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts - Google Books Result by Daniel Albright - 2000 - Philosophy - 410 pages A gestus always struggles to retain its efficacy, its pointedness, its incision, against a general asemic blur, a confusion that tends to swallow up all ... [14]
asemic calligraphy, apparently WSB's - William S. Burroughs papers, Ohio State University. [15]
JSTOR: Sartre et la mise en signe... verbal acrobatics which superficially characterize the best of our modern poetry (witness Maurice Roche's playful 'asemic stereog- raphy,' for example). [16]
The last example is a 1983 publication, so it is not a "recent neologism". The article is not about the "movement" but about the type of creativity described by the term, which, as in the examples above, is verifiable.
There is a relevant text from the Newsletter of the Library, School of Art, Media and Design, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK: Over from Argentina, Mirtha Dermisache will be showing a selection of works published since the beginning of the seventies, (see dbqp visualising poetics, http://dbqp.blogspot.com/2005/02/importance-of-documental-structure-to.html - Mirtha Dermisache and asemic writing) and an installation in bookartbookshop that combines a publishing process (printing, edition and sale) with a conceptual intervention. The first of these interventions took place in Buenos Aires in 2004, the second in Paris. We are extremely honoured to be the third context for her work. [17] The blog it references is by Geof Huth. [18]
Do you have any opinion on the placement of the etymology of romance/romantic in the lede of the Romanticism article? The information might be of importance, but I think it could be put down a little further, not adding unnecessary length to the lede. Any thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix to the columns in the see also section. I was not at all satisfied with the job I'd done, but was simply too tired to keep fighting with it. I knew I was going about it in the wrong way, but was buggered if I could figure out the right way. At any rate, I thank you. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Modernist, thanks for all your help with Friedrich, it was great to see your edits. If you have the time and energy, can you take a look at Venus; I'm hoping to push it to FAC in the next two weeks. Best, Ceoil ( talk) 11:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Modernist, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Just wondering why you reverted my edits for Rene Magritte. Blackjanedavey ( talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you have again forced a specific size for gallery. This may work well on your desktop, but definitely not on all. Therefore, please reconsider that a default setting may allow a better effect on the screens of other collaborators. All the best, -- rpd ( talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
See User_talk:Tyrenius#Response. Ty 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Was promoted last night. Thanks for all your input and insight, and hope to work with you again. Ceoil ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for troubles caused by my edits, and be assured I appreciate your contributions: You are doing a brillant job, to my opinion. As far as I see, a set of technical problems was involved, too. For the time to come, I offer you my hand, my criticism (nobody is perfect) and my experience.-- rpd ( talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Forgotten, and buried. Let's cooperate - tell me if you need support, information, or anything else: I am prepared to help as far as I can,-- rpd ( talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if my edits are off the mark, as I am new to editing wikipedia, I saw that action painting and Japanese pop art both lacked images.
May I ask what makes certain images "inappropriate"? The images used are by anonymous artists and are released under a share alike license from a a non profit anonymous arts organization. Where appropriate, I would think that those would be better than using thumbnails of copyrighted art. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zenbabyhead (
talk •
contribs)
05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Modernist, could you help me please? I had a problem with NPOV on the article
Christiaan Tonnis.
I tried my best and think it isn't brilliant now, but OK.
I also asked
Tyrenius. Could you please have a short look too?
Are there too many quotation marks in it? Or should the ref numbers (without using quotation marks) be enough?
Thank you very much!
Blaise Mann (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about one of the references you added: is Art & Auction a magazine? I have never heard of it, but I was a little confused by the formatting of the reference, and did not want to make any changes until I checked with you. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Read all about Art & Auction, LTB Media and the enterprises of Louise MacBain. Ty 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reverting my linking to David Prentice from Monochrome painting, Lyrical Abstraction and Park Place Gallery. I hadn't realised there was another artist with the same name. I was in the process of creating a stub for the American David Prentice to avoid any repeat of this confusion (and so that the English one could have a dab link at the top), but then I got cold feet about whether I'd got the right guy this time round either.
This guy [19] [20] is called David Prentice and is certainly American, but from the gallery page on his website [21] his work doesn't appear particularly monochrome or lyrically abstract.
If this isn't the right David Prentice either, then I'm struggling to find any mention of a third one anywhere on the web. Any suggestions? JimmyGuano ( talk) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The revert you performed on John Steuart Curry reverted to an article containing information copy/pastd from a WP: article. That revert has been reverted. Happy editing! I do not respond on other's talk pages, only on mine -- Atyndall93 ( talk | contribs) 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
hi modernist is there a procedure to join the "Category:WikiProject Visual arts participants"? or does one join by adding the category in the userpage Talk? many thanks Artethical ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I try to put the templete but don't know how. please give me a hand on that. so many thanks. Artethical ( talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. Can you have a look at the Frida Kahlo page, I separated between references and biblio Artethical ( talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
the reason was that there is a new person, who only visited this page, and he seems to be interested, perhaps against, i do not figure this out. I followed to his page and saw that he is doing only this page. This is one of the pages that i watch regularly because I look at certain artists and at contemporary women artists that are followed by either Kraus or Pollock regularly. I do not think that this matters, but it looked like a beginning of soething strange. maybe I am wrong. I will continue to watch this page. Thanks. Artethical ( talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I will keep an eye. But I also want to say something more. Look for example at our young male british artists, for example: "Damien Hirst (born June 7, 1965) is an English artist and the most prominent of the group that has been dubbed "Young British Artists" (or YBAs). Hirst dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s and is internationally renowned. Now, you see, nobody wants to take the words "most prominent" "internationaly renowned" even "dominated". And the word renowen or major is quite regular with most of the important contemporary artists pages. I am not sure that we should take these words out from some women artists who reached major standard, and leave it with others. perhaps you can consider it again? I am going to check on some other contemporary artists' pages to get the feeling Artethical ( talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, just to share with you, I looked at the sites of Pollock and Picasso, and then, of Bourgois and Nevelson. I was surprised, I was so sad to see how little we have, relatively, on these great women artists. For the moment. Artethical ( talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging me. That's why I try to keep an eye at least on those sites that I care about and which are well done, or are on their way to become very serious source, adding more information from my research. As you see, I try, I continue Artethical ( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Apropos your comment on the Reginald Marsh talk page, I'd noticed this recent activity too, and my impression--based on the home-cooked, choppy writing style evident in the expanded John French Sloan article--is that we may be looking at the results of a class project. The mid-term timing is suggestive. Let's hope these welcome expansions pass the copyvio test. The uneven writing style in the Arthur Dove edits does have the feel of scattered patches of lifted prose set into otherwise self-written material, may need careful vetting--I haven't taken a good look at the others yet. Ewulp ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that makes sense. [23] Ty 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Ty 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for Ronald Davis living in Taos? If so, please add it to his article and then restore him to the Taos page. I've removed him because there's nothing on his article (sourced or unsourced) that says anything about Taos at all. Nyttend ( talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem.. Modernist ( talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi modernist, I am not trying to be annoying and I am not Familiar with how to, and this is not personnel research, it is hidden facts. Please either tell me exactly what to do, or research the facts yourself so that you can add this IMPORTANT information to the Guernica page. thank you. Rubensrevenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubensrevenge ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Listen, it is not nonsense. I tried to put a reference in but I didn't do it right. First of all look at the two paintings. Second read the book "Picasso's Guernica After Ruben's Horrors of War" by Alice Tankard. Also see if you can find the pre-drawings for Guernica. If you actually take the time to do this, you might take me more seriously. Or you can continue to let the page misrepresent the painting. Rubensrevenge ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is not how important you personally think it is or isn't, the point is that on a page dedicated to Guernica, don't you think it should say what inspired the composition and characters... Why would you block me for desiring referenced material anyway? Rubensrevenge ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets all stop feeding the trolls. Modernist ( talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if Norman Rockwell is within your bailiwick, but I have recently created Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting) and Freedom from Want (painting). Feel free to come by and contribute.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Modernist. I'm with a doubt and I thought that you perhaps could help me. I'm working in the translation of an article from the Portuguese Wikipedia about the pt:Museu de Arte Contemporânea da Universidade de São Paulo. I'm not sure about what are the rules for translating the title of the article. Unlike the Museu de Arte de São Paulo, which has always had an alternative English name in foreign exhibitions, it seems that there's no historical use of English names for this museum. Even so, I have found some titles for the museum such as "Museum of Contemporary Art of the University of São Paulo", in a page hosted in the institution's official website. But it sounded really ackward to me. What do you believe would the best thing to do in this case, mantain the original Portuguese name or use this (or other) translation? Thanks. Dornicke ( talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I realize that this edit was well intentioned, but adding tags to articles is not vandalism and your edit was really biting a new user. Could I ask you to be a little more careful in your use of warnings. Thanks, Gwernol 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Modernist, just to save you some time, don't bother banning the previous IP, or this one for that matter, the ISP I use has more of them than you could shake a ban-stick at, if I leave, it will be of *My* own choice and volition, not because someone who doesn't know diddly about a religion's article tries to ban me.
Regards, Anonymous poster for mary baker eddy "article" (not a "wikipedian", thereby cannot be held to the 3RR policy.) 172.192.57.37 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your note made me laugh, and given my recent experiences in academia, anything to smile about is a blessing. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist, why should I remove the, now correct, link? Greetings-- GerardusS ( talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As we all have Goya books to hand, I reckon we could put together Saturn Devouring His Son fairly easily. Interested? Ceoil ( talk) 06:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist: I think these copyedits [24] were made in good faith, and attempted to address what currently reads like a confusing chronology. I'm thinking of having a go at the 'Later life', but would like to consult with you first. Great work on May 3rd. JNW ( talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For all you work in bring The Third of May 1808 to where it is. T'was an honour to work with you, Sir/Madam. Ceoil ( talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
Great news! My contribution was miniscule but you, JNW, Johnbod, Ceoil & the others made the outcome inevitable. Well deserved all around. Ewulp ( talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Modernist, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need to go to RfC on this? This is quickly going to turn into a revert war and judging from the talk page comments, the editor(s) may not be willing to be civil. I'm busy this morning (it's 8:35 a.m. my time), but I will work on this later today. I will first straighten out the talk page comments, since the editor(s) in question seem to be plunking their comments anywhere. Second, I'll mention at an RfC on the talk page and at the VisArts Project talk page and see if others agree, or if we can handle this "in-house" amongst the art editors. freshacconci speaktome 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the extensive copy edit. Ceoil ( talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What you think of putting "sources and context" before "Triptych". It seems more logical to me to establish context before describing the content. Ceoil ( talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Modernist, you wrote: I'm really not interested in an edit war - so I will assume good faith, but, why delete sculpture from Abstract expressionism? David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and even Di Suvero are well documented as being a crucial part of Abstract expressionism - read Irving Sandler, and the article is about an era not only about painting. The Gorky painting that you deleted as you probably know has been disputed before, and in lieu of a more recent image has been agreed upon to remain...However perhaps inadvertantly your last edit wiped out nearly half of the entire article. Including all the references, categories, see also links etc. I've restored it. Please discuss removals on the talk page, thank you... Modernist ( talk) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert the edits to the page discussing the windows at the Union Church of Pocatino Hills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.90.3 ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on a bio about Brian Sherwin. Can you give me some feedback about this bio? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. This is my first major contribution to wikipedia so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. ( Roodhouse1 ( talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Betsy Ross, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I was reporting this vandalism by another editor and accidentally posted the warning to you. Sorry for the confusion! - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
When or if you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion over there, as I am apparently not making any headway with an anon who is convinced that avant-garde and experimental are two separate and unrelated things. He seems to feel a musician, etc., is either one or the other. What do you think? Thanks for your time, as always. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In this article only one incident is mentioned for each year. On what basis one incident is being singled out? There may be some more equally significant events. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We're were wondering how long it would take until an art snob to change the article. What a wonderful exercise for my Graffiti Art class...the digital documentation of my Neo-Graffiti will do wonders...especially with someone threatening to block my IP with the username 'Modernist'. We will come in waves...and we have all the articles that you helped create.
Happy editing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.64.140 ( talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dearest Modernist,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
When you have a moment, can you take a look at Wetman's edits to the Romanticism article? I am not yet willing to revert him, because some of it seems correct. However, the following statement he added to the opening looks like an opinion:
What are your thoughts? And, what about his alteration of all the century formatting from [[19th century]] to nineteenth century? He changed every instance throughout the article. I would like the opinion of someone with a lot of experience with this article, like yourself, before I revert any of his changes. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
A tag has been placed on Paul Brach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. freshacconci speaktome 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out the templates at Template:Inuse for use at the top of articles you're working on to avert speedies and edit conflicts. Tyrenius 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Before you go reverting a bunch of my edits, have you bothered to read the Manual of Style regarding Image sizing? Wikipedia's guidelines for images state:
Thanks, Cacophony ( talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ta. The template, I presume you mean. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The picture in the Template:Impressionists or lack of it is always open to review. A point against inclusion is that Monet's painting then appears on the pages of all the other artists. For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I keep my settings on the default. Tyrenius ( talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must
protect, protect
Wiki
fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings
free
But
fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Modernist, those are beautiful images on your user page. The images in my card are a bit of a mixed bag as you'll see and my haikus ... well let's just say they're not high poetry.
Anyway, thanks so much for supporting my RfA. -- A. B. (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
MONDRIAN IN LONDON
For memories of Piet Mondrian in London from/by Charles Harrison, Winifred Nicholson, Barbara Hepworth, Miriam Gabo, Herbert Read, Ben Nicholson, Naum Gabo see http://www.snap-dragon.com/mondrian_in_london.htm
This is actually a hlepful link to scholars who wish to learn about Mondrian's time in London, of which little is known, althought "Modernist" believes otherwise. This info has been on this site for months, plus if we wish to be pedantic about links, etc. I will report all the images you have to DACS, ARS, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.218.157 ( talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your report of 78.49.10.36 for vandalism from WP:AIV as this doesn't appear to be vandalism, but instead is a content dispute. Can I suggest that rather than merely reverting 78.49.10.36's edits you engage in discussion on the article's talkpage and attempt to reach consensus? I am copying this to both Modernist's and 78.49.10.36's talkpages; the subsequent part is intended for 78.49.10.36. Please do not repeat the incivility you showed here and in other edits such as here. Civility is one of the key Wikipedia principles; please remember this. Comment on the content, not the editor. Apart from this, presumably you have reliable sources for your assertion that Mondrian used grey; I'm sure Modernist would be interested to see these. Tonywalton Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment would be useful here. Tyrenius ( talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Although my involvement has not been as deep or substantive as yours, I have enjoyed contributing. Maybe I will return soon--goodness knows that editing is a terribly obsessive pursuit, and it is near impossible to stay away--but I am tired of it right now. Best wishes and carry on with the good work, JNW ( talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The book is online - you might take the time to see that indeed the quote does not appear in the book. Tedickey ( talk) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Modernist, I was wondering why you added a link to Lewis' novel "It Can't Happen Here" to the See also section when it is already included in the bibliography? Jrs044 ( talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
All the best to you too - keep up the good work! Johnbod ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I left a comment regarding the year of the painting at Talk:Still-Life with Geranium. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, would it not be wise to discuss alterations to important pages like Post-Impressionism with other editors, before altering such pages? At present, we have many pictures on this page, others and more could be easily supplied - but would this improve this page? There we have a lack of detailed information to classify something! While everybody seems to be invited to post his private opinion via an image which (almost by definition) is open to more than one interpretation. Therefore, please think about the definite content you supply, and keep in mind: WP is considered to be more than a coffeetable-book. Illustrations are fine, as long as they illuminate the content - but there is absolutely no reason to include them just because they are at hand. - rpd ( talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I had problems to lock in, as I lost my password. So I created a new one, and hope to merge both user pages soon. For our PI-discussion I think it would be appropriate to continue on the PI-Talkpage. -- rpd ( talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius adviced me how to proceed, and so I did. I think you will find my advice on Post-Impressionism. -- rpd ( talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
New article FYI. Tyrenius ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your 2008-01-14t20:43:09z edit with a summary "rvv" where you reverted my 2 previous edits. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism on Wikiedia means. My two edits stated information from the reference [3]. After you reverted it it had him discussing painting with " Lee Krasner, Jackson Pollock", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions the " New York School", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. Your revert wasn't of vandalism, it was of information that the sentence's source said. After your revert the sentence contradicted its source.
Your next edit used Wikipedia's New York School as a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you need to source information from reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability - one of Wikipedia's 3 most important policies (the other 2 being Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). This edit also put back my mention of "the Eighth Street Club" which you'd just before called vandalism. Your summary had "see talk page before removing any more content!" - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The burden lies with editors adding information - unsourced and challenged information can be removed by anyone.
Your last edit left the following unsourced and previously challenged with a citation needed tag:
It also left the following unsourced and previously removed information:
In summary: don't revert edits that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, don't then call them vandalism, and don't put back unsourced information once it's been removed unless you provide a source. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15 t10:07z
Hello Modernist, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an info note. Take Image:Matisse518.jpg. Bottom of page shows 3 articles it's used in. Each article has to have a separate fair use rationale on the image page. Each FU rationale must link to the specific article. See Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg for an example. Tyrenius ( talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to check any images on pages you are editing. A common cause for possible deletion is just that the FU rationale doesn't have a link to the relevant article - even though there will be an automatic link at the bottom of the image page anyway. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be reverting valid edits, especially without any explanation. So far you've done it twice. The passage has legitimate problems, which either have to be corrected for it to stay in some form, or if it cannot, left out entirely. 69.230.120.39 ( talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
May you please have a look on the talk-page, before you continue? Thank you,-- rpd ( talk) 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Heads up, Modernist. You'd better rewrite the Wikipedia article on Arshile Gorky. It appears to have been written by contributors who were not "real people". The article clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist tout simple that you and the Real People hold him to be:
"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."
And the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration. The image does not belong — just a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong as the only image of a Picasso work in an article about cubism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandArtLover ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the rating at Caspar David Friedrich was arbitrary and not even intended to be a rating - I was just tagging the article with a Visual Arts project tag, trying to get as many visual arts articles tagged in a short time, I wasn't thinking about A,or B, or start, but gosh it only got a start - man oh man....golly, because there are a whole lot of Visual Arts articles being checked over by other forces at wp, and in the long run Johnbod suggested that we tag em and then rate em high, but oh my God you actually rated it too, wow that must have been hard for you.....after all, It's too bad you ride that HIGH horse and r so caught up in your own trip, give me a fkn break...those va templates were partially motivated by this [5] Modernist ( talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I have opinions, and because I like Wikipedia (in some ways) like you do, I have recently been expressing them more, because I'm concerned. You are making me out to me some kind of elitist, which is unfair. Clearly you don't like my style, but I don't think you should get so mad at me because you aren't able to defend many of your own edits. You just said up above that the edit was arbitrary. Can you not see why that's a problem? Anyway, you don't have to answer that, but you've upset me as much as I appear to have upset you. Whiskeydog ( talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Modernist, I sent you that mail finally; but my mail client is acting a bit weird these days, so let me know if there was no attachment and I'll get somebody else to send the article. Would you mind archiveing this thread by the way; its resolved, your self an Whiskeydog have worked well togeter more than a few times before, there are no hard feelings now; we should just forget it and move on. Thanks........ Ceoil sláinte 13:25, 28 September 2008
Hello Modernist. I am a beginner here, but have high education in fine arts and contemporary culture. I have noticed your interventions on almost all the pages that interest me too, and they were always full of knowledge, balanced and intelligent. I am writing to ask if I can contact you when I doubt some informations and believe that they should be deleted, or when I have some suggestions that I cannot apply yet. Best regards Artethical ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you keep placing two images at the heading of the Unicorn article. Angel the Techrat ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Hi Modernist. If you are interested, you might want to lend a hand to the '21st century' section, as well. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. Is there any specific reason why you reverted the work I had done on this subject ? Maybe you know someone who will do the cleanup so the article is understandable worldwide. Lars 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Pourquoi? For one thing, the article is once again categorized as a template... Sardanaphalus ( talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Tyrenius ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. Your thoughts re: the current editing disagreement at Art would be appreciated. Thanks, 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) JNW ( talk)
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi modernist, can you look at the change in Rothko page from: 02:33, 25 February 2008 24.47.208.127 (Talk) (58,755 bytes) (→Suicide: added external link to Marlborough Gallery (Marlborough Fine Art)) (undo)-------is this the place for a link to this gallery site? I don't know yet how to think on such matters--will you have a look? Contemplating21 ( talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added some Mayan paintings. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent assists and sharpenings. You do an immense amount of work on wiki, and as a grateful user I wanted to express my appreciation. Fenbaud ( talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public
Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on
the invite list.
BrownBot (
talk)
03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What, if any, are your thoughts on this fellow? I have, quite frankly, grown tired of his penchant for adding links to " Asemic writing" to every article he thinks it is somehow relevant. It seems that his whole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to promote this so-called avant-garde movement. I intend to put a stop to this. First, I am going to put the asemic writing article up for AfD. After that, it will be much easier to justify reverting his edits because I will have shown the movement to be nonnotable. Have you any thoughts on the matter? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The starting point is 17,200 google results. [7] This is a large number. It appears in some credible, even if arcane, places:
The Rustle of Language - Google Books Result by Roland Barthes - 1989 - Language Arts & Disciplines ... finds no textual contour; the code is simply interrupted: an asemic word is created, a pure signifier; for example, instead of writing "officer," I ... [8]
Dissemination - Google Books Result by Jacques Derrida - 2004 - Philosophy ... the complication according to which the supplementary mark of the blank (the asemic spacing) applies itself to the set of white things (the full semic ... [9]
Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments - Google Books Result by Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart - 2005 - Religion - 424 pages ... a purely physical text from which all trace of meaning (the logos) has been removed, in which no meaning could ever appear — an asemic text. ... [10]
Joseph G. Kronick - Philosophy as Autobiography: The Confessions ...As an excess that belongs to any semic entity, the fold folds back, creasing the blank or virgin sheet, to use Mallarmé's metaphors for asemic presence. ... [11] (The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower Library)
The Philosophical Imaginary - Google Books Result by Michele Le Doeuff - 2002 - Philosophy - 335 pages
Conversely, the polysemic—asemic trait which we have been observing betrays the fact that the text is not directly receivable in its intended univocity. ...
[12]
Premises: Essays on Philosophy and Literature from Kant to Celan - Google Books Result by Werner Hamacher - 1999 - Philosophy - 408 pages
... of the asemic, ...
[13]
Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts - Google Books Result by Daniel Albright - 2000 - Philosophy - 410 pages A gestus always struggles to retain its efficacy, its pointedness, its incision, against a general asemic blur, a confusion that tends to swallow up all ... [14]
asemic calligraphy, apparently WSB's - William S. Burroughs papers, Ohio State University. [15]
JSTOR: Sartre et la mise en signe... verbal acrobatics which superficially characterize the best of our modern poetry (witness Maurice Roche's playful 'asemic stereog- raphy,' for example). [16]
The last example is a 1983 publication, so it is not a "recent neologism". The article is not about the "movement" but about the type of creativity described by the term, which, as in the examples above, is verifiable.
There is a relevant text from the Newsletter of the Library, School of Art, Media and Design, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK: Over from Argentina, Mirtha Dermisache will be showing a selection of works published since the beginning of the seventies, (see dbqp visualising poetics, http://dbqp.blogspot.com/2005/02/importance-of-documental-structure-to.html - Mirtha Dermisache and asemic writing) and an installation in bookartbookshop that combines a publishing process (printing, edition and sale) with a conceptual intervention. The first of these interventions took place in Buenos Aires in 2004, the second in Paris. We are extremely honoured to be the third context for her work. [17] The blog it references is by Geof Huth. [18]
Do you have any opinion on the placement of the etymology of romance/romantic in the lede of the Romanticism article? The information might be of importance, but I think it could be put down a little further, not adding unnecessary length to the lede. Any thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix to the columns in the see also section. I was not at all satisfied with the job I'd done, but was simply too tired to keep fighting with it. I knew I was going about it in the wrong way, but was buggered if I could figure out the right way. At any rate, I thank you. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Modernist, thanks for all your help with Friedrich, it was great to see your edits. If you have the time and energy, can you take a look at Venus; I'm hoping to push it to FAC in the next two weeks. Best, Ceoil ( talk) 11:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Modernist, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Just wondering why you reverted my edits for Rene Magritte. Blackjanedavey ( talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you have again forced a specific size for gallery. This may work well on your desktop, but definitely not on all. Therefore, please reconsider that a default setting may allow a better effect on the screens of other collaborators. All the best, -- rpd ( talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
See User_talk:Tyrenius#Response. Ty 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Was promoted last night. Thanks for all your input and insight, and hope to work with you again. Ceoil ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for troubles caused by my edits, and be assured I appreciate your contributions: You are doing a brillant job, to my opinion. As far as I see, a set of technical problems was involved, too. For the time to come, I offer you my hand, my criticism (nobody is perfect) and my experience.-- rpd ( talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Forgotten, and buried. Let's cooperate - tell me if you need support, information, or anything else: I am prepared to help as far as I can,-- rpd ( talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if my edits are off the mark, as I am new to editing wikipedia, I saw that action painting and Japanese pop art both lacked images.
May I ask what makes certain images "inappropriate"? The images used are by anonymous artists and are released under a share alike license from a a non profit anonymous arts organization. Where appropriate, I would think that those would be better than using thumbnails of copyrighted art. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zenbabyhead (
talk •
contribs)
05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Modernist, could you help me please? I had a problem with NPOV on the article
Christiaan Tonnis.
I tried my best and think it isn't brilliant now, but OK.
I also asked
Tyrenius. Could you please have a short look too?
Are there too many quotation marks in it? Or should the ref numbers (without using quotation marks) be enough?
Thank you very much!
Blaise Mann (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about one of the references you added: is Art & Auction a magazine? I have never heard of it, but I was a little confused by the formatting of the reference, and did not want to make any changes until I checked with you. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Read all about Art & Auction, LTB Media and the enterprises of Louise MacBain. Ty 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reverting my linking to David Prentice from Monochrome painting, Lyrical Abstraction and Park Place Gallery. I hadn't realised there was another artist with the same name. I was in the process of creating a stub for the American David Prentice to avoid any repeat of this confusion (and so that the English one could have a dab link at the top), but then I got cold feet about whether I'd got the right guy this time round either.
This guy [19] [20] is called David Prentice and is certainly American, but from the gallery page on his website [21] his work doesn't appear particularly monochrome or lyrically abstract.
If this isn't the right David Prentice either, then I'm struggling to find any mention of a third one anywhere on the web. Any suggestions? JimmyGuano ( talk) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The revert you performed on John Steuart Curry reverted to an article containing information copy/pastd from a WP: article. That revert has been reverted. Happy editing! I do not respond on other's talk pages, only on mine -- Atyndall93 ( talk | contribs) 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
hi modernist is there a procedure to join the "Category:WikiProject Visual arts participants"? or does one join by adding the category in the userpage Talk? many thanks Artethical ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I try to put the templete but don't know how. please give me a hand on that. so many thanks. Artethical ( talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. Can you have a look at the Frida Kahlo page, I separated between references and biblio Artethical ( talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
the reason was that there is a new person, who only visited this page, and he seems to be interested, perhaps against, i do not figure this out. I followed to his page and saw that he is doing only this page. This is one of the pages that i watch regularly because I look at certain artists and at contemporary women artists that are followed by either Kraus or Pollock regularly. I do not think that this matters, but it looked like a beginning of soething strange. maybe I am wrong. I will continue to watch this page. Thanks. Artethical ( talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I will keep an eye. But I also want to say something more. Look for example at our young male british artists, for example: "Damien Hirst (born June 7, 1965) is an English artist and the most prominent of the group that has been dubbed "Young British Artists" (or YBAs). Hirst dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s and is internationally renowned. Now, you see, nobody wants to take the words "most prominent" "internationaly renowned" even "dominated". And the word renowen or major is quite regular with most of the important contemporary artists pages. I am not sure that we should take these words out from some women artists who reached major standard, and leave it with others. perhaps you can consider it again? I am going to check on some other contemporary artists' pages to get the feeling Artethical ( talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, just to share with you, I looked at the sites of Pollock and Picasso, and then, of Bourgois and Nevelson. I was surprised, I was so sad to see how little we have, relatively, on these great women artists. For the moment. Artethical ( talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging me. That's why I try to keep an eye at least on those sites that I care about and which are well done, or are on their way to become very serious source, adding more information from my research. As you see, I try, I continue Artethical ( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Apropos your comment on the Reginald Marsh talk page, I'd noticed this recent activity too, and my impression--based on the home-cooked, choppy writing style evident in the expanded John French Sloan article--is that we may be looking at the results of a class project. The mid-term timing is suggestive. Let's hope these welcome expansions pass the copyvio test. The uneven writing style in the Arthur Dove edits does have the feel of scattered patches of lifted prose set into otherwise self-written material, may need careful vetting--I haven't taken a good look at the others yet. Ewulp ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that makes sense. [23] Ty 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Ty 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for Ronald Davis living in Taos? If so, please add it to his article and then restore him to the Taos page. I've removed him because there's nothing on his article (sourced or unsourced) that says anything about Taos at all. Nyttend ( talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem.. Modernist ( talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi modernist, I am not trying to be annoying and I am not Familiar with how to, and this is not personnel research, it is hidden facts. Please either tell me exactly what to do, or research the facts yourself so that you can add this IMPORTANT information to the Guernica page. thank you. Rubensrevenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubensrevenge ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Listen, it is not nonsense. I tried to put a reference in but I didn't do it right. First of all look at the two paintings. Second read the book "Picasso's Guernica After Ruben's Horrors of War" by Alice Tankard. Also see if you can find the pre-drawings for Guernica. If you actually take the time to do this, you might take me more seriously. Or you can continue to let the page misrepresent the painting. Rubensrevenge ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is not how important you personally think it is or isn't, the point is that on a page dedicated to Guernica, don't you think it should say what inspired the composition and characters... Why would you block me for desiring referenced material anyway? Rubensrevenge ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets all stop feeding the trolls. Modernist ( talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if Norman Rockwell is within your bailiwick, but I have recently created Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting) and Freedom from Want (painting). Feel free to come by and contribute.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Modernist. I'm with a doubt and I thought that you perhaps could help me. I'm working in the translation of an article from the Portuguese Wikipedia about the pt:Museu de Arte Contemporânea da Universidade de São Paulo. I'm not sure about what are the rules for translating the title of the article. Unlike the Museu de Arte de São Paulo, which has always had an alternative English name in foreign exhibitions, it seems that there's no historical use of English names for this museum. Even so, I have found some titles for the museum such as "Museum of Contemporary Art of the University of São Paulo", in a page hosted in the institution's official website. But it sounded really ackward to me. What do you believe would the best thing to do in this case, mantain the original Portuguese name or use this (or other) translation? Thanks. Dornicke ( talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I realize that this edit was well intentioned, but adding tags to articles is not vandalism and your edit was really biting a new user. Could I ask you to be a little more careful in your use of warnings. Thanks, Gwernol 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Modernist, just to save you some time, don't bother banning the previous IP, or this one for that matter, the ISP I use has more of them than you could shake a ban-stick at, if I leave, it will be of *My* own choice and volition, not because someone who doesn't know diddly about a religion's article tries to ban me.
Regards, Anonymous poster for mary baker eddy "article" (not a "wikipedian", thereby cannot be held to the 3RR policy.) 172.192.57.37 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your note made me laugh, and given my recent experiences in academia, anything to smile about is a blessing. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist, why should I remove the, now correct, link? Greetings-- GerardusS ( talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As we all have Goya books to hand, I reckon we could put together Saturn Devouring His Son fairly easily. Interested? Ceoil ( talk) 06:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist: I think these copyedits [24] were made in good faith, and attempted to address what currently reads like a confusing chronology. I'm thinking of having a go at the 'Later life', but would like to consult with you first. Great work on May 3rd. JNW ( talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For all you work in bring The Third of May 1808 to where it is. T'was an honour to work with you, Sir/Madam. Ceoil ( talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
Great news! My contribution was miniscule but you, JNW, Johnbod, Ceoil & the others made the outcome inevitable. Well deserved all around. Ewulp ( talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Modernist, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need to go to RfC on this? This is quickly going to turn into a revert war and judging from the talk page comments, the editor(s) may not be willing to be civil. I'm busy this morning (it's 8:35 a.m. my time), but I will work on this later today. I will first straighten out the talk page comments, since the editor(s) in question seem to be plunking their comments anywhere. Second, I'll mention at an RfC on the talk page and at the VisArts Project talk page and see if others agree, or if we can handle this "in-house" amongst the art editors. freshacconci speaktome 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the extensive copy edit. Ceoil ( talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What you think of putting "sources and context" before "Triptych". It seems more logical to me to establish context before describing the content. Ceoil ( talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Modernist, you wrote: I'm really not interested in an edit war - so I will assume good faith, but, why delete sculpture from Abstract expressionism? David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and even Di Suvero are well documented as being a crucial part of Abstract expressionism - read Irving Sandler, and the article is about an era not only about painting. The Gorky painting that you deleted as you probably know has been disputed before, and in lieu of a more recent image has been agreed upon to remain...However perhaps inadvertantly your last edit wiped out nearly half of the entire article. Including all the references, categories, see also links etc. I've restored it. Please discuss removals on the talk page, thank you... Modernist ( talk) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert the edits to the page discussing the windows at the Union Church of Pocatino Hills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.90.3 ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on a bio about Brian Sherwin. Can you give me some feedback about this bio? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. This is my first major contribution to wikipedia so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. ( Roodhouse1 ( talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Betsy Ross, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I was reporting this vandalism by another editor and accidentally posted the warning to you. Sorry for the confusion! - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
When or if you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion over there, as I am apparently not making any headway with an anon who is convinced that avant-garde and experimental are two separate and unrelated things. He seems to feel a musician, etc., is either one or the other. What do you think? Thanks for your time, as always. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In this article only one incident is mentioned for each year. On what basis one incident is being singled out? There may be some more equally significant events. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)