Hi, I just wanted to draw your attention to these two discussions. See WPVA talk for Transubstantiation in Art. Thanks. Lithoderm ( talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Go Obama! - Modernist ( talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
WOW!! A day and a moment for all time... Modernist ( talk) 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.
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.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ty. Ty 17:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To make it watertight there need to be refs for the 2nd sentence, the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph and the last sentence. Ty 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no anti-American POV pushing in this instance. The objection is to the imbalance between recent and older art, and this is a valid objection as Neo-Expressionism has as much space at the whole of the Renaissance. However, if Research Method wishes to fix it, then he needs to add content. Regarding Medieval art, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument, I'm afraid. Ty 14:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Great work on all the refs in the lead. I quite agree per my previous post that earlier sections should be enlarged, not later ones cut down. If the whole article gets too large, then Wikipedia:Summary style could be applied. Another possibility is putting the whole of the "20th century section" into an article 20th century western painting and summarising it in Western painting with a link. Ty 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Does recent scholarship accept the 1893 birth date? Three sources I checked (Treasures From the National Museum of American Art, 1985; Milton Avery: A Singular Vision, 1987; and "Sun, Surf & Subversion", ARTnews, December 1982) all give his birth year as 1885 -- according to the latter two sources, Avery misrepresented 1893 as his birth year, apparently beginning from the time he was courting his much-younger wife, and the ruse was discovered only after his death. Ewulp ( talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about not having an infobox, and if we have to trash this out can we do it by email, so we can talk freely without others watching. Otherwise, after the gaps in the bio coverage and the "landscape" section are written, I think we are there. Its shaping up well. The legacy section was easily sourced this time; thank god! I think we should put a 'to do before FAC' list on the talk, and start crossing off as we go. Best to you. Ceoil sláinte 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Is up for mainpage on the 22nd. Eeek! Ceoil sláinte 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Does the banner at the top of you page still describe your current state, or is it merely an advisory of some possible future break? Because you do a lot of good work for someone who isn't here. Kafka Liz ( talk) 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, I still have some things to unravel, and for now I'm still willing to keep going.. Modernist ( talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ceoil, I appreciate what you say, I anticipate a war to come over Fair use of images of works of art; and I am tiring of the fight...I am not ready to quit but it has been a long battle and it still has not been settled or clarified..I do the best that I can...Thanks to you and Liz... Modernist ( talk) 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed it was you who added most of the gallery, great work, again! If you can remember where you got the text for the captions, can you add cites. Once that is done I think we are there and we can go back to the FAC page. Ceoil ( talk) 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Thanks for your time, interest and acumen concerning the Wally Hedrick page. Respectfully -- Art4em ( talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O Modernist this is so overdue....
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
Congratulations Moderist for bringing Caspar David Friedrich to FA. In addition to everthing else you added to the page, the gallery you created is really something to be proud of. Ceoil ( talk) 23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
You have mail. And no its not about infoboxes! Ceoil ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Nordic Landscapes Award | |
Thank you for all your help and hard work in helping bring Caspar David Friedrich to FA. It has been a pleasure to work with you once again, and I hope there will be more opportunities to do so in the future. In the meantime, please enjoy this cheery landscape. Kafka Liz ( talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you Liz...I enjoyed the process.. Modernist ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Rothko seems to be back, at least... [7] Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple really- the image has no source, we don't know where the uploader found it. This means that there is no way of verifying the licensing of the image. I used the no-source tag as it seemed fairly uncontroversial- I knew people would notice it (due to the captions and the fact it was probably on some people's watchlists, along with a note to the uploader) and so I assumed that someone would be able to provide the source and remove the deletion notice with no hassle. Do you know where the photo has been taken from? J Milburn ( talk) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide on a lead inage for The Lucy poems here. The present image on the mainspace article seems too dark and oppresive for the article, and ideally would like to use a painting by a romantic artist (but not too late) that would encaspulate at least some of: unrequited love, personification of nature, simplicity in living, isolation & seperation, early death, or lonliesness. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
re: "this one," lmao in a corner :D Nice one!!!! Kafka Liz ( talk) 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Deleted_images
I have split your post into sections so it can be discussed more easily. If you don't want this, then revert. Ty 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Bouguereau, I noticed that The Young Shepherdess has been nommed for deletion. I don't see any reason to delete the stub at this point, though the material that's there could be fit into a picture caption.... Litho derm 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg | L'Origine du monde is one of this user's favorite paintings. |
Thanks for that, and don't get discouraged about image deletions in general... I'm sure some compromise is possible. Whenever I begin to think that wikipedia is failing, I spend a few minutes at Conservapedia looking at arts articles... it's absolutely hilarious. Renoir is a particular favorite of mine ("he was perhaps the only painter never to paint a sad picture"), and Mark Rothko is amusing. Litho derm 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Field#Magna_paint Bus stop ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, still a long way to go...just takes time.. Modernist ( talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Very good. That is the way to write an art article. Without bombast. Just clearly and concisely descriptive. I couldn't do it. But I recognize it when I see it. You've written an excellent article, about the meat-and-potatoes of mid twentieth century American (and Canadian) art. Keep it up. It is a very good article. Bus stop ( talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Still a long way to go there...not finished by a long way... Modernist ( talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. Bus stop ( talk) 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just the sort of non-free image use we're trying to cut down on, I'd say. Litho derm 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You performed 3 reverts. That is not an entitlement. Edit warring is likely to lead to being blocked. I strongly advise following WP:BRD and restricting yourself to one revert, then raising discussion and following WP:DR. Have some patience. Ty 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out this discussion. The mere fact of deletion isn't the point. There could be valid reasons for that. It's the context that needs to be examined and whether WP:NFC is being followed. I thought Dubuffet was sorted out now. As for the others, please wikilink them to the deleted page, so it's possible to see deletion rationale etc. It might be helpful to get a Foundation response on how they want their mandate to be interpreted and to point out where you think the quality of the project is being compromised excessively. Ty 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ty,
I'm studying this:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use.
Thanks.... Modernist ( talk) 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
“ | Reproduction, including downloading, is prohibited by copyright laws and international conventions without the express written permission of Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. | ” |
Litho derm 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could come up with a better lead image for the above. I'd prefer to move the Botticell to the "Birth, rising from the sea" section, I dont think it best for the top of the page. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, get those paleolithoderms out of there. They have nothing to do with the mythological deity; the term "venus" was attached to them by archaeologists. As the article is about the greco-roman deity; those figures were doubtless attached with fertility goddesses that were more akin to to Demeter... we should focus on depictions of the goddess, by artists who intended to depict her. By the way, there is also Venus (mythology)...? Really, how can one possibly say that x is a depiction of Venus and y is a depiction of Aphrodite? Litho derm 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe after you're done with Color field, you could work on Hard-edge painting- right now it has no pictures whatsoever. I'm looking into a high resolution image of the Matisse, see here. Evidently someone has found a way to get extremely high quality images... Litho derm 07:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_125.jpg
I must say it looks great! Don't worry about image-hunting; PDUS is PDUS. Litho derm 18:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree categories for all individual works of contemporary art would be nice, but firstly I think "contemporary" has to start at ?? 1980 now, and really it would be best to build up a structure from "1988 paintings" etc, which we have, and "contemporary paintings" which we don't, Category:Art installations, plus appropriate "Works by Foo" categories etc. This was intended for the really unclassifiable only, & I don't think much is gained by adding other greatest hits, by no means all falling under "contemporary" now. All the best for the holidays! Johnbod ( talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist; Thank you for adding the quotes to the talk page for The Swimming Hole. I am very familiar with the quote from the letter to his father, and included it in his bio when I expanded it a long time ago. The rest is a wonderful example of his courage and stubbornness. I like to read his writing, but even more to look at his paintings, and enjoy his iconoclastic devotion to the beauty of the body and his love of intellect, science, and melancholy. And by the way: very happy holidays! JNW ( talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year! Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont know why the mood of this brings you to mind, but it does. I suppose I have not worked so closely with anybody else on wiki, and on more articles, than you, and I hope you know how much I appreciate that. Onwards! Ceoil ( talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Ty! Ty 17:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just as a heads up, its generally best left to the person makeing the comments at FAC to make the strikes, best option is to let a little self satisified:
after each comment and let the reviewer decide that the responce has been satisfatory to the matter to be closed. On that note can you remove any you've added today. Anyway, sorry I was away for a few days though things seem to be very much in hand. In other news, strange goings on in the Bosch articles eh? Oh and thanks for the links...... Ceoil ( talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy hols to you too!
Re. images, see [20]. Both articles need a rethink, and the sooner the better. Any measures, even if temporary, would be a good thing, maybe removing the galleries for the time being, until the text can be properly attended to? Ty 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist; My ramblings at the swimming hole were not directed at you or anyone else, but were really just musings on the responsibility of biographers. I just don't want my occasional growling to be misconstrued. With much respect and best wishes, JNW ( talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe we are in the same time zone, so Happy New Year! Litho derm 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This for safekeeping: [[Image:Gericault - study for Raft of the Medusa.jpg|thumb|upright|A charcoal sketch of one of the figures in the foreground] Er, this is a little tricky... I've made it very clear, on my user page and elsewhere, that I attend the Art Academy of Cincinnati. The Art Academy has purchased institutional access to ArtStor... and most of those "questionable images" are screen captures from ArtStor. The reason I used the vague "found on internet" is that I am afraid that if ArtStor realizes that its images are being uploaded to WMCommons, and that the uploader is from AAC, they may cut off institutional access.... I'm not even sure if the screen captures meet Wikipedia policy..... I will alter the source to make it clearer where they are from, but just be aware of why I left the source ambiguous in the first place..... Litho derm 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Litho, I'll add the text... Modernist ( talk) 18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This link is interesting [22] Modernist ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax, but wanted to ask if you had heard of this "Breathe" sculpture before I nominate it for speedy-deletion. Thanks, Litho derm 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Never... Modernist ( talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
ON BOSCH I thought a core policy of Wikipedia was the idea of 'the wisdom of crowds'..you keep messing with the shakespeare quote and it gets lost. neutrality will emerge as democracy flourishes not from a few self appointed high priests policing the sites. I am not anti-semitic. You clearly believe some animals are more equal than others kind of thing. Sayerslle ( talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for fixing the Shakespeare quote. I like the way it looks now. Sayerslle ( talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I just want to assure you, in the Raft FAC I'm not accusing the article of having Artstor images, or accusing you or Lithoderm of doing something wrong, at all... I'm sorry for intruding on your FAC with the subject, but I think it's an interesting debate so I've commented once more and I'm done. You know, I hope, that I fall into the "what's the big deal about fair use" camp and it's the irony I'm hoping to point out, of the time they spend on "fair use" review while at the same time having no concern for the legal aspects of using Artstor content in a way that the site says is not allowed. I hope you'll agree it's kind of ironic. I'd love to have the whole Artstor collection on Commons, of course, but I would rather wikipedia be respected, respectable, and not put itself in legal gray areas. – Outriggr § 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol...It's a secret language...:).. Modernist ( talk) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention in the nom statement! Ty 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a few images to the page, but the pic in the lead still seems cheesy to me. Any ideas? Your doing a great job leading the raft FAC, by the way. Ceoil ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about building up Duchamp's toilet for FA for april fools day? The idea is being bandied about and there would be a lot of help. Potential for a very cool page, no? Ceoil ( talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably interesting and fun.. Modernist ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza ( on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [ [23]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I hear she passed; and to be fair and happily most of the English music monthlies carried half page obituaries, which was good. For some reason the link you gave me has no sound for Europens. But anyway, here is a distantly related link - they were both friends with Liam Clancy. Its hard to pick just one Luke Kelly track, but....the auld ones are... the best ones. Ceoil ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the family section! Ty. Ty 05:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, your recent vote in the Enigmaman RfA was removed because at the time you placed it the request had been put on hold by a bureaucrat. Avruch T 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh_1872.jpg Jan Arkesteijn ( talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [24]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think you could incorporate an image of [25] into the legacy section. The version we have is quite low resolution, I'll see what I can find. Ceoil ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think it looks fine there... Modernist ( talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have gone quiet. I've watchlisted. This [26] is somewhat excessive. Ty 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The draft of the raft has surpassed in its craft! Excellent! But the with the A team on the job... I enjoyed contributing and learnt some things en route.
I noticed you'd made an edit to Stella Vine and it would be helpful if you could keep an eye out on this and related articles. This edit [27] was not for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
Ty Ty 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, Modernist. And thank you for all the great work, and for your constant support. In your contributions to the visual arts, you are without peer. Yours appreciatively, JNW ( talk) 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
...and the inclination, and the proximity (I'm guessing here), I saw some excellent exhibitions at the Morgan Library recently... bookbindings, Babar, and Paradise Lost. I don't know if all of these are still on, but I do recommend them. Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats a possibility...the Morgan has a great drawing show and oil sketch show too... Modernist ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza
|
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Fine Arts | |
message --------Cream horn------ ( talk) 01:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) |
You contrubute a lot to fine arts articles so i hereby award you with this barnstar
And once again Thank You
--
--------Cream horn------ (
talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I guessing you will like these bo th. Talk later. Ceoil ( talk) 12:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Modernist ( talk) 13:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agh, I've been sculpting a head all day, and can sympathize with Matisse and his broken sculpture... Looks like the beginning of what would ultimately climax in this. There are three images of appropriate size that I can find on the net. (outside of artstor... sigh) Which one do you think is the closest in color? I 'm leaning toward the warm one, no.3: 1, 2, and 3. Leave it to me to gravitate toward warm nudes... Litho derm 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
List of works by Henri Matisse is now up. Alternatively, we could cut the images out of the gallery and switch the FU rationale to the list.. Litho derm 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I've read several references to an "experimental period" in his work sometime in the mid 1910s, but the article doesn't mention it and I can't find any more specific dates for this period, which would encompass works like Woman on a High Stool and View of Notre-Dame. Do any of your sources mention dates? Litho derm 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
... on the Baptistin Baille article. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Could do me a favour with the caption for the Rossetti image on The Lucy poems. The point I want to get accross is how the idealistion of doomed feminity in early romantic poetry reached its peak with the Pre-Raphaelites, but i'm not sure how to best put it. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[29]. Post Valentine tune. [30] Ceoil ( talk) 07:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion procedures are one of the things that helps maintain the myth that there is a cabal that runs Wikipedia: db, prod and AfD each have different rules as to who may remove them. I won't tell anybody you did it, but an article's author is allowed to remove a prod tag. We will probably land up having to take the article through AfD. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try, if you haven't already found it. Best regards -- Eustress ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation is used to resolve naming conflicts were there are two or more articles that could potentially use the same title. Disambiguation hatnotes are not spam they are used to navigate from a primary topic to secondary topics with the same title. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION#Disambiguation links for the guidelines and more info. --neon white talk 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the hatnote should link to Pop art (disambiguation), which I've now done. Ty 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted here and to Johnbod's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do what I can..and I'll ask JNW.. Modernist ( talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
My signature, the lack thereof being the stated reason for the deletion of my first post, was included in my most recent edit to "art appropriation." I also cited my source, the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a reviewed, edited, and highly respected source. It is unfortunate that such incorrect definitions are posted on Wikipedia, and because of misleading information, I will continue to direct students to credible sources, not Wikipedia. Arthistorian16 ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)arthistorian16 and artist
I own the painting. You do not decide, I do! If I want to remove it, leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjam1980 ( talk • contribs)
It appears to me that the artist himself created this article... Neal Turner What are your thoughts on the notability of him? I can find very little on Google apart from his own primary sources Teapot george Talk 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This sort of "external image box" would seem to be a viable alternative to fair use images. Just something I ran across, thought you might like to know of... Litho derm 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also a bit skeptical about the recent inclusion of Christmas decorations in Light sculpture... and wanted your opinion before I reverted. Litho derm 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea of how it works... this would completely circumvent any arguments over Fair use... Litho derm 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | |
---|---|
![]() |
Self Portrait (Year) by Foo, which was extremely influential upon the work of Foo-2 |
![]() |
Snail (Year), by Foo-2, much influenced by the work of Foo |
I was wondering why this, from Wikipedia, does not apply to the article on Neal Turner:
Notability is not temporary Shortcuts: WP:N#TEMP WP:NTEMP
If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence...
The question of notability was resolved when the article on Neal Turner first appeared in Wikipedia, and the artist was deemed notable at that time. Also, as I am not related to Neal Turner and do not find any reason for a conflict of interest, how do I have the conflict of interest tag removed? Thank you for your help - Ulyssescoat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyssescoat ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way - having your paintings in a movie as props - which is extremely common, does not an encyclopedic notable artist make, especially when your name does not appear prominently in the film's credits. Modernist ( talk) 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my back. Ceoil ( talk) 08:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing that image caption on "Pop art." I was having a difficult time with it. Bus stop ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Modernist, I don't want to be blocked so I take seriously what you say. I think the safest thing for me to do is never add to talk pages and if I find my additions to content pages deleted, just accept it. My wiki-nature does appear to be confrontational which is not good - I know Rochester's maid in 'jane eyre' tells jane , 'That's his nature - and we none of us can help our natures.' Profound, that. Mostly what gets deleted on wikipedia deserves it. From now on, I will only add to content if I feel I have something to add and then leave it to its fate. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the artistic climate remains pluralist. As for "everything still goes" I'm not so sure. There's been a whole lot of land-grabs since the 60s, and the artistic micro-nations are smaller than the old empires, but they have their own currency and flags just the same.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Modernist, thats the plan anyway at least. As you say, onwards! Ceoil ( talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm honored & downright speechless. I can only say thanks, but I should have beaten you to the draw:
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For outstanding work in the fine arts articles. Don't know when you find time to do it all--every time I check my watchlist you've been all over it! Ewulp ( talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you... - whenever I see your work, it's always good... Modernist ( talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
![]()
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for support and encouragement! All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry its taking me so long to get to this; I'm just totally absorbed with Lucy. She taking shape again now, might only be a week or two or so, thanks for being so patient. By the way, my impression is that you are about as un-Ayn Rand as they come. I, certainly, would be. Ceoil ( talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You got caught on Ottava's SJ FAC, [35] but it was just an abjector bitching, not personal. Ducks back, there is an apolpgy on F&f's talk. Ceoil ( talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on Salutat. I figured a note on JNW's page would be enough to get all the art folks' attention :) Raul654 ( talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am very new to wikipedia as well and hope I am doing this correctly.
A few weeks ago you helped to approve the deletion of an article I wrote on a local artist named Libby Booth.
Not only did this article take me a very long time to write (as I said, I am new to this), but I was quite annoyed that it was removed so quickly by simply "googling" her name to see if she is a notable artist.
Perhaps I am naive about how this sight works, and perhaps I need to explain my own credentials in writing this.
I am a history professor who has lived in the Central Michigan area for nearly 25 years. Booth is by far the best artist I have ever seen in all of this time, and in terms of her local notability, she is considered the top artist of the Michigan tri-city area and is hopefully going to be known nationally quite soon.
While her name may not produce many google hits, this is NO WAY reflects how popular or well known she is in this area.
Outside of publishing books, I have published over 20 professional encyclopedia articles and am well aware of who should or should not have documentation about their careers and life.
This whole evaluation and deleting process seems rather haphazard (perhaps it is not and I am naive about this format), but I would appreciate it if you could possibly remove this article from its current deleted status.
I would really like to contribute more to this site in the future, but this initial experience is leaving me very frustrated.
Any advice or comments?
Sincerely, Dr. Joel A. Lewis
Department of History Saginaw Valley State University
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2009 Ceoil ( talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no. Oh I am so sorry. I know exactly how you are feeling. You have all my sympathy. :( Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You will not see me back full time until late in May. After that I am going on the KIIS program to Munich, so I may not be back full time for long. Wikipedia was getting to be the Terrible Trivium. Sorry about your cat. I've never had one, but felt really awful when my guinea pig died. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear about your loss. Whether we lose close relatives or pets, we go through the same stages of grief.
Cats, who centuries ago signed their compact for living with humans on the condition of independence, would of course be perplexed by this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the years we have lost cats and dogs, to accident and illness. Each animal has been a source of great comfort and love, and each deprivation of their companionship is a blow answered only with tears. How fortunate we are that they deign to let us take care of them! Fondly, JNW ( talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Modernist, I got burned out by the Lucy wars, and I just needed to go off and do something on my own without any hasel, if that makes sence. Hence Fragment of a Crucifixion which I intend to twin with the Picasso in priority over the next month or so. I'm not sure how you sit with Bacon, but having you on board as a co-author and co-nom would be great. I'm going to, <sigh> once again, ask Liz to co-both articles, though I imagine she might be fairly sick of me at this stage. Ceoil ( talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You're mentioned: Template_talk:PD-US#Published_definition. Ty 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Watch you know what. I'll look after. Ceoil ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter. Or Happy Passover, or just a happy weekend. Kafka Liz ( talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I figured you'd be as good a person to ask about this as anyone, so: what do you think of the recent contributions of User:Mybihonteem? Valuable or self-promotional? In particular, I noticed links were just added to artists' biographies leading to library records - are these useful? Thanks for any light you can shed on this. - Biruitorul Talk 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You placed a template which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" at the top of the article on Anti-art but it is not clear to what discussion you are making a reference to on the talk page. Is what you call "note bombing" supposed to be the problem of neutrality ? If so, could you please make the issues of neutrality you see in "Note bombing" clearer and in any case could you please make all this clearer by naming the section about the dispute with a clear name such as "neutrality dispute" for example. Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ?
From the Wikipedia style guidelines :The "See also" "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."
Armando Navarro ( talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
why are you picking on me!? I'm just reincluding what was removed a while ago.
Hi, I just wanted to draw your attention to these two discussions. See WPVA talk for Transubstantiation in Art. Thanks. Lithoderm ( talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Go Obama! - Modernist ( talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
WOW!! A day and a moment for all time... Modernist ( talk) 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.
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.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ty. Ty 17:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To make it watertight there need to be refs for the 2nd sentence, the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph and the last sentence. Ty 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no anti-American POV pushing in this instance. The objection is to the imbalance between recent and older art, and this is a valid objection as Neo-Expressionism has as much space at the whole of the Renaissance. However, if Research Method wishes to fix it, then he needs to add content. Regarding Medieval art, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument, I'm afraid. Ty 14:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Great work on all the refs in the lead. I quite agree per my previous post that earlier sections should be enlarged, not later ones cut down. If the whole article gets too large, then Wikipedia:Summary style could be applied. Another possibility is putting the whole of the "20th century section" into an article 20th century western painting and summarising it in Western painting with a link. Ty 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Does recent scholarship accept the 1893 birth date? Three sources I checked (Treasures From the National Museum of American Art, 1985; Milton Avery: A Singular Vision, 1987; and "Sun, Surf & Subversion", ARTnews, December 1982) all give his birth year as 1885 -- according to the latter two sources, Avery misrepresented 1893 as his birth year, apparently beginning from the time he was courting his much-younger wife, and the ruse was discovered only after his death. Ewulp ( talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about not having an infobox, and if we have to trash this out can we do it by email, so we can talk freely without others watching. Otherwise, after the gaps in the bio coverage and the "landscape" section are written, I think we are there. Its shaping up well. The legacy section was easily sourced this time; thank god! I think we should put a 'to do before FAC' list on the talk, and start crossing off as we go. Best to you. Ceoil sláinte 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Is up for mainpage on the 22nd. Eeek! Ceoil sláinte 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Does the banner at the top of you page still describe your current state, or is it merely an advisory of some possible future break? Because you do a lot of good work for someone who isn't here. Kafka Liz ( talk) 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, I still have some things to unravel, and for now I'm still willing to keep going.. Modernist ( talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ceoil, I appreciate what you say, I anticipate a war to come over Fair use of images of works of art; and I am tiring of the fight...I am not ready to quit but it has been a long battle and it still has not been settled or clarified..I do the best that I can...Thanks to you and Liz... Modernist ( talk) 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed it was you who added most of the gallery, great work, again! If you can remember where you got the text for the captions, can you add cites. Once that is done I think we are there and we can go back to the FAC page. Ceoil ( talk) 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Thanks for your time, interest and acumen concerning the Wally Hedrick page. Respectfully -- Art4em ( talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O Modernist this is so overdue....
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
Congratulations Moderist for bringing Caspar David Friedrich to FA. In addition to everthing else you added to the page, the gallery you created is really something to be proud of. Ceoil ( talk) 23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
You have mail. And no its not about infoboxes! Ceoil ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Nordic Landscapes Award | |
Thank you for all your help and hard work in helping bring Caspar David Friedrich to FA. It has been a pleasure to work with you once again, and I hope there will be more opportunities to do so in the future. In the meantime, please enjoy this cheery landscape. Kafka Liz ( talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you Liz...I enjoyed the process.. Modernist ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Rothko seems to be back, at least... [7] Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple really- the image has no source, we don't know where the uploader found it. This means that there is no way of verifying the licensing of the image. I used the no-source tag as it seemed fairly uncontroversial- I knew people would notice it (due to the captions and the fact it was probably on some people's watchlists, along with a note to the uploader) and so I assumed that someone would be able to provide the source and remove the deletion notice with no hassle. Do you know where the photo has been taken from? J Milburn ( talk) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide on a lead inage for The Lucy poems here. The present image on the mainspace article seems too dark and oppresive for the article, and ideally would like to use a painting by a romantic artist (but not too late) that would encaspulate at least some of: unrequited love, personification of nature, simplicity in living, isolation & seperation, early death, or lonliesness. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
re: "this one," lmao in a corner :D Nice one!!!! Kafka Liz ( talk) 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Deleted_images
I have split your post into sections so it can be discussed more easily. If you don't want this, then revert. Ty 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Bouguereau, I noticed that The Young Shepherdess has been nommed for deletion. I don't see any reason to delete the stub at this point, though the material that's there could be fit into a picture caption.... Litho derm 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg | L'Origine du monde is one of this user's favorite paintings. |
Thanks for that, and don't get discouraged about image deletions in general... I'm sure some compromise is possible. Whenever I begin to think that wikipedia is failing, I spend a few minutes at Conservapedia looking at arts articles... it's absolutely hilarious. Renoir is a particular favorite of mine ("he was perhaps the only painter never to paint a sad picture"), and Mark Rothko is amusing. Litho derm 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Field#Magna_paint Bus stop ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, still a long way to go...just takes time.. Modernist ( talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Very good. That is the way to write an art article. Without bombast. Just clearly and concisely descriptive. I couldn't do it. But I recognize it when I see it. You've written an excellent article, about the meat-and-potatoes of mid twentieth century American (and Canadian) art. Keep it up. It is a very good article. Bus stop ( talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Still a long way to go there...not finished by a long way... Modernist ( talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. Bus stop ( talk) 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just the sort of non-free image use we're trying to cut down on, I'd say. Litho derm 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You performed 3 reverts. That is not an entitlement. Edit warring is likely to lead to being blocked. I strongly advise following WP:BRD and restricting yourself to one revert, then raising discussion and following WP:DR. Have some patience. Ty 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out this discussion. The mere fact of deletion isn't the point. There could be valid reasons for that. It's the context that needs to be examined and whether WP:NFC is being followed. I thought Dubuffet was sorted out now. As for the others, please wikilink them to the deleted page, so it's possible to see deletion rationale etc. It might be helpful to get a Foundation response on how they want their mandate to be interpreted and to point out where you think the quality of the project is being compromised excessively. Ty 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ty,
I'm studying this:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use.
Thanks.... Modernist ( talk) 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
“ | Reproduction, including downloading, is prohibited by copyright laws and international conventions without the express written permission of Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. | ” |
Litho derm 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could come up with a better lead image for the above. I'd prefer to move the Botticell to the "Birth, rising from the sea" section, I dont think it best for the top of the page. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, get those paleolithoderms out of there. They have nothing to do with the mythological deity; the term "venus" was attached to them by archaeologists. As the article is about the greco-roman deity; those figures were doubtless attached with fertility goddesses that were more akin to to Demeter... we should focus on depictions of the goddess, by artists who intended to depict her. By the way, there is also Venus (mythology)...? Really, how can one possibly say that x is a depiction of Venus and y is a depiction of Aphrodite? Litho derm 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe after you're done with Color field, you could work on Hard-edge painting- right now it has no pictures whatsoever. I'm looking into a high resolution image of the Matisse, see here. Evidently someone has found a way to get extremely high quality images... Litho derm 07:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_125.jpg
I must say it looks great! Don't worry about image-hunting; PDUS is PDUS. Litho derm 18:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree categories for all individual works of contemporary art would be nice, but firstly I think "contemporary" has to start at ?? 1980 now, and really it would be best to build up a structure from "1988 paintings" etc, which we have, and "contemporary paintings" which we don't, Category:Art installations, plus appropriate "Works by Foo" categories etc. This was intended for the really unclassifiable only, & I don't think much is gained by adding other greatest hits, by no means all falling under "contemporary" now. All the best for the holidays! Johnbod ( talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist; Thank you for adding the quotes to the talk page for The Swimming Hole. I am very familiar with the quote from the letter to his father, and included it in his bio when I expanded it a long time ago. The rest is a wonderful example of his courage and stubbornness. I like to read his writing, but even more to look at his paintings, and enjoy his iconoclastic devotion to the beauty of the body and his love of intellect, science, and melancholy. And by the way: very happy holidays! JNW ( talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year! Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont know why the mood of this brings you to mind, but it does. I suppose I have not worked so closely with anybody else on wiki, and on more articles, than you, and I hope you know how much I appreciate that. Onwards! Ceoil ( talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Ty! Ty 17:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just as a heads up, its generally best left to the person makeing the comments at FAC to make the strikes, best option is to let a little self satisified:
after each comment and let the reviewer decide that the responce has been satisfatory to the matter to be closed. On that note can you remove any you've added today. Anyway, sorry I was away for a few days though things seem to be very much in hand. In other news, strange goings on in the Bosch articles eh? Oh and thanks for the links...... Ceoil ( talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy hols to you too!
Re. images, see [20]. Both articles need a rethink, and the sooner the better. Any measures, even if temporary, would be a good thing, maybe removing the galleries for the time being, until the text can be properly attended to? Ty 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Modernist; My ramblings at the swimming hole were not directed at you or anyone else, but were really just musings on the responsibility of biographers. I just don't want my occasional growling to be misconstrued. With much respect and best wishes, JNW ( talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe we are in the same time zone, so Happy New Year! Litho derm 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This for safekeeping: [[Image:Gericault - study for Raft of the Medusa.jpg|thumb|upright|A charcoal sketch of one of the figures in the foreground] Er, this is a little tricky... I've made it very clear, on my user page and elsewhere, that I attend the Art Academy of Cincinnati. The Art Academy has purchased institutional access to ArtStor... and most of those "questionable images" are screen captures from ArtStor. The reason I used the vague "found on internet" is that I am afraid that if ArtStor realizes that its images are being uploaded to WMCommons, and that the uploader is from AAC, they may cut off institutional access.... I'm not even sure if the screen captures meet Wikipedia policy..... I will alter the source to make it clearer where they are from, but just be aware of why I left the source ambiguous in the first place..... Litho derm 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Litho, I'll add the text... Modernist ( talk) 18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This link is interesting [22] Modernist ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax, but wanted to ask if you had heard of this "Breathe" sculpture before I nominate it for speedy-deletion. Thanks, Litho derm 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Never... Modernist ( talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
ON BOSCH I thought a core policy of Wikipedia was the idea of 'the wisdom of crowds'..you keep messing with the shakespeare quote and it gets lost. neutrality will emerge as democracy flourishes not from a few self appointed high priests policing the sites. I am not anti-semitic. You clearly believe some animals are more equal than others kind of thing. Sayerslle ( talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for fixing the Shakespeare quote. I like the way it looks now. Sayerslle ( talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Modernist. I just want to assure you, in the Raft FAC I'm not accusing the article of having Artstor images, or accusing you or Lithoderm of doing something wrong, at all... I'm sorry for intruding on your FAC with the subject, but I think it's an interesting debate so I've commented once more and I'm done. You know, I hope, that I fall into the "what's the big deal about fair use" camp and it's the irony I'm hoping to point out, of the time they spend on "fair use" review while at the same time having no concern for the legal aspects of using Artstor content in a way that the site says is not allowed. I hope you'll agree it's kind of ironic. I'd love to have the whole Artstor collection on Commons, of course, but I would rather wikipedia be respected, respectable, and not put itself in legal gray areas. – Outriggr § 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol...It's a secret language...:).. Modernist ( talk) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention in the nom statement! Ty 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a few images to the page, but the pic in the lead still seems cheesy to me. Any ideas? Your doing a great job leading the raft FAC, by the way. Ceoil ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about building up Duchamp's toilet for FA for april fools day? The idea is being bandied about and there would be a lot of help. Potential for a very cool page, no? Ceoil ( talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably interesting and fun.. Modernist ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza ( on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [ [23]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I hear she passed; and to be fair and happily most of the English music monthlies carried half page obituaries, which was good. For some reason the link you gave me has no sound for Europens. But anyway, here is a distantly related link - they were both friends with Liam Clancy. Its hard to pick just one Luke Kelly track, but....the auld ones are... the best ones. Ceoil ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the family section! Ty. Ty 05:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, your recent vote in the Enigmaman RfA was removed because at the time you placed it the request had been put on hold by a bureaucrat. Avruch T 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh_1872.jpg Jan Arkesteijn ( talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [24]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think you could incorporate an image of [25] into the legacy section. The version we have is quite low resolution, I'll see what I can find. Ceoil ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think it looks fine there... Modernist ( talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have gone quiet. I've watchlisted. This [26] is somewhat excessive. Ty 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The draft of the raft has surpassed in its craft! Excellent! But the with the A team on the job... I enjoyed contributing and learnt some things en route.
I noticed you'd made an edit to Stella Vine and it would be helpful if you could keep an eye out on this and related articles. This edit [27] was not for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
Ty Ty 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, Modernist. And thank you for all the great work, and for your constant support. In your contributions to the visual arts, you are without peer. Yours appreciatively, JNW ( talk) 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
...and the inclination, and the proximity (I'm guessing here), I saw some excellent exhibitions at the Morgan Library recently... bookbindings, Babar, and Paradise Lost. I don't know if all of these are still on, but I do recommend them. Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats a possibility...the Morgan has a great drawing show and oil sketch show too... Modernist ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza
|
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Fine Arts | |
message --------Cream horn------ ( talk) 01:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) |
You contrubute a lot to fine arts articles so i hereby award you with this barnstar
And once again Thank You
--
--------Cream horn------ (
talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I guessing you will like these bo th. Talk later. Ceoil ( talk) 12:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Modernist ( talk) 13:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agh, I've been sculpting a head all day, and can sympathize with Matisse and his broken sculpture... Looks like the beginning of what would ultimately climax in this. There are three images of appropriate size that I can find on the net. (outside of artstor... sigh) Which one do you think is the closest in color? I 'm leaning toward the warm one, no.3: 1, 2, and 3. Leave it to me to gravitate toward warm nudes... Litho derm 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
List of works by Henri Matisse is now up. Alternatively, we could cut the images out of the gallery and switch the FU rationale to the list.. Litho derm 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I've read several references to an "experimental period" in his work sometime in the mid 1910s, but the article doesn't mention it and I can't find any more specific dates for this period, which would encompass works like Woman on a High Stool and View of Notre-Dame. Do any of your sources mention dates? Litho derm 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
... on the Baptistin Baille article. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Could do me a favour with the caption for the Rossetti image on The Lucy poems. The point I want to get accross is how the idealistion of doomed feminity in early romantic poetry reached its peak with the Pre-Raphaelites, but i'm not sure how to best put it. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[29]. Post Valentine tune. [30] Ceoil ( talk) 07:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion procedures are one of the things that helps maintain the myth that there is a cabal that runs Wikipedia: db, prod and AfD each have different rules as to who may remove them. I won't tell anybody you did it, but an article's author is allowed to remove a prod tag. We will probably land up having to take the article through AfD. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try, if you haven't already found it. Best regards -- Eustress ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation is used to resolve naming conflicts were there are two or more articles that could potentially use the same title. Disambiguation hatnotes are not spam they are used to navigate from a primary topic to secondary topics with the same title. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION#Disambiguation links for the guidelines and more info. --neon white talk 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the hatnote should link to Pop art (disambiguation), which I've now done. Ty 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted here and to Johnbod's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do what I can..and I'll ask JNW.. Modernist ( talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
My signature, the lack thereof being the stated reason for the deletion of my first post, was included in my most recent edit to "art appropriation." I also cited my source, the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a reviewed, edited, and highly respected source. It is unfortunate that such incorrect definitions are posted on Wikipedia, and because of misleading information, I will continue to direct students to credible sources, not Wikipedia. Arthistorian16 ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)arthistorian16 and artist
I own the painting. You do not decide, I do! If I want to remove it, leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjam1980 ( talk • contribs)
It appears to me that the artist himself created this article... Neal Turner What are your thoughts on the notability of him? I can find very little on Google apart from his own primary sources Teapot george Talk 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This sort of "external image box" would seem to be a viable alternative to fair use images. Just something I ran across, thought you might like to know of... Litho derm 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also a bit skeptical about the recent inclusion of Christmas decorations in Light sculpture... and wanted your opinion before I reverted. Litho derm 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea of how it works... this would completely circumvent any arguments over Fair use... Litho derm 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | |
---|---|
![]() |
Self Portrait (Year) by Foo, which was extremely influential upon the work of Foo-2 |
![]() |
Snail (Year), by Foo-2, much influenced by the work of Foo |
I was wondering why this, from Wikipedia, does not apply to the article on Neal Turner:
Notability is not temporary Shortcuts: WP:N#TEMP WP:NTEMP
If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence...
The question of notability was resolved when the article on Neal Turner first appeared in Wikipedia, and the artist was deemed notable at that time. Also, as I am not related to Neal Turner and do not find any reason for a conflict of interest, how do I have the conflict of interest tag removed? Thank you for your help - Ulyssescoat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyssescoat ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way - having your paintings in a movie as props - which is extremely common, does not an encyclopedic notable artist make, especially when your name does not appear prominently in the film's credits. Modernist ( talk) 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my back. Ceoil ( talk) 08:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing that image caption on "Pop art." I was having a difficult time with it. Bus stop ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Modernist, I don't want to be blocked so I take seriously what you say. I think the safest thing for me to do is never add to talk pages and if I find my additions to content pages deleted, just accept it. My wiki-nature does appear to be confrontational which is not good - I know Rochester's maid in 'jane eyre' tells jane , 'That's his nature - and we none of us can help our natures.' Profound, that. Mostly what gets deleted on wikipedia deserves it. From now on, I will only add to content if I feel I have something to add and then leave it to its fate. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the artistic climate remains pluralist. As for "everything still goes" I'm not so sure. There's been a whole lot of land-grabs since the 60s, and the artistic micro-nations are smaller than the old empires, but they have their own currency and flags just the same.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Modernist, thats the plan anyway at least. As you say, onwards! Ceoil ( talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm honored & downright speechless. I can only say thanks, but I should have beaten you to the draw:
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For outstanding work in the fine arts articles. Don't know when you find time to do it all--every time I check my watchlist you've been all over it! Ewulp ( talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you... - whenever I see your work, it's always good... Modernist ( talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
![]()
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for support and encouragement! All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry its taking me so long to get to this; I'm just totally absorbed with Lucy. She taking shape again now, might only be a week or two or so, thanks for being so patient. By the way, my impression is that you are about as un-Ayn Rand as they come. I, certainly, would be. Ceoil ( talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You got caught on Ottava's SJ FAC, [35] but it was just an abjector bitching, not personal. Ducks back, there is an apolpgy on F&f's talk. Ceoil ( talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on Salutat. I figured a note on JNW's page would be enough to get all the art folks' attention :) Raul654 ( talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am very new to wikipedia as well and hope I am doing this correctly.
A few weeks ago you helped to approve the deletion of an article I wrote on a local artist named Libby Booth.
Not only did this article take me a very long time to write (as I said, I am new to this), but I was quite annoyed that it was removed so quickly by simply "googling" her name to see if she is a notable artist.
Perhaps I am naive about how this sight works, and perhaps I need to explain my own credentials in writing this.
I am a history professor who has lived in the Central Michigan area for nearly 25 years. Booth is by far the best artist I have ever seen in all of this time, and in terms of her local notability, she is considered the top artist of the Michigan tri-city area and is hopefully going to be known nationally quite soon.
While her name may not produce many google hits, this is NO WAY reflects how popular or well known she is in this area.
Outside of publishing books, I have published over 20 professional encyclopedia articles and am well aware of who should or should not have documentation about their careers and life.
This whole evaluation and deleting process seems rather haphazard (perhaps it is not and I am naive about this format), but I would appreciate it if you could possibly remove this article from its current deleted status.
I would really like to contribute more to this site in the future, but this initial experience is leaving me very frustrated.
Any advice or comments?
Sincerely, Dr. Joel A. Lewis
Department of History Saginaw Valley State University
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2009 Ceoil ( talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no. Oh I am so sorry. I know exactly how you are feeling. You have all my sympathy. :( Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You will not see me back full time until late in May. After that I am going on the KIIS program to Munich, so I may not be back full time for long. Wikipedia was getting to be the Terrible Trivium. Sorry about your cat. I've never had one, but felt really awful when my guinea pig died. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear about your loss. Whether we lose close relatives or pets, we go through the same stages of grief.
Cats, who centuries ago signed their compact for living with humans on the condition of independence, would of course be perplexed by this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the years we have lost cats and dogs, to accident and illness. Each animal has been a source of great comfort and love, and each deprivation of their companionship is a blow answered only with tears. How fortunate we are that they deign to let us take care of them! Fondly, JNW ( talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Modernist, I got burned out by the Lucy wars, and I just needed to go off and do something on my own without any hasel, if that makes sence. Hence Fragment of a Crucifixion which I intend to twin with the Picasso in priority over the next month or so. I'm not sure how you sit with Bacon, but having you on board as a co-author and co-nom would be great. I'm going to, <sigh> once again, ask Liz to co-both articles, though I imagine she might be fairly sick of me at this stage. Ceoil ( talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You're mentioned: Template_talk:PD-US#Published_definition. Ty 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Watch you know what. I'll look after. Ceoil ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter. Or Happy Passover, or just a happy weekend. Kafka Liz ( talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I figured you'd be as good a person to ask about this as anyone, so: what do you think of the recent contributions of User:Mybihonteem? Valuable or self-promotional? In particular, I noticed links were just added to artists' biographies leading to library records - are these useful? Thanks for any light you can shed on this. - Biruitorul Talk 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You placed a template which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" at the top of the article on Anti-art but it is not clear to what discussion you are making a reference to on the talk page. Is what you call "note bombing" supposed to be the problem of neutrality ? If so, could you please make the issues of neutrality you see in "Note bombing" clearer and in any case could you please make all this clearer by naming the section about the dispute with a clear name such as "neutrality dispute" for example. Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ?
From the Wikipedia style guidelines :The "See also" "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."
Armando Navarro ( talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
why are you picking on me!? I'm just reincluding what was removed a while ago.