Oxymoron83 (talk | contribs) m Reverted to revision 170256029 by 76.205.104.33; WP:NPA. |
Apostolos Margaritis (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
I removed the US POV box because it was not relevant. Although the article describes an American event (shared by a few other nations mentioned in the article), I do not think, after reading the article carefully, that it presented an American point of view. [[User:76.205.104.33|76.205.104.33]] 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
I removed the US POV box because it was not relevant. Although the article describes an American event (shared by a few other nations mentioned in the article), I do not think, after reading the article carefully, that it presented an American point of view. [[User:76.205.104.33|76.205.104.33]] 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Thanx== |
|||
I am behind other articles such as [[concoction]] and they still stand proud while no one ever threatened to delete them. I don't know why [[NyLon]] triggered such violent reactions as if this article were [[vermin]] or something. Let's analyse the merits and defects of [[NyLon]] cool headed and then reach an outcome. Thanx for your lines [[User:Apostolos Margaritis|Apostolos Margaritis]] 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:09, 12 November 2007
|
October 2006-April 2007 |
May 2007-July 2007 |
August 2007- |
welcome to wikipedia
omg thx
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty Cigar (talk • contribs)
Re: 172.202.149.190
I have reason to believe that this anonymous user is actually the same person as 172.209.182.227, who was blocked yesterday for vandalism. The pattern of articles being altered is similar (Bertolt Brecht and Agatha Christie novels) and the MO (removing cleanup templates) is the same. This guy needs to be watched closely. Thanks for your efforts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Troll
Thanks for your input, and the reminder: WP:NOFEEDING, seems particularly appropriate. Modernist 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am glad both of the articles are protected. WP:DNFT makes sense although I agree it's hard to ignore. Modernist 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Jim DeRogatis
Jim DeRogatis did tell people on his show to kill Bono. Explain why that's ok for him to do? Jim DeRogatis needs to be exposed as the psychopath he is.
Jim DeRogatis
Jim DeRogatis is a psychopath. Why is it ok for him to ask people to kill Bono? -----<<<<<^^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.108.66 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
for your attention to this [1]. It seems that the connected biography was previously deleted, only to be immediately restored by this editor. JNW 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
computer fine arts - Internet art
Description of project: computer fine arts collection is a net art archive and online exhibition space for net art works. Started in 2001, the site is supported by artists that make available any updates that are made to their projects in the interest of forward compatibility with internet applications or versions. The collection is available online to the general public free of charge.
Christiane Paul curator of New Media at the Whitney Museum writes: .."The "holdings" of the Computer Fine Arts Collection are a microcosm of net art that perfectly illustrates the breadth of artistic practice on the Web.. ..Computer Fine Arts is the largest private collection of net art to date, a rarity that deserves to be exhibited widely and will hopefully set an example for institutions and private collectors around the world."
DorgolanDorgolan 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stan douglas winplaceorshow 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stan douglas winplaceorshow 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for expressing your interest in the proposed WikiProject Contemporary music here. The project now has a proposed project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music. If you are still interested in contributing to this effort please add you name to the members list here. Thanks for your interest. Please feel free to make changes and suggestions. --S.dedalus 05:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello
I noticed you had some trouble with an anonymous user on the Hugenot article. This user is well known to me, he edits using a dynamic IP address and has had several sockpuppets besides. His first was called User:Eoganan. He has engaged in pov pushing and vandalism, including very offensive vandalism of user pages, for well over a year. He's more of a pest than anything else, wanting to push his own rather odd personal opinions regarding concepts of "race" and ethnicity. Most of his editing is very racist and is generally unsubstantiated and non-neutral.I usually keep an eye out for him and just revert when I see he has been about. He's just a bit pathetic really. If you take a look at the edit history of my user page you'll see a lot of personal attacks against me and vandalism, mostly by Ips beginning with 69.156/69.157, which is the same as this user. You can see this by looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eoganan. Just thought I'd let you know he has a very long history of this sort of thing. All the best. Alun 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:37 11 October 2007 (GMT).
Sorry!
Thanks for your note today that "In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another". I understand the policy, and I didn't intend to do that; I was just intending to fix typos. I did a lot of them this afternoon; to help me not to do it again, and in case any of the others need undoing, can you point me to the particular edit you meant? JohnCD 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - after some searching through my edits, I have found the one you objected to, where I changed "labourious" to "laborious". In fact "laborious" is correct, and "labourious" is wrong, in both British and American English: see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/L. JohnCD 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Postmodernism in Photography
Postmodernims affects all levels of society. Artists do function like sensors to see, what others don't. The well known artist Stifter, is presenting postmodern art in books. It is of utmost importance to be able to cite this great Swiss artist in respect to Postmodern art.
Please, include his works of art again in this article. Postmodernism is a most important research topic and must be allowed to see all kinds of contents, with which postmodern artist deal. Stifters postmodern view, even if it is only available in an external link, must enter the "diskurs"!
I am bitterly disappointed how some Wikipedia editors seem to know more about postmodernism than the real artists.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannivenice (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sivkov
The editor who has posted this also claims the copyright. The artist, however is still alive. It is unclear if the editor is also the creator of this image. Freshacconci | Talk 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I received a message regarding this image to my talk page: Images:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_9#Image:Siberian_Shaman.jpg You have tagged these image as possibly being unfree. As I have already stated: as the author I am with in my rights to place them under the GFDL images category. To clarify I am the author of the images posted on Wikipedia. I am not Sivkov. It appears that in the course of maintaining the integrity of this sight you have jumped to unfounded conclusions. Respectfully, DebrayR—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.169.21 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2007
It is clear to me that since this person is not the artists Sivkov, even if they did take the photograph, they cannot release it under the GFDL because the subject matter/content of the photograph is copyright. That's like saying I could simply photograph the Wal-mart logo and then use it for my business because I was the creator of the photograph. I'll try to contact the user to explain this.-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Here is some more info. The person claims that they bought the artist's work and that they own this painting. That changes thing, but I am not familiar enough with copyright law to know if transfer of ownership applies here (it probably does. I know that it's highly probable that IBM owns their own logo, not the artist who created it Paul Rand).-Andrew c [talk] 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know when my images will be removed as possibly being unfree.
DebrayR 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hi Freshacconci. I'd appreciate your thoughts regarding edits such as this [2]. Is there a good rationale for me to delete such images? My concern is that artists will insert their drawings, presumably copied from published photos, into biographies of famous personalities. These images may be self-promoting and of varying quality. If I am wrong, I will restore such images. Thanks, JNW 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I had noticed Modernist's reversion of the Picasso portrait, agreed with the action, and did likewise to several other drawings inserted by the same artist. When I subsequently looked for policy on images, it seemed that Wikipedia invites people to use their own drawings and graphs, as well as photos that do not distract from the relevent content. At face value, however, this would suggest the hornet's nest we are wary of. Thanks again for your reply. JNW 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Another question
- Thanks for dealing with anon, I'm at a loss as to what to do. This character is annoying, but I really don't want to deal with it. Modernist 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania 2009
Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009 |
The University of Toronto is the planned host site, which I see is your alma-mater! Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid. |
---|
-- Zanimum 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding article James Brooks(painter)
Hi Freshacconci!
It appears that you care for the correct presentation of articles therefore I thought you may want to make a change by reverting two edits from the article: James Brooks (painter). I would be happy to add documentations to the article but not in the present state.
1. Second line in “Biography:” "crazy man to Jackson Pollock…"
James Brooks was a good friend and neighbor of Jackson Pollock and his wife Lee Krasner in Springs, East Hampton, Long Island. The description: "crazy man" makes no sense in the sentence! crazy man - it is an opinion without documentation.
2. Last sentence in “Biography: What most people do not know is that he was a homosexual."
In the context of the article the description of James Brooks’ sexual orientation without proper reference is absurd.
I checked in “history” to learn who was responsible to the additions and I found only IP: [[3]]
I suppose that these words make no difference to the great works of art that were created by James Brooks. Nevertheless if the intension is to guaranty that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia it is necessary to revert these changes. I hope you can help to carry out these corrections. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
LowBrow Art Movement additions
Thank you for your comments re my additions to the LowBrow Art Movement. Whilst I understand the policy re extra links and additions to any pages, I did not consider my additions to be vandalism. They definitely enhance the page, as it broadens the exposure of this art movement to the UK. Before the additions there was no such mention of the artwork being enjoyed on UK shores.
How else may I spread the word of the growing appreciation of this movement?
Many thanks Russman2000 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding article James Brooks (painter)
Hi Freshacconci!
I am grateful to you on behalf of the community of art lovers for your prompt and clear response. I will try to get the requested "citation" which I also think is necessary for clarity. Now I feel better because I know that there are people like you can be found in wikipedia. Thank you again. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC))
Re: in a procedural mood
Thanks - I had worked out where it came from and replied. People have difficulty finding talk pages - the comment I've just been replying to ended up on "User talk:User talk:JohnCD"! JohnCD 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Revertion of some editing in article Expressionism
Hi Freshacconci!
The correction of your editing by Modernist:
(Later in the 20th century, Expressionism influenced and related to a large number of artists and movements. The abstract expressionists, consisting primarily of American artists, Tachisme of the 1940s and 1950s in Europe and in the United States and Canada Lyrical Abstraction beginning in the late 1960s and the 1970s were all expressionist movements)
I suggest that it be reverted to its previous state:
(Later in the 20th century, the movement influenced a large number of other artists, including the abstract expressionists, the latter consisting primarily of American artists such as Jackson Pollock. The neo-expressionists were a revival movement in Germany beginning in the 1970s and centered around artists Anselm Kiefer and Georg Baselitz.)
For the following reason:
The editing by Modernist has no connection to the article Expressionism.
Expressionism generally referred to figurative expressionism while non figurative expressionism is known as Abstract Expressionism in America or Abstraction Lyrique in Paris or sometimes referred to as Taschisme 1945-1960. Wikipedia is an important source of information for a great number of people and it is necessary to maintain quality. If you find it necessary to further justify the importance of the above deletion or rather reversion to its previous state I can do so. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
me
Um i just wanted to know why do u have this anyway its so pointless WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It weird but i guess it works I dont know why im a member!!!!!...............???????????????!!!!!!!<<me is fun is out>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me is fun (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I used your User talk form to create my own (Salmon1 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
Hi Freshacconci!
I hope it is all right that I used your User talk as an example for me. I copied the editor symbol as well which I later deleted. I liked it very much and it certainly looked good but I thought it was too bold for me considering I have not edited other contributers' articles and I am not sure I would ever be able to do it. Please forgive me if it was inappropriate. No disrespect was intended. I would like to work with you since we have similar training in the academic world. Best regards. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
remove usefull links
The two links I added are quite usefull for readers who want to inform themselves apout mail-art. The IUOMA-group is an active collective with 450+ active mail-artists. The Mail-Art Projects Blog gives readers access to the latest mail-art projects.
Why were the links removed? Just wondered.
Ruud Janssen www.iuoma.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.132.55 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Hi Freshacconci! You were just a God send to us. Your letter just came in at the right time. My husband and I were barraged by the e-mail comment of User:Tyrenius. You can find my reply on his User talk page. I deleted my e-mail address as of today. It is appropriate to write to me on an open forum while I have to do the same. It is amazing the time that it can take to create a defense to a warning of no crime committed.
Having been a highly trained NIH fellow for many years, at The Rockefeller University and Yale University as a post doctoral fellow, I thought that nothing could faze me. What is important in this experience is that everything requires a new skill set. Although my training might have been beneficial in comprehending the cause of events yet it did not equip me to be relaxed about it.
I realized many years ago how contemporary art finds its way to the public.
My assessment was that even good artists had a hard time to make their way because of the heavy elbowing of the mediocre ones. I have decided early on that I would stand by equality of exposure. Years ago one famous, now very famous artist who was my friend said to me: “You know my dear you should not dilute us.” He meant that I should only include them. I did not follow his advice. Lately I was told by many people, collectors and artists alike, that I have influenced American art history for the better. It does not mean that I am inclusive without exercising my own judgment but I never burden anyone with it.
I was trained by my father an art historian - specialized in early renaissance - how to look at works of art for which I am forever grateful. My activities have been very helpful to the public at large and have been a joy for me. Wikipedia is just a perfect forum for me. I am willing to work hard because it gives me the opportunity to share my information with the public.
I never thought that people can be so very hurtful under the protection of anonymity. As far as I am concerned everyone is normal as long as they do not hurt others or themselves. But the line has to be drawn.
I read your user page and I thought that your artistic and academic training could be valuable in a collaboration of articles if you wish to try. Although I am new to Wikipedia I can be a useful collaborator in many aspects of American or European art. I hope this was not too long winded reply. I thank you again for your kind and encouraging words. Best regards, (Salmon1) —Preceding comment was added at 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi 87.160.210.155 is here - Neutral-Point-of-view
Hi freshacconci
What is so not-neutral in my edits? O.k. the 4 ~ will follow!
87.160.210.155 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I need a little help
I need a little help
Hi Freshacconci! I do not understand what is happening. If you have a minute please help me to understand it. On November 7, I received a message by an editor: Anastrophe. See on my Salmon1. It was tough and especially it made no sense. I replied to him and he also replied to me on the discussion page of Abstract Expressionism. I decided that I would add him to my watchlist but I am incapable to add his site. I tried in many ways but it appears that if you add User: Anastrophe it will show that it does not have a “site” since it remains red. I am not very clear but I cannot put this editor on the wachlist.’’ Do you have any understanding in this matter? Thank you for your attention. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
- Freshacconci, I hope you don't mind but I've answered Salmon1's question and said hello. They seem to be running into some difficulties so I've referred them to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Hi by the way - I don't think I've contributed to your talkpage before!--Ethicoaestheticist 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not Vandalisim
Your statement is understandable but not entirely applicable to the artist or his work. This warning put forth by you was expected to achieve an avenue of reference for verifiability of this very rare art style. It is reasonable for you to act in the manner that you have; because of your academic vaults of commitment to your reputation. The artist is real RODNEY N. LESTER ( you can cross reference with Mike Eppel CNN News Personality and Mike Wixson, once known as (MOBILE MIKE) from CHYM Fm in Toronto) The artwork is real, ( a public viewing in may 2008 Kitchener-Waterloo Region will be available for schedule in January 2008 ) and the artistic Style is real, ( thought this style was developed by RODNEY N. LESTER in 1986, it was only introduced this year (2007) to exposure. ) This explains why you may not of heard of it before. It is rooted in abstract art styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.230.253 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
British Invasion
I removed the US POV box because it was not relevant. Although the article describes an American event (shared by a few other nations mentioned in the article), I do not think, after reading the article carefully, that it presented an American point of view. 76.205.104.33 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanx
I am behind other articles such as concoction and they still stand proud while no one ever threatened to delete them. I don't know why NyLon triggered such violent reactions as if this article were vermin or something. Let's analyse the merits and defects of NyLon cool headed and then reach an outcome. Thanx for your lines Apostolos Margaritis 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)