Talk:I and the Village

MoMA
The reference to the collection at the Museum of Modern Art is substantial at this point. If there is a specific point in the text that you would like expanded then tag it...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a stub - Stub and while expansion will require additional referencing it is adequate for now. Add references rather than tags...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition against adding tags, especially for very POV material that is unsourced. And there is no requirement for adding "references instead of tags". Adding tags happens ALL THE TIME on Wikipedia. WP:V can never be disputed unless you get a consensus here. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll wait for consensus...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we will. Thank you. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont see a problem here, just the usual tiresome eagerness to tag rather read up and add/fix. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the consensus process, Ceoil. Everyone doesn't see it the way you do. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your letting the letter rather than the intenion of the law over rule your actions here, dude. Stop that. It would have taken considerably less time to verify the facts than to fight and just blindly question, demanding that volunteers colour in your own lack of knowledge. Either way, are we done here? Its late, and I have kittens to drown. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're pretending to be a mindreader, "dude". Stop that. Go drown your kittens. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the widespread tagspam, and mindless direction of others, is almost as bad as the deletionist bots. when will it end? 98.163.75.189 (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular "tagspam" resulted in proper sourcing to the article. It will end when Wikipedia ends, which would be sooner rather than later if the mentality expressed here were to take hold for every article. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which side you are on 98.163, but its far easier to tag and run to actually do something. If by the phrase the "the mentality expressed here" you are getting at myself and M 174.99, well we are both scrupulous about using refs, and in fact come from the generation of wiki editors than demanded them and made them standard, but jesus christ dealing with random lazy tagging like the above would drive any sane person to drink. I abide by refs, but have no time for their agressive demand by passers by when they are so easily available. And tags resolve nothing just scream the obvious. In my mind these things are just evidence of a prick, a la 174.99 here. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, consider this your first warning about making personal attacks. And feel free to take that drink. You seem to need a little mellowing. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going down the "reporting to my superiors" route now rather than arguing me on substance? Maybe its not just my kittens need drowning. Anyway, this is a dead horse and the article is cited, what more do you want? Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceoil's giving you good advice, Mr. 174 I told you to tag what you wanted referenced but you didn't listen till you were backed to the wall...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice? Yeah, calling someone a prick is "good advice". Backed to the wall? Could you try a little harder at hyperbole? One tag at the top of the page or two in the article (essentially the entire article). Either way, the sources were produced and the article was improved, something that, with Ceoil's "scrupulous about using refs" attitude, likely would not have happened for months or years otherwise, regardless of who was "against the wall". You and Ceoil have wasted enough time nitpicking here about a perfectly appropriate tag than it would take to source three articles. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * i'm on nobody's "side". the widespread abuse of tag deprecates them. i ignore them, and when a lazy editor adds, then i stop and work elsewhere (contra your "success" here). when the xldeletebot comes and deletes my references, then i revert. i suspect you're right: the tagspam toxic environment will end when wiki ends; the death spiral has begun. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When you start adding refs and not tags you'll have something to say till then you are blowing smoke...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 98, he he, I agree though death spiral is probably overstating this incidents seriousness I'd guess, it might have meta value if rationalised but in reality its a gruge match. 174, I dont really think you are a prick, I got the impression you could take as good as you could give so I was bantering with you, more or less. Frankly you'd go mental in this place without a bit of messing around - its around 3M articles with a core editorship of about 3k. If you think I'm a gigantic prick and feel the need to tell me, move it to my talk. There are women and children here, and the argument is dead. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this place, and especially this particular discussion, needs a bit of lightening up. Who would have thought that a little tag that has been added tens of thousands of times with no reaction whatsoever would have stirred up so much ado about nothing. Now, if everyone will excuse me, I need to go join the other 99% of Wikipedians to blow smoke. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adios...Modernist (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Grand 174.99, off with ya, but rememeber Fighting Mac, banter aside, Modernist is a friend of mine and regardless of what incarnation you show up with, I'll defend him and try take you the fuck out. This all a huge waste of time, but your choice. Ceoil (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Surrealist painting
As this was painted in 1911, more than 10 years before Surrealism was founded, this is not a Surrealist painting. If someone wants to create a category for "proto-Surrealist" paintings, that would be another matter, though I do not suggest such a course of action. In practice, it would be disastrous. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 18:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Milking a goat?
It actually looks like the person in the painting is milking a cow, considering the size of the person compared to the animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)