User talk:Ewulp/Archive 2

Previous discussions are archived at Archive 1 (April 06–May 07).

Neo-impressionism article
Hello Ewulp, My students have been working on the Neo-impressionism page. You reversed their edit on March 27, saying it was rife with copyright violations. This follows an earlier reversal by ClueBot NG, and they are getting frustrated. Can you help me advise them what to do next? What exactly was the problem with their edit, and how can they fix it? Thank you, FashProf (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Ewulp. I've passed your advice on to them, and I expect them to fix the errors and try the edit again. FashProf (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I am knocked over. You know that I admire your work, so that means a bunch to me. Big smiles from here, JNW 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that you recently contributed to Raphael Soyer. I thought the world of him, and visited him twice toward the end of his life. He was very kind to me. JNW 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Plastic paint medium
I noticed your edit and looked further into that and Josignacio. There seems to be no notability or significant sources for either. I've speedied them. They've were linked in a number of other articles, and I've removed the links. You might like to keep an eye out. Tyrenius 03:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep a lookout. Ewulp 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!
Ewulp Greetings my friend! I wrote a series of articles on Republic of Texas military history, and have submitted two of them for review for GA status. I could REALLY use your honest evaluation of both, (don't spare my feelings!), and of course, any help you feel like giving would be more than welcome, as you are a far better editor than I am! I worked very hard on these, researching the history, and then writing, and really could use a dispassionate evaluation by you, if you have the time. The five are Buffalo Hump, Council House Fight, Great Raid of 1840, Battle of Plum Creek, and Battle of Pease River. The two I submitted for GA review are Great Raid of 1840, and Battle of Pease River. I also completely rewrote Peta Nocona as part of the buttressing of the series. (If you want a laugh, I got into this because my grandson had an assignment in Texas history, and found little on wikipedia about it. He told me someone should rectify that, and after reading 14 books, I did.  I would really appreciate your evaluation of the two I submitted for review...THANKS,old windy bear 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello old windy bear, good to hear from you! I've just given Council House Fight the once-over as a warmup for Great Raid of 1840, which seems a bit more challenging & which I'll look at next. Ewulp 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ewulp Thank you my friend! I appreciate your help!  These are good articles, but they needed your magic touch before the GA review!  I don't know if you know, but I was recently elected an admin, (which I was greatly honored to be), and in the course of that, discovered that TomStar81 was not an admin, which surprised me - he is a superb editor, and really deserves the mop.  If you have time, would you look at his nomination?  Also, are you interested in the mop?  You would make a superior admin yourself.  I have to laugh - I have come a long way from the early B & C days, to be an admin, huh?  Anyway, are you interested?  THANKS FOR THE HELP ON MY NEW ARTICLES! old windy bear 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, congratulations old windy bear -- WP has just gained an outstanding administrator, with the dedication, the temperament, and an impressive record of accomplishments. For now I'd have to decline the role myself, but thanks for the good words. Ewulp 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ewulp, Oldwindybear has e-mailed me and asked me to relay this message to you: "I recruited Ewulp, (a very good writer who often edited articles I had written for me) to review one of my newer ones, COUNCIL HOUSE FIGHT. He left me a message on research that I had the answer to, but of course, cannot now answer and correct. Would you be kind enough to go to that talk page, and leave him a note that I am not editing anymore, but the generally accepted answer, (and I can send you the sources if he needs them, for you to relay, since I cannot email him, as I am off wikipedia!) is that all the Comanche Chiefs were killed.  The article could safely say that there are sources - the online Handbook of Texas is the primary one - which claim only 30 of 33 were killed, but most sources, the vast majority, say all 33 were." I believe he should be able to receive e-mail, as it's still enabled.Proabivouac 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Matisse
TY for reworking the Matisse intro - I gave it a quick shot yesterday - not my finest hour. Modernist 11:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to help! And very nice work on the much-needed expansion of Matisse as well as on Self-portrait/Autoportrait. Ewulp 06:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

René Magritte pop culture section
FYI, I put your inline comment""to good use here. (They didn't read it, but I did.) This little gem deserves to be spread around. I hope you don't mind if I lift it. Regards, CliffC 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
I'd like to nominate Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres as a good article. You seem to be the primary contributor to it. Do you mind if I do? –Outriggr § 08:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just changed my mind. :) It's more than worthy of consideration, but I'm not going to be available to respond to any "review comments" that are left on the talk page. (One of which will be, "Get rid of the image gallery. This isn't about an artist! Oh wait, it is, but...") If you want to continue, you could nominate it yourself. Cheers, –Outriggr § 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Zakpo
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zakpo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zakpo seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zakpo, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Picasso works

 * As posted on User talk:Cburnett:

This was a very useful template, but is now redundant as the info is in Template:Pablo Picasso. If you, as original author, agree, I will delete it, as there seems no further use to be made of it. I will also ask User:Ewulp who modified a couple of dates. Tyrenius (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to believe
... there is no such thing as a simple wikigraphic that works all the time...


 * re: VP (?VPP) a few days ago... On my monitor at least, your edit displays very badly. A single word ("The") is isolated at upper left, then there's the contents box, the two nav boxes and the image; some scrolling is required to find the rest of the sentence: "Middle Ages form the middle period..." etc. Perhaps an inconspicuous page-wide noprint banner would be fine, but if it's inconspicuous it will be easily overlooked, no? Is there any evidence that users have had trouble finding nav boxes located in External links? Ewulp (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... what browser were you using... the monitor shouldn't matter hill of beans... the text wrapping and such are HTML elements.  Also just wondering whether that effect you describe is influenced by A) the fact that the page has the historical page notice "warning banner"... B) the TOCnestright.

Could you play with the page in preview mode (as if reverting), and see if it clears that issue for you. Then if not, try again by deleting the TOCnestright line and repreview. If the wrapping you describe continues when the only thing left is commons-gallery, then there is a definite issue there. If not, your experiment should indicate the object which is rendering badly. Please let me know on my talk! Thanks! // Fra nkB 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer xposts:to and from

HTML at Middle Ages
I experimented with this as you suggested with the following results. First: my browser is Safari, and viewing your edit in the preview pane didn't resolve the issue. What eventually worked was this markup, excluding the "nowiki"s:



This displays as an intact lede section, with the 2 nav boxes at upper right above the Giotto jpg, and the Contents below the lede section in the usual way. I'm not sure if this is the result you intended, but hope this is helpful. Ewulp (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courteous response... and apologies for missing your post. I could blame the holidays (and to some extent, legitimately can), but it was more likely a near in time post banner message was the next I saw coupled with my normal preoccupation of having twenty irons in the fire all at once on this project... I sortof just keep going where and whenever I have to leave off whatever the day or time... and so I just 'now' saw your message. (Heck, I talk to myself out loud too much as it is... I'd really be in bad shape if I started talking to myself on my talk too! )


 * Insofar as your 'data' goes, makes perfect sense. The various browsers seem to have "issues" on the corners of HTML blocks, and inserting the FixHTML/FixBunching forces alignment by placing the contents in table structures. IIRC, I did not put a 'mid' call between the two, and Safari isn't one I've tried (Is that Unix platforms?). Sadly, my main computer and most of my browsers currently are in the repair shop, so say a prayer!  Hope the hard drive is alive at least!


 * FYI, the 'pre' block command can show things a bit better in many cases, as it essentially is equivalent to putting a nowiki on each end of a line, and letting the newlines do there thing:




 * With respect to the article... Danged if I can find an edit summary suggesting it was removed after this one... but bottom line, sometimes one just has to throw some spagetti against the wall to see how much sticks. Looks like this lot didn't.
 * Intuitively, disabling the "float Right" as shown in the commented version you report should be fine, and constrained (on most browsers) by the table element. Safari apparently gives a different order of precedence to elements, and prioritized the right float higher... or something like that. RU sure you needed to comment out the float command "&lt;!--|R=1 -->"? Or the other, or did you add the mid after? Hmmmm my edit looks to me to be identical to your "success", so what the heck are we talking about anyway?


 * In any event, the issue is probably moot. This society is bound and determined to not give sister projects any free publicity, and so far as I'm concerned, putting things down in external links is about the same as saying "this is unimportant, you can stop reading now". Sigh.

Have a great new year, and again, sincere apologies for the tardy detection of your message. // Fra nkB 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OKAY! Thanks for the clarification. My next OS will be named "X"... one of my best friends has been trying to get me into that mode for two decades plus!


 * re: Personally, I don't think putting things into external links consigns them to oblivion, as they're easy to find there and users quickly learn that they're worth exploring. ... I guess I'm just a little slow!  Have a great wildcard weekend! // Fra nkB  14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Sloan thanks you...
and so do I. A few hours ago I noticed the contributions to his biography, and the attendant confusion. Didn't have a clue how to fix it, and the evening's plans beckoned anyway. Upon returning, it was clear that you had set everything right. Bravo! JNW (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your note, last night after I finished up at Reginald Marsh, I thought that here might be a connection with the edits you did at John Sloan also....Check out the first message on my talk page - Ellsworth Kelly, an ominous threat from March 19th that does sounds like there is a class out there. I think the newly rewritten articles are definitely interconnected in some fashion, - all new names etc. I mentioned this to Ty also. Modernist (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808
Hi Ewulp, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! JNW (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edvard Munch
I've seen you have reverted my addition of Božidar Jakac among the artists that have been influenced by E. Munch. You have referred me to the talk page, however I have been unable to locate any discussion about what should be included in the infobox or similar there. What were you referring to exactly? The information added can be found in one of the sources provided in the Jakac article. --Eleassar my talk 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
for the Third of May 1808, reaching FA and it's still April, thanks for your input.....Modernist (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808
Thank you, Ewulp, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Rodchenko
You recently undid my edits to this article on the grounds of copyright violation -- however this isn't why I'm leaving you a message, since permission has been given to use the text. But, when you undid the edit, was it necessary to remove the external links I added in addition to the new section? It seems they were both relevant links; at the least, one of them was. — metaprimer (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image on Modernism
Please do not place an artistic depiction from the Romantic period on an article about Modernism. This is very misleading and the fruits of Romanticism do not belong in an article about something with such radically different values. It also has nothing to do with the text in the article, although the article in general is a total mess, with a poor layout (ironic) compared to Renaissance for example and needs a complete rewrite anyway. - Victory&#39;s Spear (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't find an image in the Romanticism article that depicts modernist artwork, so it shouldn't in this context either. If somebody wants to see the fruits of Romanticism, then they should go to the article on that subject. Its simply out of place and doesn't belong. Also the image is of the wrong revolution; it was painted in 1830, before the Revolutions of 1848 (which is mentioned in the text next to it) even happened.


 * In an article on Modernism, putting a section header "beginings" and then showing a Romantic artwork is going to be very confusing for people not familiar with the topic. It could infact, trick the reader into thinking that Modernism is beautiful or attractive, based on a completely unrelated Romantic artwork. Thus I have reverted you. Keep things in context. That entire pre-modernism section needs trimming down anyway, there is more information in that section than in the parts about modernism itself. The article is in very bad shape. - Victory&#39;s Spear (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There were multiple revolutions & wars in Europe in the first half of the 19th century, as noted in the text. The jpg is appropriate in this context, and bears a caption that identifies it as a Romantic work painted in 1830. A reader, noting the contrast between Delacroix's painting and the Hofmann painting that stands at the top of the article, is unlikely to confuse the two; the reader who makes it to the sixth paragraph of "Beginnings" will begin to understand that Modernism has something to do with the difference they see. In my opinion this enhances the article. Please place any further complaints about Modernism on the article's talk page. Ewulp (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton Avery
According to an old catalog that I have and the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website it's 1885. That's good enough for me and I changed the dates..good catch, thanks...Modernist (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Delaney
Could you please add references to this new article you created?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not much of an article as yet & everything is from the single source, except the list of collections (can't remember where I got that but I'll try to source it). Inline citations have been added. Ewulp (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Modernism
Hi, do you have the edition (and publisher) for that Peter Childs quote?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Concert Singer
You're doing excellent work on this article. Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The painting is a favorite. Ewulp (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm speechless! Many thanks. Ewulp (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Eakins and Degas
Thanks for your note, and for your contributions to The Concert Singer. At your leisure, do take a look at The Bellelli Family. As always, a pleasure to read your contributions, and to hear from you. Best, JNW (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bellelli Family has an article worthy of it, which is saying a lot. Many nice finds, like the wonderful Boggs quote on the hands. I'll see if there's anything I can add. Many thanks for the kind words,  and for so much outstanding work.   Ewulp (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In re Avant-garde
Dear Sir or Madam, You just reverted the avant-garde article while I was writing it--why? If you would, please be specific? You said you were r.v.ing unhelpful edits. The vast majority of Wikipedia users have not edited it in order to be helpful to you. Yours sincerely, D. Snow Dsnow75 &#91;&#91;User Talk: Dsnow75&#124;Talk&#93;&#93; (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Do you accept Barnstars of High Culture?
 * You made three changes, none of which seemed likely to be helpful to anybody. According to your edit, "Salons des Refusés were held in 1874, 1875, and 1886" (you deleted 1863). In context, this needed either an adjective such as "subsequent" or a revert; I reverted. Your unexplained deletion of the link to List of avant-garde artists served no apparent purpose. The title of the Duchamp piece is Fountain, useful information which you deleted from the jpg caption for no apparent reason, unless as part of a plan to eliminate said title  from the annals of history, as you | proposed at Talk:Avant-garde before retracting the suggestion. I suggest you discuss these edits there, not here.   Ewulp (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir: I should say, thank you for reading my comment.Dsnow75 &#91;&#91;User Talk: Dsnow75&#124;Talk&#93;&#93; (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ingres and odalisques
I saw the edit there this morning, picked up some books in the library this afternoon with an eye toward expanding on the theme, and you beat me to it! Truth be told, I was planning to send you a note to ask for your input, as well. Well done, as usual. Best regards, JNW (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of works by Thomas Eakins
(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)

After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good--I'll see what I can add. Ewulp (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

British?
But why? Is british not an adjective?--Radh (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Why should I doubt you? I just had the (german and thus here) wrong idea.--Radh (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sisley
I'm kind of puzzled by your "copyediting" of my edits. I expanded the lead per WP:LEAD, so that it provided a summary of the article - both Sisley's life and his works. You reverted it back to the original, and now it doesn't summarize anything, doesn't explain Sisley's life and/or connections to other Impressionists, and doesn't explain the "never found the movement did not suit his needs" line, which isn't transparent to someone without extensive knowledge of Impressionism (and so I specifically added Renoir and Degas as examples of the opposite).

Not only that, but you removed my links to France and British Empire. I never once saw anyone remove links to countries (after all, someone from Thailand may be reading this!). Suppose the France link was indeed too much, allright - but removing British Empire? Why? Shouldn't the reader have a link that would explain the state Sisley was a citizen of? Look at all the FAs: Salvador Dalí, John Vanbrugh, Paul Kane... I could go on for weeks citing articles from all over Wikipedia, all of which have the artist's citizenship/nationality in the first line linked.

If you were a new editor, I'd just tweak stuff back in, but apparently you've been here for a long time, and so I'm really clueless as to why would you do these things which contradict, well, just about everything I've seen in my five or so years here.

--Jashiin (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Thank you for such a substantial reply. I'm afraid I'm only an amateur when it comes to history of painting; my picture of Impressionism turned out to be quite wrong. As a matter of fact, I only saw Sisley's work a few days ago; I was so impressed that I had to do at least something about the article, which was in a poor shape. Anyway, I like what you did to the lead, mentioning Renoir and all - this is what I was aiming at: to give the reader some sense of where Sisley stood. Regards, --Jashiin (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Le Roux
I'm sorry to say to you that the musee d'Orsay website is doing a mistake saying that the Cherrytrees by Charles Le Roux was at the exposition universelle of 1855. Charles Le Roux is my grand father and the best biography you can find about him was made by G.Ferroniere, he clearly describe the story of this paint which was a gift of Charles Le Roux's son for the Exposition Universelle of 1900 and then for the Musée du Luxembourg. I cannot say why the musee d'Orsay did this mistakes but even if you chech in the "Catalogue of the exposition universelle of 1855" there is no reference at this paint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpalir (talk • contribs) 06:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia
Hi. I just wanted to stop and thank you for the recent edits on this page. We try quite hard to keep the relevance of the media mentions to relevant and direct references regarding the article and keep out extraneous trivia. Unfortunately, this doesn't always please some - almost always IP edits. I appreciate your noticing the change and would mention that if you happen across similar edits to other high profile crime articles, please don't hesitate to remove them. WP:CRIME members try to keep this sort of mention to a minimum but sometimes they slip through. You'll find similar internal notes in articles like Charles Manson, Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, Lizzie Borden, Albert Fish, Ted Bundy, etc. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gericault
Thank you for restoring my admittedly rather soaring verbiage--I could understand how someone might find it a bit POV, but given the painting and its prominence I thought the wording was not inappropriate, and consistent with published scholarship. At any rate, this gives me a chance to say hello--it's been a while--to compliment you on your edits in general, and to wish you the best. JNW (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks JNW; I thought that might be your writing! The description seems exactly right, while the too-neutralized language of the revision was likely to mislead anyone who didn't know the The Raft of the Medusa's place in the artist's oeuvre. Ewulp (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong ref
Hey there, sorry to bother but I accidentally attributed the removal of a link to an IP when it was you who removed it after correcting a typo on the page. May I ask for the reason for removing of the link? I think it would add a great deal more depth or validity to the statements made re what is said in that article with the wikipedia article. But I am no expert so if you still think the ref is not needed feel free to remove it. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I too am sorry about the slow response. But that is fair enough what you said, I guess I will try and follow up the reason why the other individual removed it (I am sure it was either a mistake or there is a valid reason - as I said before, I am no expert on the subject and hence why I am not in a rush to get the link back on the page). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content
I know you passed before, I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think you've confused me with another user--it's not my area. Ewulp (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Date restoration
Thanks! That was quick. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
 * No problem--and now I know who Gederts Eliass is. Ewulp (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Hi Ewulp, I hope this will be a successful year and a successful new decade, for you. Happy New Year and all the best...Modernist (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ewulp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Konrad Klapheck -

Rembrandt
Beat me to it! I was going to substitute 'Baroque'. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Munich School
Great work, as always! Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for calling attention to this matter at the Visual Arts Project page. Ipodamos put some good work into the article, but it would have required a huge expansion to balance all the Greek emphasis. Ewulp (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Harper's Weekly
Hello, Ewulp. Please look over here, and at the first image on the article Scientific racism.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 03:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bathsheba at Her Bath
Hi Ewulp: you're respectfully invited to have a look and contribute to Bathsheba. I hope you are well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Malevich
Malevich was Ukrainian! See http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/malevich_kasimir.html for example—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.246.201 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kiev was within the Russian Empire in 1879. Artcyclopedia notwithstanding, Malevich is not identified as "Ukrainian artist" in any reliable source I checked; he's Russian according to Oxford Art Online, britannica.com, Getty Union List of Artist Names, MoMA website and publications, Guggenheim website, Art Institute of Chicago website, Penguin Concise Dictionary of Art History, and Dictionary of 20th Century Art. Ewulp (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

genetic attribution on the lede
Ypoou r claim seems weak, I have searched on the web for reliable support and not found anything. Please don't replace it without talkpage discussion and consensus. Also, we do not usually add such genetic marking in the first paragraph like the WP:LEDE and WP:MOS like, mr jonh smith a negro from alabama or jonny Harrison a cuusasion from Maine, please move to discussipon, there is also a thread regarding this BLP at the WP:BLPN where you are also welcome to comment, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried entering "Buffy Sainte-Marie" +Cree into Google scholar or Google books? A great many reliable sources appear. As for appropriateness in the lede, MOS:BIO says: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I'd say in this case it is relevant.  Featured articles, which represent the best of Wikipedia, mention ethnicity in the lede if relevant; see Jackie Robinson for an example. Ewulp (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally there is no comparison at all with Jackie Robinson, there genetic make up was much more relative to his notability. . What do you see as being most notable about here as a aboriginal Canadian worthy of the first comment? There is discussion about this also at the WP:BLPN thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion at WP:BLPN concerns something else entirely: a potentially libelous and unsourced posting on Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie by an editor who claimed that Sainte-Marie had fabricated the story of her origin. This was rightly removed. We require reliable sources in WP. The relevance of her ethnicity is fairly obvious (see her discography, activism and statements, news coverage throughout her career, and so on). This detail also helps prepare the reader for the article's second sentence: "Throughout her career in all of these areas, her work has focused on issues of Native Americans", which might otherwise seem puzzling. Ewulp (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU?!
I updated information regarding a world renowned artist that you decided to remove? Who the hell are you to remove it? Charles Colombo has received more praise & recognition than 1/2 of the artists listed on the wiki page. 2 of his pieces have just been added to the White House.. he's been an extremely important figure in the art world for the last 40 years.. the list goes on. You need not edit important OVERLOOKED information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.220.244 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the deletion discussion for Category:Poetasters
Category:Poetasters has been nominated for deletion here. Last January, you participated in the previous deletion discussion (which resulted in a no-consensus keep), so you may have an interest in this one. Please consider participating. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for. It seems that every time I go to the trouble of checking when an IP changes a date, it always turns out to be a wasted effort as it was just a vandal maliciously adding false information. So when I don't bother checking before reverting, of course it turns out to be correct! Thanks again for this, as well as your other contributions to visual arts articles. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  09:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the nice note, and for the huge role you play in making Wikipedia a better place. Ewulp (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:CasoratiSilvanaCenni.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CasoratiSilvanaCenni.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:0052549ket d.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:0052549ket d.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mono 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:0052549ket d.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:0052549ket d.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mono 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:0052549ket d.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:0052549ket d.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mono 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Constantin von Mitschke-Collande
thanks for fixing my sloppiness, lot's of artists still to do. Accotink2 talk 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Degas
Just a short question: If the biography referred to by User:Bjornwireen can be tracked down, would you be OK with my changes to the article? 85.166.46.84 (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The way Degas pronounced his own name is certainly of interest. If the sounded "s" can be substantiated, it may warrant a mention, although it would have to be weighed against the numerous pronunciation guides which always seem to favor something like Dug-ah. Biographies vary in quality and may include fables and hearsay. We follow sources in writing Wikipedia articles, but if no more than a single source can be found that argues for the audible "s", that source may be suspect. In my experience, art historians (such as Richard Kendall in this video) go with the standard pronunciation, which doesn't prove it's correct but it is persuasive. Ewulp (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Hi Ewulp, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! , ...Modernist (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Starry Night
I fail to see any reason why the reference to the Simpsons is being considered unimportant. Starry Night was depicted in the episode Four Great Women and A Manicure, but the reference is being repeatedly removed. Sudhir R 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: The Starry Night
The Simpsons is a series where brief references are the norm. Take for example "Lisa's First Word". An entire section is dedicated to the episode, and the fact that Maggie Simpson's first word was spoken by Elizabeth Taylor. Still, keeping in line with your statement about having an expert opinion, does the below reference count?

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16363

Sudhir R 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyrusrama (talk • contribs)

Interior (Degas)
Wonderful! I can't believe nobody had done this sooner. If I were more involved I'd expand The Camden Town Murder and include the Degas as an important influence. Any thought to nominating your article for DYK? Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JNW. It's funny you mention DYK...I've never participated in the process up to now, but this painting provides such an obvious hook that I gave it some thought. What's still lacking is the Gavarni image, but I have a small reproduction that I'm planning to scan & if it seems adequate I'll upload.
 * I never thought of linking Interior to The Camden Town Murder, but it's a great idea; I'll take a look at dropping something in. And nice work on Walter Sickert last week--you're having a productive retirement! Ewulp (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you nominated it. The influence of Interior on the Camden Town paintings has been noted in the literature on Sickert, who has become a favorite of mine, especially the work between 1890 and 1915.... 25 years is not a bad stretch at that. JNW (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Interior (Degas)
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lluís Marsans
Thanks for the reference-finding at the Marsans article, nicely done. I was certainly able to verify the Ashbery reference to a point (I can see the TOC of the book compilation you mentioned at Amazon, but not the chapter, neither the Newsweek's article nor the compilation appears to be covered in Gbooks/Gnews, and I'm guessing that you have access--would it be possible for you to appropriately add that reference to the article? I've already pasted in the three additional refs you indicated, but the Ashbery one seem key. Thanks in advance, --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence

 * Thanks, Mandarax! This means all the more as it comes from one of Wikipedia's best. Ewulp (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

John Anster Fitzgerald
Would you please see this article's discussion page and provide a citation for the apparently totally unwarranted comment which today, it seems, you have endorsed. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Important imagery
Important visual art is on the line here for deletion: Files for deletion/2011 May 3, please weigh in...Modernist (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like the threat is quelled for now but will bear watching. Ewulp (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! And thanks for your work on that page. Ewulp (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the issuance, however I feel it is a lost cause as the endless stream of names being created by Roni Kemplar to insert his personal theory does not appear to be backing down any time soon.--Chimino (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about that. It seems that the author of a notable theory should have little trouble finding a citation for it; four months of begging him for one seems enough indulgence. The article contains plenty of notable nutty speculation; the last thing it needs is nn original research... Ewulp (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Patton and user names
Hi Ewulp! Thanks for the Charlie Patton edit. By the way, I'm not an anon. editor. My user name is 78.26. Which is actually creating problems when I want to use the same user name of wiki commons..... Have a great day! 78.26 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, 78.26, and for the good work.Ewulp (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a several state capitols
on my watchlist and you just showed up and made some wonderful, subtle edits in two of them. For that I am awarding you the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Keep it with pride, Or, if you to toss it away, please recycle. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Julian Trevelyan‎
Hi Ewulp, I see you've undone the Camouflage template from the Trevelyan article, and I understand your point. However, the purpose is to include him as a neglected camoufleur among the list of wartime pioneers of camouflage, and as such he is a significant figure in the list "Camoufleurs" which you'll find in the template. That in turn means that the template is needed in his article... With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On reflection, it will probably cause less disruption to articles on artists if we have a small navbox bar at the end of the articles rather than a huge box on the right. I've therefore created such, and replaced all the instances of Camoufleurs. Hope this goes down better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chiswick Chap – the navbox is an excellent solution. Ewulp (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jean Germain (politician)


The article Jean Germain (politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, prompt edit
Nice, prompt edit response here, Ewulp. Leptus Froggi (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Sick Child
Hi, just to say thanks for the fact checking and various corrections yesterday. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help – the Sick Child is looking more robust under your care. Ewulp (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I mentioned you here:...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Modernist—seems likely we've heard the last of that EL. Cheers, Ewulp (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Art intro: your blanket reversal of my edits
“Much better before” is the term you used to explain the reversal of my edits. Frankly, it’s hard to believe that none of the several changes made had any merit, not even one. So, permit me to test your assertion with just a couple of facts. First paragraph: look at the end of the last sentence. The comma following the word general is unneeded, because what follows is a dependent clause, not an independent clause. Third and last paragraph: the word aesthetics is a noun that in normal circumstances would be preceded by the definite article the. You may also wish to take a second look at the structure of this one sentence paragraph. In any event, revisions like these might be considered incidental. But on the other hand, they often make good articles better. Pendright (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not mistaken in thinking that the article could use some work. Your changes make no definite improvements, while subtly distorting the meanings of several sentences and introducing usage errors. For example, "17th century" is hyphenated when used as an adjective, but in the lede it is used as a noun, and should not be hyphenated. "Aesthetics" is not preceded by the definite article; note the title of the book cited for the third paragraph: Art and philosophy: readings in aesthetics. The usage is the same as for acoustics or poetry (not the acoustics or the poetry). Removing a comma from the phrase "communication of emotion, or other values" turns the "other values" into things communicated, when the intended meaning of "other values" is "other qualities by which philosophers and others have characterized art". A comma added to the first sentence does similar damage. On the whole, the original edit is more coherent. Ewulp (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A lesson learned. Pendright (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverts of edits by a new editor
Just out of curiosity, why did you revert all of the new edits by this editor? The edits seemed sound and not particularly controversial, and if verifiability's what you're worried about, wouldn't a template work just as well? I don't really have a stake in this, but blanket reverts like that just strike me as not the best way to retain new editors, especially ones who show an interest in tending to such neglected topics as the German avant-garde. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sindinero, there is a reason...it started when I noticed that a work by Höch was claimed to be by Baader. Assuming good faith, I thought this might be an honest error, but a closer look showed that every one of Fadeaway's edits was a misattribution: the title of an artwork by Arp was said to be by Hausmann, Picabia's work was assigned to Richter, Baader's to Picabia, and Hausmann's to Höch. It seems too systematic to be anything but vandalism. Ewulp (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, guess I should have read the edits more closely. Thanks for the quick response. It's funny, the kind of vandalism that dada-related subjects attracts. Sindinero (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First American Circus
Nice to see your interest in the Stuart painting. Under most situations I would accept the NGA's id but having viewed the pertinent archival info on the portrait, I can assure you the id is dodgy at best. T. Allston Brown is not a reliable source and probably wouldn't cut it as a Wiki editor if he were around today. When a citation of a portrait being destroyed is used to id a portrait, well, what can I say? Both Mason and the Walnut Street Theatre (built by Pepin and Breschard) dispute the NGA which puts the date of the piece in question as well.

You might find this to be of interest regarding the source the NGA uses for its provenance. http://brasseriebreschard.blogspot.com/2010/01/bad-history.html Any new information you might come across would be extremely welcomed. Breschard (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your courteous note. I stand by my edit because we have to rely on published sources. The alleged controversy about this painting—which is not one of the prolific Stuart's most famous—does not merit an entire section in the bio. If reliable sources can be cited, the matter can be treated at length in a separate article about the painting. For all I know your conclusions are correct but your edit is rife with weasel words ("Stuart and Ricketts did not sail from Dublin to Philadelphia together as some have claimed"), POV ("Grain certainly would have been able to identify the sitter in Stuart's portrait as being Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard"), and original research ("to this day the NGA has failed to explain the reason for this identity change"). As the author of a book that takes a position on this question, you may have some interest in promoting the controversy and the book, which could present a conflict of interest.
 * I will be visiting the library this week and will rewrite the entry if I can verify that there really is a hot controversy about this painting. For now, a neutral description of the question seems appropriate. Ewulp (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with your edits is the presentation of the date as accepted fact when the date is from the NGA. Two published sources dispute the NGA, Mason and the Walnut Street Theatre. Nobody has ever claimed there is a "hot" controversy. A neutral description is not one which accepts the claims of the NGA as fact. Once again I suggest you look into T. Allston Brown, the NGA's authority. In my files I have a copy of a note written by Riggs to Mason where he states he believes the portrait to be of Breschard. (How's that for a banker sticking out his neck?) This is from a museum in Rhode Island. Since this is a primary source I am aware it is unacceptable for Wikipedia but I thought you might like to know. Regarding COI, I don't have that discussion unless I know with whom I am corresponding. Breschard (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard to your statement that CR is not one of Stuart's most famous works, you might want to follow this link to see that the NGA features it most prominently, see page 3. http://www.nga.gov/kids/scoop-stuart.pdf Perhaps CR is more well known to others than to yourself. Breschard (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The date and identification of the Ricketts portrait come not from the NGA alone; Barratt and Miles (2004) are among the respected art historians who identity the sitter as Ricketts and date the painting accordingly. A single 133-year-old source should perhaps not be considered equal in significance to the consensus of more recent scholars. You appear to accept the authorship of the portrait as an accepted fact, as does the NGA; here you differ from Mason, who expressed some hesitation about the attribution to Stuart. From the evidence, it appears that neither Mason nor Riggs knew Breschard's first name; does this suggest positive identification or guesswork? Why would the word of Riggs, a banker born in 1813, be authoritative? How did he know what Breschard looked like —had he met him during his childhood? Isn't it more likely that Riggs was simply repeating what he had been told by Barlow the picture dealer, through whom the painting passed to Riggs? Park, who consulted with Riggs' daughters, listed the painting in his Stuart catalogue of 1926 as "Rechard or Rickart". You write of "a citation of a portrait being destroyed is used to id a portrait"—presumably a reference to the following passage in Scharf and Westcott: "The artist becoming angry at the equestrian, who gave him a good deal of trouble by his want of promptitude and the delays which occurred, is said to have dashed his paintbrush into the face of the portrait, declaring that he would have nothing more to do with him." In fact, the portrait is not described as destroyed, only as dashed by a paintbrush, perhaps a reference to the hasty strokes that form the rather clownish horse's head behind Breschard's shoulder. Has the Walnut Street Theatre published the details of the research that has led them to their opinion, or do they simply assert that this portrait is a likeness of their founder (of whom, as far as I know, there are no other painted likenesses—in which case the Stuart painting would certainly fill a gap for them).


 * The Ricketts portrait is not such a famous (or controversial) work that its description in Stuart's wp biography should equal in word count the description of the entire series of George Washington portraits. The Skater is covered in half of a short sentence. A good solution would be to write more about these other works, but even then, your edit presents too much detail in this context, along with a freight of POV & OR. The edit I prefer says that the painting "has sometimes been identified as "Breschard, the Circus Rider"", which gives the minority opinion its due without stacking the deck against the majority view. Ewulp (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1.) You continue to ignore the fact that T. Allston Brown is an unreliable source, making the NGA's provenance, which is based on Brown, unreliable as well.

2.) The NGA is a mature organization and would have had the Controversy section of Stuart's article removed a long time ago if they could.

3.) Again I refer you to my blog http://brasseriebreschard.blogspot.com/search/label/Gilbert%20Stuart%27s%20Circus%20Rider where many of the questions you have posed are answered.

4.) This is difficult for me to say. You have made a serious mistake and should recuse yourself from any further work on this topic and return both the Stuart and Breschard articles to the versions which existed before your edits. "The date and identification of the Ricketts portrait come not from the NGA alone; Barratt and Miles (2004) are among the respected art historians who identity the sitter as Ricketts and date the painting accordingly."

I'm sure you didn't do this intentionally but you are using the author of the NGA provenance as an independent authority. Miles is the author of the NGA's Systematic Catalogue entry on this painting. http://www.amazon.com/American-Paintings-Eighteenth-Systematic-Catalogues/dp/0894682105 and a simple search on Amazon or Google would have shown this. I'm sure this was due to ignorance on your part and not any attempt to deceive. Unfortunately this error has compromised you regarding this subject.

I have been researching all of this for over ten years now and realize how many people can assume this is a simple topic. Rest assured, it isn't. In those ten years I have never come across anyone not affiliated with the NGA who has identified the portrait as being Ricketts. But then again the NGA and very few other are the only ones who appear to be interested.

Sometimes "authorities" have to retire in order for things to be rectified.

You've done a lot of work on Wiki and there is a lot out there which I am sure will benefit from your diligence and enthusiasm but you should move on from this particular topic.

The Riggs edit was just fine and the Ricketts edit looked good to me as well.

There have been a lot of fine editors who have worked on the Stuart article over the years, there may be more of a controversy involved than you realize.

You do good work.

Cheers, Peter Breschard (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take these in order:
 * 1) T. Allston Brown is the source for the part of the provenance you like (Peter Grain) as well as the part of the provenance you don't like (Francis Ricketts), no? From your blog: "The entire NGA identification rests upon unsupported statements by T. Allston Brown as to who owned the portrait previous to George Washington Riggs. According to Brown the last owner before Mr. Riggs was a certain Peter Grain, a Frenchman and artist." Should Brown be considered reliable only when he says what one wants to hear?
 * 2) Doesn't the NGA have internet access? The point of this one is unclear.
 * 3) Your blog raises more questions than it answers. What you call a "definitive 1879 identification of the sitter as Jean B. Breschard by George C. Mason" is in fact an identification of "Breschard the Circus Rider", which we may presume is a reference to the same person but... Mason was quite punctilious about biographical data; the entries in his Stuart catalogue typically present the sitter's full name, last name first, often followed by dates of birth and death. Why is this one so sketchy? Mason says nothing about the provenance of the painting, which is also somewhat unusual. It seems likely that Brown's "A Complete History of the Amphitheatre and Circus" was unknown to Mason, wouldn't you agree? Has your research uncovered any evidence that Mason had read Brown and discounted him in favor of Riggs? Riggs apparently provided Mason with little information.
 * According to your blog, "Living witnesses to Breschard’s performances weren’t enough" to satisfy the NGA. I presume your reference is to Peter Grain, who (according to the NGA and the unreliable Brown) purchased the painting at auction around 1853. You say there were multiple "living witnesses"; who were the others? Perhaps you refer to the most elderly viewers of the 1880 Boston exhibition—Breschard is not known to have performed in the US after 1817, correct? Do you know of any document in which one of these witnesses identifies the portrait subject? Where had Stuart's painting been for the previous half-century or so? Are you certain that Grain or the gallery-going public would recognize a likeness of Breschard after so many years? How much is known about the physical appearance of Ricketts and Breschard? If these two men looked as much alike as George Pollock and Dr. William Hartigan, mightn't the aged Grain have confused the two? Before photographic portraits became commonplace, matching a portrait with face not seen in decades may have been more challenging than we think.
 * 4) This is easy for me to say: I made a careless mistake in not looking at Ellen Miles' resume before citing her among the historians "not from the NGA alone" who accept the Ricketts identification. I am happy to be corrected. Carrie Rebora Barratt, co-author of the Gilbert Stuart book, has AFAIK no affiliation with the NGA, but did not write the entry on the Ricketts portrait. Both are respected art historians. It is not customary to disqualify a wikipedia editor who makes a misstatement on a user talk page, but nice try. Seriously, the fact that very few writers not affiliated with the NGA have ever written about this painting underscores what I stated above: this is not one of Stuart's most famous paintings. In contrast, note how easy it is to find historians unconnected to the NGA who have written about the John Adams portrait, the Catherine Brass Yates portrait, etc.
 * You have indicated that the NGA began identifying Ricketts as the subject of this portrait in 1970. In Gilbert Stuart: A Biography (1964), Charles Mount identifies the painting as "Mr. Ricketts" and indicates no alternate title. Mount didn't work for the NGA too, did he? Where was he getting this from? (Mount's conviction in the 1980s for theft has not enhanced his reputation but the question of chronology remains, suggesting that the Ricketts identification had currency before 1970 and may be more prevalent than you acknowledge.)
 * You are correct in saying that "the NGA and very few other are the only ones who appear to be interested" in this matter. This is the very reason I think a detailed section titled "Controversy" is wrong in wikipedia's Gilbert Stuart article. If the matter is raised in The Burlington Magazine, there's a source. As I stated before, you may well be correct about the picture, but wp should not be a platform for OR and unsourced speculation. "To this day the NGA has failed to explain the reason for this identity change" can be met with "G.W. Riggs never explained why he thought the Ricketts portrait represented Breschard"...and that's no way to run an encyclopedia. Ewulp (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)



Two published sources are in disagreement with a third. Since the NGA is involved there is more to this controversy than there would be in other circumstances. You appear to be arguing a case for the NGA id rather than dealing with the fact that a controversy does exist. As I mentioned before you have compromised your neutrality and I believe you should allow other editors to handle this. I will be undoing your edits on Stuart and Breschard.Breschard (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(door slams)
 * Well, that answers those questions. Ewulp (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The nature of a Kazoo
I'm fine with defining it as a quasi-musical instrument, but I feel the comparison to a guitar distortion pedal is both apt and very useful in helping to explain the function a kazoo actually has. Can you think of a more encyclopaedic way of making the comparison that you wouldn't mind being in the article, or at least elaborate on your objections? eyeball226 (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a useful comparison but, like everything in wikipedia, needs to be supported by a reliable source. The wording of your edit seemed rather emphatic in promoting a particular point of view: "Although often referred to as an instrument, it should be noted that to call the kazoo (which merely distorts and amplifies the sound of vocalisation) an instrument would require one to call the distortion pedal used for guitar an instrument." This disparages a standard definition, as seen in Cambridge online and Britannica, and contains wording that is generally discouraged per WP:EDITORIAL. It just needs a source. Ewulp (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Suzanne Bloch
Thank you for cleaning this up. I do not have rollback, so it is difficult for me to undo multiple edits efficiently. Anita5192 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on this little-watched article! Ewulp (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Young Man at His Window
The DYK project (nominate) 00:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach
As the discussion on Bach is closed (and I was determined not to appear there again anyway), I would like to understand some of your remarks. Infoboxes are "generally detrimental in articles about artists", - how do you feel about Kafka and Michelangelo (to name just two)? (Possibly I don't understand "detrimental" enough, English is not my first language, keep things simple please.) - The proposed infobox - as you may have noticed - was only a suggestion, but instead of discussing its content, the "debate" remained with the question if it should be there at all. For content: I tried not to duplicate what the navbox Johann Sebastian Bach supplies, that's why "key facts" are missing. - If you had a good suggestion how to mention in an infobox that a navbox is there, I would be grateful. "Influenced" and "known as" were omitted on purpose, after other discussions, as always subjectiv. - Can we agree that it will often not be the same reader who reads the infobox and the lead? Some readers (like it or not) will read an infobox only, - I am willing to serve those also. - You looked for "infobox yes or no" on random articles, I looked on featured articles. All biographies in March and April (as far as scheduled) have one. I would like to see one for vital articles. - "Isn't this page intended to be used for proposing improvements to the Johann Sebastian Bach article?" - Yes, that's what I was trying to do. I love his music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

About "WahooArt" linkspam
Hi Ewulp, and thanks for your support here.

It would appear to me that there is more than one editor involved in adding the linkspam. I am collating a list of editors who have added the WahooArt link to paintings articles. I am sure for the most part it is for completely innocent reasons. Maybe.

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ja-Da
Thanks for reversing the italics on Ja-Da. I simply did not know that song titles are NOT italicized. I need to do a lot of reversing. (delete this message when you are done with it) Just to be sure ... take a look at this link ... all the songs mentioned should NOT be italicized, correct? Eurodog (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's correct--album titles get italics, as do musical works of substantial length (e.g. operas) but song titles get quote marks. Ewulp (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN question
Hello Ewulp, I saw you went through the C-SPAN article over the weekend, and made some constructive copy-edits. I wonder if you're interested enough in the article to take a look at a request I made recently, proposing the addition of up to two new images, which I was able to get C-SPAN to release under a CC-license. The reason I don't add it myself is simple: I am a consultant to C-SPAN, and I don't want to run afoul of COI guidelines and so I do not want to edit the article directly. Would you be willing to take a look? (My note is here.) Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I dropped them in, they seem appropriate & instructive. Ewulp (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's very cool. Placements look perfect to me. Thanks for doing so! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  visual arts

Thank you for quality articles on artists and their single works, such as The interior and The Sick Child, for copy-editing with diligence, and for taking the time to explain your thoughts with patience, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 504th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the choice of words
Hi Ewulp. My apologies, got a bit carried away with the comment in the edit summary on mongoose. Please accept my apologies. The point stands, word creation and etymology are two separate pillars of linguistics. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you recognize a distinction between etymology and folk etymology? The latter term has a well established meaning. This is from Garner's Modern American Usage, third edition, 2009: "...folk etymology has left its mark on the language. Take a few common examples. Pea is a false singular of pease, which was mistakenly taken as a plural. Likewise, a newt is a historical error for an ewt, an adder for a nadder, and an apron for a napron ... Primrose and rosemary were earlier primerole and romarin, neither of which has anything to do with roses, but they were respelled precisely on that mistaken assumption." (p. 322) These are word creations resulting from popular (folk) misunderstanding of an unfamiliar word, aka folk etymology. Ewulp (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Woks of art
Hehe. Well, Degas painted fans ... maybe van Gogh did paint woks! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  09:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs a reliable sauce...Ewulp (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! editorial assistance
Thanks for your editorial assistance at Whaam!. When I nominated this at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!, I was hoping to lure editors with skills such as yourself. I wanted you to know that you can examine some of the offline sources by looking at this version of the article, which contains most of the original source quotations. You might be able to help me improve the article further by examining those.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll take a look. Ewulp (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. One other thing that I should have mentioned. Since you are likely getting involved due to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!, you may not be aware of Peer review/Whaam!/archive1.  made many editorial suggestions that are beyond my skills as a copyeditor &mdash; largely because it is difficult to review your own work in response to these types of suggestions. &mdash; You may have already moved the article in the right direction, but if you have time, some of his suggestions are worth considering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! at WP:FAC
Did you want to be a co-nominator at WP:FAC for ''Whaam!?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never participated in FAC but my impression is that a greater time commitment, and familiarity with the subject, are required than I will be able to supply. I regretfully decline, but I'm happy to pitch in on copyedits as needed. Ewulp (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now four weeks old and has now had over 333KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes comment
Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2
Since you were active at FAC1, I am notifying you of Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

El Greco
The previous material was there without any citation, but the paper I added mentions Beritens, astigmatism, etc., but no Goldschmidt, Strabismus, etc. So, I thought it safer to remove those, unless there's a reference for the claims about Goldschmidt. The current solution seems undesirable because it makes it seem like the Firestone reference includes mention of Goldschmidt and Strabismus, which isn't the case. Revert to my edits? 108.210.76.78 (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous material was fully cited; see note "L". The sources—numbered 122-125—are Helm (2001), Grierson (2000), Anstis (2002), and Crow (1985). Ewulp (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!
Given your active participation that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Today's featured article/requests.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks Tony, and congratulations on the well-earned promotion to FA of Whaam! Ewulp (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Whaam!
This is a note to let the main editors of Whaam! know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. The painting's title (pictured) is displayed in the large onomatopoeia in the right panel. One of the best-known works of pop art, it is among Lichtenstein's most important paintings. Whaam! was first exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the Tate Gallery, London, in 1966. It has been on permanent display at Tate Modern since 2006. The left-hand panel of Whaam! shows a fighter plane shooting a missile. The right-hand panel depicts the missile hitting its target, a second plane, which explodes into flames. Lichtenstein based the image on elements taken from several comic-book panels. He transformed his primary prototype, a panel from a 1962 war comic book, by dividing the composition into two panels and altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements. Whaam! is regarded for the temporal, spatial and psychological integration of its two panels, which Lichtenstein conceived as a contrasting pair. Lichtenstein, who served in the United States Army during World War II, depicted aerial combat in several works. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Goya Article Clarification
Hello, I noticed that you made some corrections and removed the clarification needed tag that I made on a section of the Darker subject matter section. Although it makes a bit more sense, I was really asking for clarity on the phrase "popular carnival" in the sentence: They no longer represent the world of popular carnival depicted in several of his tapestry cartoons, but rather a dark and dramatic realm of fantasy nightmare, it seems to be some sort of jargon but there is no wikipedia article. If you are able to elucidate this term, then that would be very helpful! :) GrassHopHer (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note—popular carnival is not art jargon at all; the term is used in the ordinary dictionary sense and refers to holiday festivals, weddings, picnics, peasants dancing around maypoles and the like. Ewulp (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I had sort of thought that, but then saying "..they no longer represent the world of popular carnival..." implies that he had painted these regularly in the past, which as far I can tell there is no prior reference to in the article. Thus it either needs to be expanded upon higher up in the article, or described in more depth at this place GrassHopHer (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject is introduced three paragraphs earlier: "His thematic range extended from merry festivals for tapestries, draft cartoons, to scenes of war and human debasement. This evolution reflects the darkening of his temper." But you're right that it could be fleshed out a bit. Ewulp (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A barnstar for you!
PS I am also hoping to make an entry for "Huntington Harbor" -- a WPA mural in the old post office there. I would welcome your edits! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locavoracious (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Ewulp (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 FA Thanks
Thank you for your editorial contributions to Whaam!, which recently was promoted to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
...Modernist (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A beauty! Thanks, Modernist, and best wishes for the season and for 2014. Ewulp (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Mel Ramos
Hello Ewulp,

Why are you removing the well-known and well-referenced fact that Mel Ramos pants female nudes from his biography, and from Wayne Thiebaud's?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the fact that Mel Ramos paints female nudes from his biography; I removed a badly worded description from sentence number one because the same information is given again, more effectively, in sentence number three. It seems unnecessary to state the same thing twice in three sentences. The Wayne Thiebaud article is about Wayne Thiebaud and readers who would like to know more details about Mel Ramos can follow the link; in any case the phrase "famous painter of art nudes" was not good. Ewulp (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

René Magritte
I added a reliable source to support my edit on the René Magritte article. I know that not every reference of Magritte's work should be added to the article. However, the album itself is notable. If the album wasn't notable enough to have a stand alone article, I wouldn't have added the information to the article. It's great to know that Magritte's artistic works inspired the world, particularly African musicians like Jesse Jagz.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sourcing this, Versace. I agree that your edit adds value to the article by demonstrating Magritte's global appeal and influence. Ewulp (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited W. C. Fields, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International House. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brothers Grimm
Sorry about this blind revert without taking it to talk or leaving you a note. I've not been able to edit a lot but the IP's changes popped up on my watchlist when I was checking in one day and I thought it a good copyedit. The problem with the subject/verb [dis]agreement is mine (one of my bad habits!), so thanks for fixing that. This edit summary made me laugh! At some point, some time, when I can, I'd like to get this article to review, but probably won't be happening anytime soon. Anyway, just wanted to drop you a belated note. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Victoria. My respect for your judgment had me questioning my own! Ewulp (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

LGW
Nice edits to the LG Williams article! For the Turin exhibition, did you want to include the citation: Or, is there a problem with the source?--CaroleHenson  (talk ) 05:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to that—I didn't intend to leave it out. By the way, did you see this posting by Cyphoidbomb? Ewulp (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I had not seen that! The similarities are astounding. Thanks for the heads up.--CaroleHenson (talk ) 06:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you hadn't seen this yet, I move the question about the LGW images to the article talk page.--<font color=' #4997D0'>CaroleHenson (<font color=' #4997D0'>talk ) 06:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

 * Thanks Hafspajen. Best wishes to you for a joyous holiday season and a happy and healthy 2015! Ewulp (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Something beautiful for the holidays

 * 
 * ...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that's put me in a good state...thanks Modernist, and all the best to you and yours for the holidays and the year ahead. Ewulp (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On capitalization
Happy holidays! :-)

There is a discussion about the inconsistency between MOS:VA and MOS:CAPS regarding capitalization. I saw that you have actively participated in Talk:Neo-impressionism, which is directly related to the question, so, I think, you might be interested in discussing it in general. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre-August Renoir
I saw your recent edits to Pierre-August Renoir. I wonder why you changed my re-wording back to the way it was. I had changed:


 * Renoir experienced his initial acclaim when six of his paintings were hung in the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874.

to:


 * Renoir experienced initial acclaim at the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 when six of his paintings were hung.

I think the place and time of first acclaim are more important than how many paintings he exhibited. Putting the adverbial clause "when six of his paintings were hung" first places the emphasis on that information; I think that information should be last in order to minimize it relative to place and time. Actually, the information "at the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874" would be sufficient in itself; it would then be understood that he had exhibited paintings there. If you don't like "when six of his paintings were hung" at the end of the sentence, it could be changed to "where six of his paintings were hung" or "where he exhibited six of his paintings".

I also don't think "his" is needed in "his initial acclaim". If he experienced acclaim, by definition it is acclaim of himself by others. If you really want "his", then I would change it to, "Renoir experienced his first acclaim". CorinneSD (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "His initial acclaim" is idiomatic; a search of the phrase in google books shows many examples like this and this. What I thought clanked in your edit was the use of "when"; with this fixed your edit is the better of the two. I'll put it back with an adjustment. Ewulp (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and I did, then checked a few sources, and discovered a more extensive rewrite was needed. Ewulp (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "when" didn't sound very good. It sounds fine now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
Hi. Could you please add a link to "A portrait of a man" by Ingres made in 1797. I tried to find it but unsuccessfully. --195.50.31.213 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it this one at wikiart? Ewulp (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. --195.50.31.213 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Apotheosis of Homer (Ingres), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tasso. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Kelly (artist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calder and Mondrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin
Hi Ewulp, I was hoping you might revist this; having difficulty with the legacy part, and also this edit. I have also asked for Modernist's help; calling in the experts, I suppose. Best, Paul. Ceoil (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave it a quick look; will have time to add a bit more later. Ewulp (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the additions. Added one of the Gerald Kelly portraits; it brings the article nicely up to date, appreciate you mentioning it on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
I've seen the revert of your edit shortening birth/death details of the parents of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. I agree that the extra details are unnecessary and are distracting. I was just looking at other artist articles for comparison and found inconsistency. In Pablo Picasso, René Schützenberger and Paul Klee, the dates are short -- just the years -- but in Paul Cézanne, full dates for both mother and father are given. I looked at a number of other artist articles and it seems that most either give no dates for the parents or just the years. I only found one, Cézanne, that gave full dates. I'd be happy to revert at T-L, but I wonder what I should say in the edit summary. Is there something in MOS I could point to? Or should I just say "unnecessary and distracting"? I read WP:Manual of Style/Visual arts and WP:Manual of Style/Biographies and could not find anything specifically referring to the dates of the parents of the subject of an article. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policy specifically regarding this matter, but WP:OFFTOPIC seems pertinent. Details that don't serve the reader in any way are better left out, and it's hard for me to imagine why an ordinary reader needs parental vital dates in full detail. If we had a RS that said Toulouse-Lautrec's father was born at 7:09 am on an overcast day, we wouldn't need that for Wikipedia either; "unnecessary and distracting" describes it well.


 * At Writing better articles, we are advised: "If you want to peruse some of Wikipedia's finest articles, have a look at Featured articles". I scrolled through the list and selected a few at random to see how they handle parental vital dates: Jean Bellette, Ima Hogg, James B. Longacre, André Kertész, Henry Moore, Edmund Sharpe, Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr., James Bryant Conant, John Brooke-Little, Abu Nidal, James G. Blaine, Carsten Borchgrevink. Not one of them had even birth/death years of parents, much less full dates. Ima Hogg had birth/death years for siblings, which is reasonable, but nothing for parents. Darwin's father was notable and his dates are found in Robert Darwin, but not in Charles Darwin.


 * An edit summary that includes something like "please discuss your reasons on the talk page" is often useful, as it forces an editor to consider whether the edit can really be defended. Ewulp (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted to your version. After I saved it, I realized I should have said, "Detailed birth/death dates of parents," not "Birth/death dates of parents", but I think I got enough of the point across. Thanks for your help. CorinneSD (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portrait of Monsieur Bertin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong
He may well have been born in 1901, but HE HIMSELF always said he was born July 4, 1900. That is the date I corrected, the one he stated, not the one later historians stated. I saw him in a TV interview state that he was born in 1900. The article should state that he gave 1900 as his birthdate along with the other date from later researchers. See, [http://dippermouth.blogspot.com/2012/08/happy-birthday-popsor-is-it.html. Does the ref in the article state that Louis believed he was born in 1901, or that he was actually born in 1901?"Pops, a life of Louis Armstrong" by Terry Teachout, Houghton Mifflin, 2009, page 26 says "Until the day he died, Louis Armstrongclaimed he was born on July 4, 1900." Please do not revert to incorrect statements. Edison (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct--I read the date out of context. Ewulp (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ingres
I went ahead and nominated; the article is short, but I think we have covered all the major points. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm honored to be co-nom. Article looks very sound and I'm looking forward to the review. Ewulp (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like at this stage it wont gain traction and will sink without much commnet, which happens. We'll get it at another try. Could be worse, note exactly the opposite problem here. Wiki eh?*%£! Anyway, best. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Angelo Bacchetta
Hi, about this edit, the meaning was "the most appreciated portraitist of the nineteenth century"... in Crema, of course! And that is confirmed in the book used as a source. Do you think it's possible to restore that info? Thanks. --Carlomartini86(Knock-Knock) 09:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That explains it—I mistook it for a wild hyperbole. I'll rephrase and put it back in. Ewulp (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francisco de Zurbarán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Thomas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin
Congratulations from me too; you do great work, much appreciated...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you—it was a pleasure working with the best. Ewulp (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neo-impressionism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletions were part of a Wikipedia GLAM Editathon
Hello there Modernist -- Not sure if you are aware of it but there are quite a few revert edits you made just now that are deleting content that was part of a Wikipedia GLAM Editathon held at the Guggenheim Museum yesterday. The museum donated 100 artworks to Wikipedia and the images were added to Galleries on the respective pages -- in addition to adding works using the Guggenheim external links template. Would you consider reverting your edits that removed the efforts of the Editathon? BrillLyle (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello there Brilllyle - yes I know; the edits were and are extraneous, overdone and irrelevant - that is why they have been deleted...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever told people it was a good idea to start adding lists of works that are in the collection of a particular museum was wrong. Sorry! Some of the additions of images to galleries seem excessive also. Biographical pages on artists of any significance are often very crowded, and many museums release images and hold GLAM events. If they all started behaving like this the results could be chaotic. Please don't join the Brooklyn Museum as the worst offender in this respect. Articles on individual artworks are generally a better, if harder, approach. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I totally disagree on all points here. If these were Google book assets it would be okay? But Museum assets are not okay? These digitized assets that are now becoming available through initiatives like this are a great part of the GLAM-Wikipedia initiative, and if there are assets already available and related to the subjects -- especially from well-established organizations within GLAM -- it is very clear that the page can only be improved in the long run by these additions. If there are a lot of resources, then a sub-page of the resources might be helpful if that's the objection.
 * I find both of these responses reflect a limitation to the innovation of Wikipedia and it makes me sad. I am not a big advocate of deleting content, err on the side of inclusion and possibly reorganizing versus deletion. And especially linking to really great digitized assets from established institutions with significant metadata -- that can fold into the Wikidata part of Wikipedia, seems incredibly forward-thinking, important, and valuable. But until editors like yourself unlock their points of view on this, it's clear it only stands in the way of making Wikipedia better. My impression is the consensus is to improve and help Wikipedia -- that we have this perspective in common? BrillLyle (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We're all here to improve Wikipedia but Yes to what Modernist and Johnbod said. An artist's biographical article is best served by including a selection of the most important or representative works; if the complete holdings of one museum are added to the mix, an imbalance results. A better use of these assets is in articles on individual artworks, or in stand-alone lists such as the excellent List of works by Thomas Eakins. Ewulp (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree curation is the key but how can institutions attempt to add links to digitized assets if your "team" instantly deletes them? Isn't there a better solution than deleting content that is part of a donation program of outreach between well-respected GLAM institutions and Wikipedia? I think there is a real missing link here. List of works is great, where there is a justification and/or interest in something similar to a catalogue raisonné. But the concern to me is twofold: (1) This was a Wikimedia-sponsored, GLAM editathon effort that was intended to add content to the encyclopedia -- what you editors have done is deleted content of an editathon, which is not the point of engagement or education or anything Wikipedia, is it? and (2) The actions and opinions you have described here limit the collection of valuable metadata associated with these external links, as they are cataloged and typically have either MARC records or other descriptive controlled vocabularies and content-rich information associated with the images and information (external link citations point to these) -- so the effect is a removal of an opportunity to add significant rich metadata in a way that it can be linked via Wikidata and used across the Wikipedia projects.


 * So while again I understand the arguments here, to me it seems backwards-thinking and reduces the possibility of innovation -- it does not help or improve Wikipedia to have stubborn intractable positions on adding content. I really hope that some of what I am saying is resonating. I think this is such an important issue, and I refuse to believe that deleting content is the way to approach either editathons and/or GLAM initiatives. BrillLyle (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Medium-density fibreboard
I have made some changes to Medium-density fibreboard. You had added some info the was repetion. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out; it's looking much better. Ewulp (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Edward Maturin
Hi, Ewulp, I have rewritten the lead to the Maturin article to reflect why his ethnicity is relevant. The MOS guidelines to which you pointed me state in 3.1 that underlining later citizenship is chiefly relevant to "modern-day cases", whereas it is well over a century since Maturin died. 3.2 goes on to say that ethnicity is not emphasized unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Maturin was the son of a notable Irish Gothic novelist and tried to follow in his father's footsteps by writing Gothic novels with an Irish background. The criticisms cited in the article are from a work titled "Ireland in Fiction", which seems to indicate that the Irish were aware of Maturin's work published in the US and thought of him as one of themselves. My own limited experience of Irish Americans is that their ethnicity continues to be important to them. In terms of the article, therefore, it makes sense to mention the place of birth. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, but consider placing the birth/death dates in parentheses in the usual way. Part of the reason this format is preferred is that the snippet that shows up when somebody googles Edward Maturin delivers enough vital information up front so the searcher knows that they have found the right person. Places of birth and death, if in the lede at all, are usually given after a few words to describe what the person is known for. Ewulp (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Self-portrait of Dick Ket.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Self-portrait of Dick Ket.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)