User talk:Fox69

File source problem with File:6-27-2006-10.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:6-27-2006-10.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock  (T ALK ) 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Beige Deomlished Key Square.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Beige Deomlished Key Square.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FinalRapture - † ☪ 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Authorship (unverified Wright design)
Many kudos for all the FLW related photographic additions, copy edits, added citations and more! What are your views on Nikkō Station and Judge Charles P. McCarthy House? There are certainly plenty of websites that claim these to be Wright designs, however neither is listed by Storrer, Heinz or. Should they be coded in purple or are they "Not by Frank Lloyd Wright, no matter who says so" ? --Waltloc (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very Welcome! I originally intended to just focus on Wright's Oak Park houses, but the addictive nature of WP has lead to a lot more than that.


 * Regarding the two works, I think the McCarthy House is more plausible for inclusion than the Nikkō Station. The McCarthy House at least has the support of its National Register of Historic Places listing. Despite the fact that none of the websites that claim the house as a Wright design have much authority in that matter, no one has stepped up to say it is the work of any other architect (Note that others, like the Prairie School Traveler simply list it as unknown).  I am not as knowledgeable of the other Prairie designers, but Van Bergen is the only one I know of with an architectural style like the McCarthy House. I think this house requires more research, but I wouldn't be surprised if Wright really was the architect for this job.


 * Nikkō Station is much harder to justify even with the numerous websites that claim it is by Wright. Your analisis on the talk page of that article presents the dillema fairly well. On various sites, I found construction dates listed as 1890, 1915, and 1918. If 1890 is the correct date, there is a very slim chance that Wright had anything to do with the design. If I had choose the right year based only on the exterior and interior design of the station, I would have to go with 1890, because everything about this station is in the High Victorian Style that was most popular in the late 19th century in Europe and North America.  Even if Western architectural influence in Japan followed a different timeline than the other end of the globe, it is hard to believe it would have lagged by 25 years.  In comparison to other wright works, the station's exterior has something in common with some of his bootlegged houses and the early works of the 1890s.  However, the interior reveals marble fireplace mantles, plaster ceiling medalions and staircase that bear little resemblance to American Wright buildings of any period.


 * I have to assume that if so many people believe it is a Wright design, that notion must have come somewhere. Maybe the station was built in 1890 and Wright remodeled some part of it in 1915 or 1918?  Or maybe he simply passed through and some account was misconstrued. This hotel website suggests that Frank Lloyd Wright spent time in Nikkō during the design of the Imperial Hotel so it possible that he did a project for that town as well.  Without better sources, its hard to tell.


 * My verdict (at least for now):
 * Judge Charles P. McCarthy House: a probable Wright design, but more research wouldn't hurt.
 * Nikkō Station: probably not, unless we find a source which explains why this building is so "un-Wright."


 * P.S. don't be afraid to issue me more citation/clarification needed tags if you think my additions need more explanation.


 * A.Fox 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wondering whether or nor the McCarthy house is actually a Fireproof House for $5000 (like Dr. G.C. Stockman House, Raymond W Evans House and Jesse R. Zeigler House - but it has been enlarged to be "approximately twice the size as the original plan called for". The comments in this link are interesting - . Wright blueprints purchased from Ladies' Home Journal but never made it into the "very large book" in Taliesin. Seems plausible. --Waltloc (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to the Fireproof House seems plausible. I did some preliminary measuring using Google satelite imagery and the front section of the McCarthy House (without the rear addition and entrance extension on the east side) is roughly the same dimensions as the main portion of the Fireproof House (using dimensions off the Zeiger House HABS report).  Chimneys are also the same size, although the McCarthy House chimney is placed slightly further back from the front.


 * The comment left by the current owners raises a couple questions: First, if this house was based on the plan from the Ladies' Home Journal, did Wright perform the modification or was it carried out by the first owner or another architect? If the latter is the case, did the McCarthy actually purchase the plans or just base it off of what he saw in the journal?  If the blueprints were just bought and modified independantly, it may have slipped inclusion in the "very large book" and definitely would not have appeared in the book at if they were "pirated" (there was no real architectural copyright back then).  Second, it makes a difference whether this "very large book" was compiled by Wright during his life or if it was done posthumously.  If it really is a total and absolute compilation of Wright commissions, why were houses like the Wynant House not discovered until 1995?  If the Wynant House was not in the book or obscured by incomplete information, could the same be true for other houses?  Third, where would we draw the line in determining Wright work?  If the McCarthy house were to be determined as a modification of Wright's stock plan completed by another architect, is it still considered a Wright design?


 * A.Fox 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A Fireproof House for $5000
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks a lot
for changing that picture at Romanesque Revival architecture, it had been bugging me for a while. I was reluctant to do it myself because then I'd want to cull all the Richardsonian Romanesque out of the images and that might stir up a hornet's nest. Which probably should be done anyway. For starters (actually, Step 2, since yo already started it) what do you think of the Toronto portal that is the next picture? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would probably say Richardsonian for Toronto City Hall. I am going to try and flesh out the United States section a little bit more, and hopefully in the process I can make the differences between these two related styles more clear.  I think there should be one paragraph about Richardsonian Romanesque and it's development from Romanesque Revival where it would be appropriate to include a picture.  However, beyond that, I think we should make sure that all of the photos are clearly excellent examples of the style in order to avoid confusion.  After all, in reality there is a lot of "mush" between styles that makes a lot of buildings, especially those designed by lesser known and lesser trained architects, hard to classify.

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583867951 your edit] to List of Chicago Landmarks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 9 "{}"s and  1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586531365 your edit] to List of Chicago Landmarks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * | [35 East Wacker Building]

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:The Red Door.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Red Door.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)