User talk:Freshacconci/Archive 1

Pop Art
I'm new here and am hoping I'm using the talk function properly. I received a message about adding inappropriate external links to pop art pages. I found an external site that has lots of articles/interviews related to pop art and just wanted to link to the site, where appropriate. It's interesting stuff....not commercial in anyway, and I have no relationship with whomever is doing the site. It's just a field I'm interested in.

Again, sorry if I'm not responding in the appropriate way, I'm just not sure why the links have been deleted. Thanks, Honky72.

Video art editing
Okay, that sounds good. I think everyone's vandal alarm goes off when they see an anonymous user with few prior edits deleting text. Cheers. --CliffC 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guity Novin
Anyone can removed prod for any reason they choose. If you still think it should be deleted, you should propose so at WP:AfD. Tyrenius 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It says so on the template:
 * You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. (my italics)
 * Tyrenius 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod is really for deletions which you think are not likely to be disputed to save the time and energy of AfD proceedings. Tyrenius 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exquisite Corpse
I'm familiar with the surrealist concept, but I've always assumed this particular line was specifically directed against Peter Murphy (who once toured with The Church). I can't find proof, however, and won't return the reference if you strongly object to it. CJCurrie 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For proof of animosity between Kilbey and Murphy, see this interview, which took place several years after the Church/Murphy tour. Kilbey & Marty Willson-Piper took a similar shot at Murphy in a 1993 online interview, though I can't find that now.  CJCurrie 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Guity Novin
Accepted practice is to leave in place all comments (apart from banned, as opposed to blocked, users) and annotate them appropriately, as I have done. This is a useful template: :207.61.241.100. Tyrenius 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamming
I wondered if you might care to have a look at this. Tyrenius 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock
Well1234567 indef blocked as sock of Artopp - editing the same article and in a dispute. Pretty obvious, I think. TransPopRealism speedied. Nadia Russ has a question mark. Tyrenius 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked the socks, and the account still open is User:Artropp. I've also semi-protected the article and talk page, as you may have noticed. It was getting ridiculous. Let me know if there's any more trouble. Tyrenius 13:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Curtis (artist)
It could have potential, but it's not showing too much of it at the moment. I've speedied it once and it's been recreated. What do you think? Tyrenius 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)
Could you please take another look at Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)? I added some references. --Eastmain 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam
I agree with this and have reverted the other additions. I've started putting this on artist lists:



The code renders it invisible when you save the text, and it only shows in the edit box.

Tyrenius 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?
Do you mean sockpuppetry on the AfDs? That isn't the case because only one name has !voted. For an illicit use of sockpuppets two names used by the same user would have to participate pretending to be two different users. Sockpuppets are not forbidden per se, only if used fraudulently. If that is not what you meant, please explain further. I will watchlist the AfDs anyway. Tyrenius 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean article edits with sock puppets? Could you give me more precise examples? Tyrenius 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If a single user is using different names to edit the same article that is most likely unacceptable. If there is any contention and the different names are being used to give the impression of multiple editor support, then that is out and out violation. If a user has sockpuppets to edit different articles, that may be acceptable. If they are unrelated subject areas then there is not usually a problem. Tyrenius 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've looked a bit more closely and indef blocked Greedo1 as an improperly used sock of User:Bluellamastudios and warned not to use the IP address. Tyrenius 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re Nouveau Classical Evolution
OK, I'm watching it, seems OK now. And thanks for AfD'ing Scott Waddell. Herostratus 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts
Just wanted to draw your attention to the above for posting new AfDs and finding out about them. Tyrenius 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Amiga / Andy Warhol
Regarding this edit - are you sure he wasn't the first? According to the article referenced, this work was made somewhere during 1986 and 1987. --Monotonehell 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look
Tyrenius 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Athanasio Celia
 * Verticalismus

David Szydlowski
Don't forget to tell the original author about the AfD. There is a template to use on WP:AFD. Tyrenius 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts-related AfDs
Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

Result:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.  Tyrenius 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sean D'Anconia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sean D'Anconia, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sean D'Anconia. Thank you. beekman 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re.above, I think a good move not taking it to AfD, where it would only attract more adverse comments in all likelihood. However, it was taken there, but I've speedy deleted it, and "courtesy blanked" AfD page so it won't show text in searches. You might like to watchlist it in case of recreation. Tyrenius 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just what is it that makes...
This is a heck of a way to say, hello, but I'm making a request for comment about this controversy and feel you should be informed.

My concern about article Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
Hello, Freshacconci, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or argumentative, but I'm concerned about article Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, which you have edited. Could we discuss that concern here? edit warring

I'd appreciate learning your own views, understanding your reasons for your particular edits, and discussing what alternatives might avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If you prefer, we can discuss the matter at Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, where other editors could contribute their viewpoints.
 * If we can't agree in either setting, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * If you prefer not to deal with me at all, you can ask others for guidance: there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
 * Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post   here on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your editing is so bad that you should just stop or be stopped. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus -- either here, or at Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, or at WP:RFC. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- --sparkit TALK 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems talking about it here or the article talk page. My main interest in editing the article came through Pop art and a general interest in keeping things balanced. I may or may not be doing that (it's hard to see these things sometimes when you're caught up in it all), but my main concern was a specific agenda being bullied through without any balanced sources or discussion. I have no problem with new ideas being introduced into art history, nor do I have problems with any rethinking of the "canon". On the contrary, I believe that is crucial and should be welcomed. However, I'm not convinced that is what's happening here. When I first started on wiki in the fall of '06, I noticed an edit war on this article, attempted a few reverts, was shouted down and basically gave up. Since then it seems to have remained dormant and I was hoping to fix things up, but the other editor Ottex was quick to jump in with reverts and comments which were insulting. I realize it's always best to step away from edit wars and mudslinging--I even posted a message indicating my desire to do so and focus on the editing. Aside from my response today, I've done that, mainly just reverting the reverts. If it's necessary to the process, I don't mind backing off, but not to leave it to Ottex to push through his agenda which is clearly something personal. But if other editors such as yourself are going to be working on it, I can at least be assured there's actually going to be a proper edit.


 * I'm not sure where you are in the world, but here it's 11:38 so I'm off to bed, and I may not respond to anything for a while. Thanks for the note (and the chance to explain my edits). Freshacconci 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That template (that used in my last message) is long... ummmm... and not my words, but it seemed like the thing to do. :)


 * Keeping things balanced, and understandable is my concern, too. Frankly, I never figured you were opposed to presenting the controversy, only in the way it was presented. The mudslinging and edit warring just makes it difficult to do so. Maybe the RFC will help us all make a great article of it.


 * I'm in Seattle, where it's not quite time to hit the pillows yet. Sweet dreams! --sparkit TALK 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Lauren
i think your recent rv to ralph lauren may not have gone back far enough. is there a way you can find the last good page? tx The undertow 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bernd Fasching
Some good input needed on this one. Please watchlist, if you haven't already. See talk page! Tyrenius 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Links Graphic Design
Hi

I hope I am posting this in the right place.

Thanks for the message and I do appreciate your comments.

I added both the Design Talkbaord and About.com links a while ago because I felt that they added value to the graphic design page. About.com is an indisputable resource and the Graphic Design Job Descriptions page has a breakdown of the different job descriptions that I have yet to find as clearly explained elsewhere on the web and does not currently exist on Wikipedia itelf. I do not have a connection with either of those sites and I couldn't care less about their search engine rankings.

The fact that they add this value appears to be in keeping with the Wikipaedia terms and I have also contributed several other, albeit small, edits to this page over the years. I was somewhat concerned when a whole swaith of links was deleted as 'spam'. Some were and I have deleted some of these myself over the years, but not all external links are added for ulterior motives. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course, I am more than happy to discuss any of this and be convinced otherwise. But simply deleting a long term resource without discussion seems to be wrong.

Thanks again.

Bonzobonce 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Video Art term
When searching "Video Art" on wikipedia I get to a TV based video system called: Video Art can this be disambiguated? Mbarsheshat 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Any help Welcome
It has just dawned on me what you originally meant. I thought you meant that the artist had put me up to it, but I realise that you thought I was the artist? I’m not sure whether to be flattered or insulted? I am also working on Peter Brant, but I am not he and my wife is not Stephanie Seymour. My wife would never allow it! I wish I had his money though. But of course not his wife as I dearly love mine and she might read this.

I’m sure the artist would understand your comments, he seems a very nice chap. You can e-mail him if you want, but I warn you be prepared for a long wait. He was ages before he replied to me. I sent to him twice to make sure he had received my email.

I note from what James Dunston has put about Bruce Barrymore Halpenny that his father is Canadian. That means the artist Halpenny had a Canadian grandfather. I didn’t know this as it does not mention it on his website or in any newspaper articles that I have found about him. Being Canadian, can you find out anything?

Here are also some names to look at and I feel are less notable than the artist I have been researching.

David L. Shackelford; John Avon and I should say there are many more if I start. I see your point about self promotion, and agree with you. If I come across them I will drop you the names for you to have a look at. I feel that we should write about them and not them themselves, if you see what I mean?

The thing is you can create a false trail on the internet and anyone setting out to do this can do a damn good job, even down to creating dummy websites etc. Halpenny hasn’t done this and what I have independently found has been from newspapers, hard copies, going back to the 1980’s. He could not have falsely created this. That is why I say he is notable and genuine as opposed to those that clearly make up their past.

I would welcome any help that you could give with this article, which I note has been removed, or any others that I do, especially my Peter Brant article. If I make mistakes, please forgive, correct and point them out to me.

Goldburg 12:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops
Hi Freshacconci. Thanks for correcting my blunder on the Fab Four's page - stupid error on my part. Once again, thanks! Shrub of power 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Well if we can help each other out, it'll make the Wikipedia a better place.

Regarding the article, an administrator has edited it to make it conform. At last!

Goldburg 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. They are attacking me for defending someone named User:Cleo123. I just removed that pic from her User page, and left a note on the Talk page of the person doing the vandalizing. Bus stop 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Baron Barrymore Halpenny
I would really like your positive input on the Baron Barrymore Halpenny debate please. Laugh isn't it. Artists are trying to get on here and one that isn't they want to remove! Goldburg 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of articles
If something's been deleted (or merged) at AfD, it can't just be recreated with the same, or essentially the same, text, but it can be if it is substantially different and/or has addressed the concerns raised in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Young British Artists
Comment invited on the colour choice for this template. Tyrenius 05:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it will make any difference to you, but I've changed the text on the Red template to white. Tyrenius 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

hop ur sure on that?
ok, but if hes out side the door when ive poped in for a pee, then hes had it with a well aimed kik. ive had the office perv followin me befor. ta 4 the adive tho. sees ya around.--Zedco 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Russ
Sorted. Please watchlist in case of recreation. I will too. Tyrenius 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Artaxerex
Check out the contributions history of Arteban 1 and the anon IP... Tyrenius 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of American artists
FYI. Tyrenius 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Music Theory/ Pop on Wikibooks
I've tried to help them out, and yes, I too realized that they were poorly written. Anyway, I saw that you were the only other person who discussed the page. Tell me what you think of the new wikibook article on Pop Music. I didn't get to finish it and stopped right before the 1970's, as you can obviously tell. I may be back to writing more tomorrow. Sorry if my grammar is bad. English is not my first language, so I was wondering if maybe you or someone you knew would like to edit the book in terms of grammatical errors or sentence structure or other mistakes. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.232.181 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)204.184.232.181 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Manetas/Plessas/Neen and "offended" wiki editors
Dear User Freshacconci, the articles about Miltos Manetas, Angelo Plessas and Neen has been removed after suggestion of the user Bus stop. When I asked to see some of the Art of this user who presents himself as an "expert" on this matter,you wrote to me that I am attacking him personally. That's not what I am doing, I just don't understand how anyone can call an Artist such as Manetas with 20 years of career, more than 20 solo shows in the most important galleries such as Gagosian and Yvon Lambert, more than 50 group shows in places such as the Guggenheim Museum, the Pompidou etc, reviewed in all major art publications and newspapers such as the NYtimes, creator of an international art movement and one of the first people to use videogames, computers and the Internet as a subject of their art, is an artist who "lacks" of notability. The same about Angelo Plessas who is showing internationally and about Neen which is a concept that at least 2 books - one academic and one published by specialized art publishing house - used their subject. I insist so much on this subject because I think that it's a good start to try protect articles against the personal envy of any random wikipedian. As I see, you are a sensitive art editor so I want you to re-evaluate the whole affair and help me to re-establish the destroyed articles. AlainLa 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Beatles Genres
There's already a pretty lengthy discussion on the Beatles' talk page where several members agreed that pop & rock are sufficient enough genres for the band, & that the extended genres they helped to shape & influence are far too numerous to name. Why is psychedelic rock more important than, say, folk-rock, which they helped to further in success & popularity on both Help! & Rubber Soul? Then we can get into R&B, soul, blues, country, jazz, rockabilly, hard rock, dance hall, reggae, etc. etc. etc. -- they experimented with so many different styles of music throughout their career, it would be impossible to list them all in the infobox. The article goes into great length about the different genres they helped to champion, pop & rock are more than sufficient enough for the infobox -- & more than a few members agreed to this on the talk page. Doesn't pop/rock (or rock/pop) have such a nice ring to it, anyhow? ——Anthonylombardi 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

News Time

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario
I think there is some misunderstanding. The Hamilton Ontario article needs to be written in a more encyclopedic tone -- some of the descriptions are a little sophomoric and the tone of the language in some sections was inappropriate. I've tagged it for cleanup because I don't have time to correct it at the moment. But it most definitely is NOT vandalism. 24.57.203.187