User talk:Freshacconci/Archive 8

Apropos Serge Mangin - List of sculptors
Why did you remove Serge Mangin? Jacques Le Nantec is still mentioned in the list and has also no article. So what's your logic/method? 217.236.207.40 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC) PS Why not create an English stuB? - you can refer to the German (link) or the French (link) or the Spanish (link) Wiki-article on Serge Mangin. He made sculptures of notable people you definitely know.
 * I will judge no answer as an approval and add the name again. Ciao. 217.236.227.141 (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My "fan mail"
Thanks for your note. The messages I get are always good for a laugh. Enjoy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re: TheStig118
That user also edits using an IP found here and may try avoid a WP:3RR report by switching between his account and the IP to maintain his "English vs British" edit war. Hope that helps. 142.167.182.188 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011
I'm not sure if you are on the mailing list for Wikimedia Canada, so that's why I left you this message. You're previously involved in bid process for hosting Wikimania in Toronto. Right now we're forming a bid team for Wikimania in 2011. Would you be interested? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Undo on Christian Cardel Corbet
I acted by undoing your recent 'undo' as my addition to Corbet's profile was cited on the subjects official web site. It s not a press release it is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AXEL250 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:JetLover
My edit you reverted wasn't actually vandalism, the user clearly states on their front userpage. I was just repeating it so if someone visited the talk page, they would be aware that the user is inactive. Just in case, they don't look at the user's front page. I have since reverted your edit back to mine. I do understand why you'd think it was vandalism, the user could've clarified in a more suitable manner. Have a great day 71.96.227.103 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are so right about the name of Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red at the tate site. Thanks, and my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.232.10 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Painting name
You are so right about the name of Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red at the tate site. Thanks, and my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.232.10 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my user page. something lame from CBW 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hisham Zreiq article
Hello,

I added refs to article, and extra information as well. Is this ok?

Thanks AmirCohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirCohen (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

edit
you reverted my edit for Bertolt Brecht. I am going to revert your edit of my edit because you didn't use a citation and what I edited was citationless. --58.167.2.168 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

French names
Please refrain from making nonconstructive reverts such as you did on the Quebec article as well as a few Provincial articles. It clearly states in WP:CANSTYLE/WP:PLACE that english shall be used, and accents such as "é" shall not be used in english articles. Po&#39; buster (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly you should read the article again. Here is a direct quote "For geographic names, again, the current practice is to reflect actual English usage. Specifically, the unaccented names Montreal, Quebec and Quebec City (not "Montréal" or "Québec") are the usual usages in English." ... As for the Provincial names why does the infobox need to have french ? There are over 500,000 french articles on french wikipedia. If the Provinces names need to be bilingual then every article on every Canadian place needs to be bilingual to be consistent. Po&#39; buster (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also please take your revisions to the talk page, this is not a dictatorship. Po&#39; buster (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(My comments are here, now deleted from the editor's talk page.  freshacconci  talk talk )

FYI, Po'buster has posted here as well. --Ckatz chat spy  21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, while you're mostly in the right and Po' buster has been citing policies that don't actually support his position in most of this dispute, s/he is right on the Montreal question. Wikipedia does have a standing consensus around using Montreal instead of Montréal, as we're governed by common usages rather than official ones. We obviously use the official French name for things whose French name is the name generally recognized by English speakers (e.g. Parti Québécois), and we give preference to the official French name in cases where English usage is ambiguous or variable (e.g. Université du Québec à Montréal, Trois-Rivières) — but when actual English usage quite clearly privileges an alternate name that differs from the French, we use that form even if it isn't officially correct. Though of course we should mention the Montréal spelling in the article, the article itself is supposed to be titled (and linked to) in the common English form. Our job here is to reflect how things are, not necessarily how we might wish they were. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Freshacconci, this sort of thing is not acceptable on article talk pages. You should know better.   Gigs (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I reverted myself. I was too hasty and reverted a comment on a talk page rather than a mainpage edit. I'm well aware of rules against changing or deleting another editor's comments. It was a mistake and I apologize for it.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gigs (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. Ya should be adding english words to the provincial infoboxes at French Wikipedia, as you've added french words to the provincial infoboxes at English Wikipedia. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't add anything: I restored the French names and have left it to the discussion to achieve consensus either way, which is of course how we deal with editing disputes. I don't edit at French Wikipedia, nor am I bilingual (unfortunately). Whatever is decided at French Wikipedia is up to them and has nothing to do with what we decide here at English Wikipedia. And since I don't edit at the French Wiki, popping in with English names for the provinces would be a tad pointy, ne conviendriez-vous pas?  freshacconci  talk talk  01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both projects should understand, they're not the Canadian Wikipedia. PS: Sorry if I seem steamed, it's nothing personal. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem: nothing gets Canadians going quite like bilingualism. I don't agree that not being the Canadian Wikipedia is an issue as these sorts of things are decided within the various projects and obviously the Canadian project is going to attract mainly Canadians, so we'll decide amongst ourselves what Canadian-specific pages will include. It's pretty much the same as the various English spellings on American, British and Commonwealth articles, which we readily accept and endorse. Every Canadian article I work on uses Canadian English, dammit, where I have the honour to spell colour the Canadian way. So Canadian editors can decide on this issue too, whichever way it goes. Cheers.  freshacconci  talk talk  01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The un-equal situation with the infoboxes on NHL team pages (and former NHL team pages) at English Wikipedia & French Wikipedia, has really peeved me too. I must control my passions. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of The New Gallery?
Hi there,

I noticed that you list Canadian artist-run centres as one of your interests. When you have a minute, would you mind looking at an article I wrote about The New Gallery, an ARC in Calgary? Thanks! --Art Herstorian (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Deleted" list
Just as well to clear up a misunderstanding.  Ty  19:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave Me alone
keep off my user/discussion page. cheers yourself. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)cramyourspam

It really bothers me that like a day after I make myself a user page, there you are, oh obsessed blast from the past, being a pest. What ---Have you watchlisted me or something? I ask you to leave me alone. Please delete this when you want; I'm just using it as a message sender. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)cramyourspam
 * You're fun. Glad to see you removed the list of "deleted" articles. The links for those interested are here and here.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeh and now you seem to be war with my contributions again. Stalker. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Cramyourspam
 * "War" is a bit melodramatic. I see things that need editing, I make that edit. It has nothing to do with you.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"I see things that need editing, I make that edit. It has nothing to do with you."

Reeeally?

I wonder how much more of your editing activity (and your buds) will suddenly just happen out of 3-million plus articles to befall my' work.

You were in what I would call an edit war with me a few seasons ago. That experience and others (mostly which happened to colleagues) left me jaded about deletionists.

ONE day ago, I supported the anti-deletionist comments by Jorge Stofi on this page. I also finally created a user page for myself where I also griped about deletionists and made a list of redlinks.

You and a buddy have pounced on my user/talk page WITHIN 24 HOURS. Grumbling ensued. ON THE SAME DAY, you "happen" to delete an addition I made to an article just three days ago ---not like it was sitting around for months.

So, of the thousands of users, you just happen to visit my not-a-day-old user/talk area, and 'then', wow, out of the 3,211,470 articles in the English Wikipedia today, you just happen to undo a brand new contribution I made.

"Things that need editing, I...edit.... nothing to do with you" lacks credibility  ---or at least is really improabable (three million-to-one against).

Cramyourspam (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Cramyourspam
 * My, you are obsessive, aren't you? Oh, well. Onwards and upwards.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

gene clark
notice to the legal Department and employees at Wikipedia;

what's the story with you people? why do you have to verify everything that I add pertaining to my musical career with the people like Gene Clark, the burrito brothers Dillard and Clark Phoenix Arizona the fugitives Nina Hagen spirit the tubes Spencer Davis to name some of the people I have been associated with in my musical career as a writer producer or band member.

You people cannot impede my right to freedom of speech if you continue this line of action, I will be forced to turn the matter over to my attorney for review and possibly a class action lawsuit [because I'm sure you have treaded on the rights of others].if you have an open forum you cannot dictate what people can write and if you are incapable of verifying any information added by the public to your open forum, your action to delete newly added information is not justified, therefore be advised I am now putting Wikipedia and employees that impede my constitutional right to freedom of speech on notice this day 4th March,2010.

Signed electronically, Laramy Smith  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laramy smith (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more).  I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


 * User:Peter Damian (old)
 * User:HistorianofLogic
 * User:Logicist
 * User:Here today, gone tomorrow
 * User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Krauss
Look at the text that I removed--I don't think I removed a single FACT. The "E" is an affectation and has the quality of a weasel word in this context.

--Artiquities (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Carriage Returns
Ah, okay. Thanks for the tip. All advice and encouragement is welcome--Artiquities (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts
I restored you post as I think it does need some awareness. I hope this is OK with you. Revert if not.  Ty  14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?
Almost every university lists have some redlinks. (Check: Yale, UPenn, Stanford... virtually every renowned university) Why can't the University of Toronto have some? As far as the ones in business section are concerned, their pages may be created some time by others. The companies they head are notable. Before doing this, why don't you discuss it? --142.151.162.141 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How is a federal tax form not a valid source?
Hi Freshacconci - thank you for the info, however, I am confused as to your definition of a source. I understood your first objection and carefully went back to connect accurate sources. How is a publicly available signed, objective IRS document not a valid source? Every funder, government agency and newspaper uses them to review a non-profit. Also, if an organization is a US non-profit, how is that not part of being a valid wikipedia fact? If the same statements are published by a newspaper, does that increase the validity?

Finances of an organization are verifiable, and contribute to a researcher's understanding about the organization.

Thank you, P caulfield (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) P caulfield
 * A federal tax form is a primary source document. To use this as a source would be original research. You would need to find a secondary source, like a newspaper for example, that discusses this issue. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. We can only present info that has already been published. A tax form is an original document and for Wikipedia purposes does not count as published.  freshacconci  talk talk  01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And how is the subject's own website not a primary source document? (Notes and References: 3 and 4) - What newspaper has published the list of so-called winners? P caulfield (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On why you reverted my edit to Shawn Fannings page ( I do not have wikipedia account)
1.It is true 2. I think it is notable that he was on times cover page 3. I have given adequate citation

You havent stated a reason why you reverted my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.134.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I was too quick to revert. I reverted my edit and copyedited your text. Cheers.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for any errors, I am new to this thing. Signing out.

I have not and do add inappropriate links
A travel guide to Nova Scotia, ScotiaPages.com is not my site and I am not affliated with it.

It is the same as maritime tourism, a travel guide to the province and also the home of a new WEB TV Guide currently in production.

How can this be in appropriate, please stop deleting, if you wish me to stop then you clearly have to stop adding Maritime Tourism which is the same kind of site.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvino54321 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a commercial site.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Site
Hello Freshacconci,

I understand your concerns about our link and I am also aware wikipedia does not help commercial sites or a sites page rank.

However the site is a free imformation service for visitors to Nova Scotia, this includes a web TV channel currently indevelopment. ScotiaPages works with the tourism authorities in the region.

Scotia Pages helps small business'es in region by giving them free advertising, for example farmers markets, musemums etc have alot free benefits.

I think the site has as much right to be there as www.maritimetourism.ca

I look forward to discussing this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvino54321 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Verges
edit the page based upon work you can reference. I don't know what goes on in Canada but for you to sit on a computer in some cliche quasi art fag sheltered setting & dismiss other artists ... people like you are the whole reason art never had a real place in north america, go back to italy & paint frescos of blonde hair blue eyed naked meat heads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.44.190 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * :)  freshacconci  talk talk  02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaver
In Soul on Ice Cleaver admited to/boosted of his career as rapist (I won't revert).--Radh (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Freshacconci. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just wondering why you deleted the link to a Norval Morrisseau blog I added. I looked it over and there is nothing controversial there. Just information. I know it's new but it has lots of information. Thanks.Morrisseaufan (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

photo credit
Did we change the policy that allowed those credits? I'm glad if we did (photographers aren't entitled to higher visibility than writers), but there was a time when they were allowed. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Diodes
Hello

This Ralph Alfonso. I manage the Diodes.

Can you please advise format that i can leave current information on The Diodes without you removing it. Did you also remove the art to our first picture sleeve single? Why?

I am getting a lot of emails from people asking me to update the Diodes entry which I am trying to do but I keep seeing my updates removed :(

thanks

Ralph Alfonso The Diodes

ralph@bongobeat.com

82.35.52.231 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vickers de Ville vandal
...is back FYI. See Sockpuppet investigations/Tony1234512345.  Ty  09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Do You Keep Reverting About.com?
Hi Freshacconci,

I'm new here, still getting the hang of things and I noticed that you're reverting my addition of About.com Montreal, referring to it as spam. Why? Does it violate a rule I'm not aware of? It's a reputable source owned by the New York Times. Is there something I'm missing here? Like I said I'm new here, so I'm still making sense of Wikipedia regulations. When I think of spam, I think of advertising and no offense to the tourism board, but they're promoters. Their job is to make Montreal as attractive as possible. They're not an objective source, rather a repackaged brochure, but you don't remove them from the external links. Why?

Just trying to understand your actions.

Thanks for replying.

Emperorwearsnoclothes 23:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your advice, please
Hi Freshacconci! I'm sorry to bother you with crap like this, but I'd like your advice on the actions of another WP editor. Over the past week, I've been reverting edits by Howlingsandy that I deem to be spamming or non-NPOV self-promotion. These edits have so far been confined to two articles - Mike Wilhelm and Howlin' Wolf.

In the former article, this user has been inserting information about himself (Sandy Guy Schoenfeld) and how he was involved with Wilhelm's albums and live band. Apart from the obvious conflict of interest concerns, the text he has added is largely non-NPOV in tone, bordering on fancruft, and completely unreferenced. I have tried to be helpful by removing prose that I deem unsuitable, while trying to preserve as much of his input as I can and explaining my rational for doing so. To be honest, I'm not sure this guy is notable enough to be included in an article about Mike Wilhelm at all but I've tried to be fair and not just delete his contributions out of hand.

Concurrently, this user has been repeatedly re-adding a link to the Howlin' Wolf article for his own commercial photography website. He was apparently Wolf's photographer of choice and has many galleries devoted to Howlin’ Wolf on his website, with prints available for purchase. Myself and two other editors (Martinevans123 and Rothorpe) have deemed this external link to be spam as per WP:LINKSPAM. We have all removed this link at various times and myself and Rothorpe have also explained our reason for doing so. However, my comments have been met with long replies, accusing me of everything from having personality problems to having a personal vendetta against this guy because of alleged connections I have with an unnamed UK magazine editor! (????? :-$) This has culminated with Howlingsandy threatening legal action against me or some such nonsense.

I really have tried to be fair and reasonable about this but I would value your input or thoughts on the matter. As far as I can see, his edits on these articles are not compatible with Wikipedia guidelines and I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can see mine and Rothorpe’s comments, along with Howlingsandy's overly long replies at User Talk:Howlingsandy. I've reached a point where I've had to post an "official" spam warning on his talk page, as per the process outlined in the "Warning spammers" section of WP:LINKSPAM. But I hate doing this kind of crap, so I just wanted to get your take on this regrettable situation. You’re a much more experienced Wikipedian than me – hopefully you can tell me whether I’m doing the right thing or not here. Many thanks in advance. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Thank you for the link, however I am not sure that someone whose responses include would respond any differently to a personalized note than to a standardized template. Active Banana (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian
Then why not link "United States" and a dozen other items that everyone knows about? Have you read WP:OVERLINK? Tony  (talk)  13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Pine (painting)
Hi Freshacconci; I've started to expand this, and Riggr Mortis has since added and refined. It occurs to me that you may have an interest, and any help is always appreciated. JNW (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good project to work on. I could help to expand on the legacy section. I've been bored lately, just idly reverting nonsense here and there. A specific task may be what's needed. Thanks for the heads-up.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My edit history speaks way too eloquently to the preoccupation of vandalism reversion....if you're so inclined, there's neither an image nor an article on Thomson's The West Wind, and I'd like to get that started at some point, too. JNW (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been corrected by Riggr Mortis: there is a The West Wind (painting) article, though it's slim. JNW (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexa Meade Page
What can I do to fix the problems you have stated on the edit page for "Alexa Meade"? I have cited everything... what's wrong with blogs? She's been on cnn.com, and was also on the washington post... I only put the online version there so that people could read the article. Should I just cite the print sources she's been in? She's a very notable artist in Washington, DC. Any advice would be much appreciated. Jltemkin (talk)jltemkin —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Administrator's noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Hi Freshacconci! I'm sorry to drag you into this, but I've opened a discussion regarding our disruptive friend QueryOne at the Administrator's noticeboard. I hope I haven't spoken out of turn in mentioning your ongoing clashes with QueryOne. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion if you want. I just wanted to let you know that I'd mentioned you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

mark beam deletion
hi freshaconi, i did not make the original profile post for "mark beam"  i typed my name in and saw the page....i did add a couple of facts that had happened to me in my career.....i must admit, i am not a wiki educated guy, and i apologize for that...i guess ishouldnt have changed anything....i have documentation for everything tha was on the page...i can scan them and send them to you if you wish. i think ive done 25 years of notable stuff in my life.....frank zappa cover, emmy award winning charector design and associate producer....i created the central charector, for crying out loud....so i ask that you might have another look at the page.....and any requests for documentation about anything on the page, i will provide.....also, any re-write you may feel it needs, i am happy to hear about and will cooperate to make every word true and not "commercial promotion"....im just an artist who wantes readers to be able to read the story.....i mean, wiki has porn star pages on their site....an artist who has done as much as i have doesnt deserve to be included? thats odd.....so anyway, any assistence would be appreciated...write me if you need documentation or info from me at markbeam@adelphia.net thank you! (76.173.142.145 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

Simply Saucer
Actually, NME copied our article, not vice versa. Their profile even credits Wikipedia at the end — and under GFDL, they are allowed to do that as long as they credit us. If you need any further proof, note that this diff confirms that while there have been some changes to the article, rather large parts of the article are virtually unchanged from when I wrote it as an original, non-copied piece of work back in 2007. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, it can all kind of get confusing sometimes. And I didn't think you thought they shouldn't have an article at all, either :-) Although that said, if we're actually using the NME repost as a reference for our article, we probably shouldn't given that we wouldn't reference our articles to Wikipedia mirror sites either... Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The return of an old friend?
Hi Freshacconci! I just wanted to ask your opinion on whether you think that is the same person as our old friend (I hope you know who I'm referring to)? This user's modus operandi is quite similar to our old friend's, with the removal of sourced material without proper explanation and baseless accusations of vandalism and sock-puppetry being thrown about. I've recently had to revert some edits that this user has made to The Left Banke article, which was also one of our old friend's favourite articles. I don't know, I'm probably just being paranoid here, but compare our old friend's talk page with Jetblack500's and see what you think. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Art of This Century
The article is now called "The Art of This Century Gallery" which seems to be simply wrong.--Radh (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rob Ring
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rob Ring, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JNW (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined for Nana April Jun
Hi! Just to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request for Nana April Jun, as it has been declined before. Articles that have been declined for speedy deletion in the past cannot be nominated again for speedy deletion; instead WP:AFD should be used (or improve the article - that's even more acceptable!). Cheers, Stephen! Coming... 23:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to create a category but I failed. It was an error. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing so much, I'll certainly read it all
Hey, I'm in touch with a close artist friend who mentioned a page you created. Ie, you've both got a taste for Jeff Wall. The way my life has gone, I married young, and I mainly try to replicate the experience of going to art school (which I will never have, in this lifetime at least, with too much else going on) by reading on the internet.

So all that to say, thanks for all the articles you've written, and here are some links to folks you might like:

Zak Smith http://www.zaxart.com ... his sketchbook's great TVestroy (video art using mathematics and geometry, based on a program for linux called PureData which generates pictures and sound from mathematics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ENq0mW_Kg&NR=1

Can't wait to read everything you've started a page on now. Thanks again.

93.109.2.118 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC) (User EIDETIV, but I'm not usually logged in...)

Ping!
Hello, … I encountered you at Articles for deletion/Natasha michels, and noticed some of your userboxes, especially the "overrun with cats" one … ROFL!

Just thought I'd ping you and introduce myself. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  04:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sooooo.....???? OH sorry that goes below

Regarding your deletion of Tempography article
Well, you deleted my Tempography article "right away", so it seems only fair that you answer me "right away".

The Wikipedia article on Tempography, an art project that I founded together with a colleague, was in danger, he told me. And he told me to fix it. The original article, the one that, thanks to you, is back on Wikipedia, was written by him (but based on sentences and material about Tempography that have been used in promotion for the project since many years).

However, the article contained a lot of personal, artistic reflection that might not fit into Wikipedia's neutral profile. So, I re-wrote the article, made it concise and objective.

I have no idea what a "maintenance template" is, but apparently I removed it, although it was not mentioned on the editing page.

Anyway, you deleted the new, improved article, and replaced it with the old cumbersome, unstructured one, which Wikipedia put warning signs on. That doesn't seem very rational to me, maintenance templates or not.

I spent quite a long time honing that article, and didn't keep any copy of it, so I hope that you have access to the text that I wrote including the mark-up.

I would appreciate a reply, because we need to solve/resolve this issue. There needs to be an article on Tempography since many people are involved in this project, it exists and matters, and since it's growing.

Please reply to: magnusaronson at hotmail dot com ¨¨¨¨  MagnusAronsonAminoff (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, result!
OK so that's what it takes to get your attention. Sorry about that, but can you now answer the questions that I asked you some time ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusAronsonAminoff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lucy merriam
Hello Freshacconci, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lucy merriam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article does is not deleted and is not, nor has it ever been, tagged for speedy deletion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:AN/I, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  elektrik SHOOS  23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of WP:DTTR? If you'd just sent me a simple question about the edit, you'd have found out that it was a simple mistake and I hadn't intended to delete another editor's comment.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Query on editsKenfriedman0 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Freshacconci,

This is a query on why you changed the edits I made to the Fluxus article. Before taking the time to re-enter them, I'm curious to know if you have some specific reason for this.

While I did not write the entry itself, much of the article is based on the contents of books and catalogs I've edited or helped to write, and I was an advisor to many of the collections listed.

My edits were minor edits. I added significant scholars who are missing from the scholars list, including the authors of cited books whose names were missing from the scholars and curators list. I also corrected mistaken or improperly formatted bibliographic entries. Some of the edits involved rendering lists consistent -- for example, Milan Knizak is listed as director of Fluxus East, but the directors of Fluxus North, Fluxus West, and Fluxus South are not identified.

In the past, I've been happy to add data or build links to external archives and web sites, but if you plan to undo any work I put in, I'd be reluctant to invest more time. If you are curious regarding sources, I'll be happy to send you the relevant bibliographic material.

I'll welcome a response. I've never tried to communicate via Wiki and I'm not sure how to find my way back to this page, so I'd prefer an email. You can reach me at my email address kenfriedman@groupwise.swin.edu.au

Best regards,

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS Professor Dean

Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note from an admirer
WE ALL KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH YOU HATER OF THE BEATLES!!

76.186.178.56 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes on restoring minor edits
Dear Freshacconci,

Since I have not heard from you, I have restored the minor edits I made to the pages. If you'll review my earlier note, you will see that I am a subject specialist in the field with over a dozen scholarly books, exhibition catalogs, and special journal issues to my credit as editor or author, along with several dozen articles and reference text entries in books from university presses, academic publishers, and scholarly journals. With respect to formatting changes, I am an editor of scholarly journals and academic books in several fields -- design and management as well as art -- and I understand bibliographic formatting quite well. These revisions were made with care, based on professional expertise. In my day job, I am a tenured professor in two disciplines and a university dean. You will find my email address and web site below if you wish to check or to verify my expertise. If you have any questions about my edits, please feel free to contact me. I will be happy to answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS Professor Dean

Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia

email: kenfriedman@groupwise.swin.edu.au URL: www.swinburne.edu.au/design

Phone Dean's Office +61 3 9214 6078 Phone Faculty Switchboard +61 3 9214 6755Kenfriedman0 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Paley
Thank you for this set of edits. Please keep Paley (and if possible also Wolfgang Tillmans) on your watchlist.

No need to reply, I think; but I'll be watching this talk page for a couple of days. -- Hoary (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did remove the COI tag with my initial revert. With the removal of the promo material it may not be necessary at this time but if you feel otherwise please feel free to re-add the tag. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the editor in question edits next. I've watchlisted Paley and Tillmans. Thanks.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I placed a notice at the VisArts Project talk page about Tillmans as that article is a mess. I will try to do some cleanup myself.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if you zap the effects of CoI you're welcome to zap the flag warning about it.

Tillmans is terrifically trendy, and I'm mildly surprised that no earnest BA (or even MA) students have stepped up to write something dutiful, sprinkled with or drenched in Guattari-deleuze-speak. But for all I know perhaps his bubble is already deflating; I'm so out of touch with these matters. Here is just one (year-old) edit by Gallery history to Tillmans' article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm about as earnest as you're going to get. The visual arts editing group are a pretty mangy bunch and trends tend not to enter into it. I'll put on my Guattari cap and give it a shot.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Puhlease, no, go easy on the earnestness and hold the Guattari! Give me facts and broccoli instead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maureen Paley
Dear Freshacconci,

Sorry i was not signed in last time I edited the page. (although there may be someone else working on this as there are new references added that I have not provided and would also like removed.) I work for Maureen Paley and she has asked me to re-structure her profile on wikipedia as the information provided is misleading and inaccurate. In particular the list of artists represented by the gallery is very wrong. The gallery website can be referred to for this. I am not familiar with how to work with wikipedia accurately and only have limited time to make the changes to Maureen Paley's specifications.

Any advice would be welcomed.

Kind regards,

galleryhistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallery history (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI and several questions
Hello, I added a Wikilink yesterday from the Art Manifesto entry under the "See Also" section to the new article on the Terrain Gallery. The reason I did this was because the Terrain is unusual in that it was founded with a stated philosophic basis -- the Siegel Theory of Opposites. All the exhibitions that have taken place there since 1955 have been based on the fifteen questions by Eli Siegel, "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" and this statement is posted on the wall of the gallery. It was subsequently reprinted in "The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism" and I think elsewhere too. Was my link reverted automatically somehow? I saw there is a "TW" after the revert. If not, would it be better to write something about the Terrain and add it into the article itself? Or is there another alternative? It seemed to me that the Terrain Gallery with its statement and basis does belong with the article in some way. Thanks, Nathan43 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What was there
If we are going to keep what was there, this is what was there before I corrected it and Modernist then changed it entirely:. It originally said American-born British and I removed American-born per WP:MOSBIO. That's when Modernist went nuts about it. The article did not original identify him as American, but as British. Yworo (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on the Epstein talk page.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Freshacconci,

we are an art gallery and represent the artists, where I posted the link. If you click on the link you land directly at the artists information from our gallery. so the link does actually deliver even more information and images than wikipedia does. I ask you to move my links back.

Kind Regards, Art Berlin 96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.168.138 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages
That is in no way a personal attack. It's an opinion. If you think otherwise, take it to WP:WQA, but don't remove my comments from a talk page other than your own again. Yworo (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My response is here. The above comment is a reference to this comment preserved here for transparency.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, feel free to take it to WP:WQA. You will find that you are wrong. An opinion is not a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, an opinion can be a personal attack. If I chose to write what I felt about you as an editor that would both be an opinion and a personal attack, but I don't believe in attacking other editors in such as way. Again, nice try.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you took it to WP:WQA, you'd find out otherwise. Go ahead. I insist. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on my talk page
Please don't edit war on my talk page. If I delete a comment, you may assume that I've read it. It's against the talk page guidelines to restore it. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but it was a new comment, not a revert. Learn the rules, kid. See this diffs above. Cheers!  freshacconci  talk talk  03:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, feel smug in your belief you are right. Yworo (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :)  freshacconci  talk talk  03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll find I'm experience enough not to fall for the sort of game you just played. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal Aid Ontario
Hi Freshacconci,

Thanks for commenting on the talk page of Legal Aid Ontario. I should mention that the content content is not what I have drafted, that being, the current piece is what I would like to change. I agree, the Legal Aid Ontario article is lacking key information like history, services and most importantly, citations. I have been developing a draft on my userpage, however as I'm awaiting confirmed of some numbers, I'm hesitant to put it onto the Legal Aid Ontario talkpage just yet (but feel free to take a look at it). I'm hoping I should have something tangible up very soon that we can begin playing with as there seems to be growing interest in updating the current piece. Lawyer in training (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Would like to know what criteria your using for notable land artists? User:Artusrfirst Re: Please do not add this name to the list of Land artists. Lists are not meant to be exaustive and we only list the most notable artists. freshacconci talktalk 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) artuserfirst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artuserfirst (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

link fix
Hi there, thanks for fixing the link for me. EMDCG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdcg (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nathaniel Stern
Hi Freshacconci:

I'm writing regarding your recent edits to the page about me on Wikipedia. I don't usually write to people who work on my page, but I feel that the reasons you gave for your changes need a little clarity, and might have been a bit hasty / biased. Note that I will NOT change them myself - though I'd appreciate your consideration and response.

First, with regards to my "dissertation research." If it were only my dissertation research, I'd also argue that it should not be on Wikipedia. But this isn't the case, and my writing is actually quite notable - whoever wrote this section should have said "Stern's writing" instead of "Stern's dissertation research" (I was writing well before I started my PhD, and have continued writing despite its completion some time ago). The references given in the section you deleted were chapters published in books by Rodopi Press and Cambridge University, for example. I have more recent publications on my research also put out by MIT press and the International Symposium on Electronic Art, and more chapters forthcoming with MIT Press and Routledge. Brian Massumi (mentioned in the text you deleted) was part of a research lab with me in Germany just last week, and I'll be working with him in Montreal (where you are headed, I see) next Summer. I consistently write on interactive and video art for a large variety of online and printed journals, including Rhizome.org, on a regular basis, and am considered an expert in the field, worldwide. Perhaps you'd consider editing the text to make it more accurate and up-to-date, rather than simply deleting it?

Second, with regards to the Wikipedia Art project - and please don't take this as aggressive against you, but exhaustion around the situation - the current edit is far more "deceptive" than the older one. I'm not sure you know this, but the statement, "where the Foundation requested that Stern and Kildall post a notice on the Wikipedia Art website to distinguish it from Wikipedia" is factually false. It's true that you can find a source to say this - but in a very misleading and deceptive way (to use your words). The Wikimedia Foundation's PR emails, and then people quoting them (not as fact, but as quotes to get the story out) are the only places you'll see this claim. If you look at the actual correspondences (all online), and cite any of the number of reliable press articles that did their homework, you'll see that Wikimedia wanted us to hand over the domain outright. We volunteered to put up a disclaimer (and did so), and offered them to write the disclaimer text for us (they did not), and they still wanted the domain - and "requested" it through lawyers, whilst citing legal precedent that if a case were to go to court, they'd win the URL anyhow (I'm not going to debate whether or not this is a "threat," but am giving you facts that you can, and should, check on, if you are going to be editing a Wikipedia section on the topic). Only after we went public did Wikimedia say the disclaimer was good enough, and suggest that it was their idea all along. This is all documented, and citable. Right now, your edit is not only false, but more importantly for Wikipedia, the actual sources your sentence cites don't say what you've written. PBS.org, for example, confirms all of the above, and then says "Wales and Godwin say..." - your edit only says what Wales and Godwin say, rather than the actual story, and in fact treats their PR quote as fact, rather than as a false claim against everything that has been actually documented (how it is treated by PBS, though they do their best to make it a he said/he said). I didn't like the way this section on my page was written before either, and agree that "blocked" is a bad choice of word (I'm not sure it's deceptive - what is it misleading people into believing?) - but the current edit is far worse. I know it's too much to ask get all the facts of the work on Wikipedia - the papers sensationalized the whole thing ... and also got a few things wrong; I actually find the piece far more interesting than the legal issues - but a little less bias (perhaps covering the spirit of the cited articles, rather than cherry-picking?) would be appreciated.

But mostly, I'd really appreciate a response, to both of these separate issues; and I'd like you to take seriously and think objectively about the information at hand and how it is cited. I understand that I should not be involved in edits to my own page, and have no desire to be involved in more debates on or about Wikipedia. But these edits, and/or the reasons given for them, are misleading and unfair.

NathanielS (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)