User talk:I dream of horses/2011/February

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my edits?
I'm sorry but I thought that the "This article about an Ontario Member of Parliament is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." was an invitation to improve, yet you revert my sourced edits back to the original page? Malcolm Allen (politician) Who are you to do that? Kwintestal (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. When I vandal fight, sometimes I go too fast for my own good. So does every other vandal fighter. Good on you for reverting my mistaken revert, though.
 * Who am I to do that? Because I make mistakes, and when I do, I appreciate an attempt at a calm response. --I dream of horses (T) @  18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure I know what your role is here but recognize that you do have one, that's why I asked who are you to do that? I'm not a regular contributer to the site and not sure what I did improperly. Kwintestal (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was me who made the mistake, not you.
 * We don't really do "roles" in Wikipedia (for example I was just reducing the backlog in when I got your message]], but I was acting as a vandal fighter, and made a mistake. That's all.
 * The cool thing about Wikipedia is that there's a lot you can do besides expanding articles. You can look at the community portal and check some of those things out. It's pretty interesting. :-) --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Shinny Barnstar
Moved here Enjoy-- Staffwaterboy Critique Me  19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --I dream of horses (T) @ 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Biosample Repository
Hi there! I have declined speedy deletion on an article you tagged, Canadian Biosample Repository: it's very borderline, but it does make a notability claim so it doesn't technically qualify as an A7. You are welcome to PROD it or send it to AfD if that is your desire, my sense is that it probably wouldn't survive AfD if you wanted to go that route. l'aquatique [talk]  01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'll keep an eye on it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No Woman No Cry (painting)
Thank you for your edits, but I am sorry to say I disagree with much of your assistance and have put back the original information: You have the best of intentions I am sure, but it is rather demoralising to have a new article cut to pieces within 7 minutes. Still, I may come back to The Holy Virgin Mary later. -- Theramin (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete Category:1998 paintings, leaving the article uncategorised?
 * The references are indeed references, not external links. The article was based on information contained within each of them.
 * The fact templates for the use of elephant dung are a bit odd, given that the use of dung in his earlier paintings was one of the signatures of Ofili's work. In any event, it is mentioned in nearly all of the cited sources.
 * Several of the references call it Ofili's best work - the FT calls it masterpiece.
 * Almost all of the references - and the Tate in particular - refer to Doreen Lawrence, Stephen Lawrence, Ofili's inspiration, and the more general theme of melancholy and grief. The FT calls it a modern Pieta.
 * I deleted the category, since it was redlinked.
 * I put in fact temps since using elephant dung can be construed as controversial, so it's probably best to use inline citations.
 * References? External links? I'd say they're both.
 * It doesn't matter if the references call it his "best work". Wikipedia is not a repository of opinions. It's an encyclopedia. Stick to the facts.
 * Finally, if you can't handle your work being edited mercilessly, then don't put it on Wikipedia. You don't own anything here. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your replies.
 * An alternative choice to removing a category which is indisputably correct would have been to create the category page, as I did a few minutes later; or to have replaced it with another slightly less good but blue one, such as Category:1990s paintings.
 * Elephant dung was not really controversial here, I hope; just wait for The Holy Virgin Mary.
 * The references are references, because (a) they support the assertions in the article, and (b) they were used (by me) as the source material to create it.
 * As I mentioned, there are sources that call this his best work. Perhaps it would be better to parrot to one specific source, and say that the FT calls it a masterpiece (as I have now done)?
 * There are multiple sources for Ofili intending the painting to be read as a portrayal of general melancholy and grief.


 * Unfortunately, you have added an additional error in your most recent edit - it was not "inspired" by Picasso's The Weeping Woman - Ofili has said (and the sources say) that it was inspired by Doreen Lawrence.


 * Of course, WP:OWN cuts both ways: you don't own it either. I have asked for independent opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. -- Theramin (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what I want the most is a specific mention, in the article, of the source when an opinion is stated. "According to *insert source here, the painting was a masterpiece.". This would avoid peacocks, and weasels.


 * I think this is a case of an inaccurate first impression--I now get the impression you know what you are doing (more than me, anyway!), along with feeling strongly about it. I'll bow out now. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I am hardly a professional, but I do try.  Until the next time :) -- Theramin (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here. Peace. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I hope all is well. As of today, I no longer include what I have determined as troublesome editors on my watchlist...(half a dozen). I no longer care about what they do or where they go to do it. This, of course, does not include you as I consider you one of the friendliest and congenial editors I have met in my 3 years here. I don't know why but I thought I would tell you that. Your good wishes create good will.Buster Seven   Talk  00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks.
 * What prompted this? Hopefully, you aren't leaving, or something. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not planning on leaving at all. In fact, getting more involved. What prompted this was a "cleansing" of my watchlist (like I mention above) and I  was reminded of your congeneality when I ran across your name. Some editors don't like the community aspect of Wikipedia. On the contrary, I feel it outshines Facebook, Twitter and all the other popular social newtworks. And, for the most part, we get some serious long-range, planet-improving work done. Only a tiny bit of time is spent on social chattering. I guess I needed to tell someone that I was improving myself as an editor by NOT focussing on my enemies...by completely disregarding whether other editors were bringing them (my nemesisisises) to RfC or AN/I or any other dispute resolution depot...by not caring whether or not they were placing there name up for Administratorship...etc. All of a sudden those thing were not important anymore. Feels good, like a walk in the sunshine. take care.  Buster Seven   Talk  05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Very wise decision, B7. It took me years to realise how good the advice in WP:FUCK is. Wikipedia often is game-like, but it is possible - with effort - to rise above that. We all get dragged in to stuff, occasionally - but the skill is, knowing when to walk away. In some cases, when in some disagreement, I decide - "Oh well, it doesn't matter. Maybe I'll come back to this one in another year or two." See you around.  Chzz  ► 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...What Chzz said. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello I Dream Of Horses, I believe there has been a misunderstanding.
Hello, I was just warned that i have vandelized wikipedia. I respect wikipedia fully and completely, and i understand that vandelism is a big deal, and i completely agree and always follow that rule, knowing that it is an important one. So when i found out i have been told i have vandelized, i knew there had to be some type of mistake. So i clicked on the link to see what i had posted that was a violation to wikipedias rules. It said i vandelized Christopher Pfaffs page. What i posted on Christopher Pfaffs page was not vandelizing what so ever. I do not know if you know who Mr.Pfaff is but he is the cousin of Professional Skateboarder Robert Dyrdek. What i poster reguared his clothing line, Young and Reckless. I said, "His clothing line is very sucsessful and celebrities have been seen sporting it, like Justin Bieber and Vinny, from Jersey Shore." Those are facts, and they are true. I do not see in anyway how that is vandilism. But if it is ( which that is pretty hard to believe) I am truly and deeply sorry for breaking one of Wikipedias rules and i assure you i did not mean to harm this website. If you could please write me back with an explanation on why i was charged for this? If so i would appreciate it. Thanks.

2/26/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.92.31 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. You're edit was in good faith, and was therefore not vandalism. I reverted myself. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)