User talk:Tyrenius/Archive12

Vincent van Gogh PR
You were part of the group of editors who contributed over 500 edits to the WP:GAR of Vincent van Gogh. There was talk page discussion of nominating his article for WP:FAC, but I think WP:PR is a better next step. Please watch and assist at Peer review/Vincent van Gogh/archive2. Hopefully, then we can pursue a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab link
Just to let you know your link to Jim Shapiro on your userpage is a dab page- Jim Shapiro (attorney) is the link you want. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Han van Meegeren
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Han van Meegeren/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Notes and References for notability
Greetings Ty, new guy here. I have a two part question: I have been slowing reading up on Wiki rules regarding notability. Whereas links to third party websites are valid to use as evidence of notability, what happens when the links become dead e.g. an article from a respectable website gets pulled and the story does not get archived elsewhere, or perhaps any kind of third party archive gets removed, do future wikipedian editors then question the notability of an article? And does the fact that an article that was previously proposed for deletion then had been rewritten and kept give more credibility to the article for future editors? --SaturdayNightSpecial (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just received your message, and thank you for your information.--SaturdayNightSpecial (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Joanne Gair
Suddenly all of my Joanne Gair articles are being scrutinized. The image for Disappearing Model and two other images in her article are at WP:TFD. Demi's Birthday Suit was severely edited over the weekend. Since I know you are active at TFD, could you comment on some issues at Talk:Joanne_Gair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes FFD. I am not sure if I added the images correctly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you only commented on one of the three image at issue and did not comment at the Talk page discussion mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Monet at Giverny
Tyrenius, you were quick to bring the correction at Giverny! Merci beaucoup! Frania W. (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking
I recommended your skills to User:Kingturtle ...Modernist (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Help, if possible, with citations and stubs
Hi Ty, I'm contactin you becase you were helpful in the deletion discussion on VIsual Arts, pointing me to WP:REFB. I've having trouble getting help in general, and hoping that you'd be kind enough. I'm relatively new and still wading in.

I've been systematically going through a few lists of articles, to tag them for what needs to be done, and then my eventual plan is to fix articles that can be salvaged with sources, write new articles, and if necessary, push others to deletion if there is no material available.

I've run into another editor who has told me the following: Regarding Cathy_Bursey-Sabourin -- I added tags for sources. He rolled those back, saying "stubs don't need tags for improving refs; is generally notable as long-serving high-level official in gov't agency." I wasn't sure what the protocol was, but I'd never really undid anything before, and was pretty sure that everything needs a source, so I undid his edit, and said, "stubs don't need tags for improving refs; is generally notable as long-serving high-level official in gov't agency." He then directed me to a comment on my talk page where it ping-ponged like this"


 * I understand you're really new. I am not. So when I say that stubs don't need tags requesting citations, please do listen; stubs inherently require citations and no tag requesting it is necessary. In addition, please familiarise yourself with Ms Bursey-Sabourin's employer, which addresses your notability concerns. I'll be removing the tags again as they are unnecessary. → ROUX ₪ 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Roux,

Thanks for your help - however, will you also be adding those required citations? I have seen many stubs tagged by senior users, so I'm unsure what difference it makes. Your expertise is appreciated. Thanks Deadchildstar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the fullness of time, yes, I shall be adding refs. I have other articles to work on beforehand. In the future, please keep your replies where the conversation started (as it notes here; I hate fragmented conversations. → ROUX ₪ 03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions, then, Ty. 1) When is it OK to take an article that needs sources? And how or why is a Stub different? What should happen in the case of Roux, above - it seems he would rather I just leave him and his sourceless stub be. I don't know what I should do, other than that.

2) On a related note, I read an article here Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Editing,_Creating,_and_Maintaining_Articles/Creating_a_New_Article which advises not to create new stubs at all. Another editor told me that' not true. What's your view on that? Deadchildstar (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer on my page, Ty, that's helpful - but I'm still confused given Roux's recent comment. I guess I'm not seasoned enough to know what to do with differing opinions between editors. If you have any advice, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Deadchildstar (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

another gallery
Could you please take a look at Nicola Trussardi Foundation and the artists listed there, which have all been worked on by a single ip account. I think some or all of the artists--and the gallery--may actually be notable, but I';d like a second opinion. DGG (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Impressionism
Could you check this guy out. User:Krehbielart is creating a disturbance at Impressionism, and some questionable inclusions here: Albert Henry Krehbiel thanks...Modernist (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. Robert Petrick
I'm glad you brought this User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I%27m_the_Cavalry to my attention. I agree with all the points you've made. Mick gold (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Ty, I think I owe you an apology. I was flippant when discussing the infobox bg color revert with Outriggr, but honestly I wasn't getting at you, and my comments weren't mindful of you at all, though they could easily have been seen that way. I had a bad experience at infobox band about two years ago on exactly the same issue, and that was what I was getting at. I have the upmost respect for you as an editor, and would not like any hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎
You commented at the prior FAC and many issues have been resolved. Please comment at Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look
Hello Tyrenius, could you please help again and take a look at Christiaan Tonnis. I believe the article is in a good state now ... should it really be deleted or merged, as the tag says? Thank you so much in advance! I also wrote to Modernist, but he takes a Wikibreak. Best wishes, Blaise Mann (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do so. Sorry for asking you - I didn't realize that Modernist already answered ... Best wishes, Blaise Mann (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy Lichtenstein
Hi Ty, I appreciate your comments at the lichtenstein talk page. The original image the guy placed there had the words Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein superimposed on the painting which I told him would be deleted, additionally there is this website which is where I presume he took it from:. Recently he uploaded the current version in which he got rid of the words. However as I said and as you mentioned as well the piggyback image is unacceptable. Separate images are fine, in context with the text.Thanks...Modernist (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Weiss
Oops. I reverted. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice improvements, thanks Ty...Modernist (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Tags
Do you find the tags unjustified? Surely they are an aid to improving the articles that you have started? I have no problem with editing and tagging the same article - why would I; the entire process is an organic one is it not? Regarding Arthur Pan - you are absolutely correct and finding verifiable information is a problem. Why, I do not know. I have spoken with a number of people who knew him and they refuse to discuss him let alone point one in the direction of any source material other than that which is immediately available via typical search strategies. His notability is axiomatic given the popularity and iconic status attributed to the Winston Churchill portrait but I agree completely that there is a shortage of referential source material available. I could add that he was a secretive man with a propensity for avoiding the limelight but (even though apparently the case) I cannot substantiate the claim through any credible third party sources. Hopefully, in time, some more information will come to light. Feel free to tag the article though - my feelings will not get hurt. Sensitivity and encyclopedias do not make for objective articles, do they? Ernstblumberg (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work on Arthur Pan, it is really coming along nicely. Can you find anything on the portrait he did of Jacob Moritz Blumberg which went missing in the early 1970's? I've searched both German and British archives and still to no avail regarding the portrait. Ernstblumberg (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do; thanks again. Ernstblumberg (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oliver's Twist (horse)
Thank you for you affirmation of "Notability" on the article for thoroughbred Oliver's Twist (horse). I appreciate your time and effort.--Craiglduncan (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Nathalie Quagliotto + Robert Genn
Hey Ty. I've been in low gear lately, wikiwise, so I haven't been doing too much around here. I did see the discussion for this article, and although I agree with the closing admin. that this was probably no consensus, after having done a bit of research I'd say this should be deleted. How soon is it acceptable to relist an article for deletion after a close as no consensus? I don't want to appear to be gunning for this artist. I wasn't able to find anything in particular about this. I'll also I have a look at that Genn article while I'm at it. Thanks.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Weiss
I'd be interested in seeing the June 2008 The Artist's Magazine article, if you wouldn't mind emailing a copy. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Saville (designer) page assessment
Thanks for your intervention on this page, AlainR345 TechnoWikiGeek 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Default size
Hi Ty, this discussion is current: RfC to increase the default thumbnail size of images  You may wish to weigh in...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ross Newell crop.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ross Newell crop.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked
What do you think of lifting the protection on the Van Gogh page. Its been shut down since late 2007. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a joke on Ceoil, Ty. Outriggr (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ty, it was, though a very annoying one. Thanks for the quick spot though. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Henmor (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) this is about article Arthur Sarkissian (artist) you have added Essay tag for this article. but this was written by user Hebrides who was made 100 or more articles... I think there are no mistakes but if there is please tell me what to change! and I will try to do the best i can! THANKS! and please delete Essay tag!Please. just say me what to change and I will do! Henmor (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Henmor (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for making article better. Arthur Sarkissian (artist) you have added clean up tag in the Exhibitions... what i should that you may delete it? please tel me! Thank you Sincerely Vahan.

And Please can you give me a good example of article that I can use it for cleaning Thank you Sincerely Vahan Henmor (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary art
There is a strange disagreement brewing here comments appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Received
Thanks. JNW (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

René Magritte
Thanks! Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Perfects
Inserted notability to The Perfects, drafted it at User:Calikit10/The_Perfects. Feel that I've been reading articles about this band but there's no wiki on them. I reached out to them asking if they can post some information, but seems like they were rejected for lack of notability. If my draft seems ok, please move it. If not, let me know what I need to change. Thanks! Calikit10 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Richards again
Hello Tyrenius, sorry to bother you again but folks are back to wanting to downplay the whole Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. With an anon-IP user describing other editors as 'Anti-Richards people'. Being that you were centrally involved with this contentious article surrounding this incident, could you perhaps join the discussion about this latest push to remove from the lede mention of this incident? Frankly given that 10 of the 20 total references in the article refer to the Laugh Factory incident it seems illogical to be removing mention of it in the lede. Thank you, 08:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sox
I think blocked User:Krehbielart and User:Dtr2009 might be the same guy. What do you think?..Modernist (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first user was blocked for an inappropriate name and changed it. All legit.  Ty  12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange
Check this talk page out:Talk:Albert Henry Krehbiel, I gotta figure this is a violation of 4 or 5 different things, and yet whatever...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Check this talk page out:Talk:Albert Henry Krehbiel, I gotta figure this is a violation of 4 or 5 different things, and yet whatever...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not strange at all "Modenist". I have spent timeless hours on the Albert Henry Krehbiel article and it provides a brief bit of information about this proven historically renowned American painter, muralist and art educator. If I were to condense the article any further, it would merely read "Albert Henry Krehbiel: American artist" with possibly one way-too-brief paragraph on his life and works.

All of the provided "References" (changed to "Notes" by some "Wikipedian") are well documented and supported by source at Libraries, Universities and artistic institutions throughout the country as well as world.

Some Wikipedian keeps removing my "way reduced quantity" of VERY PERTINENT AMD INFORMATIVE External links, of which I only see as supplementing (in a small and brief manner) any inquiring individual's knowledge and education on Albert Krehbiel.

Sincerely, I thank you very much for all of the attention, assistance, and consideration that you have given toward Albert Henry Krehbiel's article at the most respected Wikipedia.

From talk) Dtr2009--Dtr2009 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) To talk) and (talk

With all due respect!!!! ("Impressionist, Muralist and art historian" (LIGHT HEARTEDLY / JOKINGLY)

Galatorn Edit
I didn't use this 'talk' feature yet, so I hope I'm putting this on the right page.

You just deleted the "Contemporary Use" of the Raft of the Medusa page and I was wondering why. It's relevant to the further use of the painting in nowadays popular culture. Music, Comics, Modern Art,... I put in a lot of links to establish a clear connection with documented information.

Could you please clearify this with me ? Thanks. G. Galatorn (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tyrenius,

Thanks a lot for your fast and very complete answer. I wasn't aware of the difference between 'stubs' and 'featured articles'.

I offer my appologies for my sometimes rude language in the article. The thing is that I am not an English native speaker, and I wrote the passage under some time-pressure. Hence the "a bunch of bikers in an orgy with some girls" ;-)

I didn't read the talk page about the article before editting, because I thought that the paragraph I added was relevant enough. On the talk page it concerns mainly the funny George Bush-parody on the theme. While my edit was about the use of the painting (and variations on it) in modern times. I see it is a thin line between the two, but I see the comic-versions and real painted 'rip-offs' as being a form of art, whereas the George Bush persiflage is only intended as a joke. But that is just my opinion of course. I don't wish to be so arrogant to push my opninion on the discussion. So you can leave the edit as it is. Too bad though because some of the artwork is really worth taking a look at.

Thanks again for the explanation on references and different articles. G.

Galatorn (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Albert Henry Krehbiel thanks
Regarding your kind and patient comments in relation to what referencing needs to be done concerning the Albert Henry Krehbiel article, I got it and will get to it as soon as I have the time.

Dtr2009--Dtr2009 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)--Dtr2009 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 AJ Cham  03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh
Hi Ty, this needs protection again...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions
As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UK underground
FYI. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Damien Hirst and Survival International
I understand that his participation on the book, We Are One, doesn't qualify him as a supporter of Survival International. I am thinking that maybe you didn't read the source I have recently added. It is just a reference to his support to the organization that gives context to the reference of the book. Please see talk page of the article. Thank you for your time. Maziotis (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing-venice.jpg
Hello Tyrenius. I'd like to upload File:Vanishing-venice.jpg to Commons. From this conversation I gather that there is an OTRS ticket confirming the PD-self license? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ross Newell crop.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ross Newell crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Shell  babelfish 08:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Non free content use on wikipedia
I notice your comments at the discussion on drawings of people. Would you care to comment at Requests_for_comment/Rama. It would be extremely useful to have comment from Wikipedians with a good understanding of the Wikipedia policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Hi Ty - Happy New Year, and Merry Christmas..., All the best!..Modernist (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Season's Greetings and Happy Holidays and may the New Year be a bright one. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Retired
Just wanted to make sure you saw this. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Domki
You're right. I didn't go back far enough in the article history.

This is my second Twinkle blunder in the space of five minutes. I think I'll take a break! MajorStovall (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what's really shocking? The attack page was up for almost a week! MajorStovall (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and us Twinklers are supposed to pick up that kind of thing within seconds, when we're not vandalizing noticeboards! MajorStovall (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wise Girl
Hi, you recently declined an a9 speedy on this album on the basis of an article existing. The Natalie (singer) article appears to be about a different singer, not the one credited with Wise Girl. noq (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - forget that - missed the Belgian singer article. noq (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Art Javier
Hi, you deleted the Miles Long page, however, he is a very well known Producer/Director/Actor and we wish to upload a current wikipedia page so that he is correctly credited for his work. Please let us know what to do in order to correctly to this. Thanks!

references: http://www.wikiporno.org/wiki/Miles_Long http://www.adultdvdempire.com/biography/all-porn/19168/miles-long-pornstars.html http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0519117/ http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/42943.html http://www.locatetv.com/person/miles-long/257110 http://www.pornstaremart.com/-/porn_star_bio_movies/castid=8126;tab=1.html/-E581D6E0-EC35-42E3-9AE9-B30E9C94F65F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art javier (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)