User talk:Tyrenius/Archive8

Craziness
I hope you can return soon Tyrenius because the crazies are on the rise. There's this ip troll who haunts Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, and who attacks me wherever he can, now another ip is trying to explain why abstract art has no moral, ethical or political meaning especially for young people. I'm sorry to intrude on your space, I'm not sure exactly what to do. So I'm trying to ignore what I can and answer as best as I can. Modernist 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I want to do some work next week on ArtWatch (COI - I'm a member - as should everyone interested in art be!) and as preparation I've scouted out marouflage. I know that in picture restoration this means removing the painted surface of a picture from its underlying canvas/ paper/ whatever and then placing that painted surface onto another backing surface. (There was an exhibition at the Tate a couple of years ago where some performance conceptual artist exhibited the naked canvases that once supported Turner's pictures - they've all been marouflaged.) Unfortunately, I've been unable to find a source for this definition, which I'm sure is correct. Might you please be able to help? PS - I've recently added some bits to anti-semitism and related topics - you might be surprised to hear that it's a quiet backwater over there! (I was also going to add some stuff to circumcision but the exhibitionists have got there first. It's difficult to concentrate on editing with some chap's cock (metaphorically) poking you in the eye whilst you're trying to hone your finely wrought prose!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I hadn't looked at the 'history' page of the article when I left the message for you, so I was unaware of your involvement. I had done a Google search and I didn't think that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article helps much; what I suspect we're going to end up with is a circular reference along the following lines:


 * [from the ArtWatch article] The organisation particularly disapproves of the conservation technique of marouflage link.


 * [from the Marouflage article] In art conservation, the term is used to refer to the removal of the pigments of a painting from its backing surface, usually a stretched canvas link to the ArtWatch article.


 * I'll have a bash at the article during the course of the week. I suspect that this is a problem requiring someone with a (very) specialised dictionary.


 * (The latest (annual) edition of the ArtWatch Journal arrived last week with various criticisms of the restoration of this picture, so I suspect that there will be plenty of links to specific works of art from the source article.)


 * I'll leave it here - I don't think there's much to be gained by continuing the discussion at this stage.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: questionable edits and possible sockpuppets
Hi Tyrenius. Would you have a look at the editing here ? I suspect there are several sock puppets at work--all are IPs coming from the same area--making a number of questionable edits. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. JNW 17:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
Sorry to bother you, this troll crazy guy is going bonkers on Talk:Frida Kahlo and Talk:Diego Rivera about nonsense, some of which is pretty nasty, I don't see the point of dealing with the guy because nothing means anything to him, he's beyond reason. It looks to me like personal attacks, he seems to have decided that mostly me and a little bit of Johnbod are preventing him from becomming the author of dozens of great articles and such. I'm not about to go to court with this character. Any suggestions, I'm at a loss? Thanks Tyrenius I'm appreciative of your help. Modernist 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bowyer-Anchored.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bowyer-Anchored.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bowyer-Anchored.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bowyer-Anchored.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ''[a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given''. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Daniel  08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Revertion of some editing in article Expressionism
Hi Tyrenius!

There is an editing in the article Expressionsim by Modernist:

"Later in the 20th century, Expressionism influenced and related to a large number of artists and movements. The abstract expressionists, consisting primarily of American artists, Tachisme of the 1940s and 1950s in Europe and in the United States and Canada Lyrical Abstraction beginning in the late 1960s and the 1970s were all expressionist movements"

I suggest that it be reverted to its previous state:

"Later in the 20th century, the movement influenced a large number of other artists, including the abstract expressionists, the latter consisting primarily of American artists such as Jackson Pollock. The neo-expressionists were a revival movement in Germany beginning in the 1970s and centered around artists Anselm Kiefer and Georg Baselitz."

For the following reason:

The editing by Modernist has no connection to the article Expressionism.

Expressionism generally referred to figurative expressionism while non figurative expressionism is known as Abstract Expressionism in America or Abstraction Lyrique in Paris or sometimes referred to as Taschisme 1945-1960. Wikipedia is an important source of information for a great number of people and it is necessary to maintain quality. If you find it necessary to further justify the importance of the above deletion or rather reversion to its previous state I can do so. Sincerely Yours, (Salmon1 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

User:Rockpocket
I find it a bit bizarre that you are saying that I am harrassing Rock when I am the one advocating that we avoid each other - you cant have it both ways!!--Vintagekits 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblock--User_talk:Vintagekits request. Do you have input? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I came to make the same query. I also posted to ANI to ensure that this block is reviewed one way or the other. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your supportive comments and actions over the last week. I think it became clear that this was not going to get sorted out on-wiki and so over the last few days there has been some discussion by email. I now feel assured that Vk's edits are being monitored by third parties and he will not be permitted to return to being a disruptive influence. I am thus happy to step back completely and watch from a distance. Similar, I expect, to what you have been doing over the last few months. As always, if there is something I can assist you with, do let me know. Rockpock e  t  18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ty, I would just like to also thank you for you efforts over the past weeks and indeed months. I didnt mean to try and unmine you with with the whole unblocking thing. As you know I have a lot of respect you and have always been fair with me and others and I just wanted to say that I still consider you to be a very good admin and that you are welcome to drop round at my talk page and say hi anytome. regards--Vintagekits 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Favour
I know you're busy in real life. I should be as well. But if you get a chance, could you look in on the exchange between me and another editor at Talk:Steve Kurtz (plus our respective user talk pages)? Got into an edit war and it got personal. I may take it to WP:ANI, but I wanted an opinion on my own behaviour and my main points about the edit conflict. I'll also send a note to another admin. in case you can't get to it anytime soon. Thanks.  freshacconci  speak to me  02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Kurtz page
Tell me what you want removed, what you consider derogatory. I will consider removing those parts. You removed the entire reply. Why do you get to decide who gets blocked?

Also, you are more involved with Kurtz than I as you are professionally aligned with him. Other2 (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2


 * Negative comments about someone are derogatory. Don't make them. Admins can block users for violations. I have no "professional alignment" with Kurtz: I'd never even heard of him before. Kindly don't make false accusations. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You also wrote: "I've made my points. Heed them or face the consequences." and again I must ask, who are you to make these threats? Other2 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2

This is an interesting reply. As I am the one trying to add information which would allow readers to have an informed position. I only wanted to add a citation to a court case where there was a deposition describing Kurtz Behavior.... Other2 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2

Barbara Schwartz
thx for the great job you've done to disambiguate the Barbara Schwartz confusion! H Turtle ( talk2me &bull;  sign ) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yangon International Educare Centre
Thanks for seeing that. Was it deliberate? Of course it was, deliberate stupidity on my part. The next person after you to leave me a message also pointed out that I can't copy and paste correctly. I fixed the tags. Thanks again CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting removals
I undid your removal of some closed debates from the Visual Arts deletion sorting page. The wubbot comes through and removes closed debates automatically every day or so; I think it's best to let it handle the removal process, because it also adds the closed debates to the archive page when it does so. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!
Much appreciated, although a fan of mine seems to disagree with you.  freshacconci  speak to me  18:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration
is making some, uh, unique contributions. Apparently an erstwhile contributor (see the chunk of POV I removed from Nicolas Poussin a few months ago, and the response ) returned as an IP. Thanks. JNW 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Aesthetics Task Force may have have to mount a rapid reaction action. I'll be under my desk. Johnbod 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumpin' chihuahuas! I didn't know there was such a thing. I'm bolting the doors. JNW 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. JNW (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminist Majority Foundation
You reverted the obvious vandal of Feminist Majority Foundation, but missed the more subtle one!--Larrybob 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. However, I didn't miss it as such. I found the IP vandalism (obvious) and checked the previous two edits also by Scarlet 257. I do not have the specialist knowledge to judge whether the removal of Bikini Kill is or is not vandalism, as you classified it in your edit summary, but as far as I knew (and as far as I still do) it was a valid editorial action. What makes it vandalism? Tyrenius 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at User:Scarlet257's edit history, and you will see that the user has been going through and removing references to the band from articles, including cases where there were cited references. The editing comments left were vague. --Larrybob (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you discuss it with the user, as there is nothing on his/her talk page about this, rather than just branding as vandalism, which should not be applied to good faith edits - which these may be. I'm not looking any further into it myself, but it should obviously be checked whether the mentions that have been deleted were correct in the first place. Also, please remember WP:BITE. Tyrenius (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Haw
Fair play, you caught me. Can you put the edit back though at least and just remove clear my edit summary please? The edit was a genuine attempt to improve my grammer I think you'll agree, I just tried to be sneaky by adding the comment in the edit summary. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw man, just read you message, are you doing that to punish me or coz u physically can't change it? Ryan4314 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok cheers, and listen as an act of good faith between us, I'll make a little confession. Before I added to the Brian Haw talk page, I also added the exact same text to the related State Britain article, which means it'll have the hypocrisy bit in it. It'll be changed it by me by the time u read this, but just so u know I didn't realise I was doing wrong as you can see here :) Ryan4314 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it is (but that's obviously just my opinion), the news report I saw showed a close up of the baby photo, so perhaps it's clearer to see the similarities then. I wanna see if I can prove it, I don't know how to do that though, no1 listens to blogs coz every nutter's got one. Perhaps I could go ask Brian Haw lol Ryan4314 (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea I know what u mean about OR. I think this raises an interesting moral question like, if a complete stranger says his photo of a dead baby is of a baby killed by U.S. troops, and a well-known anti-war activist puts this into a collage as fact, which is then recreated in the Tate, is anyone accountable? Probably not as it's now classed as art. Art can pretty much be anything, including lies. However Art appreciation is all about learning about the pieces.


 * Thanks for fixing the link to my source by the way, I wouldn't of noticed (I'd stuck the word "it's" on the end). To be honest I wish I'd never done that review. User:Master of Puppets recommended I get involved in some deletion debates, and I've had a few barneys. I don't wont to be an admin, ever, but I feel since the debates that I've gotten another layer closer to Wikipedia's core and I don't like it. I'm surprised we still have an encyclopaedia left to edit after the number of, what I would say ignorant and poorly thought out Delete votes I see. I think after these current debates are over I'm gonna go back up a layer nearer to the surface and just sit there with my article, in the dark, with the wikignomes, waiting for the deletion request to come knocking on our door :( Ryan4314 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what you mean now, it's highly unlikely that this is the actual child from Turkey then. However it is probably a Harlequin baby and not a victim of a bomb blast. Dammit which means I've gotta edit what I put on those talk pages, I will do it, just a little later (I'm tired lol).


 * Where did you find that video? Man, looking at all these poor children is a bit draining, that video on youtube said the baby was an alien, the barstards.


 * Yeah I was thinking that I'll just stick to editing + creating articles. Wikipedia to me, is about expanding my own knowledge and maybe passing some on. If wiki didn't exist I'd just read books or something, so I'm not that interested in the actual running of things. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya, a week on I've had no more luck with this. If you google "Brain Haw and "Harlequin" you get linked to this talk page! I found pics Haw posing with the photo here and here saying something about depleted uranium.


 * With the value of a bit of hindsight I can see why you said "The State Britain pic, for example, doesn't have the red lines all over the skin". But looking at your pic and my pics and the video you found, it would appear (I wonder if there's is a source for this) that Harlequin babies tend to have the majority of the "red lines" over their bodies and not their heads, the Haw photo is a close up of the head. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oi
No problem. Happy editing! J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gary Lee Price
Nice work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Monet
Nice work there also. Modernist (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning - Template:Impressionists, truth be told I also like it better with the image. A problem with setting image preference sizes is most can't, or don't understand how. Modernist (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)‎


 * I understand the reasoning concerning the Monet image, I guess it's more generic now. I've also experimented with 300px as my thumb preference and it is ok for thumbs but little else. I prefer the 180px preference if for no other reason than that most users are using 180px. If we design and write articles, I think we should keep most users in mind. Modernist (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony The Tiger
Look at his user contributions and you will see he predates me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Monet
Thanks for adding Claude Monet to Haystacks (Monet).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rakowski
Saw you deleted this page due to WP:N. This person raised $1 billion in funds and is noted businessman. He has been featured in the New York Times and other publications, would source links overcome this issue in your view? Ditch1852 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments were extraordinarly helpful across the board thanks. Will scrub everything with edits and resubmit. Ditch1852 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Made numerous edits to the article, including taking out the promotional work and moving in more facts. Also cited media coverage at the bottom. Other than asking you to look over if you wouldn't mind, had 2 questions. Do you feel the reference section is appropriate? You mentioned no external links in the article but I have seen them before. Also, I tried to include media coverage for WP:N but some of the past coverage (going back as far as early 90's) is only available behind subscription services (or through Factiva which means it can't be linked to). I looked over the free/pay content guidelines but wasn't sure how to do this (or if you felt notability has now been established. Thanks again. --Ditch1852 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies - you're correct, I did read the citation article but didn't see the reference you embedded (didn't realize it was a drop down). It is now much more heavily cited, cleaned up the formatting on the article and references and fixed some improperly cited internal links. How does it look now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditch1852 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm up to 25 citiations and I sourced all the financial data. In order to make this more suitable, do you recommend removing any particular information, or has notability and accuracy been established?--Ditch1852 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hadn't looked at the article in a week or so but very much appreciate your continued feedback and the changes you made - I think they look great. As for your comment about the birthday - while I am personally aware of it, I'm not sure I could find something that specifically cites it. Additionally, I just received permission from the UN photo library to add one of their photos so I will be inserting that now. Please feel free to leave additional feedback/thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditch1852 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Haw mayor edit
I have replied to "Not referenced is a good enough reason." on my talk page, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the verdict Ty?, can I remove the Haw section now? Wanted your go ahead, as I have an obvious bias against Brain Haw lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yee"Haw", geddit? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * haw haw very funny ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh's eyesight
I have not seen any discussion that Vincent may have had cataracts. I have several cataracts in my eyes. When I see a bright light, it is surrounded by a halo. A point source may have rays with the four compass points most prominent and many smaller ones. Sometimes when I look closely at a halo, it resolves into a great many rays. When I see "Starry Night" and others, I say "Brother!" Sorry that I do not have the time now to look up medical references or to learn how to use Wikipedia. I just contribute my observation in case anyone is interested. Eugene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.234.62 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Such speculation would need to be verified from reliable sources. Otherwise it counts as original research, which is not allowed. Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
How did you dig this up ? When we worked together as colleagues, I was impressed by his gifts as a sculptor. One is thankful not to have been asked to pose nude, on a bearskin rug. Or with a tiara and chihuahua. Anyway, I got a kick out of the use of the painting. Made my day. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He is an excellent craftsman. The portrait he molded of me, seen obliquely in the painting, was very good. A student told me that he since destroyed it, which would be a shame. But I find solace in the thought that the clay that once formed my skull might now be part of Britney's backside, Paris' torso...or Fidel's beard. Let me know if you are interested in seeing more of my (painted) work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay.  More later. JNW (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to an AfD
Hey, Ty. Good to see you contributing so much good stuff recently. Here's one I thought might be up your street. I speedied it and the user recreated it. Can it be saved? --John (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Immediately after writing the above I thought of quite a good solution, which I've posted on the AfD. See what you think. --John (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

J.B. Manson
Very, very nice. I left a comment on the talk page, don't hit me. Have a nice day. --John (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LeKay photos
Hi, Tyrenius. I noticed you've uploaded a bunch of photos for John LeKay with the note "Do not move to Commons." Why is this? —Bkell (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically so I have them on my watchlist. I rarely go to Commons and it is not possible to watchlist image changes in articles: if it were, then the problem would not exist. There is precedent for this, but I don't know now where the relevant conversation(s) occurred. There is of course nothing under GFDL to stop the images being copied additionally to Commons. Tyrenius (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * [moving this back here so it's in one place] Hmm, that's a pretty good reason, I guess. It's unfortunate that technical reasons present this problem, of course, since uploading freely licensed images to the English Wikipedia is a little "selfish" (in the sense that only the English Wikipedia can use them). I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to upload free images here and then instruct people not to move them to the Commons, because if everyone did that it would defeat the whole purpose of the Commons, but until we get some kind of universal Wikimedia-wide login/watchlist thing I probably won't actively do anything about it, because you have a point. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the specification for these particular images on various grounds. It's not a really high profile article likely to be watchlisted by numerous editors (art topics have a shortage of editors anyway). It is the type of artwork which some people intensely dislike and they may be tempted to express this. It is hard to get GFDL release of artwork and the artist has agreed to do so, so I feel reasonable precaution should be taken to safeguard that trust. It is the work of a living person, and this makes it a more sensitive issue than for historic artworks. It could have an adverse effect on the individual's reputation if they were misrepresented without that being spotted. If fair use images were used instead, then they would be on the English wiki and monitorable. It seems reasonable to extend a similar consideration to someone who has co-operated with wiki with GFDL release. As I said, there is nothing to stop the images additionally being on Commons for other language wikis, though I think this may be fairly academic at the moment.  I'm not sure what use other wikis would have for these images, unless they wrote an article on LeKay&mdash;which would most probably be a translation, when the images could be seen to be GFDL and therefore used. The other languages I've checked have quite sparse articles even on Damien Hirst as yet.  I'm sure the issue of monitoring images in articles must have been raised, so I don't know if anything is possible technically to achieve this or if it's in the pipeline. Tyrenius (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a fan of darkly playful installations, and the LaKey article was a joy to read. I'm amazed that you secured the artist's permission to release all those photographs under the GFDL, other articles on modern artists seem bare and dry by comparison. As for the commons issue, please consider appending the images with NoCommons. Although that tag will not preclude anyone from uploading a copy of the images to commons, the local copies would be kept and it would be possible to closely monitor any use on en.wiki. In case you would want to check usage on other wikis, you could always use the checkusage tool. There's also Freedom of panorama, although I'm not sure whether any restrictions apply to photographs released by the artists themselves. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, the Victoria and Albert Museum connection has the potential to be a treasure trove. Museums are usually apprehensive about releasing anything under a free license, lest they compromise the earning potential of their giftshops :) The best assurance anyone will have for contributing free content is the careful exercise of editorial discretion by volunteers of free projects. I just wish more editors here took the time to break it down for potential contributors, like you did for . ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

john lekay uploads
why did you write not to move to commons? Mangostar (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * oops, answered above. Mangostar (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pablo Picasso
Thanks for the heads-up--I say go ahead with deletion of Template:Picasso works which is superseded by the new template. Ewulp (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Apollinaire by Vlaminck 1903.jpg
Oops! Sorry about the wrong tag on that image. I know better but must have slipped-up. Thanks for the correction. Tchao ! Charvex (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays! and thank you for all of your good work and for all of your help. Much appreciated. Template:Pablo Picasso is very helpful, nice job. Modernist (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully your conclusion of the afd for Saidullah Khalik?

I count just one respondent who opted for merge, so your conclusion confuses me.

You wrote: I trust you saw these two references? You checked out these two references? Perhaps you do not regard them as reliable because there has been criticism that the allegations against the captives are shoddy, drafted in a hurry, by young, junior, untrained GIs with no background in intelligence? This is a criticism I have heard from others.

But aren't we supposed to keep our personal point of view out of our contributions to articles, and, forgive me, from our decisions as to how afds are closed?

Without regard to whether the DoD managed to compile allegations which are themselves credible, these references are fully reliable sources that the DoD leveled these allegations. Bush Presidency spokesman allege that all the captives "were captured on the battlefield". They describe them as "terrorists", and the "worst of the worst". The way I see it the notable mismatch between the specific allegations Saidullah Khalik faced, and those general allegations they have leveled against all the captives, means Saidullah Khalik should merit coverage.

Can I be frank? I am disappointed your closing statement didn't address this concern of mine. Geo Swan (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse
Indeed - I was also thinking of a sternly worded bit against weedy painting stubs in WP:VAMOS (hey, that's cute!). We have about 500 in Category:Painting stubs Happy Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Still-Life with Geraniums

 * Nice work, Thanks again. Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, Tyrenuis, for your suggestions. I apologize, as I am new to this, but could I have a little clarification? By adding that the article or section "lacks in-text citations" are you referring to the embedded citation in the first paragraph? Or are you referring to the article? Does a footnote section need to be added at the end? Thank you so much for your help !!--Nasema (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD Question

 * Ty, I firstly would like to thank you for closing out the Articles for deletion/Laurel McGoff. It was dragging on! You commented in closing simply "The result was Keep." I wholeheartedly agree with your judgement and wanted to ask it I could perhaps ask for a brief synopsis of your reasoning for that decision. As you probably could see, the matter was contentious and I would like to understand better admins closing and AfD policy use so that in the future I can better evaluate AfD's and make better justifications for Keeps or Deletes. I would greatly appreciate any insights you might be able to provide. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have any interest, there's a related discussion still going on here: IMD: Image:Laurel McGoff... VigilancePrime (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a reasoning in closing the AfD on Exploding head. In my considerable experience in participating in such discussions and nonexistent experience in closing them, a few words are often what sets seemingly arbitrary actions away from reasoned and understandable ones. Plus letting the people know that their arguments were considered is just plain polite.

I'm still in favor of the article because we know it's real, we know it's big, forget the rest and full speed ahead, but that's not relevant. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 09:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --OsamaK (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uploading images there makes long backlog. We must upload free images to Commons after all. Because Wikipedia isn't  for free images and audio files. Your helping is most welcomed, Please don't make backlog longer than that ;)--OsamaK (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

V
Thanks for your helpful additions to Las Meninas‎. The diagram definatly makes the text clearer. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again for the guidance, Ty. I think I got all the multiple references condensed.--Nasema (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gurm Sekhon
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gurm Sekhon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orderinchaos 12:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I did it again !! Sorry, got it now and will watch myself !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasema (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Doris Downes
Hi Tyrenius. When you have the time, would you take a look at the histories of this bio and its talk page? There has been a bit of squabbling over the last six months; I think the primary issues are 1). whether notability has been established, and if not, what is the proper procedure next, and 2). a history of reverting tags and blanking talk page discussions. Contributors (myself included) have periodically threatened to summon an administrator--I believe that your input would be welcome. It's the holiday season, and editors are getting jumpy. Stay cool, and happy new year. JNW (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First: I think you did a great job untangling this, and addressing the salient points. As for the other matter: yes, there's always more info. If you have any specific questions, ask away. JNW (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You won't find a lot on Google. Suffice it to say that I have been proficient at staying beneath the radar. In the last few years articles have been published in national art magazines, one of which was devoted solely to my teaching ; years ago a full-page illustrated write-up in the Christian Science Monitor (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Master, 1985); a solo exhibition in a small museum (with accompanying catalogue and cryptic essay ); numerous museum group shows, and mentions and reviews in small and medium-market newspapers. The secondary sources may or may not establish notability, and that's okay. I am just old enough to be reconciled to the concept that nothing is worthwhile if you have to force it. Thank you for your interest, and let me know if you have any other questions. And please feel free to delete this--this is meant for your perusal, not to advertise to others. Best regards, JNW (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. The logistics are such that it would take forever to get the information up on my site. It would actually be light years quicker to copy the material and mail it to you, but I appreciate if you would prefer not to. JNW (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I was thinking snail mail. Now all I have to do is figure out how to e-mail copies of newspaper articles! Velazquez, Vuillard and Vlaminck I know, it's the 21st century business that confuses me.... Ahh, there's something called a scanner. JNW (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Tyrenius, I hope I'm asking this in the right place...? Thank you for your help with the Steve Kurtz page! (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Fauvism
"Please follow wikipedia policies as in the links at the top of this page. In particular, note that wikipedia is not the place for personal theories per WP:NOR. Also kindly avoid adding nonsense as you did to Fauvism.[1] Thank you. Tyrenius (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * I do not think it is nonsense, the article as it was was one if the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia - its like someone had only read one opinionated book and used it as their only source. There was no mention of futurism - or far worse - primitivism.  Like I said in my addendum it should be rewritten by someone who's primary interest is in "Modernism" and "Art History" - (I haven't touched it since about 1994). - Just compare Fauvism with the article on Futurism.


 * The part concerning Nazism I'm not so sure about - like a lot of old things clear information can be very hard to find and proof is never more than about 80% - its quite possible I got a lot of information from a source that was wrong.
 * As for 'toaster' - the article was put there because the disambiguation page asked me to create one. I do know that Wikipedia does not allow any kind of original research or knowledge, but this use of 'toaster' hardly seems particularly original. As for the word 'robot' or its slang variants being connected to the word 'slave' or used in derogatory ways, this certainly must be already established - I suggest an article, and note that the robot disambiguation page currently does not have one.
 * Lucien86 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucien86 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for loading barnstar image!
Tyrenius, thank you for loading the barnstar image so that the barnstar I awarded user:rockpocket now displays correctly! It looks much more impressive to a videophile like myself with the actual graphics vs. just the text and intent. Lazyquasar (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi! Wondering why my edit about Michael A. Battle on the Steve Kurtz page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz), which was linked to Battle's Wikipedia page, was rejected? (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC))