User talk:Tyrenius/Archive11

A well meaning new user, Olpl has uploaded a nearly 3 mb version of Picasso's Les Demoiselles. I don't want to scare him off, and additionally I have issues with the reasoning over the previous debate that classified the 1907 painting as Fair Use- these have been noted at File talk:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg. I would much appreciate it if you could weigh in on this issue. Thanks, and happy New Year, Lithoderm 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Royal Institute of Oil Painters, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://theroi.org.uk/historyroi.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Royal Institute of Oil Painters and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Royal Institute of Oil Painters with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Royal Institute of Oil Painters.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Royal Institute of Oil Painters saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Ma^t_chups 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ROI have used the wiki text, not the other way round.[1] Ty 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well so they have, and it now says so on their page. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the accusation. Ma^t_chups 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this discussion here: Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist#Religion_field. Bletchley (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this deletion discussion here: [2] Bletchley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, re:[3] The painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures, do you think you could put together a version of the painting that would show the outline of the two triangles that form the work? Either way, I wanted to thank you anyway for all your contributions to the article, its been a though one to put together and your help has been most useful. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved version 6 onto the article. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Yes, as you can tell, you made a big impact on me when I was new. And in a time when so many expect a candidate to be "the very model of a modern Wikipedian," I feel they are a refreshing breath of common sense. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family and friends If there was more than one entry for "Family" then you would have a stronger argument. Of course, there is nothing inherently contradictory about being a family member as well as a friend to someone - which Theo was to Vincent. So, since there are not presently enough family members to justify an entirely different category, it seems logical to me to combine them. If you feel the need to discuss this further, please post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading? I disagree, especially with the idea that it is "misleading" to list his brother as one of his friends (especially since they share the same last name and anyone can simply read their articles to understand their relationship.) And his brother was his friend, so I can't imagine how anyone could be mislead to anything other than a correct idea. Anyway, if you want to post on talk there or at Talk:Vincent van Gogh, go for it. Or edit the template. The ball's in your court. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the note on my Dutch talk page. I will keep in touch. I bumped into another wiki-en admin in the past doing another cross wiki vandalism case also on wiki-en and got an official "warning" here <sigh> from a guy called Dirk Beetsta (ano was blocked indef in the end by another admin on wiki-en happily) so have become rather shy here. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the affair added here. MoiraMoira (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person at - User talk:72.69.113.237 acts, talks and sounds just like BetaCommand...hmm, can't be though...because BC is indefinitely blocked.....hmmm I wonder. What do you think Ty? Modernist (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Ty 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the rest of the community should know what he's doing at Grant Wood...Modernist (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post to WP:AN/I. Ty 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes good sense! Modernist (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ty. Would you have a look at the questions I've posed down by the old swimming hole [4]? Your thoughts, and possibly technical expertise, would be welcome. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Too many good responses! Raul has just joined the discussion and mentioned his ability to photoshop as well. More soon. JNW (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your willingness to help is much appreciated, as always. JNW (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the talk page there. It is useful for the arts editors to have input on how this issue is being seen by others. I would certainly appreciate your drawing attention on the talk page of WP:WPVA if you come across any visual arts articles with FU problems, so that these can be resolved collegiately. Obviously time is needed to work through such things. Ty 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'll bear that in mind. I have seen that the visual arts WikiProject is one willing to take non-free content concerns seriously, so any issues in future I will certainly raise on the project talk page. Thanks J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to have another look at the Hemingway article. It does clearly discuss his being exposed to the "Parisian Modern Movement." As far as your request for sources, a Google search of "ernest hemingway" +modernism yields 1.49 million hits, many of which are widely respected scholarly sources. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the article on him says is that Stein "introduced him to the "Parisian Modern Movement"", but not that he is considered an exponent of it. I'm not saying he is or isn't; I don't know. The article on Modernism says, "This wave of the modern movement broke with the past in the first decade of the twentieth century, and tried to redefine various artforms in a radical manner. Leading lights within the literary wing of this movement (or, rather, these movements) include:" If he is a "leading light" in trying to "redefine art forms in a radical manner", then this should be in the article on him, or, as there is no reference for it there, the Modernism list needs one to validate his inclusion per WP:V. We don't refer readers to google... As you say there are numerous sound sources, it shouldn't be a problem. Ty 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that we refer users to Google, only that the preponderance of easily available documents suggests that your double revert might have been a little hasty. For further doc, you might also have a look at Modernist literature and List of English-language first and second generation modernist writers. My question to you is why you would twice revert an edit on a subject that admit that you don't know about? You might consider accepting good faith on the part of other editors, or double-checking on outside sources before quickly reverting edits. TheMindsEye (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted once. The first revert was by Freshacconci, who cast doubt on the validity of the inclusion. I checked the article on Hemingway, which is quite extensive, but his apparent role as a leading light of modernism isn't mentioned. Content isn't validated by assuming good faith, but by referencing it, and any content that isn't properly referenced can be removed. It's up to the editor who wants to keep the material to provide the reference. I don't know why you're posting here again, instead of just inserting the citation. That is the way that content gets improved. Ty 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor citation.[5] Ty 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Leonid Afremov notable? Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_for_charity. I'm an art fan, too. Like, you know the one with the dogs playing poker? I LOVE that one. No, seriously-- I like Dutch realism, some varieties of modernism, and Hans Hofmann. I guess I like work that either blows me away with its representational accuracy (esp. old work where there were no photos) or with a kind of pure exploration of basic elements like color, line, etc. For some reason, Kandinsky does little for me.  J L G 4 1 0 4  15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't say the subject of that particularly grabs me, but whatever." You mean you don't go in for poker-playing dogs? My heavens! Next thing you know, people will start thumbing their noses at black velvet Elvises! Anyway, thanks for the response and invitation.  J L G 4 1 0 4  00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a hand here...thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Ty, that guy has some serious problems beyond spelling, and AN/I might be in the near future..Modernist (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted the image...[6], I wasn't even aware of the issue till now...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has passed FA...thanks to all your work..Well Done.Modernist (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Congratulations Tyrenius for bringing The Raft of the Medusa to FA and for building the Pyramids...Modernist (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Art Group#Fields for infobox. Thank you. Marcuslim (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please look at Talk:Mauro Saviola, I see that a date for his death has been added, but can find no evidence. As Wiki has been vandalised in the past, this is important.--Artypants (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting it, I wanted to know the correct course of action, and needed a second opinion, and better still an administrator's.--Artypants (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case of confusion re Don't alter another editors comments, that wasn't me. The strikeout and unsigned commentary came in here [7]. I've indented it properly and added attribution. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I've just pointed him/her to WP:TALK#Editing comments. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, something is wrong with my account. When I try to revert vandal edits, like the most recent one on Sistine Chapel ceiling, I get this message: "There seems to be a problem with your login session;this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again." I get a similar message when I try to undo the edit. Wiki pages take forever to load, but my connection speed is still 10136 kb. Is something wrong with the server? Lithoderm 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it fixed itself after I logged out and logged in again. Sorry to bother you. Lithoderm 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, will you please put {{db-g7}} tags on the crops of the photos User:Madeofstars uploaded so they can be deleted? She doesn't want them made public anymore.

The ones I know of: File:Rosy Wilde.jpg, File:Rosy-Wilde-crop.jpg, File:Rosy-Wilde-crop-1.jpg, File:Rosy Wilde Gallery.jpg, File:Stella Vine MAO 1.jpg, File:Stella Vine MAO 3.jpg, File:Stella Vine MAO 6.jpg, File:Stella Vine MAO 10.jpg.

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t00:43z

Madeofstars has uploaded the images under GFDL and the file upload page says in bold, "This release is not revocable."[8] They are now on Commons. Various of them are in use in articles, some put there by Madeofstars. There is no reason to delete them or my crops, which are legitimate derivative works under the GFDL licence. See discusssion at User_talk:PeterSymonds#File:Rosy.jpeg and Commons:User_talk:Geni#Madeofstars.

By "she", do you mean User:Madeofstars or the subject of the photos, Stella Vine?

Ty 06:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant User:Madeofstars, sorry if it's a he. I've left a comment on Geni's page asking if he/she wants to take over the OTRS ticket I've been working from. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:22z

Hi Ty, please keep an eye on the image at Milton Resnick and Abstract Impressionism some clown named Kjam1980 (talk · contribs) is switching them..here: [9] it should be an ab/ex ptg. not a vase...thanks..Modernist (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, I think Roman Republic, needs some kind of lock.--Artypants (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. I am unsure about the speedy delete of the Sergio Zavattieri article. It had references which verifies that the artist exists, and has exhibited. In addition the article says he is an established artist. As there is a credible claim of significance this doesn't look like a Speedy. Given that it was up for AfD, and so its notability would be established or not within 5 days at the most, and there is no pressing reason to remove it from Wikipedia (not an attack page, nor a copyright violation), would you have any objections to it being restored and the AfD re-opened? It may well end up being deleted after discussion, but it seems appropriate to have that discussion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article as it stands is a valid speedy. The content does not evidence a status that meets inclusion requirements and the links given are not ones that meet notability requirements either, being commercial sites that add content to pad out the ads and/or user-generated. There are a regular succession of such articles with such links and they inevitably get deleted, so a speedy saves using further community time. However, I believe that admin actions should always be subject to a second opinion, especially speedy deletes, so I have no objection if you feel it would be in the project's interest to run it through a full AfD. If so, please list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Ty 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Rodin777 (talk · contribs) is adding his own work to various articles, like George Bernard Shaw, Rembrandt, etc. I've asked him to stop...Modernist (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this issue here. I've never been too certain what the policy is around this. freshacconci talktalk 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them all in place pending the outcome of any consensus opinion with the exception of his portrait of Rembrandt which I deleted and warned him about..The Rembrandt addition is gratuitous and irrelevant...to say the least..Adding this discussion here [10]....Modernist (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal has flagged this bio, Brian Sherwin as not notable. I've been citing Sherwin's interviews on Wikipedia because I thought the consensus was that his work as a critic and interviewer is notable. It has been a helpful resource for improving visual art Wikipedia articles. If you look at the article you will see that his work has been cited in Juxtapoz, The Boston Globe, and other notable sources. So which is it? His blog is not just a blog it is also an e-zine. It is not a personal blog either because he writes for Myartspace. Is this vandalism? Artblogs (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ty, Mondernist and myself are going to work on this as our next project, with JNW hopefully if he comes back. I dont suppose there is any chance you might.... Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, here we go again, please keep an eye out another image hunter is on the prowl...Modernist (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- you removed a few links I added on several Monet pages (Rouen Cathedral series, Haystack series, Lily Pond series). The links are to artandcritique.com, a website that published art reviews and critique. I have no idea where else to discuss this and frankly i don't care -- if you are the guy who decides, that's cool -- but for your attention, someone else, I have no idea who, linked (as a reference) to artandcritique.com from Madonna Del Granduca page. I followed suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskmus27 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHATEVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskmus27 (talk • contribs)

Frankly, I am very surprised to discover that you do not consider Artweek magazine a credible news source for the United States in general, and California in particular? And, frankly x 2, I am surprised that you did not read the discussion page to see that I followed wiki policy and an impartial editors advice. Forgive the inquiry, what gives on these two accounts? --Art4em (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on this. I think you have posted to the wrong page. Ty 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I thought you might have an opinion on this. I noticed an addition to the Sherwin bio about the college he went to. I followed it and there is a debate about if he should be considered a notable alumni or not. I don't know the policy on that kind of information. You might want to check it out if you have time. Artblogs (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please delete this? I found a better, free image on the net and uploaded it to commons, but stupidly forgot to make the name different from the wikipedia file... I can't put the commons image in the article until this is deleted.. Lithoderm 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else did, but not before I re-uploaded the commons file under a different name... ughhh... Lithoderm 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, can you help me sort this out? This unsigned diff on my talk page [11] is from the same editor (User:Kjam1980) who was switching back and forth between the abstract painting currently in the article and an image of a vase..he claims that its his painting and he can do whatever he wants...I don't care what he does with the painting, although I like it, I just don't want to see the vase in the Resnick article..appreciate your help. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated...and the disambiguation of Pop art also...Modernist (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As The Guy says, we have come to a compromise of simply including "rock" as the genre. I was getting tired of the constant arguing in circles going nowhere. Of course, if significant other editors started saying it was obligatory to include both genres (as they are significantly sourced), that would obviously get my full support. Prophaniti (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus defaults to keep, so the difference is marginal at best. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were too many comments to justify relisting the discussion. And as you said, most of the delete "votes" had become invalid. Even so, there was not yet a clear consensus to keep the article, so I closed it as no consensus with an emphasis on keeping the article. If you feel it's necessary, I'll be happy to change the words "no consensus" to "keep", but I honestly don't think it makes a huge difference. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Changed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-edited the page and Kevin helped me figure out how to do it correctly. These sources are all okay sources and fully support what I wrote. Please explain why you deleted my comments? Thanks. Also, the information I added isn't nonsense. It is biographical information on Todd Goldman.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.188.176 (talk • contribs)

Oh darn! I am so sorry! Kevin said to add my signature after things and I thought he meant on that page. Gah! You guys are so smart, how do you know all of this stuff. Okay, I'm going to go back and delete all of my signature things. Thank you so much for teaching me. After I save it would you mind looking over it and making sure I didn't make any other errors please? I'll be forever indebted. THank you Ty! --65.80.188.176 (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I now get to put it there :)[reply]

Oh my gosh! That is kind of funny! It would totally be nonsense if I was the reference for all that stuff, especially the not so flattering stuff! Haha. Ty, thank you for helping me. I really appreciate it. I just went through and took out all of the --65.80.188.176 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) things. Would you mind giving it the once over? I feel like I owe you something so here's a fun emoticon: :-Dx --65.80.188.176 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that! We haven't interacted in a while but I'm pleased that you still have that level of trust in me! Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did provide references linking to the Maison des Artistes website, which is the most important artist organization in France working with and recognized by the French government, and this reference lists Mr. Turner's expositions as well as confirming that his work appears in the film. I realized that I have only written this article, but I've had a great deal of difficulty with it, and as a result I haven't had the time to deal with another. Any help your could offer would be appreciated. Thank you for your interest. Ulyssescoat (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth Artistes Contemporains does not list Turner in its list of 419 artists. As for Maison des Artistes it looks as though pretty much anybody can sign up....Modernist (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! An artist must be a member of The Maison des Artistes to be listed in Artistes Contemporains, as Artistes Contemporains belongs to the Maison des Artistes, and to belong to the Maison des Artistes one must be a recognized artist in France. Search for "Turner" on Artistes Contemporains to find Neal Turner's info. I have linked to it in the article on him as well. Ulyssescoat (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curosity, how did you spot that the Yeats pic had come into the public d. I found a nice image for the Virginia Woolf article from the same guy. Thanks, by the way. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have some issues at this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Zand, it seems 193.157.235.68, who is heavily involved in the creation of the said article is messing around with the AfD. I tried to clear the AfD up earlier and make it clearer for other editors to follow, but it's been messed around. I've not gone in and corrected it as I feel this should be noted by Admin. Artypants, ^Babble 15:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, will do in future, but I wanted to make sure and not get into a type of editing war, as it was weird all these comments messing up the AfD, and very much like Sock Puppets. Artypants, ^Babble 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you reconcile the alleged contradiction. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius -- can you have look at this? Please tell me what you think. [12] Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, alas, I mean arbitration, because I fear WQA is not going to deter Ikip's bad behavior, which means it will need to go to arbitration, at which point the content dispute is going to get thrown into the mix (as he tried to do at WQA). The fact that you agree with him on the content issues may persuade him to modify his conduct if you can give him some gentle reminders of WP:TALK. THF (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed this AFD early and then undid it... fine, mistakes are made, people correct them. But when you closed it you claimed "no consensus". I'm not sure how you can look at the AFD page and not see a clear and overwhelming consensus to delete. The few people who have voted Keep have done so with arguments that completely ignore Wikipedia policy. There also appears to be at least one sockpuppet vote to keep in there. I don't know if you'll be the one taking care of the AFD when it closes for real, but I cannot see any possible rationale to deny what is a clear and obvious consensus there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the nom allowed to strike votes as "bogus"??? diff I know he his nomination here pissed off the voting editor... and that caused the editor to display some poor behavior... but I thought consideration of arguments and !votes was up to the closer.... and not the nom. It seems his striking the vote is a touch presumptive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before encountered an editor as antagonistic as DreamGuy. He argues against every opinion that differs from his own, then takes his abuse to the editors talk page, and even into other discussions. I consider his tactics that of a bully, and I find his obsessive ownership of the delete opinion to be disruptive to the discussion. Please advise on how best to deal with such a guy. Esasus (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend WP:WQA if there is a WP:CIVIL violation, though perhaps an admin simply recommending WP:STICK to him will be sufficient. He's been snippy with me, too, when I asked him to back off of his criticism of another editor. THF (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any judgement about DreamGuy, but I have pointed out that he should seriously consider the comments about the manner of his participation.[13] The first stage of any problem is to discuss it with the editor involved. Ty 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It wouldn't have worked coming from me. THF (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the userfication. Should prove to be an interesting DRV. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

On March 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pékin Fine Arts, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, keep up the good work! DYK can always use more nominations! Shubinator (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, congrats on the DYK! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you've now made three reversions on Business Plot in the last hour. You deleted something because it wasn't cited, so I added a cite, and you deleted it again without discussing on the talk page. THF (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. I actually deleted the material per WP:SYNTH and have posted on the talk page. I'm not aware of 3RR, unless you mean this edit.[14] Per WP:BLP, unreferenced contentious material about living people should be removed and is not counted as a revert. Ty 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, this editor Sayerslle (talk · contribs) has been personally attacking me for a few days now...here:[15], and here [16], its become tiresome..and I've warned him..perhaps you might say something to him also. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things have quieted down, he seems remorseful...or scared..Modernist (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is a copyvio & seems unlikely to be notable anyway. Does it have to go to Afd? Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - sorted I think, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re. Pedro Nobre, could you please let me know in what way you think this article asserts notability? There are no refs, no claims of published articles, etc. Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this RfC can be closed? Cirt (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to comment to that effect on the article's talk page in addition to my talk page, so there is a unified place for the discussion. :) Cirt (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, a minor problem which until now I never came across: Émile Bernard is at present linked to Émile Renard in the norvegian WIKI; the norvegian entry is okay, but the header is wrong. How can I correct this? All the best, --rpd (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is your subject are thought I would let you know: Jonathan Myles-Lea. It needs a through re-work but I have no idea where to start and article creator is a noob. So any help would be super! --Cerejota (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, can you please fix this recent edit..[17]I'd do it myself but prudence prevents...thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you please transwiki Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy to wikia:annex:Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy and wikia:familyguy:Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Saw the rather extensive edits that you made to my page about 'Jonathan Myles-Lea', we actually I didn't, he did... then i got an email asking why all the information had disappeared...

I am aware that it wasn't fully referrenced, it was a work in progress. I hadn't yet had time to upload the other 15 or so reference books and various links to citations. Plus i'd only just worked out how to actually cite something and link it to the notes at the bottom, so i don't know if i was doing it correctly.

I understand that there need to be more checks on pages about living people, and you may have wanted to remove things that weren't correctly referenced, but i can assure you that i know him very well and was actually with me when i was updating it on a number of occasions so there was nothing on it that he was unhappy about (though i have to admit, his influence was in some of the more florid language) he is after all an artist.

I had however printed off a copy and was having it edited down by a gallery owner friend, to make it more striaghfoward and get rid of the unncessary jargon. He'd just sent it back to me much improved the day you edited it. I actually like some of the changes you made and i know it appeared long an ungainly especially the lists of works - the idea being that i was going to upload pictures of each of the works listed under each year heading.

With redards to citations, especially the quotes from Jonathan himself... is it appropriate to have these? and how should they be correctly cited, as the come direct from him there is no real link to them i can cite?

Also, the intention was to remove the section on his abstract work to a sub-page and similarly illustrate with pictures. Is it appropriate to do this? I'm unclear about what you deleted because it wasn't yet referenced and what was inappropriate information generally. I also noticed you actually deleted some of my references which i couldn't understand?

I'm new to this, i don't really know what is acceptable yet, i would like to put some of the information back on, but obviously don't want to hack you off or even know if its possible to selectively re-instate bits as i provide references or correct references...

Some explanation would be helpful.

doozersdo (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have uploaded a whole whack of reference material and tried to cite everything i can for the moment.

Still probably room for improvement though but i think i'm getting there.

doozersdo (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For contributing your thoughts yesterday--much appreciated. JNW (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, thank you for your notification and advisory on using one account. I assure you that I am using one account. I do have ties to the user michaelangeloh and he has inadvertantly used my account once since we were using the same computer. The entry was tied back to his attempts to take out some "self-congratulatory" comments on the Robert Mihaly article. I did not remove those myself, he did. We realized there was an error and are being careful to prevent this from happening again. Thank you for understanding and appreciating my honest effort. Carolinequarrier (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also

I would like to thank you for providing some balance to discussion on the Robert Mihaly page. I agree it's a borderline case. But I am strongly beholden to the rules and the rules are not that exclusive. So methinks a strong case can be made to give him a shot at barely making it. Carolinequarrier (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, John K. Melvin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John K. Melvin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ike9898 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Busy day yesterday for The Raft of the Medusa; has a pyramidal diagram ever been so carefully crafted? Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

I find that after this edit and this one, I've become rather curious to find out whether there is indeed a discussion of this artist's work in Kenneth McConkey's British Impressionism. Why is it that I have a nagging suspicion that the discussion of his work won't be a significant section of this book? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I just checked - not in the books. See Talk:Joseph_Vickers_de_Ville. Cheers Enki H. (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I've posted on the article talk page. Ty 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. I'll give it another go. Muse ed (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a WP:PROD tag on Simon Schubert. I see you have been instrumental to keep another article by the same author in an AFD so you might be in a position to rescue this article. Agathoclea (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, I have gleaned some facts from the web, and hope I did not waste my time. --RPD (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, if possible check this out: [18], I'm not sure how to proceed in fixing the template....Modernist (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty. Thanks very much for your extensive comments at the FLC. I've implemented quite a few of them (I think), hopefully to your satisfaction. May I beg a favour of you? If you really intend not to support or oppose the list, could you move your comments to the FLC talk page? Right now we're already in danger of a TLDR scenario for other editors! But if you'd rather keep them there for others to reference, I'd also understand entirely. Thanks again for your invaluable help. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ty. Just to let you know I'm withdrawing my FLC as it seems unfair to keep the supports that were placed before you made your extensive comments. I hope you will continue to help me bring the list up to the standard you consider worthy of featured status in spite of this, perhaps repeating your comments on the list's talkpage? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Well I'll copy over your concerns to the talk page and perhaps you could tell me which ones are addressed and which ones are outstanding and which ones are no longer valid? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ty. I've made a few more changes to the Turner list. Is there a chance you could give it a pair of fresh eyes and let me know all the shortcomings (i.e. points which would make you oppose its promotion if I relist it at FLC) in a new section on the talk page? I acknowledge I've probably failed to cover the plethora of comments you've raised but I'd really appreciate a milestone check. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I believe I've responded to all the comments now. When you get a moment, it would be great if you could check them over so I could relist it at WP:FLC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, You've been asked to join this group and I am not sure that you've seen this list yet: [19]...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing you because you are one of the editors with over 100 edits on Vincent van Gogh. Vincent van Gogh has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]