Sure thing. I just happened to notice what a mess you were struggling with in that article, and so I jumped in to help. Quite often, it's hard to work with single-purpose users, who have a hard time comprehending the bigger picture, for lack of comparison. One tries, though... Turgidson (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message regarding the adding of images. So nice to have some positive feedback, after my wobbly start with wikipedia. Think your suggestion of taking 'requests' for images is a good one although not quite sure how I'd go about keeping up with demand at the moment. Perhaps we could start to compile a list on my talk page and then the V&A webteam could look at it and decide how achievable it might be? This would also depend on copyright of images - you'll see all the ones I've used so far are of objects over 100 years old. VAwebteam (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and help in expanding articles. I started a few pieces, one for an artist, Doris Downes, but hit some roadblocks and got discouraged with negative feedback from the same user. I finally gave up and lost interest in trying to cite sources because I noticed other contributors were having the same problems when they were adding to the bio. With your help, I will go back and use the correct format for this and hope for the best! I am a student, so I'm not on wikipedia as often as I would like to be, to contribute in a constructive way. Love the Breughel above!! Thanks again. --Jordan23 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Jordan23[reply]

Hi Tyrenius, it looks as though the Discussion page on Steve Kurtz would meet the criteria for deletion due to unrefereced negative content about living persons. All the edits up through 12/01/07 and the entirety of the "discussion" appear to have been made by one individual using 3 different sockpuppets and constitutes a series of libelous, unreferenced (and untrue) comments. Thank you, (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I sent an email reply - did you receive it? (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. A happy new year! I am not able to make the En Wikipedia standard corrections on Leonard Oprea article. If you can give a little help... thank you a lot. God bless! --Judetadeus (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are very busy. I have perused the contents and I am confused about the meaning of an outcome, once it is voted on, as "No Consensus" and who decides what 'tips the scales'. Does this automatically mean that an AFD tag can be added again, and by the same person who put it on in the first place (not an administrator). Thank you in advance.Annlanding (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

Thank you for clearing this up- or less foggy. Will work on the article when I can get the proper sources, references, and there seem to be plenty to bring this up to notability and/or guidelines for wikibios. You might notice that there have been widespread deletions of material to the article, itself, making it difficult to bring it up to standards. I might also add that notability tags on other articles have been removed without voting, and without the big brouhaha that has ensued with this. Phewy!Annlanding (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article !WOWOW!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving your kind -- and extremely helpful -- welcome message on my talk page. By now I've familiarized myself in a general way with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I've practiced my technical skills by over-developing my user page.

I'd like to take on a project that's somewhat ambitious, and I could use some advice.

In the Portal:Arts/Things you can do, it's mentioned as an open, priority task to expand the article Modernist poetry. I would like to work on this.

The existing article is a 1-paragraph stub that has remained unedited and undiscussed since first written by User:Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC). The article has a Modernist poetry#See also, several of whose references to national schools are themselves not even stubs but would need to be created. It also cites two perhaps unnecessarily competing lists: List of modernist poets and List of English-language first and second generation modernist writers. Both of these lists are highly uncategorized and English-centric. Neither is remotely as good as the List of American artists that you praise on your user page.

So, this project is highly ambitious in that it would involve creating at least stubs for a half dozen presently nonexistent articles, besides expanding the main article, as well as restructuring two lists. So maybe somebody more experienced should tackle it.

On the other hand, though, nobody else has displayed any interest in it for 3 years. I can't even figure out who cited it on the Arts portal as needing more work -- or what they hoped would come of it.

I've been working on some notes (collapsed) under "Modernist poetry" at User:William P. Coleman#Arts - to do for what to do with it.

I've been thinking of doing the following:

• writing to Stirling Newberry and asking what he had in mind when he originally created the article stub
• moving the notes from my user page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry and asking for advice and help from them
• moving the notes from my user page to Talk:Modernist poetry and to the other talk pages involved -- and then just starting to work "boldly" on that cluster of pages.

Do you have any advice? Can you suggest the name of a user with enough time and at least some interest in Modernist poetry who would like to formally or informally mentor me? Or should I ask for a formal mentor through Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User? Or could I probably make it just by whatever advice I can pick up?

Thanks again! William P. Coleman (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your prompt reply -- despite being busy -- on my talk page. Thanks also for leaving the material about how to do references. That's one thing I didn't have to cope with yet while experimenting on my user page, and I knew that I'd need to learn about it soon.

As for your general advice, in a word you seem to be reconfirming that the main thing is, "Be Bold!"

I'll get started. William P. Coleman (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius, may I ask for your help? I think a template Post-Impressionism would be helpful, but - silly enough - I know how to edit, but do not know how to start such a template (I've tried, but without success). Would you be so kind to supply tops & tails (& if necessary, some nonsense groups to be cleaned up instantly), if you have a moment to spent? --rpd (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for letting me know what was going on. freshacconcispeaktome 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who claims to be this artist's personal assistant is attempting to change the year of birth. I'm not sure what the policy is for verifying birth dates. But there's WP:COI and WP:BLP issues. I suggested he contact you (hope you don't mind). Thanks. freshacconcispeaktome 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a very specific reason to be doubtful of the whole thing, which I can't go into publicly. This person seemed to want to deal with this via email so I sent him your way. freshacconcispeaktome 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you saw the humour in the statement.. nevermind.
Anyhow, I will soon be taking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersen Windows to deletion review, as far as I can see, the article is spam in its current form and the company is N/N per WP:CORP.<
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Wafer seems to be quite notable, however i'm not sorry I did nominate as dramatic improvements to the article are now being made, although the nomination was made in good faith.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Art Publishers is clearly N/N per WP:CORP if it goes Keep i'll def. take to deletion review as the company is in no way notable.
In all cases, I take deletion seriously. As far as is practicable I try to ascertain whether the article in question belongs on Wikipedia according to relevant guidelines. However, if you have any further compaints/comments, etc feel free to take them up with me.
Yours - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops! I'm sorry about putting it on your user page, mistake =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I might take up your suggestion and change the joke a little. Anyhow, thank you for the discussion. I'm aware that I may make a few controversial AFDs and i'm unrepentent about that and shall keep making them until I can press "random article" 100 times and not find an article that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page.Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 09:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the rollback function. I'll try to use it responsibly.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For bestowing the rollback option, which I will implement with a combination of humility and glee. I will take a look at it when I have more time--I'm off to teach. JNW (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the proposal to nominate me as an administrator. I did decline, but I am flattered by the suggestion. For the moment, the plan is to continue making occasional edits and chasing vandals. Cheers, JNW (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, a good result for all =). -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to use it wisely... freshacconcispeaktome 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, who to I set out a ref that I got from a newspaper which doesnt have a web link (its from 1919). regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite news | title = Irish struggle long backed in Hartford | work = [[The Hartford Courant]] | date = [[5 August]] [[2005]] }}</ref>. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dadildo! --Vintagekits (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message and I agree. Sorry I didn't chase it up myself. --John (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tyr. I just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative over the Vk issue. This is just about the most pertinent thing I have read in a year of this and succinctly sums up what I have been trying to say - not very well - using many-fold more words.

Just to reassure you, your comment is exactly what I want and, should he decide to listen too you, I would embrace any good faith efforts from Vk. I'm even willing to meet him part of the way, if he can begin to show good faith and persistently work in a civilized manner, in time I will begin to remove articles that overlap on our shared watch list (assuming there are other regular editors to keep an eye on those pages) thereby minimizing our sphere of overlap. I'm willing to do this, essentially restrict my own editing rather than ask him to restrict his, as a gesture of goodwill. But only if he can cut the incivility, abuse and snide remarks out completely and permanently. Rockpocket 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unblock him? He was obviously being provoked and that should be taken into account. I notice that when Kittybrewster and Astrotrain cause trouble they are never censured. Vintagekits has done a massive amount of work on Irish articles and made high quality articles on the Troubles. He has a large talent and this should be fostered and not attacked. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.185.211 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no obvious provocation, unless you call editing wikipedia provocative. Well, you don't notice much do you? Partisan view lacking objectivity, hence discardable: Astrotrain block log, Kittybrewster block log. I recognise Vintagekits' contributions, which is why I bothered to interrupt my Saturday night to post on his talk page, but he has not taken up the offer to be unblocked yet by removing specified material from his user pages. If you want to be taken seriously, sign in and don't use a sock account. Tyrenius (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Modernist (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(added response) I actually think both Arshile Gorky and Alexander Calder belong here, if for no other reason than they are both important and seminal influences on the advent of American abstract expressionism. The Gorky actually is a forerunner of the developement of a type of Abstract expressionism, a little beyond the Picasso derived influence. Modernist (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this, it requires a admin to undo.--Padraig (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Padraig (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tyrenius. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've found this voice and this redirect, but they are totally unreal, this player has never existed. What can I do? I'm not so expert about vandalism, I don't know what to do. Thanks TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Lammardo for sure, Reiner Hasan I've never heard before, I think it's a fake too...244 games for the Italy U-21, unbelievable! TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and for the links!I've also written more infos here...TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, put me on the spot. I'll have to do some searching--I'll add it in when I find it. freshacconcispeaktome 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try flickr. --evrik ^(talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronseal.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just been there! Shouldn't we both go to bed? Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. I've posted a reply to your Village pump (technical) question. DH85868993 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. Actually, I wouldn't have deleted the "bgcolour" line from the sample template; I think it's better to leave it there so that people can use it (or remove it) according to their needs. The template doc says to omit this parameter if you want the default blue colour. The imagesize parameter is a little bit different; if people leave it as "| imagesize = ", then they will get the default image size. Incidentally, User:Lanovsky appears to have messed up the template's doc page back on the 14th of August by substituting values for the parameter names (e.g. they replaced "name" with "Frederic Lanovsky"). I'd suggest this was a mistaken good-faith edit; they probably meant to edit a transclusion of the template, but ended up editing the template (doc) itself. I recommend reverting the doc page to the version of 11th August, but with the current list of interwiki links. I'd do it myself, but you protected it. DH85868993 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the template doc page. Regarding bgcolour, I made the note about removing that parameter if you want the default colour, bold, so that (hopefully) people should notice it. DH85868993 (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tyrenius. I notice you changed the "famous works" parameter to "key works". Did you actually mean to change the name of the parameter? Or did you just mean to update the text that gets displayed in the infobox? If you change the actual name of the parameter, you will need to go and update all the articles that transclude the template, most of which have populated that parameter. DH85868993 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change for the moment. A change like this which affects so many articles should probably be discussed with the relevant WikiProject (probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts) first. DH85868993 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for fixing the box on my user page. What was I doing wrong? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your very useful and completely voluntary info on repetitive references. I think I've 'got it' now. At least that particular little niggle. Plenty more, I'm sure... Nicstick (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help with the Alyson Hunter page. References re her work in printmaking books published will be sent to Naiz Feministart (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, Thanks for your information regarding my "vandalism". I'm genuinely sorry that I seem to altering the information currently displayed but much of it is either wrong or biased. Once again,I must remind you that Padraic E.Moore does not wish to be labelled as Christy Moore's son in this context. The Defastenists did not show at the Irish Museum of Modern Art. That was a misprint in Irish Times in which an architectural critic was asked about the cutural highlights of 2006. Several comments were mistakenly combined in the editing process. Furthermore,the information regarding the Celebration on the Guinness estate is reductive and misleading as is much of the description of the groups continued practice. This group of practitioners have effectively been misrepresented by this entry. If I make some changes in the coming weeks and subsantiate them according to sources etc,will they be retained? regards, Franz B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz Biberkopf (talk • contribs)

Seems to be overruling the consensus of three four admins and a couple of other editors. -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius, as you were so helpful with Las Meninas would you mind turning your glare towards Rokeby Venus. JNW, Johnbod and myself are going to turn to it soon enough, and all donations will be gratefully accepted. You wont be able to give up your day job on the strenght of it, but it might be worth a look nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyrenius for my new handy button. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Stand well back! Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember, you weighed in on the use of user pages to draft a future RFC, and whether such use might count as an attack page if not promptly converted from a personal on-wiki collection of evidence about a person into an actual RFC or ArbCom case. The above is an ongoing discussion of one such user page; part of the question is what counts as a "reasonable" period of time to bring the RFC or delete the draft. (Opinions differ from "a few days" to "several months.") The discussion seems to be floundering a bit on what this policy means, so, if you're interested, I thought you might have input to add. (If not, sorry to bug you.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it seems the text I used was worded well. :) Anyway, I noticed you've been granting rollback, and so I thought that you might want to know that two userspace template messages, User:Acalamari/Rollback and User:NoSeptember/Rollback, are available if you want to give a message informing someone if you've given them rollback. Thanks. Acalamari 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yes, you're right about there being some users who aren't able to become admins for various reasons but would benefit from having rollback: in the rollback proposal, one of the common reasons for opposition was that anyone who was trusted with rollback could be trusted with all the tools. In reality, there have been many users who have run through RfA who clearly know how to use rollback correctly, but are often opposed for either not enough article-writing experience or lack of knowledge of the deletion and/or blocking policies. Acalamari 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. :) Acalamari 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...on MfD page. Thanks for your input. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Sarah, it's not about her. OrderinChaos, however...
In November a non-encyclopedic discussion started on an Australian Election discussion page. It was started by Timeshift who claimed he didn't care that he was breaking the rules. Unfortunately, to stop the discussion I broke the 3RR rule. Someone else agreed and also deleted the conversation. Nearly a day later, OrderinChaos reverted the conversation and tried to continue it and reported me for the 3RR breach, getting me banned. In the process of trying to remove the ban (which, of course, I couldn't because I had breached the 3RR rule) other Admins became involved. Because of this, the conversation was again removed, and it was pointed out to OrderinChaos by another Admin that he was in the wrong to have returned it. This occured on Timeshift's page and he has a habit of removing any talk that portrays him badly. I saved the thread, which includes the comments made to OrderinChaos, and despite the fact that yet another Admin said that I was within my rights to keep it, he likes to bring in up whenever we meet. Ever since then, whenever Timeshift has a problem with me, OrderinChaos gets involved. This time, they joked on his page about him having to "slap me around" last time.
That's my beef with OrderinChaos. I doubt whether it's actionable, being circumstantial and requiring a dropping of Good Faith, so what's the point in making a complaint?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, yes, Block, not Ban.

I broke WP:3RR. I thought I made it clear in the above that that was the case and that I accept that I did wrong. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I know that users are allow to remove anything from their talk page, that's a side issue here. And yes, I know you're not allow to replace it. This is what I was pointing out to RObOX.

Sorry, I honestly remember it as "Slap him around" looking again, it wasn't... and I notice that he inserted a clarification higher in the thread 15 minutes after I addressed it. I won't say he deliberately hid it, but I will say that can see why I didn't see it at the time of the discussion.

What is the difference between arguing and trying to clarify or seeking clarification? I feel that I've been trying to clear things up. The stuff on OrderInChaos page, I feel is more a result of the fact that Timeshift removes comment from his page. You can't address him there, so when you both turn up in another place, the stuff that should be in his page boils over.

OrderInChaos's bias in Timeshift's favour (as represented by him being told he was wrong by two separate admins in relation to parts of incidents between myself and Timeshift on two separate occations), of course, didn't help things.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I feel I'm always right, I wouldn't do what I did if I thought it was wrong. Good faith assumes benefit of the doubt, I thought.

I did read it as "Slap him around", and I replied in that vain, and his clarification wasn't put in the best place.

"I notice that he inserted a clarification higher in the thread 15 minutes after I addressed it." Well, he did. I'm sure he did so in good faith. It was just a really bad place to put it, and I *can* see why I didn't see it at the time.

"I feel that I've been trying to clear things up." "Clarify thing" would be better wording, that doesn't make me sound like I'm the better man. I'm not.

"I won't say he deliberately hid it", because I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

"The stuff on OrderInChaos page, I feel is more a result of the fact that Timeshift removes comment from his page." Well, I feel that it was mostly there because me and Timeshift were arguing on it. Chaos added to things, but it's his page so he should, but I really think it got out of hand because of me and Timeshift. I think the main reason that me and Timeshift were doing it on his page and not Timeshifts is because Timeshift deletes. But it was *me* and Timeshift. Not just Timeshift. Chaos was the victim of our behaviour.

"OrderInChaos's bias in Timeshift's favour" Yes, that is what we are discussing here. You asked me to report OrderInChaos, I'm asking if it's worth doing, or don't I have enough?

"I suggest you rethink." I think I need to reclarify. Sometimes I'm not clear in what I say, which is why I need to re-reply to things to fix mistakes in what I said in my original reply.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to reply here, even though you asked me not to. I've replied in full on my talk page, and hope to see you there.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing an article on a really interesting guy, and one of my favourite writers, Tony Geraghty. See if you can improve it. --John (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tyrenius ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, but I think I have a problem with another "member." Correct me if I am wrong, but the way these dynamic encyclopedias work, is that proper names and concepts should be "linked" even if there is no page as yet. That way when someone creates that page, all the previous references will link to it. I just wrote an article and someone came and removed all the links to as yet empty pages. Even the ones I was meaning to work on. This doesn't seem to make any sense. I am sure there are no bots to go around "linkifying" references at a later date. How do I deal with this user? I'm afraid to say "boo" because I am terrified of encouraging vandalism. EraserGirl (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remove comments from my (talk) page? I am slightly disturbed that my first contact with another wikipedia "editor" was as a target of mockery. I have browsed other talk pages and found that being attacked is not uncommon. I don't want to give others the impression that I am belligerent and perhaps invite future conflict. EraserGirl (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your advice. EraserGirl (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creamy3 has once again removed the linking brackets from several places in the Dorothy Hale article. I will put them back once you tell me it is safe to do so. What does this action serve? EraserGirl (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius, thanks for your comments but I think that EraserGirl can defend herself. I'm being very civil about this. Thanks again. Creamy3 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it! I have this translation of J.J. Navarro : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2003/05/18/cultura/1397774.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddoris%2Bdownes%2Bel%2Bmundo%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DvQ0%26sa%3DG

I also have the D.M. but I had to pay for it in order to get it out of the archives. I will do a search in my files (and hope I still have) and forward that as well as other sources. Thanks for clarifying the Afd and notability. (An aside: I am working on an article about Agnes Pelton and was surprised someone else had not started a bio.)Annlanding (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

DM is Dolors Massot, the author of the ABC piece. Sorry for the initials. Annlanding (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

The link I have for this archived piece is now dead. I will request another- it says "ABC/Cataluna -8/5/2003-historia del plomo de la cultura, Dolors Massot y La Norteamericana Doris Downes". Hmmmm Annlanding (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

I will remember to log off whenever I'm done but like I said, my brother Adam knows my old password and logged on. Thanks. Creamy3 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. Would you like to take a look at the last few entries to the talk page for Women artists [1]? I think that a section for 21st century artists is appropriate [2], but needs a better world-view, and you might be able to add some good names, and improve the passage in general. Jenny Saville, anyone? Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman - might need to be a bit of a discussion about the way forward from this one? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'd have assumed that Sussexman's unblock request would now be shot down in flames, the two confirmeds to be blocked as sockpuppets of a banned editor, and discussion on the other possibly on TER, especially with regards to COI? Is there really much else to discuss? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do the honours? I'd really rather not start a discussion about recommending editors I've been in conflict with be indeffed? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems certain people aren't happy, and think we should assume good faith. Where's the banhammer? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect people to react when faced with this lie sheet? David Lauder (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty... this is a DOUBLY indefblocked (One ArbCom banned, one indefblocked) for real world legal threats (not just, "What you're doing is illegal" (which is bad enough), but actually someone solicitor's letters threatening legal action (again, TWICE!) person. Two seperate accounts. Twice after being banned, they've just created new accounts and gone on. They have lied to investigating Foundation members about how this was "Torturing the health of a dying old man" to get the whole thing swept under the rug by a courtesy deletion of a freaking ARBCOM case (and you know that rarely happens) I know we're trying to AGF here, but AGF is NOT a suicide pact. I'm really shocked to see your defense of this user. SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty: Email me with your email address, please? I have some further information on the whole history of this, and I'd be glad to share it with you. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is more disruptive to this wiki project - having deep undercover sock that you have used on every issue for over a year or telling someone to f*&$ off. Let's see ya now!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a competition! Obviously neither is helpful. Tyrenius (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VK, this took a detailed investigation followed by a checkuser. There was no possible way that Ty could have known any of that. Stop gloating already - Alison ^❤ 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a race to the bottom, VK. I have made a recommendation on WP:TER on how to deal with this, going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gloating all I am saying is that much if not most of my trouble on wiki stemmed fae these "editors" ganging up on my, their vote stacking etc and now it appears it was just one person after all!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are gloating, and nowhere does it state in the checkuser findings that they are "just one person after all" so both yourself and David Lauder are quite incorrect in that regard. Furthermore, VK, you generate enough trouble of your own without any assistance from them - Alison ^❤ 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ty. Thanks for drawing my attention to the WP:SIGNATURE#Length guideline. I've found ways to trim the sig down to 393 chars and still retain the basic look I desire. I hope this 29% improvement will please you, however if you'd like to see it trimmed down further I'm going to need some assistance, as I don't know of any method which will keep this look in fewer characters. It's a fun challenge to try, mind you... —  X  S  G  07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tyrenius. Thank you for your note. It wasn't nonsense. I put that tag by mistake. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius, I'm being harassed by this editor User talk:Icarus of old, he continuosly adds this phrase - Paul klee was the greatest modern artist with skill and colour - on Paul Klee and after I delete it, he puts it back and he says that I added it. I've just warned him, he looks like trouble to me. Can you check it out? Thanks Modernist (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the Vadukul affair; can I now interest you in this monster? One way or another, I mean. Thank you for considering it. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame you. Oh well, if you can't beat it, then join it. Vote! One way or another, and anyway it's not a vote of course. Bring all your friends, too. Who knows, this could become the year's longest AfD. It's certainly heading that way, and it already has a certain gruesome charm. -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I'd take this photo while I was out and about. I don't know how they managed to take this one as you have to go a couple of hundred yards down a dirt track to get near it, then the bridge it's attached to is at the top of a fifteen foot bank. There's no possible way that photo was taken without machinery.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good thanks. I'd have needed to have levitated to get better light in the actual shot, and I don't have much in the way of image processing software. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Assuming I can find it (the location given is very vague) I'll probably take some pics of this by Andy Goldsworthy at some point. Luckily that seems to be at a sensible height for photography.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really bothered either way. I just thought his article was definitely lacking a photo (what's an artist's article worth without art to look at?), so figured I'd add one seeing as one exhibit is reasonably close to me. Then I found the others on suitable licenses, and the more the merrier.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha!! I just deleted it :) - Alison ^❤ 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (okay, so I moved it to Commons :) )[reply]

Um. You missed Image:Once Upon A Time-1.jpg, and Image:Once Upon A Time-2.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that actually. Photographs of art, statues, commercial packaging and often toys are not permitted which is why I uploaded it here and not to Commons, so get your hammy fists working and put things back the way they were pleease. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Tyrenius (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was talking to Ali re the hammy fists by the way, it's a standing joke. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I assumed! Commons version marked for speedy deletion. Er, Ha ha!! unquote. :) Tyrenius (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now deleted by... Alison... She certainly likes deleting your image. Ah well, all's well that ends well.Tyrenius (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol - what a mess :) - Alison ^❤ 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep quiet, no one will ever know it happened! Tyrenius (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for a price :D - Alison ^❤ 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bank account is this a way.Tyrenius (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's that line about two people can keep a secret, only if.... :D SirFozzie (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read so many wiki pages I can't remember where I read something. Am I right in thinking that I can't rename an article, I can only recreate it under the new name and flag the old one for deletion? I have been loathe to add a deletion flag to anything and I am not sure how to do it. I am "splitting" an article into a (book) and a (film) EraserGirl (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! that worked perfectly, the purpose of the Move page wasn't completely obvious to a dolt as myself. 84 Charing Cross Road (book) and 84 Charing Cross Road (film) now have separate pages, unfortunately they BOTH still need extensive expansion. I picked if off the To Do list for the film project, I am not up to inventing work for myself. I am using the housekeeping lists to practice small wikitasks. EraserGirl (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification, but perhaps in future someone may move it again, as 84 Charing Cross Road is an actual London address and the intitial Film Project instructions were to create (film), (book) and (play). EraserGirl (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not equally weighted, the original source material takes precedence, but of the four adaptations, only the book and film are generally known. So, your fix is perfectly reasonable. I am curious as there are about 50 more book/films that need division and I will again have this problem. Thanks as always. EraserGirl (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to add some more images to Andy Goldsworthy there's plenty of free images right here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search I used filters the results for all the images that can be used here freely. AFAIK (and I'm not a copyright lawyer) the reason they aren't allowed on Commons is that copyright law on photographs of sculptures varies from country to country, and Commons is designed for images that can be used freely on any Wiki project. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your reply till now for some reason. Panoramafreiheit is more relevant than the Wikipedia essay, in particular the part about non-commercial use in certain countries which explains why they can't go on Commons. I don't think there's a problem with the images here, as if there was you'd expect a similar message to the one on Commons. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. I apologize for my outrageous behavior the other day; a block was called for. May I ask what your age is, tell me if that's too personal. All the best. Creamy3 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Tyrenius. Have a good day. Creamy3 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by (no need to respond!) to say how much I agree with your posts on WP:AN/I; especially your response here (I thought exactly the same thing, but couldn't be bothered to reply - when I next checked, you had written what I thought). I'm afraid that you and I are clearly in the minority, and I also think its unfortunate that we run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The two cases, whilst superficially similar, also have some considerable differences; stir in the harassment directed at Rockpocket and the general war-weariness, and we have an example of 'hard cases make bad law'. Yours, etc.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My twopence worth is this. I believe vk and Sussexman each caused at least one person to leave the project. And that each has been guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Both have attacked areas of interest to the other in a tit-for-tat manner. Both have been disruptive in Irish articles. And Vk has been guilty of stalking, swearing, threats, drunkeness and incivility. Vk is still being provocative to Lauder on WikipediaReview. Lauder is still in denial about checkuser and has attacked neutral unbiased admins. Vk has made valuable contributions to boxing. Lauder has made valuable contributions to historical articles. Wfrank has made valuable contributions to Singapore. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's quite a fair assessment, although I haven't (and can't be bothered to) look into the Sussexman case in detail. Oddly enough, I last checked Wikipedia Review about a couple of hours ago, and there was a new forum dedicated to Rockpocket, which seemed to be a continuation of a certain somebody's Talk page; looking again just now, its disappeared (probably with good riddance). Conclusion that I draw: just when I'm prepared to give somebody the benefit of the doubt and show a bit of good faith on the assumption that a leaf has been turned over, I discover that, in fact, we're back at square one (to mix my metaphors). --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a pretty fair summation of the whole sorry saga, Kittybrewster. Well said - Alison ^❤ 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Alison. One thing that strikes me is that many users do not violate policies, even though they encounter problematic situations (I commend my fellow admins for their behaviour re. this whole affair), or make the odd mistake, but clearly learn very quickly and move on, with no real harm done. They can have differences, but resolve them through reasonable discussion. Those that do not do so, absorb a huge amount of time and energy of other editors and admins. Tolerance is extended to them that I cannot imagine being extended in another walk of life. Tyrenius (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has been afflicted by a box-formatting glitch for some time, from here down. You're good at that sort of thing - any chance of a look? Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - sorted. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. I am asking you and Modernist to take a look at the current editing of Art, for you thoughts. I don't have the energy for a full-fledged edit war, and any input either supporting or contradicting me would be welcome. Thanks, 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

How does one start their own WikiProject Tyrenius? Get back to me when you can. Creamy3 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. And I'm okay with other users having the word "Creamy" in their name. Thanks for everything. Creamy3 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. I have an urgent problem, that´s why I´m asking you, if your time allows it. I have difficulties (NPOV) with the article about German artist Christiaan Tonnis. I improved it and added only sources from newspapers, as it was recommended. I´m not a Professional Wikipedian, my English isn´t fluently, could you please take a look and improve the article ? Remove or add a sentence? It would be very helpful for me, if you could also write your thoughts about that article on the talk page. Thank you so much ! Blaise Mann (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tyrenius, for your visit and encouraging words ! Your "Guide to referencing" has been very helpful, so now I feel better with the article and correct citations. Thanks again, your help is appreciated so very much Blaise Mann (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter I mean [3]. I'll let it lie, but I worry he won't. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is evidence of how you will let it lie? I had no intention of having any contact with you again, after your repeated off-topic, yes, trollish, comments. So far as I can tell, you are the one who will not let it lie, given your own comment above. John Carter (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a post to me, John, not to you, and I took it to be seeking advice, which is reasonable enough. You seem to me to be creating a chilling effect by labelling posts "trollish", and invoking WP:DENY was out of order. AGF - Johnbod is an editor in good standing, who has contributed a lot to the project, and there is no reason to assume he does not have genuine concerns. Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius. Would you like to join the Creamy Army WikiProject? If so send me a message and just add your name to the list of participants. The only requirements to be in this fantastic group is that you have to change your username to something with the word, "Creamy" in it. If you do join, you'll find yourself with a high ranking position within the group. All the best to you and yours. Creamy3 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe_Castiglione_(1829-1908). Kittybrewster ☎ 09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are absolutely right. The refs are all [4] and I was following verifiability rather than sense or truth! Kittybrewster ☎ 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Much better. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want the new version of Art in Ruins deleted altogether. It entirely misses the point and totally misrepresents the artists. It is better to have no article than this arbitrary edit and random references. If everything on Wikipedia is an random as this then we are all wasting our time. User:HannahThistle (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.138.251 (talk) [reply]

No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that it was nice of you to agree to the unblocking of Sarah777. Fingers crossed it makes a difference. If not, at least you'll have tried. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got this odd message. Do you think you could check it out? The page has always been a magnet for Italian/Croatian nationist strife, & most recent edits there have been from User:Aradic-en, but he does not seem to be banned. Plus the page had a long and inglorious history before he came along, & at the least the earlier stuff should be left. Thanks! Plus same thing here just now - Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico. Next stop Andrea Meldolla I expect. Actually User:GiorgioOrsini seems to be the problem - he does go back aways. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - User:GiorgioOrsini is now banned as a sockpuppet in fact. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From memory 99% of the stuff on all 3 pages was rows about their nationalities and how to name the page. Long documents in Croatian etc. The sensible thing would have been to archive it all - no one ever looks at them. I think I will suggest that. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... or not quite, because this is about massacres, not a masacree, altough you may want to make your way to the police officer station.

See my explanation of my AfD closure at Talk:List of events named massacres#Explanation_and_question_from_AfD_closer, which quotes you rather heavily.

This one is a bit of a minefield, and I'm beginning to think that a $50 fine from a blind judge would be preferable to this debate ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Long may it continue. :) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Tyrenius, I have added an entry to the art manifestos page but somebody keeps deleting it. I have seen your comments on the talk page about being comprehensive and notability etc. and you seem to take a fair and balanced view about things, therefore I'm asking your opinion regarding this matter. The manifesto in question has been widely circulated (physically) at private views and art colleges in the London area and has quite a few people in strong agreement with its aims. To deny the wider public access to this kind of information seems without foundation, as it is just as valid and probably more widely known than some other manifestos on the list at the moment. The user who insists upon deleting it cites the fact that newer art movements rarely have notability, which feels to me like a pre-judgement of the situation in hand, especially when the said user resides in Canada and is therefore removed from the physical reality of the current underground art scene in London. I hope the standard for inclusion on wikipedia is not being based on the amount of google results a particular subject has, as that would seem to be a sad day for the free and accurate flow of infomation. This was my first entry on wikipedia, but my experience so far feels like I've come up against a wall of zealotry and censorship. Anyway, I've offred him a compromise now, so we'll see what happens, but if you could still let me know what you think about this issue then I'd much appreciate it. Cheers.--S7740 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I accept your point, but are you therefore going to retrospectively apply the same criteria to all of the other manifestos listed in the article? Otherwise it would seem unfair that some continue to be listed with no verifiable source, while the one I submitted was rejected for the very same reason. If you are now enforcing this policy as standard procedure then I respectfully suggest that it should apply to all of manifestos equally, for it would seem illogical to include some as acceptable and others not based purely upon the date of their inclusion in the article.

Best wishes. --S7740 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment of 2nd March - I'm OK with that. HannahThistle (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		To Tyrenius, for all the very great work and thought you have put in, to ensure that an article is not deleted, even though the only thing which just about everybody involved with it agrees on is that it isn't a very good article, but has survived deletion repeatedly and become a POV-magnet. And maybe sown the seeds for making it a useful article. Keep up the good work! John (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) and BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I would suggest that as none of the manifestos in the article section 'list of manifestos published on the internet' are currently referenced then they should all be removed at once. I am willing to do this if nobody else has the time or the inclination. Personally I would have rather they stayed, and more added over time, so that people who are interested in such things could easily find them all in one place, as you also mentioned some time ago on the discussion page. But I also feel strongly that if a rule is going to be enforced then it has to be applied equally to all, and with no exceptions. Otherwise certain movements might feel marginalised or discriminated against by a perceived arbitrary selection process. Please let me know if you have any objection to the immediate removal of these manifestos, because I would prefer that it happened as soon as possible, in order that no questions of bias should arise. Thank you. --S7740 (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like WP:POINT but plus points for asking first. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have already looked into the manifestos listed under the 'published on the internet' section and they all have no independent third party references in existence as far as I can determine. My entry was deleted for the same reason, therefore in the spirit of equality I again respectfully suggest that they be removed under the policy of verifiability that you say you wish to see enforced. As I said to Kittybrewster, there should be consistency in the application of policy, so that it doesn't appear that favouritism based on particular political or aesthetic considerations might be an issue here. The justification of the continued allowance of inclusion of information in an article based purely upon the fact that it already exists there, even though it is blatantly in contravention of judgements being made against other equally valid sources of information seems like an absurd injustice, and one that is simple to remedy. Rules should apply to everybody equally, or not at all. That is the point I'm making here, not some meaningless attempt at retribution as alluded to by the term 'pointy'.

It would seem that some of the community here are fond of quoting rules, protocol, precedent etc. but are somehow reluctant to abide by the very same conditions they expect others to operate under. Fairness has to be seen to operate within this system, otherwise the rules themselves have no credibility, and will become known as merely being a tool used to suit the agendas of particular individuals or groups.

As for you previous mention of a 'holding tactic', this could be interpreted as motivated by protectionism, i.e.; 'this is MY article and I like it just the way it is thank you'. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I think you'd agree that it's an unpleasant scenario that we would all prefer to avoid.

Anyway, considering that the entry on Neo-Externalism was 'removed while under discussion' and until sources can be found, then it is only right that the same should happen with the other manifestos I have mentioned, unless of course you know of verifiable sources for them. Keeping in mind the impossibility of proving a negative, I put it to you that it is not enough to shift the burden of proof onto the person who questions the verifiability of material, but instead it should be the responsibility of those who wish to see the continued inclusion of material in an article to provide evidence as to why it should be there. As you have repeatedly shown through your actions and comments regarding the Neo-Externalist Manifesto. Thanks for your time. --S7740 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really must get away from this computer and return to the real world. While doing some writing and e- correspondence, it is so easy to compulsively check my watchlist. Compliments on all your good efforts. Best regards, JNW (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find the answer to this, but I am only getting more confused. How do I tag an image that I uploaded so that it will get deleted. Sometimes I do this late at night and the only thing I can't change once I upload it, is the name of an image. I have accidentally uploaded two images with typos in their names. I have since uploaded corrected versions, but I still need to delete the irrelevant ones. My only thought it to remove their license info and they will get removed eventually, they will also be removed because they do not link to an actual article. If I could just tag them it would be better. Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if I told you how much I looked for that, you would laugh. EraserGirl (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me why you removed my comments from this talk page? --64.247.122.178 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out how categories Category:Renaissance manuscripts and Category:Books by artists have gone red, without (I'm fairly sure) appearing at CfD. is there an easy admin way to find out? I think someone may have been emptying them & then speedy deleting them without going through CfD. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: should Template:Paintstamp be zapped, now the painting project is deceased? Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two will never give it up. They are spreading vicious lies about me and I'd like for it to stop. ONIH doesn't have the courage to comment on my page because he knows I'm right! So could you please block them for good? They've attacked so many other users I don't even know! They spread vicious lies about them too and make us appear as anti-semetic when they use anti-semetic comments and I have never used one in my life!Qwenton (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Qwenton seems to be commenting on editors rather than edits. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I agree and have blocked the user. --John (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'd first of all like to clarify that I was using the example of the Neo-Externalist Manifesto to highlight the inconsistencies in the application of Wikipedia guidelines to this article, and not as a determining factor in the subject under discussion based on a comparison of each various movements perceived popularity as measured by Google results. On the contrary, I have already previously accepted the fact that it does not presently meet the criteria of verifiability as required by Wikipedia, and am not arguing for its inclusion at this time. I first included it to the article in accordance with your own comments regarding notability etc. on the talk page, but since you informed me that the standards have now changed I have not requested it be put back into the article, but merely ask that all of the other material there be subject to those same standards, as is perfectly reasonable and fair. So I would hope that we can now move on from that issue, and concentrate instead on the other manifestos in the list. Some of the references you have provided in your reply seem entirely spurious, regarding Thinkism for example...reference 2 doesn't mention the Thinkist Manifesto at all, reference 3 is a thesis, (original research) therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia, reference 4 does seem initially acceptable, reference 5 mentions Thinkism but not the manifesto, and references 6 and 7 are just external links to the homepage of the movement, therefore meaningless in this context. I would respectfully suggest that a much higher standard of research than this needs to be applied to the information included in this article, using properly verifiable independent third party sources as its basis for inclusion instead of just a random collection of search engine results. Wikipedia policy itself states that unreferenced material should be removed until sources can be found for it, so I therefore propose that at the very least that a template be clearly applied to the 'internet manifesto' section unequivocally stating that the information contained therein is currently not verified and needs to be cleaned up by the community. In this way other people can become involved in the process to remedy this situation and consensus built. Also a time limit should be set for this process, in order that the unverified material does not remain there any longer than is absolutely necessary. If you are unwilling to agree to this, then I again respectfully request that the information in question is removed at once until verifiable sources are shown to exist. Thank you. Thank you--S7740 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not be discussed at Talk:Art_manifesto ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you are attempting to prove, or are simply trying to investigate, whether an artist, artistic movement, or other art-related topic is notable, what are some of the sources you check? I ask because of the AfD currently underway on Massurrealism, and I want to see if any reputable sources in the art world have covered this so-called "movement." Thank you, as always, for your efforts. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I am being harrassed by Traditional unionist on my talkpage. It resulted from my removal of his addition of Unionist pov from the Dunmanway article. Could you please revert his pov change and warn him about 3RR and pov insertion. I do not want to engage myself - but this is a good test of whether the civility that some Admins have been preaching actually applies in practice. If TU isn't dealt with the choices become limited somewhat. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat my objections to this. The fact that I would need to is telling.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of WP:3RR by TU:

1. cur) (last) 23:35, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; Independence granted in 1949, recognised from 1937 or 1922, not 1918. (TW)) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 23:33, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (Independance declared 1918 thus Brit was occupying army; pl DO NOT reinsert pov) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; 1918 is not independance - pov. (TW)) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (post 1918 election; thus fact, not pov) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 17:51, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (→History: pov) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 14:57, 3 March 2008 Dppowell (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (rm unsourced statement (13 months)) (undo) Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, thanks for your reply. I understand the press of real life concerns, so no apology is necessary. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would request checkuser, if WP:RCU didn't explicitly list it under "unacceptable requests". Besides, I now suspect that User:Weareallone and User:Papillonbleu are posting under different IPs, so it could likely accomplish is to identify one of those accounts with Bellinghaus' earlier IP, which probably won't change anything. The policy says that meatpuppets are considered the same as sockpuppets, but two business partners colluding is clearly harder to identify than a prepubescent vandal logging on with two accounts. It's unfortunate, because starting that case has done nothing but make me look bad and achieved nothing in terms of identifying AfD voting irregularities. Thanks for your suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sockpuppetry case doesn't seem to be going anywhere on it's own (does an admin ever get involved?) I eventually took your advice and submitted a RFCU, using the "other" category. The results were mixed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tyrenius, given your additions to Las Meninas, I would appreciate a once over to the above naked pic. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you deleted Jellyfish.com on 12 January 2007. The article has been recreated by me and it has passed a non-notability request, a lack of references request and a deletion prod by another editor. It still has problems because it's currently badly redacted and with advertisement tone, but I think it no longer qualifies for deletion. Please feel free to take a look at it, since you might remember how the original article was and why you deleted it and I would be interested on hearing your opinion. Also, is there some way to see deleted pages so I can compare the versions? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: since I found no deletion debate for the article, I assume that it was a very bad article and that it was speedily deleted at the time. I think this new re-incarnation should fare better. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I found a pair of things for the article on the old history. Thanks for the attention --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ty!

I am about to leave Wikipedia for the second time and now definitely. The reason is User: Modernist, the rest you can find on the Neo-Impressionism talk page. I really have other things to do than to discuss quisquilia with lunatics and their fixed opinions more or less free of actual research, who nevertheless pretend to know everything and to know everything better, and behave as if they to own certain WP-pages. It took a while, but finally I understood there are no means to stop this. I have other business that urgently needs my attention, I have enjoyed to distract myself contributing to WP, and I am grateful to have been in touch with you for a while: You're one of the few I'd like to know personally. THank you.

May I ask you a final grant? Please delete (or protect) my personal pages, like you did before. Adieu, --rpd (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feature the constant barrage of personal attacks from this user to me. He is constantly attacking me, and I am tired of it. I'd appreciate the personal attacks to stop.

I have been patient and I have tried to basically stay away from this user, however out of the blue he sent me a message on my talk page - March 17 about an edit that I made in January which was in essence a save of a very serious problem that he created at Neo-Impressionism. Here is how he left the gallery in the article on January 15: [5]

And on January 25 I changed the gallery to this:[6], I haven't made an edit there since January 25th.

The other day (March 17) he sent me this, out of the blue:

I see you have again forced a specific size for gallery. This may work well on your desktop, but definitely not on all. Therefore, please reconsider that a default setting may allow a better effect on the screens of other collaborators. All the best, --rpd (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: With due respect - this was your last edit before I changed the gallery. - [7], on my computer the gallery ran clear into the Signac. I changed the gallery, added a section, and now I'll return the gallery to normal....because I think it'll be ok now.....you're welcome. Modernist (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and then:

the gallery was altered because of your erroneous edits. I've changed it back now thanks to my changes. Perhaps you should be more careful in the future. Modernist (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, I am have no interest in continuing any dialogue with this user. as to WP:OWN I think he has a serious issue with it on any number of pages that he seems to think are his private articles like Post Impressionism. He throws a lot of abuse my way, and I am tired of it. Things got heated up between us after that. Modernist (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. above two threads - calm down, folks. You're both very good contributors and we don't want to lose you. You are obviously looking at monitors with different resolutions, so something that is fine on one is not on another etc. I suggest you agree to work on different articles in the short term and maybe involve other editors by posting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts. Ty 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as far as I am concerned.--rpd (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to get along....I'll cool it, as best as I can. Modernist (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my post to Modernist.--rpd (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wikispam? I don't understand it and it has apparently been posted anonymously on my talk page. EraserGirl (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help please re this British artist, active 1897? - Kittybrewster ☎ 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! a user copied my userpage on February 6 which i came to know just the previous night. The thing is he forgot to edit some info which links to me like the contributions userbox directs to my contributions and the wikipedian userbox states that he joined wikipedia on April 19, 2007(same as mine), which is not the case in actual. So can you please tell me that is this copy vio(i.e. having a copy of someone's previous userpage). And can i edit his userpage in this case ? Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 12:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks different now, as I have changed mine completely before it came to my notice. I have already asked the user to correct the links(waiting for response). But just wanted to know that if he has a copy of a previous version of my userpage(without acknowledging it), is this still a copy violation. --SMS ^Talk 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! for guiding me. --SMS ^Talk 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an issue, which may be the last straw. Snowmanradio suggested I try one of the Magnus Tools to create a biography page. So I did. I generated the code and pasted it in to a new page, and saved it Harry Froboess. Then I notified Snowmanradio so that he could see it AS IT WAS PRESENTED by the code generator. Meanwhile I was working on the actual article to past it into the template. Not 3 minutes went by, and I still have the page open in edit, when someone slapped a Afd on it - and I wasn't even finished the article. Not waiting longer than 3 minutes after the page creation is completely unreasonable and provocative. They didn't even ASK me if i was still working on it. How is someone supposed to get any work done if someone can come along and just destroy it? EraserGirl (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem sorted itself out but has left me very discouraged, it doesn't take much to knock all the wikienthusaism right out of a girl. EraserGirl (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Thank you. I have uploaded (Amy) Katherine Duff.jpg. Now I need to turn her 90 degrees and link her in. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helen Donald-Smith, 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.

--Royalbroil 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! DH85868993 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on the Van Gogh section. Perhaps it would be an idea to split the existing "Legacy" section into multiple sections, such as say "Subsequent Fame" "Influence on art" and "Cultural Depictions" with the first linking to the separate "Posthumous Fame" article and the 3rd linking to the "Cultural depictions". I should have looked over the whole article more carefully than I did, but would have been less likely to miss it if the main article had been divvied up that way. What do you think? WickerGuy (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. [9] Much appreciated. I will try to present my case at AfD talk page as you mentioned as soon as I collect the sources including their status and whatever else I find relevant. I wonder though how many voting Wikipedians actually rely on AfD talk pages for such background before they make up their minds? --Poeticbent talk 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me to put the blue template, I would appreciate your help to put the other, orange one (can you please look at my page - I mean:)the wikiproject arts. On occasion I really must learn how to download pictures... For the moment I only add written info. best,Artethical (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What you not like about the improvements? Please note you've also undone some categorization. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, yes, I should've posted the above on the templates' talk pages. Thanks for the analysis at Template talk:Young British Artists. I've acknowledged it and have only restored the linewrap/divider-related formatting and updated the (yes, deprecated) Category:Arts navigational boxes categorization. In the hope this is okay, I've done the same for Template:Stuckism (plus a couple of the previous minor formatting tweaks; see edit summary there). Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use <span>s rather than <font>s in these situations as I read somewhere (yes, I should've noted where) that the <font> tag should be avoided nowadays... probably something to do with browser compatibility. Not very convincing, I agree, but if/when I come by the advice again, I'll post a note on my userpage (and, if I remember, let you know). Glad you're happy with the templates as they now stand. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tyrenius, can you please have a look at my contribution to Frida Kahlo page: I separated the bibliographic list from the numbered references list, as it looked too strange as it was (and added a book). I am not sure I did it the right way,will you please just check? thanksArtethical (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advice, I am getting that overwhelming urge to kill people again. I have been working on the Yakima Canutt piece for weeks now. And there was no way I could add the extensive filmography to the article without making it overwhelmingly lengthly. So, I researched WP and found that in that instance, a filmography page is created and the link added to the original article. I spent many hours formatting the Yakima Canutt filmography article and create it quite properly. And of course within moments some keyboard happy nimrod wants it deleted. I have visited at least 20 filmography pages, there isn't anything wrong with the one I created. I really despise this speedy deletion by just anyone who wants to mess with your work. It is very disheartening. The methodology doesn't even INSIST that they justify their motives. All they have to do is not like what you are doing and poof! 5 hours of table formatting is history. How do I stop my work from being destroyed? Oddly I would bet serious money that if I had created a Lindsey Lohan filmography no one would take issue with it. EraserGirl (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind, he acquiesced, apparently he didn't have any reason at all to want my labor deleted. I swear I think people just tag things for deletion because they can. I have to stop reading WP, I see the terabytes wasted on each twist and turn of every video game and it makes me really cranky when my labors on people who actually existed get dismissed. EraserGirl (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the useful information on my user talk page, and for the edit to the article which is a much appreciated improvement. The reason I put a direct link to the Alice in Wonderland sculpture (instead of making at a ref) is that the article has no image, so I thought the quick link would give something easy to see.

What I really need help with is figuring what images can be used on Wikipedia, and how to attach them to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see the article - I added too many categories I guess. Nice job...adding the images, he was such an icon in NYC for so long! Modernist (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ref, actually used a better one. Sorry about that, I had to leave very early this am....Modernist (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Tell me what images you want to use and the copyright status of a) the thing in the image b) the photographer of the image. If it's a 2-D artwork, the photographer does not have any copyright. Can you get permission to upload even a low-res image under GFDL......

Would it be possible, for instance, to use the image of De Creeft from this [10], or the top image from the following page [11] ? My guess is that it can not be used. If I do A Google image search I can find images for De Creeft, but I can find nothing that is clearly free use. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the help, which is much appreciated. I will, as you suggest, work at understanding the process better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of easily sourced material on this for example http://www.emusic.com/artist/Momus-MP3-Download/11607048.html ; it seems like the article has been defanged by fans of his, however, I suppose it could be phrased in a more neutral tone (not paedophile). Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, does this apply to talk pages too? (I'd err on caution since they are spider-able and readable by non logged-ins) --Jonathan Williams (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you have the time to check this out for a moment or 2.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID I am asking you as your page deletion on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sinn_F%C3%A9in-IRA has been quoted as to why my edit was in conflict with the BLP rules. as you have already said you are busy, if this does not get your attention, I will seek out some other admin. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply. not the result I was looking for but at least it cleared things up. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was browsing through some archives and found you posted here: Wikipedia_talk:User_page/Archive_4#Copying_someone_elses_userpage. I have a similar issue - Destry11 (talk · contribs) has copied my user page, with my username as the only change. I have the same reaction to this as TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) did in the original thread that I linked you to, specifically that I feel as if this person is purposely 'impersonating' me by listing all of my achievements on their page, etc. It just makes me feel a bit strange, I guess. I posted a polite message on the person's talk page asking why they copied my user page, word for word, and they just removed my message and replied on my talk page asking me not to 'violate' their talk page and if I do so again, they threatened to 'block' me. Could something be done to resolve this? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just copied the above image to the Commons. You've tagged the original to have it kept locally, which I haven't changed. Is there any particular reason for this? --Simon Speed (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL makes it available for all countries, but I'll leave the version there. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you pulled the plug too early on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalini Ganendra. While I agree there was no clear consensus as of yet, the proper course of action would have been to relist for more consensus, since it had not been relisted once before. No I will be forced to go through the tiresome process of deletion review. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Usually, when there's no clear consensus on an AfD, the discussion is relisted once. There's even a template — {{relist}} — to indicate a relisting. If there's stll no consensus after the relisting, then it is closed with an outcome of "no consensus." This discusion had not been relisted yet, so by custom it should have been relisted once to give it another shot. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, this new editor User talk:Rubensrevenge is either a troll or hellbent on adding somewhat absurd edits on Guernica (painting) about Picasso copying Rubens, because he couldn't think of anything to paint himself - hmmmm turned into Guernica, really a Rubens, but uh in black and white, or something like that. I've warned him, and I'm trying not to bite...but maybe you could talk to him...Thanks, Modernist (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..your input is appreciated. Modernist (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, see this. Cheers! NikoSilver 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article title when I was a newer user. I very much appreciate your doing this. We do I do to learn how to do these more complicated things? It is me i think (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how do I talk about reversing a possible deletion?

How do I revise this for placement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneescarlett (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Ok so if I provide more references I should be ok?? There is not much in here from the Baltimore Poetry society, so if I provide out side links is that enough and do I have to redo the page completely?--Reneescarlett (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've expanded it twenty-fold! That's a pretty darned impressive improvement, to put it mildly, and I commend your labor. I am (I will confess) a bit of a skeptic about galleries in general; they seem to all have a very high opinion of themselves, and the spam rate is high. I don't deny the notability of the subject in the article's current state. (I do, however, somewhat question the appropriateness of the long list of client artists. It rather resembles the catalogs in some manufacturers' articles, and verges on a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Victoria Miro!--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how I may be able to revise the page on Ben Decker so that it will not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brayden06 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victoria Miro Gallery, 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.

--Bedford 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the terrific template for referencing that you left on EraserGirl's talk page came from, but it is terrific. I've borrowed it to leave for a new editor asking for guidance in referencing. If you wrote this, congratulations, it's better than any number of policy pages I've perused in assembling knowledge on referencing!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I wrote it to provide a simple intro for new users, as referencing is essential and the existing pages something of a maze. You can post it on user or article talk pages as {{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB. You might like to watchlist the template and essay talk page to help keep an eye on it. Ty 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pwlease come see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29_part_2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. I was unaware of the admin requisite for full protection. Since my other pages got deleted despite my request for discussion and review I was looking for some way for meaningful discussion to occur -- rather than simple deletion. Thank you, appreciatively, --Art4em (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to go official with this? There will always be more to add, but I think it has reached at least the level of compreheniveness other project MoSs have. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, I'd like your opinion on this. A person marked the Brian Sherwin bio I contributed as a conflict of interest and questioned my good faith. What can I do? Do new articles always get grilled like this? And so you know I almost have the Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene bios done. May I show them to you before contributing? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I raised it because the confluence of username and edit pattern was sufficient to be of concern. See WP:COIN#Brian Sherwin. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on WP:COIN and the article talk page. Ty 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius,

Please note that our site does not fit into point 5.

Our site has taken on board a new policy of becoming an informational hub for the art world. The article that we created on abstract expressionism is a great summary on the movement. It is one of the first in a series of articles that we will be releasing on art movements.

You'll notice that the article does not contain any advertising.

Please re-consider our link. I believe that it adds value to the Wikipedia page on abstract expressionism. If you would like to see the article modified in any way (or the page modified), please let me know and we will arrange it.

Dk321 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed it. Crum375 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your find. Unfortunately, I haven't got a subscription to Project Muse either... Aridd (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the signature. I read through WP:DTR and then WP:TTR. Seems to be a lively discussion. I think there's occasions where templates work and not, it's probably much too for either to become guidelines and/or policies. But regular or not, no one remembers everything. No one follows all the rules all the time. To me a template is a precisely worded way of pointing out guidelines/policies that may have been or at least appear to have been violated. I'd feel like a frustrated whiny brat writing a specific reason when a template would suffice. Plus, someone went through all the work of designing templates (with different levels too). I'm sure their efforts would be better suited, while somewhat impersonal, for some users. Eventually if a problem exists, and I'm the first to come accross it, I would be willing to make a template for someone else to use should the same problem come up again.-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When editing a biography, do you think it's necessary to link the schools that a person has graduated from? Is it needed if the person is notable for something entirely unrelated to their education? Is it important to link all schools if the person receives a degree from an undergraduate and a graduate institution, but all of their research/work is done at the graduate school? or some other institution afterwards. I've been looking at a number of biographies where undergraduate institutions are mentioned once, linked, and are seemingly irrelevant to the rest of the article. I feel as though it is often unnecessary, and places undue weight on the schools they may have attended. But it seems to be commonly practiced.-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed my additions to Guy's entry in the wikipedia and cite the reason as a possible hoax. Did you consider asking Guy himself? (also, forgive me if I haven't worked out the subtleties of wiki communication...)

80.229.31.241 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you take a look at Talk:Cindy Sherman? There's a discussion about whether or not to include information about a recently released produced documentary about the artist. Input from someone who knows what they're talking about (i.e not me) might be helpful. Thanks,--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty User talk:Artumentary is basically insisting (about how he's gonna edit this and that) and demanding...to put this movie on the Cindy Sherman page...no matter what, because he says so. She is uncomfortable, (I think eventually he might deserve a block, although I hope not)...I suggested to him that he create a separate article about his movie..He isn't interested - it has to be at Cindy Sherman he says, I stepped in to prevent an edit war....Modernist (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input there...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty. There are two ways you can go:

• If you want to leave the parameter name as "Works", then yes, you will need to go around and change "Famous works =" to "Works =" in all the articles which transclude the template. And yes, you're right, that's probably a good job for a bot. In terms of finding a suitable bot to accomplish the task, I'd recommend placing a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
• Alternately, you could change the parameter name back to "Famous works" but leave the displayed text as just "Works". That's a little less elegant, but I know of several templates where the parameter name and the displayed text don't match. And it would save you having to go around and change "Famous works =" to "Works =" in all the transcluding articles (Of course, if there are some articles which already have "Works =", they would need to be changed to "Famous works =", but my guess is there would be a lot less of them. But you'd probably still need a bot to check them all. However, changing the parameter name will fix a whole lot of articles immediately, so the bot work would be less urgent).

Hope this helps. DH85868993 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote:

Thanks. I changed "famous works" twice on the documentation page[12] and three times on the template page.[13] Which of those are parameter name and which are displayed text? Ty 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were all changes to the parameter name except this one:

{{!}}width="85px" align="right" {{!}} '''Famous works''' {{!}}{{!}} <span class="note">{{{famous works}}}</span>

changed to:

{{!}}width="85px" align="right" {{!}} '''Works''' {{!}}{{!}} <span class="note">{{{works}}}</span>

That was changing the actual text which is displayed in the template. DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Stub template goes above categories."

Sorry to gainsay you - Wikipedia:Stub:

=== Categorizing stubs ===

After writing a short article, or finding an unmarked stub, you should insert a stub template. By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.

 • Lainagier • talk • 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ty, that made for an interesting read!  • Lainagier • talk • 11:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doing it by hand is much faster than filing a BRFA. Should be done within the hour. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TY, A couple of editors are going everywhere adding VAGA copyright tags..to images, I have no idea if this is sanctioned, real or a farce. User talk:Mocus22 started at Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg....now Mocus22 says that he represents VAGA....Modernist (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tyrenius,

I would like to know if you can do a small review of me as an editor here, and tell me what I need to do to have a chance at becoming admin. Thank you! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006 you recommended that Double "H" Ranch be merged with Hole in the Wall Gang Camp into a new article Association of Hole in the Wall Camps. Earlier today, I split Hole in the Wall Gang Camp and put the parent organization content into Hole in the Wall Camps, with incoming redirects from Association of Hole in the Wall Camps and its more common capitalization Association of Hole In The Wall Camps. I just though you'd want to know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost You want me to revert the changes, which I guess you've already done or in the process of doing, so I'm a little confused by your message. You claimed that there are three discussions on-going at Talk:Vincent van Gogh, but this is all the activity of the past two weeks. So you moved back all the entire talk page which is over 150 kb. I honestly have no idea why.

I don't see why the move method for archiving is confusing, but I suppose it could be to you somehow. What is really confusing to me is why you have not used it on Talk:Vincent van Gogh, when it could clearly use it.

I do not understand what you mean when you wrote "I don't think you're correct with archive changes not showing up after cut and paste..." What claim did I make about archive changes not showing up after cut and paste?

Altogether, I'm completely confused by your message. If you can clarify on my talk, please do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why Koavf did not understand your post, it was very clear to me. I have fixed the problem with Talk:Vincent van Gogh and am almost done fixing the problem with Talk:Pablo Picasso. I am waiting for an administrator to delete the current talk page so the archive page can be moved back restoring the history file at which time the older edits can be archived using the standard cut and paste method. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Your comments were very helpful in explaining your position. I am familiar with the pros and cons of moving versus copy-and-paste and I am still in favor of moving, but you're right that proposing such a change is probably helpful and I agree that if one method has been performed on a talk page in the past, it should remain; that is obviously a good idea that I had not previously considered. Let me also apologize for the accusation above, I was confusing you with another editor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TY, Can you keep an eye here...an image hunter keeps deleting the Miro from the Legacy section and I don't want to violate 3RRs but he's gonna keep on deleting, I suspect...I've started a discussion on the talk page here:[14]....Thanks Modernist (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gillick-Local.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, tried it in the past but am sticking to my normal writing. However, Wikipedia is boiling over. There is a page on Concept-oriented model that is not a real theory. It has not been published in reputable locations, peer reviewed or accepted by any community. In fact, it has been attacked hard (see the discussion about the page in the page's discussion section). It also now is getting confused with my work, Concept-Oriented Design. This is because people are going on to Wikipedia and getting them confused. I tried creating a page to clarify but the page was removed by you a bit ago. Could you tell me what to do to clear this up? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwingrav (talk • contribs)

I fixed the (many) spelling mistakes in the article and removed the tag. Didn't realise it was that many till I run it throu spell check! Just letting you know, since it was your tag. Thanks, EA210269 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]