User talk:Modernist/Archive

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Modernist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tyrenius 09:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional material. Do you have any citation for the '62-'63 stuff? - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty vague. You are going to have to be concrete about who is attacking you and, typically, provide links like this to the edits in question when you remark on them.

If it is nothing too extreme, you might just use {{npa2}} on the person's user talk page (or, if someone already gave them that, {{npa3}}), accompanied by a clear link to what you consider an attack. If they've already had a few warnings like that, don't bother talking to them: report it at WP:PAIN. And if it is really bad, write it up at WP:AN/I, and feel free to ping me on my talk page to point me to it once you have done that. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support. I certainly appreciate it. Biruitorul 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you reverted user:Quarma's removal of copyright-violating content from this article. The material was taken from [1] and copied in large part word-for-word. This is particularly unacceptable if it is not attributed, but copyright violation is copyright violation whether it is acknowledged or not. Please, by all means use this as a source, but do not use its wording. you may wish to investigate our Wikipedia:copyright policy. Morwen - Talk 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I didn't take the time to establish what was copyvio material and what wasn't, as might have been ideal. If you wish to restore the non-copyvio material that would be great. User:Quarma tells me they have a book about the person in question and hope to flesh it out a bit more, as well. Morwen - Talk 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work over the last few days. The article has substantially improved. + Ceoil 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - you might be interested in expressing an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_containing_covert_references_to_real_musicians, where they are considering removing this article from Wikipedia. Tvoz | talk 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for putting all that work on the article! I now have no doubt whatsoever that this gentleman is noteable :) --Lmblackjack21 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about sub-dividing history of painting into 2 articles - history of western painting and history of eastern painting? Modernist 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western painting surely has enough content to warrant an article of it's own. Perhaps Eastern painting, too. --sparkit^TALK 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page Western painting, and I also included the sections on Africa, Islam and East Asia. Please let me know your thoughts about either leaving History of painting alone, or turning it into an article Eastern painting. Modernist 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good! My opinion is that the history of painting article would work best with brief overview sections of Western art, Eastern art, etc. with links to the more in-depth articles. ... or maybe the overviews could be in the painting article, ... ugh, I'm can't to focus on this right now. --sparkit^TALK 03:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been up to my ears busy at work, and have not had the proper time to read the guidelines on the use of images, but they seem to be open to various interpretations. My general take is that in the past I have eschewed the use of too many images in biographies, but I can see their value in the context of an overview like this one, especially in trying to illustrate the dizzying array of 20th century art movements. Until I can offer a more informed comment, my input is of little help, other than to say that you have done a terrific job with this article. JNW 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is looking good. Image description pages also need to include copyright details, where the image was obtained and a fair-use rationale for each use. See Image:Black font crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg Soup Cans for a good example.--Ethicoaestheticist 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a number of works of art on your userpage that are still under copyright, and only being used for decorative purposes. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires that we only use such material in articles, and only when necessary. Just consider this an advisory note that you should remove the images from your userpage to comply with wikipedia's policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those images. Modernist 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing these guidance suggestions to me: Wikipedia:Non-free content, I'll study them and if there are some images that I can retain, then I will put them back. Thanks again. Modernist 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30-April-2007: As you may have noticed, the new nav-box for various topics ("Year_nav_topic") has an option "(list all)" to display the "List_of_years_in_art" (or the year-list in whatever subject). There is no need to edit every article "18xx_in_art" (to explicitly show "List of years in art"). In some cases, a "See-also" section already contains an option to click "List_of_years_in_art" since such a link is a see-also matter, outside the scope of the main article text. -Wikid77 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I/we have changed the nav-box: balancing what people want, I put "List of Years in xxx" at the top of the nav-box (Template:Year_nav_topic) which should be easy to see and link to lower-case "List of (y)ears in xxx" (seems ok). The template has been "graphic-designed" by User:Down10 to use gray-bar separators to distinquish areas clearly (also handles color-blindness). So, I'm hoping we have a balance of all requirements for the nav-box. See talk: Template_talk:Year_nav_topic#Aesthetics, for details. -Wikid77 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on Western painting. Modernist 10:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for writing most of the content! The "gallery problem" still mystifies me. --sparkit^TALK 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one on me - it's a user page, so I guess it is an unofficial list of pages that they think need sorting maintained by people interested in that - but how many people see it I have no idea. But there may be new visitors! Johnbod 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you again, I noticed today that User:Minderbinder reported Western painting and History painting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Cleaned_up_lists I'm not familiar with all this, I'm not sure what will happen, do you know this process? I hope that the very hard work that we've done isn't in vain Modernist 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of that. Best I can tell there's an effort to clean up nonfree image usage, but I've not come across a specific project page that details the process, if indeed there is a process. --sparkit^TALK 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that neither image-tagging nor list-clean-up are particular areas of my expertise. I suggest that you post to the noticeboard at WP:ANI with a request for assistance. You can mention that I sent you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this issue. It is ongoing and complex and will probably not reach an easy solution. It may well need to go to RfC etc if it continues. Tyrenius 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fair use rationale for why the image is needed in that article, and our fair use policy says that we need a detailed rationale for each usage of the image. Also, there are free ones available- I think the only way you could make a case for this image to be at the top of the page in this mannner was if it was the first piece of surrealist artwork. However, I know nothing about the history of art, not really my domain, and things are a little rushed for me at the moment. Reinstate it if you so wish, but please provide a fair use rationale for why THAT image is needed. I will be back in a couple of hours, I need some fresh air, I'll look at this again then. J Milburn 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting duplicates. I didn't have the will to extract the list, then check through it all afterwards as well. At least we know where the end is now. Tyrenius 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noted that the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity page is currently the subject of mediation. I believe you have made reasonable contributions to the discussion taking place there before, and such reasonable comments and suggestions should always be welcomed. I personally would welcome any comments you would see fit to make now regarding how you believe the dispute could be resolved. I can, however, understand that you might not wish to do so. Should that be the case, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your earlier input. John Carter 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Modernist, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove artist Josh Gura from the list of American artists? where is your master list of referral?

Please leave messages pertaining to the list of artists on the articles discussion page, Talk:List of American artists 1900 and after, not here. Thanks Modernist 10:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... respectfully --Art4em 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, don't mention it.

Allbuyart.com is definitely unacceptable. I've removed it from Billy Apple also. You might find this special search page useful:[2]. Let me know if you need any support removing the link if it reappears. Tyrenius 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on the InfoArt cleanup project. Tyrenius 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, dear Modernist! :) Love, Phaedriel 11:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my user talk page. Short version: I have no idea if there is a sockpuppet issue here, but it has no bearing on the substance of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have weighed in my opinion at the AFD. Modernist 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for this? 68.39.174.238 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I replied on your talk page Modernist 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in Song era paintings, as you said in the FAC review page for technology, then you should have a look at this article: Culture of the Song Dynasty. Although pics accompany the text, there is also a large gallery near the beginning of the article.

Hope those suit your fancy.--PericlesofAthens 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Sung is actually the Wade-Giles way to spell it (which many people do not use anymore), and Song is the way to spell it with the Pinyin system of spelling. The main article for it on wiki is spelled Song Dynasty, reflecting the more popular usage of pinyin over wade-giles. Hope that helps.--PericlesofAthens 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I know. thanks again.

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the addition of Charles Banks Wilson from the list of American artists. Please read his article and explain to me how and why he shouldn't be included in that list. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to leave Wilson in the list of American artists. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Modernist 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I have him listed as being born in 1928? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augh! Typo! Good catch, man! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible that you are correct, however when I talked to the director of the MET, he referred to Wilson as a painter as well as an illustrator. I didn't get anything that contradicts that from either the Smithsonian or from the Oklahoma State officials who commissioned him for the portraits and murals now hanging in their capitol building - they clearly see him, and have even officially recognized him, as a world-renowned painter and illustrator. It may be appropriate to add him to both. If it's important enough to you, I'll be happy to participate in an RfC, 3O, or mediation, if you want to put in for that. Thanks for your help and guidance! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in New York for fifteen years, about three blocks from the MET. I have also personally known members of Wilson's family for the past 48 years. Discussions and observations of Wilson and his history are an integral part of my own history. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't add anything from my own personal knowledge, I properly followed Wikipedia policy and guidlines by finding reliable sources. I've been around a bit too long to have violated OR restraints. :) Dreadstar † 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also helps one to make contacts at the MET and other museums when one is dating someone who works at the MET and takes you to their parties.  :) Dreadstar † 02:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad you like the new name! I kept getting emails and comments asking if my name reflected my hairstyle...and it doesn't. Thought I was being clever with that name...but apparently not!

And thank you for your other comment! I'm so glad to have helped introduce you to another artist, that's a pretty good feeling! I sent an email to Wilson's nephew to make sure everything looked good - he loved it and can't wait to show it to his uncle. I hope he likes it too. It's the first time I've created a WP:BLP. Dreadstar † 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert--I must have deleted a few lines by mistake during a previous edit. You were right on top of the Matisse reference. I was going to add an 'influence' section anyway, and have another planned for 'assessments'. The literature extolling Chardin is voluminous. Oh, but I hate doing all the footnotes. Too cluttered, but without them someone will pick it apart for references and POV. Good to cross paths with you. Keep up the good work! JNW 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just spooky--I was on the verge of cutting back the Calder images this morning--did everything but push the save button! I still might re-distribute them throughout the article, unless you want to have a go at it first. JNW 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chardin: Probably the Hughes quote was too aggressive for an opening. I saw the Chardin show at the Met, and afterwards went over to Madison Avenue and saw the Alice Neel retrospective at the Whitney. Two artists I am deeply fond of, who should never be viewed back-to-back. Cheers, JNW 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite paintings is the Chardin at The Frick Collection titled Still Life with Plums. Bus stop 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist -- It is one of my favorite paintings also. Believe it or not I wrote a paper on St. Francis in Ecstasy (Bellini). I did so for a college art history course. Yes, there are several very good paintings in the Frick Collection.

By the way, it wasn't assigned to me. We had the latitude to choose from a wide number of paintings. I chose it because I really liked it, and still do. I last saw it a little over a year ago. Bus stop 12:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be seen here (the Chardin): [3] Bus stop 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ty Modernist 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Modernist, for letting me know about that discussion - and for your kind words to me, once again :) Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Modernist,

Odd, the presence of parallel articles, and esp. the vanishing talk page. The work you have done on both entries makes for vast improvement. I was just looking at your copy edits to Self-portrait/Autoportrait, and enjoying all the good removal of POV. Jmabel is right--that first sentence has got to go; the article needs a better lead. Hmm, you don't think we could cut and paste the opening from Self-portrait.... Cheers, JNW 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..now thats a thought...I hope a few more don't appear. Modernist

The above user has been indefinitely blocked as per a second discussion regarding his recent activities at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop. I realize that you have already expressed opinions that I am a troll regarding this subject, but believe that you might be one of the few people that this editor might ever listen to regarding the obligation every editor, including him, has of providing some degree of objective evidence to support any changes they might make to an article. I would hope that he might listen to you regarding this subject, considering you have supported him in the past, considering he has flatly refused to listen to anybody else. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw what happened. Modernist

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Modernist! Love, Phaedriel - 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

TY very sweet, Modernist 02:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note on the user's talk page + some links to editing policy pages with a a welcome message. He is a new user, by the looks of it, so remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. :) Tyrenius 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• TY Modernist 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

George Bernard Shaw, Revolutionist's Handbook

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Let's see if the editor returns, in which case some dialogue will be necessary. Here's a comparison between the article at his last edit and the current state.[4] Actually, that's not helpful: here's a comparison just before his first edit with the current state.[5] Some other editors have contributed in between also. -- Tyrenius 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to give the reason for the edit in the edit summary, such as "remove unreferenced material" or some such, rather than just because a particular editor as made it, as it seems the original edit was in good faith... Tyrenius 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll try to be kinder :) Modernist 17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the frustrations. I've rv the whole article to pre those edits per your suggestion on my talk page. Tyrenius 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TY Modernist 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the case.[6] -- Tyrenius 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that does the trick Modernist 18:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, but at least it can be referred to! Tyrenius 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've popped this back up again. However, it contains no inline citations and tons of claims, interpretation etc, e.g.:

Realizing that art and science were moving bilaterally towards an explanation of a common phenomenon, - the idea that thought is a derivative of how we experience objects and how patterns are constructed of symbols representing this experience; was an exciting idea for Fludd. Some of the most compelling works of this time were encapsulated in a series entitled Still Life’s 1990-1992.

The Still Life series represents some of the complex ideas discussed previously while incorporating a new lexicon of perception. Fludd's work shows that experiences, particularly of abstract concepts, can be captured on multiple levels. His new work depicts each individual frame of perception representing all the stages of perception in a single work. Representation of "a moment of thought" is the best way of representing his new idea visually.

All of this needs to go, and the article trimmed back to facts with refs to back them up.

Tyrenius 07:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sound edits, but the article remains very vulnerable with no verifiable third party sources to substantiate it. I haven't done a search, but there must be some. Tyrenius 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it Modernist 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you, but I have a healthy respect for the RCP people! Tyrenius 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement in this direction. It was something I had no intention of doing, but if I decide to make the time (besides preparing syllabi for the fall classes, tending to other writing obligations, and, oh yeah, painting) I will pick up a couple of texts and have a go. You might want to start it, since it sounds like you already have a framework in mind. Best regards, JNW 01:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have lots coming at me this fall, real stuff, in real life, but I'll help you if you need. Lets think about it. Modernist 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, real life, not this wikified version. Cheers, JNW 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edits and sent a warning about 3 reverts. What this editor is trying to include is true, in that the information is correct and is some minor trivia, but this is something he should discuss on the talk page first before starting an edit war. Freshacconci 15:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The things people will start edit wars over.... I realize that there's a mention of the Paul McCartney song already in the article, but unless we want to have an endless list from everyone who has paid tribute to or satirized Picasso, it needs to be controlled somehow. The song is of minor note but unfortunately would lead to much more (we'll start to get people popping in their own in-the-style-of paintings). Freshacconci 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As I mentioned to Tyrenius I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak but the watchlist button is too tempting. I should just log out.... Freshacconci 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Modern Lovers fan: If the McCartney song reference is valid, then the Modern Lovers song is also valid. To snub them because they didn't have as much commercial success is simply snobbery. Wikipedia recognizes them and recognizes the song. It is a valid cross-reference. I will suggest deletion of the McCartney reference. Also, if trivia is not fair play, then the article should not have a trivia section. I note you yourself started the "edit war" and were in hazard of the "three revert" rule. Can't we work this out without taking it up that ladder?

Hmmm. Yes. Maybe the article should not have a trivia section. Good idea. Modernist 19:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only there is trivia discussed elsewhere in the article. Unfortunately, it's placed in the "Legacy" section. The prices his paintings fetch at auction is not his "legacy." His "legacy" should describe his influence on other artists (including musicians). That's a pretty poor looking article right there.

Well, all Wikipedia articles are works-in-progress. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Picasso article is anywhere near perfect. Are the prices of his paintings part of his legacy? I guess it depends on your perspective and how much the art market means to you. But you're probably right, using economics as an indication of Picasso's worth as an artist is perhaps tacky and ultimately degrading. I'm for moving it elsewhere. (Note: this should be taken to the Picasso talk page and not cluttering-up Modernist's talk page). Freshacconci 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I always enjoy your well-informed contributions! However, I'm thinking the Elizabeth Murray article is now a bit off-balance. The problem is that you go into a lot of biographical detail on the personal life - the divorce and the husbands and kids and so on - in an article that barely discusses the work and career itself. It looks a little weird. MdArtLover 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed the erroneous information. But I still think you have added way too much information. The article is all out of proportion now. There are articles several times this length on other artists that don't go into this kind of family minutiae. Most of it probably doesn't belong in there at all, frankly - even if the article were to be expanded.

And also, frankly, I wonder if anyone would even think of structuring an encyclopedia article about a male artist in this manner. If you don't reduce the family information to a summary, with far less detail, I may do it myself. MdArtLover 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. Modernist 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't think it was necessary to go that far. But I guess deleting is easier than a summary/rewrite. I'll try to make time later to do it. Thanks! MdArtLover 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your corrections! However I do not really agree with the change you made from Art of this Century to The Art of This Century Gallery. The gallery was called Art of this Century, see the Guggenheim's museum homepage (http://www.guggenheim-venice.it/inglese/museum/peggy.html) which in this case is historically correct. Axel-Bln 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the changes made to Peggy Guggenheim, and Art of this century, I wrote: The Art of This Century Gallery, simply because it already is an existing article about the gallery. I think a long time ago the article was called Art Of This Century but was changed. The name can be changed again, it never occured to me because it seems so specific as it is. Thank you for your question. Modernist 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It seems as if I was a little too trigger happy that day! NewName 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Modernist 12:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I prefer the 4 column as well. Did I mess up the code? The previous attempt seemed to be crushed unnecessarily narrow, causing the names to be stacked up. Does it not show up as four columns in your browser? --Knulclunk 00:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only see the single long list, I'll try making the four columns again if you'd like. Please just let me know. Modernist 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now. This seems to work. --Knulclunk 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now, Thanks. - Modernist 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! You recently participated in the August 2007 AfD of the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving disagreements over the outcome of that AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption but any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am trying to add a well known Australian Installation artist Natalie Billing to the list of names on the relivent page but you keep removing it. I have known the artist in question since just before see recieved her Bachelor of Arts with Honours in 1993. She has been showing consistently and with great success all over Australia in that time. Please Google her name, view her website, or her Wikipedia page for more info. Is there some issue with Australian Artists that I'm not aware of?

Regards mattnat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnat (talk • contribs) 02:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on User talk:Mattnat. Tyrenius 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Modernist 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no bias whatsoever against Australian Installation artists, in fact. Modernist 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in a WikiProject proposal I just created. I would like to start a project devoted to improving Wikipedia pages relating to modern art in various mediums. Many these articles are often simply too under staffed; a specific project focusing on this category of articles will go a long way towards bring them up to Wikipedia standard. I hope you can help (nice user name by the way)! --S.dedalus 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm too busy to join your new project. Thanks. Modernist 05:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think to say she lives in Tribeca, NY is OK, as it doesn't give street name. Maybe just NY would be ample and better. Definitely the uncited nursing home info doesn't have a place. However, the lead says she lives in 3 places, so to say she just lives in one doesn't make sense. I will watchlist. Tyrenius 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty I appreciate that Modernist

You evidently felt that my contribution, Anatolii Sivkov, lacks sufficient hits on google. Perhaps, you'd do better searching for him using a Russian Search engine, in Russian. I'm a graduate from the University of Florida with an MA in cultural history. I can assure you that there are plenty of subjects that would fail your google/hit criteria. The ability to conduct good research and scholastic research is what distinguishes amateurs from professionals. That said: I do appreciate any advice that would help to improve this article. And, I have to say, I completely agree with your response down below.

DebrayR 21:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the following fact:

Abstract art has the advantage that it is engages the young in an activity completely devoid of political, ethical, or moral context.

It was removed in record time - less than a minute. I think that it is very important that artists realize that abstract art is the only kind of painting, since the beginning of painting, that does not contain political, ethical, or moral content. How can this fact be included in this article? How should this be worded to satisfy everyone?

Certainly any movement will have its supporters and detractors. It is less than complete to disallow a full disclosure of the main mention of or arguments of these movements and critics. I notice below in the discussion that a link to the art renewal movement has been disallowed. It seems to me that by the article violates NPOV. 67.163.247.142 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PURE NONSENSE! You clearly know nothing about abstract art and have a lot to learn. Give me a break! Everything and I mean everything has moral, ethical and political content and meaning. If you do not understand this, and the spiritual, and metaphysical roots of abstract art - then you have no business writing about it. I suggest you learn something about it, read a book, read Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Gertrude Stein, Rosalind Krauss, Lucy Lippard, - thats why I reverted your comment. Learn about aesthetics, energy, the meaning of color, beauty, balance, surface, touch, subtlety, power, nature, weather, emotion, - give me a break. Modernist 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of it? Only 44 google hits, including wiki and mirrors.[7] Check out one of the artists, Chris Cook.[8] Tyrenius 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what you come up with. Otherwise it looks like AfD. Tyrenius 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern expressionism. Tyrenius 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Modernist. I put in my $.02 in support of those Smithsonian American art archive links, as per your request. Thanks for asking. All the best to you. MdArtLover 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I apppreciate it. Modernist 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks . Yes lets leave the other a while in case anyone wants to refer to it & then just redirect it - the old stuff will stay in the history. Johnbod 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've cut and pasted material from it, then GFDL needs to be preserved with a history merge or a redirect. If not, then it can be deleted. Tyrenius 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave it for awhile, I wrote alot of stuff there, cut and pasted alot too. Especially between the two. Modernist 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tyrenius 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. If you use the Kirchner image, you'll need to add an additional rationale to the image page to justify its additional use. The article it goes in should also have some text referring to it. Tyrenius 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Modernist 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your talk page is getting long, I've created an archive box for you. Click on 1 to open the page and paste old talk in. If you don't want it, just delete it. Tyrenius 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty I'll try it. Modernist 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's like starting over, Modernist 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure - that looks better! Tyrenius 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Every life must have its burden, every heart its load. Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup? As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup. Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet. Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face; Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place. Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves. Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years, Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears! Ella Wheeler Wilcox A little gift for my wonderful friend, and a promise that I'll see you back at Quote very soon! ;) Love, Phaedriel 08:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my knowledge about East Asian self-portraits is fairly limited. Good luck finding information on the topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For a multitude of contributions to subjects in the fine arts. JNW 03:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all good clean fun, no doubt. V came back with another name as well, both accounts indef blocked. Your barnstar well deserved by the way. And Kirchner deserves a good article, I think. Tyrenius 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's thank you card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! What a nice surprise to see you on my nom page! I hope you're doing well! Dreadstar † 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a wide problem. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Images_not_appearing_on_Wikipedia. Tyrenius 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image works in the info box for me, but Potatoe Eaters doesn't show. Tyrenius 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Hopefully the article author can add the details to the article. Congrats on the latest barnstar.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reference and removed the prod tag. I think when I searched on Google before I put quote marks around the name, which didn't really work with the initial L.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty I appreciate your effort. Modernist 11:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - thats about 4 pooping vandals in 2 days. It's that time of the year. Next month Durer .... Johnbod 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks for your input at Frida Kahlo. I suspect he'll be back - the art expert. Modernist 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a piece of work that one is. The mind boggles. As I said, I have to give credit to you and the others. I'd probably lose it and violate a few rules along the way. Freshacconci | Talk 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, not only on Frida, but in all your contributions. Best regards, JNW 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two-week protection should give everyone some "quiet time" to focus on the actual article (if only we can all just ignore him). Freshacconci | Talk 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jheald, and Pak21, they refer to Fair use rationale and it looks like you're OK, good luck - Modernist 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry - we do talk about his SPs - I see we just lost The Old Guitarist image. Johnbod 02:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think Kahlo should stay where she is. I already thought the few remaining big pictures in mid-article were a bit much now we have all the min-galleries. I actually think it would be better to further reduce the bottom gallery by adding the Van Gogh to 3 or seven others discussed round there from the bottom in a new one or two row mini-gallery of (relatively) modern works. What do you think? Johnbod 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I'm off now, I'll look tomorrow. All quiet on the Frida front anyway!Johnbod 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• so far so good. Modernist 02:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I would let you know that there are up to 5 more days to make changes at Haystacks (Monet) to help it make WP:GA. Come see the talk page and help us out some more as you have already done in the recent past.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, You've done a terrific job there, I'm not sure what I could add. I'll take another look when I get the chance. Thanks - Modernist 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref. I added some new text. Take a look when you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editorial efforts. You may want to display this somewhere.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have done it without help such as yours. That was a great ref find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to participate. Modernist 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing great work all over the visual arts landscape, reverting vandalism, adding content, and weighing in on faux articles. Cheers, JNW 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to research this, due to RL pressures. I suggest asking for editor participation with a post on the Visual Arts talk page in the first instance. Also, check out WP:DISPUTE. If there are blatant personal attacks, then put diffs on my talk page. Tyrenius 03:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius I know that you are busy thanks for your input, much appreciated. I think I'm ok now. I hope things are going well for you. Modernist 03:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - good pressures! Tyrenius 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you elaborate, why the pencil portrait is inappropriate. Rbkinar 12:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that it is absolutely unnecessary and gratuitous given the many photographs that exist of Picasso and the photo already there, its a second rate illustration in an article about the greatest artist of the twentieth century. It isn't appropriate. Please - I left your other pictures alone and I would suggest we leave it at that. Modernist 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Probably it is my misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. It was a learning experience. I just didn't realize that adding pencil portraits may be inappropriate. Of course I will remove them from Wikipedia myself. Thanks for your help. Rbkinar 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mondernist. It would be great if you could draw someone we don't have a picture of! Like Jackson Pollock, Anselm Kiefer, Richard Serra or Elizabeth Murray?--Knulclunk 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a beautiful pencil portrait of Elizabeth Murray in the September Brooklyn Rail by Phong Bui. Modernist 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to delete my pencil portraits from Wikimedia Commons, since they are unusable. What is the procedure?

Rbkinar 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for you to do is to contact an administrator on Commons and ask for their help and advice. However I think some of your illustrations might be used, maybe in articles without other photos or images and if included at 200px or less. Maybe it is ok in certain articles although placing your own drawings is a conflict of interest. Modernist 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Modernist. Thanks for your efforts on this. My thought is that works of art can be used to illustrate articles, but they really need to be not merely of high quality, but historically notable (i.e., done by a famous artist). Otherwise...JNW 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief follow-up on my talk page. Best wishes, JNW 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everybody,

Regarding the recent incident involving pencil portraits, I would like to present what was my understanding of the Wikipedia's mission. I will use an example. A student has an assignment. Of course, on many occasions he/she wants to use images. Most frequently photographs will do, but sometimes will not. By submitting pencil portraits, in addition to photographs, I wanted to help him/her in the latter situation. Wikipedia seemed to be the best place for such an involvement, because it is used by thousands of people all over the world, and among other superlatives it is free.

I would also like to comment on the following passage: "...that works of art can be used to illustrate articles, but they really need to be not merely of high quality, but historically notable (i.e., done by a famous artist)." I noticed that it is a way of judging Wikipedia image content in an overwhelming number of cases. Actually, how often, "a famous artist" is willing to publish his/her work of art in Wikipedia, and release the appropriate copyrights? On the other hand, maybe a pencil portrait should be treated like a diagram, plan, map, etc. I thought, that for a difference, Wikipedia is a place where we average, not famous people create the content. Using that kind of approach, maybe you should consider famous, professional writers to do the job of writing also...and become another paid-access encyclopedia. Wishing you all the best, Rbkinar 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page isn't a forum. Good luck. Modernist 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[You can reply here - I'm watching this page. MdArtLover]

Hi there! I'm wondering whether Charles Ragland Bunnell is notable enough to be added to the ab-ex artist list. The reason I think he might merit inclusion is that his work is both discussed and pictured in American abstract expressionism of the 1950s : an illustrated survey : with artists' statements, artwork and biographies (2003) by Marika Herskovic. Bunnell's name is even on the cover. Here is a link to the Worldcat listing for the book: [9]. What do you think? MdArtLover 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the book cover image at nyschoolpress.com, clearly showing Bunnell's name on the cover: [10] MdArtLover 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a page (with image) at David Cook Fine Art: In the late 1940’s, Bunnell began experimenting with Abstract Expressionism. He alone is credited with introducing Colorado Springs to the new style as it was excluded from the Fine Art Center’s curriculum by Boardman Robinson. Bunnell excelled in Abstract Expressionism and continued to evolve in the style through the 1950’s continuing to his death in 1968. He was recently recognized as a premier American Abstract Expressionist by his inclusion in the book American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950’s: An Illustrated Survey. (LInk: [11]) MdArtLover 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he belongs, I know the newyorkpress books, I have them, please put him on the list of other artists. There are some major names on that list including Johns and Rauschenberg, and many of those artists contributed to the aura and the mystique of Abstract expressionism. Modernist 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that solution; I'll do it at once. Thanks! MdArtLover 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, but please expect this at the moment. I checked out the above. It has got rather protracted and complex, and I see there is already admin involvement. I'm not in a position right now to get involved in these lengthy disputes, I'm afraid. Again, check out WP:DISPUTE, which has the steps to follow. The best thing is the involvement of multiple editors to generate consensus. Tyrenius 16:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to basically ignore the troll. I appreciate that sometime RL takes precedent. I have some major stuff - good stuff to deal with too. Thanks Tyrenius. Modernist 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree he was a post-impressionist but he wasn't only a post-impressionist. I think it would almost be like referring to Picasso as a Cubist without also adding a qualifier (well... that is kind of an overstatement, but it still illustrates my point).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and actually the article covers his entire life and career as do several related articles. However as I stated Van Gogh has come to be known as a Post-Impressionist. You probably know that Monet did cartoons and caricatures in his early days, but we still think of Monet as an Impressionist. Modernist 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkit. Miss your contributions. Hope you are well. Best wishes, JNW 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I miss you too, I hope you are well, are you ok? Modernist 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all are sweet! I'm fine. In June I moved from Seattle to Leavenworth, Washington to do design and layout at the weekly newspapers here. In Sept. and Oct. we do one special section after another which kept me extremely busy (see some of the covers on my blog, http://www.makinitupasigo.com/blog). I'm also living in a rural area without broadband (gasp), and around the end of Sept. my phone line went goofy and I can no longer connect to my dialup ISP, and I've not yet contacted Verizon to get that fixed. So, basically I'm more involved right now with print publishing than web publishing, and I just a few weeks ago got my studio area set up at home.--sparkit^TALK 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear from you, all the best, and looking forward to when you return. Modernist 03:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI since I partially reverted one of your changes to Roy Lichtenstein. When you reverted some of the recent test edits you accidently went back to a broken version. The was a improperly closed ref tags in that version causing some of the body text to get included into a foot note. I've fixed that up as well as a couple other similar issues. PaleAqua 08:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I had serious doubts about my last edit there. Modernist 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I had similar concerns about my edit just a few edits before yours. PaleAqua 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've commented there, as you may have seen. Johnbod 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]