User talk:Tyrenius: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:23, 11 August 2008

Put new messages at the bottom of this page.

2006	2007	2008
Archive 1, Jan - May 2006	Archive 4, Jan - Feb 2007	Archive 9, Jan - 2008
Archive 2, Jun - Aug 2006	Archive 5, Mar 2007
Archive 3, Sep - Dec 2006	Archive 6, Apr - Jun 2007
	Archive 7, Jul - Sep 2007
	Archive 8, Oct - Dec 2007	How to archive

Children's Games (detail) by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (c.1525-1569)

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales

If you require the assistance of an administrator, please see the list of administrators. To report a problem, see the administrators incidents noticeboard, the administrator's noticeboard and vandalism intervention.

Please don't post about new issues, which I'm not already involved in. Replies may be slow.

Victoria Miro Gallery

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]

Brayden Caya

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]

4/28 DYK

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]

Referencing guide

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]

Four Freedoms

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]

Rat Bastard Protective Association

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]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style

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]

The Brian Sherwin bio now has a claim of conflict of interest

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]

Abstract Expressionism

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]

AS again

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

Re: Ake Lianga

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]

User talk:Carptrash

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]

Unrelated issue of Internal Links

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]

Guy Denning

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]

Talk:Cindy Sherman

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]

Template:Infobox Artist

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[1] and three times on the template page.[2] 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]

Stub templates

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]

Infobox artist

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]

Re:Museums

Hello, Tyrenius. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Vaga

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]

A favor to ask

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]

Association of Hole in the Wall Camps

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]

The Garden of Earthly Delights

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:[3]....Thanks Modernist (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gillick-Local.jpg)

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]

Can you check on a page

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)

Reich Chancellery meeting of 12 December 1941

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]

Ze Khodz

I wanted to check the page about a band in Egypt called "Ze Khodz" but appearantly it got deleted by you. I would like to know if the deleted content is retrievable. Since I don't have a wiki account you can't contact me, but I'd be delighted if you reverted the old content since this band is of great significance of the upcoming rock scene in cairo. (or maybe being famous is exclusive to the US, then it'd be a different thing of course) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.177.131 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BAND for criteria for articles on bands, in whatever country they are. You might like to register an account, which is free and simple to do. Ty 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuckists

Hi Ty, there seems to be a very angry editor at Art of the United Kingdom who doesn't recognize Stuckism, and he deleted the YBA template that I added to the article. I left this message on the talk page: [4] Modernist (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, This guy is being very disruptive - User:Artlondon, the anti-stuckist, he has less then a thousand edits and he's been around about a year, everything he says on his user page is a lie. He deletes what he doesn't like from his talk page as well.Modernist (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, User:Artlondon seems to have quieted down and I think we're beginning to settle it down now, thanks.. Modernist (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets face it - this guy User:Artlondon is a problem...I don't think he's getting it yet..I think he should be either banned or blocked..I would describe this guy as a Troll...it's a matter of time...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Fairey

Thank you for your assistance in re-instating THE PHILOSOPHY OF OBEY book in the Shepard Fairey page. I do not understand why it was deleted in the first place...

Best

Park West Gallery

Thanks for your great work on this! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your blocking that vandal, a particularly weird character. Modernist (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, he's back [5] making threats..I think my talk and user pages might need protection...the funny thing is I didn't even block this nitwit...He got blocked before I had a chance to file the report, by his own racist statements..Modernist (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, the original admin who blocked the guy in the first place - User:NawlinWiki has blocked the third inncantation of this guy and he has protected my user and talk pages...Thanks again...hopefully things will quiet down. Seems OK for now. Modernist (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This came out of nowhere. Did I make some egregious citation mistake that prompted it?--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I only bother with formatting when I'm trying to get an article through FAC or GAN, since standards change so quickly. Otherwise, I just go with whatever seems most intuitive for the citation at hand.--ragesoss (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIRA

Tyrenius, when you get a chance could you take a look over [[6]]. I've no idea what the objections to the inclusion of the IMC report are, and the WP:IR participants are refusing to state it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the RIRA and its two factions" makes no sense, as would have been clear if you had read and understood the article. If you need to be spoon-fed through editing articles that are too complex for you to understand, please recuse yourself from editing them in future. Thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to advise. I suggest the procedures in WP:DR. However, Domer, your post here is not civil. It helps to create a collegiate editing environment to comment objectively on edits, not insult editors. Ty 09:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, its been a time since I posted here. I have expanded on my above comments here. This follows on from the discussion here, and the advice offered in the edit summaries here, by three editors. As you will see, when an editor says they have "no idea what the objections" are, you must be prompted to ask why they then keep reverting. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you'd wonder why someone would keep reverting content out when they won't state what their objections to the inclusion of relevant reference material is. (Sorry for the late reply, missed this on my watchlist). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, both parties make sure that you've stated your case clearly and it is understood what the issue(s) is (are). If you then can't agree, then make a statement summing up the points and get outside evaluation from non-involved editors, like an article RfC. If you do that, give the outside editors a space on the talk page to respond to that summary without arguing with them. Just see what they have to say. Ty 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions of NYRB ext links

You wrote "del sub site" in removing an ext link to the New York Review of Books site from the Paul Krugman article. I restored it, taking your ES to mean that you were deleting it because it was a subscription site. That, by itself, wouldn't be sufficient reason to delete, but the main reason I restored is that no subscription is needed. Some of the NYRB links give a few hundred words of the article, with a subscription needed for the rest, but even that much may be worth ext linking. Some of them, like the Krugman link that you deleted -- Michael Tomasky essay on Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal from The New York Review of Books -- give the whole thing for free. Your deletion of so many of these links seems problematic. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second the above. You pleaded "del sub site" (whatever that means) for a feature article on the Kashmir war in the NY Review of Books. The link works, the entire content is available. You seem to be one of these Wikipedians in a bubble, speaking in arcanities to keep out the uninitiated. Next time, please give a clear justification for deleting links to information rich, thoughtful content. You could use the article's talk page -- and reference that comment in the edit summary. Hurmata (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a user nearly all of whose edits are adding external links to the New York Review of Books and the sample that I checked out all required payment to view the content. You might like to read the guideline on this at Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration. As you don't seem familiar with it, here is the wording:

Sites requiring registration

Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them.

A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.

If you think something is useful, then you can replace it. The ones I checked out were not. There's no need to panic or start making personal accusations.

Ty 06:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't known about the other user's actions. Mass additions and mass deletions both disturb me.

Most of the links I've checked out had at least one free article. All had some free content. The Krugman link that you removed went to a specific review about a Krugman book, but many of these links are to an "archive", a listing of multiple NYRB articles by that person. For example, I pulled at random the Elizabeth Drew archive, and found a list of numerous articles. Some, marked by a symbol, require subscription, but most are available for free. A list like that is worth linking to even if not all the content is free. JamesMLane t c 08:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Tyrenius) (1) I suggest that every time you make an edit motivated by Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration, you invoke it. I suggest this as an edit summary: "Delete subscription site per Wikipedia:El#Sites_requiring_registration". (2) With your reply, you have given ground for another criticism. You wrote at enough length to justify yourself -- and justifying oneself is fine -- but you were not gracious enough (gutsy enough) to ACKNOWLEDGE, and respond to, a point which touched on that justification. What you *ought* to have written was something like,

"I took a sample of the mass edits and the sampled instances were pay to view, so I deleted all the edits. But now that you bring it to my attention that many more of these external links were free content, hmm, that's something to think about."

Hurmata (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I can write is that all these links were inserted by an editor whose only interest was clearly to spam the site. It is usual to revert such links, because they have not been made judiciously and they have not been made with the benefit of wikipedia as the criterion. Therefore I don't have a problem with deleting them. The only ELs I removed were ones placed by this editor User:Reader34‎. Please check his contributions. Furthermore, the sample ones I checked could only be accessed with a payment. I understand that some others had partial content available and the rest of the content available only with a payment. This is not suitable for an EL. I understand some of them actually had free content. In that case, another editor knowledgeable about the subject can review to see if it genuinely is merited as an EL. However, we are not here to make a list of EL, but to write articles, so it should be considered whether content can be added and the link used as a reference. There is of course no problem with using pay-to-view sites/links as references. If you still have an issue, or don't see why spam should be removed, you might like to consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam for more input. Ty 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you have just suggested, "it should be considered whether content can be added and the link used as a reference". While we wait for a volunteer editor to get around to assimilating some (possibly) long external Web page and then working some of its information into the Wikipedia article, the "External links" heading is the perfect place to park the imminent new source. Hurmata (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the purpose of the EL section. Put it there and it stays there for ever more and never gets used for article content and referencing. If it's of potential use in the article, then put it on the talk page with a suggestion that it has useful content which should be incorporated in the article. Then something might get done about it. Ty 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an author who's had a significant number of pieces published in the NYRB, a link to an archive page seems appropriate to me, even if some or all of the specific articles are pay-only; a free list of articles is a reasonable ext link. Do you agree with including those links? I don't know what fraction of the total meets that description but there are probably a fair number. JamesMLane t c 10:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the link is to a list of indexed articles, which have to be paid for or require registration to access, then an EL is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. EL should only be to content which is freely available. A mere list is not going to be very useful to a reader. If some of the indexed articles can be viewed without payment or registration, and some require it, then it's a judgement call. There is nothing to stop the material being used in the article, e.g. "X has written whatever number of articles in the NYRB" and using the index to reference that, if it is important information. If it's not, then it mitigates against the EL anyway. Ty 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stoopit. He, Tyrenius, deleted a NYRB link in Helen Vendler's article which has some really good stuff noted. You do have to buy some of the articles but several are free, and the link pointed to a free page. You cannot apply this rule of yours to the NYRB. Nuff said. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my rule. Read it yourself please: Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. It applies to all sites, including NYRB. Also the link you reinstated has no free articles,[7] just a few letters viewable and a mass of pay-for articles linked. I've removed it again. Please don't reinstate. "Del sub site" = delete subscription site. Ty 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reinstated. There are several free pages served with Vendler's comments, and the beginnings of the articles are available. It is also VERY useful as a selected blbiography. Please stop being disruptive by following guidelines and general policies with a far too strict interpretation. WP:IAR when a rule prevents improving wikipedia. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using that link. Are there any more you have reinstated or intend to reinstate? If so, then I think we need wider input into this. Ty 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, most certainly. I have been quite naughty on this subject. Developed something of an NYRB link fetish I must say. Seem to be drawn to that particular external link. What ever shall we do with myself? Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh

I could use a hand here - an out of control admin wants to change the article into ........his better vision. Hmmm, I added the picture to the legacy section and hopefully the issue is settled..Modernist (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorucci

As an admin myself, I felt it was accurate to remove the CSD given, as you point out yourself (as do most on the AFD nom), the article is clearly not a candidate for speedy to begin with. Circeus (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Weddle

Hi TY, I was helping out with the Kirk Weddle article when you deleted. Not sure if any of my changes showed up or not. I think I can work with it enough to show that he is notable. Is there anyway to get what was started back? MTV.com states that the album art which is based off of his photograph is a iconic album-cover. There are also some bits and pieces about his past and about his life that can be found from articles about the boy who was in the photograph as a baby. It seems the article may have suffered from the person who created it not giving enough info. What do you think? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

saying it's vanity = BLP vio?

I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a WP:BLP violation. If you want to call me to task on my voting history, that's fine, but I stand by my behavior and don't believe it to be wrong. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain

Thanks for adding your opinion on the video sculpture at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain. Did you have any thoughts on the viability of the article as a WP:FA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pearce

Thanks for your help laying out the Michael Pearce page so it looks like a proper wikipedia page. Awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.16.93 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Original research - Uwe Wittwer

Hi. Thanks for your input on my contribution. The NOR issue on Uwe Wittwer would effectively mean we'd have to delete the entire article - does it not? I was unfortunately not aware of WP:NOR when I created the article. What course of action do you suggest? Kind Regards, Kevin —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

Hi Ty, strangely the Al Jaffee article about a Mad Magazine cartoonist is being harassed by an ip and a would be admin - User:TenPoundHammer. The guy tagged the article as being too short, I lengthened it with referenced content and he deleted the additions. Then he put an infobox on the page, I added content to the infobox - and he deleted the content, - he didn't tag it - he deleted it, saying it was unreferenced. I reverted his deletion, and referenced the content, now the ip (either him or one of his friends) deleted referenced material saying the reference isn't valid. This is a current story running about Al Jaffee on a major New York City cable station - New York One. NY1. Please take a look over there. Thanks Modernist (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TY once again this IP User talk:24.239.178.59 reverted the Al Jaffee intro, the edit about NY1. For a different reason tonight then the reason given yesterday. Yesterday he said the information wasn't notable enough because NY1 wasn't a TV station that he was aware of, and tonight he cites WP:LS, clearly the IP knows wikipedia better then most, because he seems to know what he's doing and my guess its an ip of an account, it looks like edit warring to me I reverted twice myself so far, I've asked for comment on the talk page twice now - please let me know what you think...Modernist (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the anon's edit...although NY1 is a major station in NYC it's not national, but an important local channel, millions watch it. thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is "Anon." I'd missed yesterday's messages but will keep an eye open for further updates. The NY1 issue seems to be settled, but I'll be glad to discuss those or any other concerns with you, Modernist, or anyone else. I've been an anonymous IP on Wikipedia for several years because I've seen too many debates turn sour, personal, and/or ongoing. I'm happy to see this minor bubble burst before it developed into much.24.239.178.59 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there's no need to speculate about my diabolical motives (though you can certainly attack any of my edits). Not only am I no "buddy" of any particular Wiki user (nor an anonymous alias for same), I also disapprove of some of the heavyhanded editing that's been going on. Since it seems to be a team effort, I've largely sat it out for now. It all seems like a passing storm. But if more of a consensus develops in the opposite direction, I'll be quite happy to assist. Your Pal, Anon24.239.178.59 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About supposed insults

I don't like to insult somebody and I didn't, I only noted the reality and, I'm not wanting to repeat myself but, you fit in that, because you, again, don't understand what is written, do not investigate anything and take hasty decisions. Xesko (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About see WP:DUCK

And by the way, I'm not American, if I wanted to forge something, I will do it in an intelligent way and whitout nobody knowing, and I can guarantee you that I can if I wanted, but obviously I didn't. your's incompetence takes me having no will to do publications in the English wiki.

Kindly don't insult another editor (in this case a respected and experienced one who has contributed a lot to the project) just because he has made an edit you disagree with. Re. the amazing coincidence of you being User:Xesko and having the same birthday, occupation, and place of residence as Xesko, as discussed on Talk:Xesko, see WP:DUCK. Ty 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Xesko (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated

See WP:HYPHEN. --John (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rutter etc

I've had a look at the museum's internal databases and can't find any images or information about Frank Rutter or Allied Artists Association. All I could find was AAA listed on the National Art Library's database http://catalogue.nal.vam.ac.uk/#focus Sorry, I couldn't be more help. VAwebteam (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 347: / Line 347: @@
 See [[WP:HYPHEN]]. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+== Frank Rutter etc ==
+I've had a look at the museum's internal databases and can't find any images or information about Frank Rutter or Allied Artists Association. All I could find was AAA listed on the National Art Library's database http://catalogue.nal.vam.ac.uk/#focus Sorry, I couldn't be more help. [[User:VAwebteam|VAwebteam]] ([[User talk:VAwebteam|talk]]) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)