User talk:Tyrenius

Put new messages at the bottom of this page. I may reply here, so watchlist this page, if you leave a post.

2006	2007	2008
Archive 1, Jan - May 2006	Archive 4, Jan - Feb 2007	Archive 9, Jan - Jun 2008
Archive 2, Jun - Aug 2006	Archive 5, Mar 2007	Archive 10, Jul - 2007
Archive 3, Sep - Dec 2006	Archive 6, Apr - Jun 2007
	Archive 7, Jul - Sep 2007
	Archive 8, Oct - Dec 2007	How to archive

Claude Monet. Charing Cross Bridge

"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

To find an administrator, see list of administrators. To report a problem, see administrators incidents noticeboard, administrator's noticeboard and vandalism intervention. If you post about an new issue, which I'm not already involved in, you may not get a quick response.

Saatchi

Ty, Just in case this diff escaped you - removed by same IP 3hrs later [1] Johnbod (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - my subjects don't talk back, fortunately! Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope not - they've been safely dead for several centuries, in nearly all cases :) Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re emails - I have received, but not yet replied as my mail server doesn't seem to believe in the reply button at present and I am too fragged to copy over the text onto a new mail. Unless you wish for the discussion to be kept private, I can respond here - but in the meantime I can confirm that I have a couple of previous mails from you regarding the matter in 07, including the contact name at that time. I don't mind being either cc'ed any new correspondence, or taking the lead as needs be. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox

I am getting irritated. RFC? Arbcom, independent 3rd eye? admins incident? noticeboard? What? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tery Fugate-Wilcox

I want to thank you for pointing out that the images we added to the article about me were uploaded by Fvlcrvm, which is the user name of me, my wife, Valerie Shakespeare, owner of the Fvlcrvm Gallery, which existed between 1992 & 2002 & of the archives of Fvlcrvm Gallery. Any rights reserved were reserved by us for the images we took of us or my art. Thanks again for your support. I hope to get Anna to revert the deletion.99.11.7.196 (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I see my name didn't come up when I signed this. Maybe I wasn't logged on. Fvlcrvm (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will do that. Just one question: What is a sockpuppet? Fvlcrvm (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

David Coltart

There is a similar problem / discussion going on at Image:Coltart1.jpg. It seems clear this is a permission granted but maybe you can resolve it. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thornton

There were clearly COI issues when I first looked at but Judging by the last round of edits the point seems to have been taken! Semitransgenic (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Newbies

Hi Ty please watch this newbie because he is really out of control at the moment: Research Method (talk · contribs), albeit overly enthusiastic....this one also might bear watching: Search.nr (talk · contribs)...Thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he might be User:ArtLondon in a new identity..because clearly he Knows far more than a newbie, from the start. Thanks for keeping an eye out. His user page is beyond strange...kind of scary..Modernist (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ty, He did reasonably well today, he's a quick learner..nice surprise..Modernist (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, check this editors edits today:Elisabeth Cottier Fábián (talk · contribs), what is happening? Modernist (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think her edits were actually intentionally malicious..strange - payback maybe, because she did not get her way here..at Talk:List of American artists 1900 and after more than a year ago...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius please watch Research Method (talk · contribs) I think he has an agenda and it isn't a good one..this article worries me Western painting..I'm getting a very bad feeling about his intentions, he feels like a Troll. Although he knows how to edit..Modernist (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - we went at it rapid fire this morning and I don't really understand why, or what he's driving at. I am handling him as best that I can because he can be a good editor; I think he's got another persona..but I'm not sure who yet. Modernist (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ty, any comments that you can make here: [2] and/or here: [3] would be greatly appreciated by me. Have you seen this [4] and his comment about western painting? Seems he has an anti-American art agenda..Thanks..Modernist (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to this conspiracy. When I try to change something manifestly wrong I expect reasoned argument, with supporting references, not ideological opposition..Research Method (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please examine the edit history for "Art Object" - for some reason Modernist deleted it 3 times.Research Method (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you calm down Modernist, and explain to him the meaning of Ad hominem.Research Method (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Norma Kamali

I see this article has been deleted by you, but the old content is now unaccessible. I'm surprised that WP does not have an article. Do you have the old content? I'd love to have a starting place to rebuild the page. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scream

Hi Tyrenius: Seeking your input re: the most recent edits to The Scream. The recent research suggesting the role of Krakatoa's eruption in the sky's color was well-covered by reliable sources, including the NY Times and CNN, but it appears that WP:OR might be an issue here. Your thoughts/ suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, JNW (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. The deletion of sourced content continues; I've restored previous version and bestowed a deletion warning, but given the direction this is taking, I anticipate page protection, eventually. JNW (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism

Hi, I think there might be a problem with William Blake#Dante's Inferno, but after reading the relevant WP policies I still can't tell to what extent simply rephrasing sources under copyright is permissible. It isn't a straight-out CRV, but the phrasing and what is said are very similar. As I can't figure out the relevant policy, I wanted to ask you to look at it before I make a fool myself on the article's talk page. I've put the texts side-by-side in User:Lithoderm/William Blake and Enlightenment Philosophy, my Blake sandbox. Thanks, Lithoderm (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		For your many contributions, including, but not limited to: writing, editing, advising, and overseeing the quality and objectivity of articles within the visual arts. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved! Modernist (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

CARSHARING

Hi Tyrenius

I can understand why the entry for Charter Drive was deleted in terms of the Wikipedia Guidelines, but NOT in terms of precedent and consistency. If your job here is to help make Wikipedia a better online encyclopedia I respectfully request that you review all other articles on Car Sharing companies.

Please note that I copied the EXACT structure and in large part format of an approved article for two other carsharing companies (Streetcar and GoGet), so if my article is unacceptable then so is theirs - if consistent policy is a priority at Wikipedia.

Please explain the process I should follow to either (1) get my article relisted based on the grounds that it is unlike other approved articles on carsharing companies, or (2) request the deletion of other carsharing companies' articles on the grounds upon which mine was deleted.

Other articles on carsharing companies that are almost insignificantly different to the Charter Drive article:

GoGet Streetcar AutoShare – Toronto Communauto City CarShare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riggsi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Cher Doll Records

It's pretty thin stuff I'm afraid. Are there any articles that actually cover the record label instead of just mentioning it? Even if they aren't available online you can at least cite them. Anyway, thanks for adding the references and improving the article. I might take a stab at cleaning it up a bit... And FYI, I updated my vote and I would think it stands a good chance of survival. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little tired so I hope I did an okay job. I also had a couple questions: do you have a source for the quote "It was fuzzy and happy and catchier than heck. I like music that is actual songs--the shorter the better--and he got bonus points for 'Snow Song' sounding like the Jesus and Mary Chain." and are the label and the band based in Seattle? I kind of added that when I was trying to reword and sort through what was there... Would you have a look? I guess I better take it out since I don't know if it's true. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Western painting

Please watch the article - love and peas or RM just deleted the lead twice...thanks..Modernist (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a lot of new references to the lead, to the Vermeer image, and to the text that he complained about..nothing should be removed from the lead, if he objects it can be noted on the talk page..I appreciate your help, thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did the 2nd sentence, the rest later if possible..This is now a lead with 11 references, plus one that I removed because of his objections although I may use it after I examine it. There are important articles like - Medieval art with no references whatsoever..Given this editor's vociferous objections to the United States via his edits to Anti-Americanism and elsewhere, and his antipathy to American art as exemplified by his own words over and over again, perhaps he should not edit articles with a biased point of view as he clearly claims to have about subjects which he does not have objectivity about...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing Medieval art was meant simply to point to the hypocrisy involved with his focus at this particular article, now; and his strenuous objections to the Hudson River School earlier. I have said, over and over again that these articles are works in progress..The skeletons of earlier sections can be fleshed out by other editors adding well researched material. Because the Baroque is weak and Neo-expressionism not so weak that is no reason to weaken Neo-expressionism; but it is a good reason to strengthen the Baroque. I look forward to seeing all of those historical sections developed further. Eventually this article might have to be split into Western painting Part I and Western painting Part II...in my opinion..Modernist (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Damien Hirst

The previous reference didn't work at all. Now it does. It's great to improve stuff, thanks for your help.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks 4 de pic:)Peas & Luv (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Huvias

Hello Tyrenius. I would like to reply to a message I got from you, regarding my last wikipedia entry: "Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks."

- I can't see how I have been adding inappropriate external links? It's my first time editing anything in Wikipedia, so I do not know to much about the codes. I'm sorry if I messed up anything, that was not in any way my intention. I guess that it comes as no surprise that my name is Christian Bjørnø. I can understand that you read my simple entry as spam and advertising, but it was not.

The text added does not serve any lies: "2008: The unknown Norwegian artist Christian Bjørnø claims the wikipedia entry on conceptual art to be his conceptual product."

- I can understand that one dedicated to keep wikipedia as truthful as possible, would like to remove any entry that promotes a person. Still, I think that you have done a mistake here. My entry was a work of conceptual art. What differs this from a person adding his own painting to the wikipedia entry on expressionism, is that it's not up to him to decide that his art deserves a spot there. You could (and you sort of did) argue that the same counts for me. And I would agree, I think, on most other subjects but this one, and the specific spot I placed my entry. As said, I'm unknown. Why should an unknown artist get to write his own entry to a encyclopedia, claiming his own work to be a worthy example? Why should any artist, known or unknown? Because that specific topic, and that specific spot begged for someone to do something like this. It seems like no-one have done anything noteworthy in conceptual art since 2005. We both know that that's not the case. Still this topic needs to be updated. My -update-, is also a work of art that is strong enough in it's concept, to be included.

I guess you don't see it that way, but what you did by removing that exact entry, was censorship of art. In most other cases, what you do here on wikipedia related to art, is nothing like censorship, but more of keeping the entries truthful and as a quality sum up of the topic.

The reality is that I did not put ONE untruthful word into the text. It's a stating of facts. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that my name is unknown, the problem is that I wrote the entry myself and the problem lies in me not getting massive media coverage as f.ex. Damien Hirst . If say the mentioned Damien Hirst did the same thing, and got his usual media coverage, it would most likely stay (off course with some links to the coverage).

Even though I'm unknown, (naturally, since this is my first public work, and it was removed so fast that it's probably seen only by you) it does not mean that my concepts can't be as good, or even better than, any concept of an respected artist!? I'm not in any way critiquing you as a person. I do not believe that your action was wrong at the time it was carried out. You did a minor spam removal, and I love seeing that spam is getting removed from the pages of wikipedia, and since I love art, especially there! I wrote this to argue my case, in hopes that after reading these thoughts, you would see this specific case differently.

I do believe that this note is a good advocate for my work, and that you should reconsider. This conceptual work couldn't have been done any other way!

Thanks. -Christian Bjørnø —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huvias (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

He reverted an edit of mine calling it vandalism here [5], I consider this editor a provoking and disagreeable presence on this project; his tags are obnoxious and his edits are hostile...Modernist (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag says Improve, or comment - he did neither. The list of artists is clearly lacking in global representation.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break...you've been asked multiple times to add to articles what you think they need rather than just complain..Modernist (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a serious accusation and per WP:VANDAL should only be made when it can be shown that the intent of the editor was to undermine the project. There is no such evidence here, only evidence of a legitimate dispute. Research Method, you added the tag, but you did not address any specifics about what needed to be changed, only "so it can be improved, and become more representative." It needs a better justification than that, so I can see why the tag was removed. I think, however, you have a point, but you need to explain it properly on the talk page. Outline in more detail the faults and the corrections needed, so they can be discussed and/or acted on. It is not incumbent on you to make these, and if you show the tag is valid, it should stay, so that readers can be informed of the current state of the article. Ty 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I labelled it vandalism because he has persistently removed appropriate tags and red links. I think it important that people can see them, and either improve, or read, the article, or section, appropriately. Why else would such tags exist?Peas & Luv (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he removed them because he thought they were not appropriate, not because he wanted to undermine the integrity of the project. That is a legitimate dispute, which needs to go to talk pages. There has been concern over your approach to editing, and as you are a new user, it is understandable that you may not be conversant with all the policies and conventions, so I suggest you exercise some caution, and think about using the talk page to raise points in the first instance. Ty 06:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Ty's approach here and have posted a longer suggestion at User talk:Research Method. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

Please see Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Template formatting

I've been trying to figure out why the links in the first sentence of Vincent Cruz article don't act like the links in the rest of the article (the mouse pointer doesn't change unless I point directly at the very bottom of the wikilink). I think it's something to do with the infobox spacing, the problem goes away if I remove it or put a clear after it. Was hoping you might be able to assist. Thanks! Dreadstar † 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for looking at it! I tried a couple of earlier versions and they had the same problem. I'll check with DH85868993. Dreadstar † 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oleanna (play)

Hi Tyrenius, when you have a chance, would you check out the recent edits to this article? Several times I have reverted what is essentially a major expansion and re-writing, and it is now just a completely separate article grafted onto the original. It does not appear to be vandalism; on the other hand, the contributor shows no interest in explaining their rationale, or respecting what's already there. Your thoughts, as to whether any of the new content can or ought to be integrated into the previous text, would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Viractualism

Hello Tyrenius. May I remove the banner as I added these references? I worked on the page in question today. There is no doubt that I know Joseph Nechvatal - but I am not Erica Nechvatal (That is his X wife!) - as I work in his studio as an archivist. So I have sources at hand. Christiane Paul, in her seminal book Digital Art, Thames & Hudson Ltd. discusses Nechvatal's concept of Viractualism on page 58. I will note that in the text. One of the images she chooses to illustrate that section on Nechvatal is titled: "the birth Of the viractual" (2001). Also, Joe Lewis, in the March 2003 issue of Art in America, pp.123-124 discusses the viractual in his review "Joseph Nechvatal at Universal Concepts Unlimited". John Reed in Artforum Web 3-2004 Critc’s Picks discusses it too in: "#1 Joseph Nechvatal". Frank Popper also write about it in his book: From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120. Then there is mention of the concept in "Joseph Nechvatal: Contaminations" a review by Patrick Lichty archived here: [6] The other 3rd party references already cited on the web can be checked.

Cybism has not been discussed in 3rd party books yet. Shall I put the Cybism aspect as a sub-division on the Viractualism page? Valueyou (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)