User talk:Freshacconci

Please click here to leave me a new message. Please sign your message with ~~~~ or I will not respond.

Archives

October 2006-April 2007

May-July 2007

August-November 2007

Star

Keep up the good work. Tyrenius 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your work upholding BLP. Tyrenius 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well deserved, you are doing really good stuff these days. Modernist 05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Add this to the 'well-deserved' column. Congratulations. JNW 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicate names of artists in the article New York School

Hi freshacconcispeaktome! I wonder if you could help me to solve the following problem: One year ago when I started to edit Wikipedia I tried to create a Category: New York School artists. This attempt was deleted. Category: New York School artists. The Category was deleted but the comments requested the list of the New York School artists. i.e.: Comment: I think "New York School" is not completely interchangeable with Abstract Expressionism. Certainly there were non-NY abstract expressionists. I'm not sure the term "New York School" was widely applied to anyone who was not an abstract expressionist. I think a list might be better; I also think we need to clarify the criteria for inclusion, because something like this is useless to the reader if criteria are not clear. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC). In the past I listed the New York School artists of the 1950s. The list changed by the addition of artists who were not New York School artists and the dates of birth showed that some of the newly listed artists in 1950 had to be 3 or 5 years old or 13 and 15 in 1960. When you looked at the biographies of these artists it became clear that they did not belong to the list of New York School artists. (New York School artists are not equivalent to artists from New York City.) Some of the other added artists had nothing to do with this specific group of abstract expressionists. I added new references and reentered the list of artists under the newly referenced title so the readers would find the information through clear criteria. The problem is at hand that now there is the old list which has a number of duplicate entries. I would like to delete the duplicate names for the sake of clarity. Would you be kind enough to let me know how to proceed? Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi freshacconcispeaktome!

I hope you are well and the vacation is only for clearing your thoughts. The list that I was concerned about is partially fixed. It still has to be corrected but as always "one step at a time and we will get there." Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Toronto

What is the deal there? I left a post on the TO Project, no action yet, and you look to be the most recently active member there. It is almost like you're caught in the grip of paralysing winter weather or something. I wouldn't know, I moved to Vancouver 354 days ago (exactly)

Anyway the Toronto article, in External Links, there is a stripe "Templates" and "Show" shows nothing. There is some kind of screw-up, I just took out a lame template, someone needs to fix it up.

Don't you guys have anyone who's template-worthy? Or paying attention at all? LOL just poking, waiting for the federal gov to save your lame butts as usual?Franamax (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Honest, I don't know how to fix the Toronto article - can you help? Franamax (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Message to 88.111.104.111

Hi!, thanks for the message, but it was definetly not me who made the edits!lol!!. Will try harder to make edits signed in more often now!lol!. My IP or the person who made the edits must have a dynamic one. 88.111.104.111 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not vandalise

I did not "vandalise" those pages, at least I didn't mean to. -68.224.117.152 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Avant-garde artists

What makes you believe that Pygmalion Books is not an avant-garde book arts collective? If your personal bias does not like the way I write about them in other articles, fine, but at the very least, it was simply not wrong to add them to the SI article or the list of avant-garde artists article. I would like to further understand why you removed them, it's really not making sense to me. What is your criteria for even understanding what avant-garde art is? Working in a university has very little to do with it. Neither does reading Renato Poggioli from an uninvolved art history class vantage point. From what I'm able to glean about you in your profile section, I find it doubtful that you have ever contributed to anything resembling avant-garde art, hence it seems doubtful that you are much of a judge. I would be very happy to have you prove me wrong!

For instance, I see that you "work for a media arts festival." Pygmalion Books has explicitly rejected the formal 'festival' procession as an avant-garde tendency (i.e. http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23974#p23974) in the past. Their bulletins are also loaded with comments on the situationists left and right, including the desire to move beyond them in practice. Have you read these bulletins prior to rejecting them? You seem to be entirely without any sort of coherent qualification or reason to be editing them out in my opinion. I would like to understand your motives.

Also, I did not add my "personal analysis" to the Arthur mag page. I quoted a verbatim passage from one of their bulletins.

Furthermore, I would like to add that prior to this latest blind crack down, Pygmalion Books has been in the SI external link section for nearly a year now. It's painfully obvious that in many cases where it used to be Ok for their mention to be there, now any links related to them are simply being censored in the most uncritical of ways and by very poor readers who seem to have no idea what they're talking about beyond relating the mass deletion to other instances of "spam." But this makes no sense at all. If some contributions were bad, this is not grounds to remove them all, especially not the contributions that have been long standing up until now.205.200.244.98 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I would like to directly contest the fragments of Wikipedia policy that you copy/pasted to my talk page. I find the policy to be entirely irrelevant in this situation. Pygmalion Books is not by any means an "inappropriate external link" and you have shown no evidence to the contrary thus far. I am very aware that Wikipedia should not be "used for advertising or promotion." The relevance and notability of this group goes beyond this admonition. I am not "affiliated" with Pygmalion Books. I live in the same city as them and heard about them through word of mouth. The external link that I am trying to defend, which has been in the article for a long time by now, does not promote a product. In fact, considering how Pygmalion Books does not actually sell any of their books, the link does this far less than any of the other publishers listed in the external links section (who do sell books, thus the link is promoting their products in a much stronger sense -- already this is, if not laughable, at least dismissible to anyone who has ever attempted a serious reading of the situationist concept of recuperation; again your actions here seem to illuminate how little you seem to actually know of both subjects you would attempt to police). You tell me to "see the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations" but nothing written here goes against the reason for adding this publisher. I am aware that "Wikipedia uses nofollow tags" and have absolutely no concern about whether or not the external link I add alters their "search engine rankings." 205.200.244.98 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)