User talk:I dream of horses

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

No Woman No Cry (painting)

Thank you for your edits, but I am sorry to say I disagree with much of your assistance and have put back the original information:

• Why did you delete Category:1998 paintings, leaving the article uncategorised?
• The references are indeed references, not external links. The article was based on information contained within each of them.
• The {{fact}} templates for the use of elephant dung are a bit odd, given that the use of dung in his earlier paintings was one of the signatures of Ofili's work. In any event, it is mentioned in nearly all of the cited sources.
• Several of the references call it Ofili's best work - the FT calls it masterpiece.
• Almost all of the references - and the Tate in particular - refer to Doreen Lawrence, Stephen Lawrence, Ofili's inspiration, and the more general theme of melancholy and grief. The FT calls it a modern Pieta.

You have the best of intentions I am sure, but it is rather demoralising to have a new article cut to pieces within 7 minutes. Still, I may come back to The Holy Virgin Mary later. -- Theramin (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted the category, since it was redlinked.
• I put in {{fact}} temps since using elephant dung can be construed as controversial, so it's probably best to use inline citations.
• References? External links? I'd say they're both.
• It doesn't matter if the references call it his "best work". Wikipedia is not a repository of opinions. It's an encyclopedia. Stick to the facts.

Finally, if you can't handle your work being edited mercilessly, then don't put it on Wikipedia. You don't own anything here. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies.

• An alternative choice to removing a category which is indisputably correct would have been to create the category page, as I did a few minutes later; or to have replaced it with another slightly less good but blue one, such as Category:1990s paintings.
• Elephant dung was not really controversial here, I hope; just wait for The Holy Virgin Mary.
• The references are references, because (a) they support the assertions in the article, and (b) they were used (by me) as the source material to create it.
• As I mentioned, there are sources that call this his best work. Perhaps it would be better to parrot to one specific source, and say that the FT calls it a masterpiece (as I have now done)?
• There are multiple sources for Ofili intending the painting to be read as a portrayal of general melancholy and grief.

Unfortunately, you have added an additional error in your most recent edit - it was not "inspired" by Picasso's The Weeping Woman - Ofili has said (and the sources say) that it was inspired by Doreen Lawrence.

Of course, WP:OWN cuts both ways: you don't own it either. I have asked for independent opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. -- Theramin (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what I want the most is a specific mention, in the article, of the source when an opinion is stated. "According to *insert source here, the painting was a masterpiece.". This would avoid peacocks, and weasels.

I think this is a case of an inaccurate first impression--I now get the impression you know what you are doing (more than me, anyway!), along with feeling strongly about it. I'll bow out now. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am hardly a professional, but I do try. Until the next time :) -- Theramin (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Peace. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I hope all is well. As of today, I no longer include what I have determined as troublesome editors on my watchlist...(half a dozen). I no longer care about what they do or where they go to do it. This, of course, does not include you as I consider you one of the friendliest and congenial editors I have met in my 3 years here. I don't know why but I thought I would tell you that. Your good wishes create good will.Buster Seven Talk 00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, thanks.

What prompted this? Hopefully, you aren't leaving, or something. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not planning on leaving at all. In fact, getting more involved. What prompted this was a "cleansing" of my watchlist (like I mention above) and I was reminded of your congeneality when I ran across your name. Some editors don't like the community aspect of Wikipedia. On the contrary, I feel it outshines Facebook, Twitter and all the other popular social newtworks. And, for the most part, we get some serious long-range, planet-improving work done. Only a tiny bit of time is spent on social chattering. I guess I needed to tell someone that I was improving myself as an editor by NOT focussing on my enemies...by completely disregarding whether other editors were bringing them (my nemesisisises) to RfC or AN/I or any other dispute resolution depot...by not caring whether or not they were placing there name up for Administratorship...etc. All of a sudden those thing were not important anymore. Feels good, like a walk in the sunshine. take care. Buster Seven Talk 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Very wise decision, B7. It took me years to realise how good the advice in WP:FUCK is. Wikipedia often is game-like, but it is possible - with effort - to rise above that. We all get dragged in to stuff, occasionally - but the skill is, knowing when to walk away. In some cases, when in some disagreement, I decide - "Oh well, it doesn't matter. Maybe I'll come back to this one in another year or two." See you around.  Chzz  ►  16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)