User talk:Modernist

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This editor is an Illustrious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge.

Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin, The Illustrator, c.1738, leave me your message and I'll get back to you, when I return..

Suzanne Manet

"If music was her artistic contribution to the household, Manet apparently neither heard it nor saw it."

Thanks for that. Do you have a biography of Manet or any sources re their relationship? All I could find was this painting and the story behind it, which paints a pretty bleak picture. Or so to speak... Lithoderm 01:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a pretty good book on Manet, - I gotta find it and I'll try to work on the article if I can. I have always wondered what set him off to cut up the Degas like that. I guess marriage, wives, and other painters can do that to you...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs Up Award

THUMBS UP AWARD

The seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award has to given to Modernist for his above-and-beyond-the-calling efforts in tracking down and removing the footprints of a serial spammer. Wikipedia (or at least I) salutes you. Carptrash (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, my pleasure...Modernist (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Made me laugh!

This made me laugh before you fixed it. Made me think of Joan Baez, fighting for the right and good, all that stuff. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, gotta say something, uh but gotta be careful - you never know :)...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey man. Going through a big early 60s folk stage at the moment, [1]. You might have a few recommendations for me. Its all Sandy Denny here at the moment.[2] Hope all is well with you. Sorry I missed you when I did, time was against me, but there will be a next time. Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is where it all began: [3], and here [4] and this [5]...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This guy [6] started a lot of it, the revival I mean, and his sons keep it going to this day. And he lived just up the road from me. Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Gorgeous stuff - too bad he died, try this: [7] for a precedent and a different spin...Modernist (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2012 (UT)

[8]. I like this more than is prob healthy. Glad you like Seán Ó Riada, but he was an awful prick in realo life. gulp gulp gulp, and punch punch punch. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange Fruit is well, what can I say. That voice and reco0ding still haunts. Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty crazy - you know me and JNW were waiting, oh well, here's this:[9], although the new one is better...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Seven days are not enough time to see the states. I really loved what I saw, Boston is a great city, but then I would say that being Irish and all. I was 3 hours in NYC, and although I spent half a year there in 1992, 20 years later it seemed like outer space. The three hours were spend on 53rd and 5th, and in the Met, by the way. Would have loved if you were there, but it turned out to be a last minute plan, it didnt seem right to put you under pressure at the last minute. Anyway, in the few days I got to visit Massachusetts, New Hampshire (Guns, ammo, beer!), Maine, CT, NY for about five minutes. You can guess how it was for the first visit, the focus was on her family, showing that I dont have two heads, nbut there will be a next time, prob in the new year, if the offer still stands. I obviously think very highly about ye guys, to meet ye would be, well. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely, hopefully we'll all be well and maybe I'll have another show up...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's all good, no worries, she's very cool too...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reason now to travel over often, next time is prob april. I has hoped to gather you JNW, Riggr, TK and Liz, and have a blast, but first visit, there was too much to do. Im very fond of alL of ye, believe me, it will happen, as a warning, prob april/may n est year. Ceoil (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From that bygone era [10] still my favorite, look forward to it...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RE:"Art nude"

Now Nude (art); See my comments "What Now?" on my talk page. FigureArtist (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Damjing

There is NO surviving evidence that Damjing made the wall painting in Horyu-ji.　See the article on him. In addition to it, the original Horyu-ji was burned around 670, and the surviving one today is reconstructed after 670. Today the painting is considered to be done between the end of 7th century to early 8th. Please DO RESEACH before editing.--Kechrite (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy

Really glad to see you back in action and editing again. Jesus christ, that was a rough one. How did it go for you, I hope nothing was lost. I'll say one thing, ye guys dont do weather by half measure in the States. Best. Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't be back for awhile -every now and then - lots of damage - still no power - major problems...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Real sorry to hear M, I cant imagine. Looking forward to seeing you back, even when. Keep in touch. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

M, I just noticed this - I'm so sorry to hear! I was thinking of you on the night, worried, and hoping the damage wouldn't be too extreme. Take care. We'll still be here when things are up and running again. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Me as well. Dropped you an email, but obviously there's no hurry about responding. Just glad to see you in one piece. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Selfportrait by Constable (Selfportait page)

Sorry, Modernist: I realized only afterwards that I had already tried last month to insert Constable's selfportrait in its right place in the gallery. I didn't mean at all to begin a war with you about that, but it proves that I can't remember what I did one month ago... (Must be the age...) But why on Earth do you want to give this portrait a much larger size and not place it chronologically with the others? Best regards. --Pepys (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Constable is looking into the page from the right It's a good example to isolate, it can be made smaller...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Expert Barnstar

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to art-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat (7) 16:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Living George Segal sculptures at Westbeth

I find it interesting that at 2:06 in this video of Westbeth we find some living George Segal sculptures. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First

Dr. Blofeld and now you. it's a sad day for wikipedians everywhere.

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Klee

Hello,

I am considering to nominate Paul Klee at GAN. I think the article lists the main aspects of his life and discusses his style and legacy comprehensively. I am asking you because you as the main contributor might be not finished working on it. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am busy in RL and I don't have much time right now - it's got the makings to become a terrific article, do what you think best...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually very busy tomorrow - thanks for the invitation - I hope it's a big success...Modernist (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Its really great to see you back semi regularly. Place isnt the same with out the unflagging Modernist lighting up my watchlist every time I log in. Youve been missed, and we have been worrying about you. Hope all is well. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll only be here periodically when I can find the time for now...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

ho ho ho

The story of the 4th Wiseman

I do believe that this card explains
a lot of the hitherto misunderstood
and even ignored origins of a variety of Christmas stories.
I am considering writing an article about the theology involved
but am having a difficult time with sources.
Oh well,
have a good one, it does appear
that we have made it through the worst of 2012,
which is a great start to 2013
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy Holidays! All my best to you Carptrash...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad, Prospero año y felicidad

Feliz Navidad, Feliz Navidad, Feliz Navidad, Prospero año y felicidad. I wanna wish you a Merry Christmas, I wanna wish you a Merry Christmas, I wanna wish you a Merry Christmas, From the bottom of my heart.[11] Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you Bus Stop and all of my best wishes to you, happy holidays!..Modernist (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Wishing you a good day, and a better new year. JNW (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's hoping...all my best to you and all our friends here: Ty, JNW, Ceoil, Tk, Sv, Riggr, Johnbod, Ewulp, Bus Stop, Freshacconci, Carptrash, Kafka Liz, Mandarax, Cas, Sandy, Litho, Tony, and so many others....Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!...Modernist (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)l

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Best wishes to you for 2013. Hopefully things will improve...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories

Wow! Laboratory tour!

On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why undo corrections in the "Contemporary art" page?

Why are you undoing the corrections made? The article states, “A similar term to contemporary art is Modern art.” Contemporary art is not another term for Modern art. Many of the movements are incorrectly dated, for example Abstract Expressionism started in the 40s, not the 50s. There are duplicates of the movements under different decade headings; if you wish to show that the art movements go on beyond the period they started in this too is incorrectly conveyed, for example Abstract Expressionism which you desire to be listed under the 50s and 60s is a style that was still painted in the 70s, and the 80s, and even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page regarding your incorrect and massive mistakes...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'll indulge me for a moment....

I just have to say this: what an awful painting [12], when the subject could have inspired something so much more vibrant. No reply necessary. Just wanted to get that on record. There, I feel better now, and with renewed spring in my step. Very best regards, as always, JNW (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Could've, should've, would've, been better if they had a clue...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at it a few days ago I was ... stunned at how awful it is. As M says, could've, should've, would've. Btw - hi to both of you! And belated New Year greetings. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And the same for you, Tk. I was more disappointed than anything; there is a vein of decent portraiture in England, but this choice fits into the least spirited type of photographic work so common in the States. The observation that it doesn't do her justice, while true, isn't the worst of it. It's unconscionably dull, and its scale only amplifies the shortcoming. JNW (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We are of course only seeing a reproduction of it, unless it has been seen in person. Happy New Year to everybody. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you guys as well, Happy New Year...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"The quality that makes a good painting, a good painting, is always going to be elusive." Sorry if this is more like vandalism. Hey, it is vandalism. I'm just too lazy to go out and write it on a subway wall, where I'd also risk arrest. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for catching my inadvertent revert on the Hungarian painters--I have no idea how that happened and will try to figure it out so I don't make the mistake again. --Jgmikulay (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem :)...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Easter Egg Badge, awarded for helpful suggestions about improving the Teahouse.

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

About Ethel Scull 36 Times

Hi Modernist.
Could you possibly a little look at that article? A number of reasons for this request:

• While I'm competent enough to write about the subject matter, expert input would improve the article much better than I could
• When I actually write content, I'm hamstrung by my apparent compulsion to reference every single sentence ('tis the nature the beast, I'm afraid). At present, the article almost looks like:

Ethel Scull 36 Times is a painting.^[1][2][3]. It was painted by Andy Warhol.^[4][5][6]. It was painted in 1963.^[7][8][9]. Andy Warhol was famous for more than 15 minutes.^[10][11][12]

and so on.

• Oh cripes, as of 13 Feb 2013, it's the third Ghit for the artwork, though it is no more than a user-space draft.

Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one of Warhol's most important portraits, historically important, good job...Modernist (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Modernist, I sincerely appreciate your compliment.

Yeah, we both know that it is significant because it was prescient of Warhol's move into making films, Ethel Scull wore prescription sunglasses because she was short-sighted, that the Sculls fell out with Warhol about the "Brillo Boxes", and it also presaged Warhol's post-shooting move to fine art as just a business enterprise.

But for fire-trucks sake, just help me improve the article.

And that's the end of the rant. Whew. I feel much better now.

Thanks, --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)

A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric	Control group	Teahouse group	Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit)	5.02 weeks	8.57 weeks	1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited	58.7 articles	116.9 edits	2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits	36.5 edits	85.6 edits	2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits	129.6 edits	360.4 edits	2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces)	182.1 edits	532.4 edits	2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

Addresses of Grafton Galleries, London

Hello Modernist,

I have written in the German Wikipedia this article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manet_and_the_Post-Impressionists. Unfortunately I did not find with Google the correct address of the second gallery in Bond Street. I presume it was the address of the exhibition in 1910. The address of the first gallery was 8, Grafton Street, London. Perhaps you can help me? Greetings -- Alinea (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen these links? [13], [14]...Modernist (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but have not found the address Of Bond Street. New Bond Street, Old Bond Street, Number? In the digitalised catalogue is no address given. And the second exposition was held in Grafton Street? Have a look here: http://www2.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/bloomsburyhtml/images/catalogue_2ndpost.jpg. -- Alinea (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Another 2 links [15], [16], everything that I've encountered so far says Bond Street, London, no number...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've read, that the Grafton Galleries closed about 1930. I am astonished that the Tate does not cite the exact address. Nice weekend. -- Alinea (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinetic art

User:Sallyaul2013 has completely re-written the Kinetic art article loosing most of the original format, references, images etc. I would welcome your opinion/input.Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Some seems ok; some not ok; although I don't have the sources to determine copyright violations; seems fairly ambitious although with original research as well...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:

I've archived the debate [17]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, lets hope the compromise holds...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit in Abraham's article

Hi, In this edit, you mentioned the reason as the necessity for talk. I am writing to let you know that I have been doing that and I encourage you to also take part in it. --Kazemita1 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Picasso's poetry

Hello Modernist, I'm a new editor and just wrote a couple of articles about the fourth dimension in art which touches upon Picasso, one about the 4th in literature, and am currently creating a new one about Picasso's (frankly bizarre) poetry. I think it should be mentioned in Picasso's entry about his attempts at poetry, if only in passing. The author of the Surrealist Manifesto Andre Breton reviewed his work, so whatever their quality the poems have some worth in reviewing. He seems to have fallen out with Stein over her criticisms. You seem to know a lot about this sort of stuff, I have a few questions as I'm not sure about several things:

• a. How much of his poetry is it okay to quote?

Use one or two poems as examples and any other pithy quotes that make the points...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• b. The poems are rather rude in places (to put it mildly). To what extent can you get away with some of the language?

Wikipedia is not censored...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• c. I only have a 1958 1st edition Penrose biog. I found in a skip to go on for good source material. There is a website with a lot of his poetry and some background,[18] can it be trusted?

Try to find some further sources than just that website - which looks good to me by the way...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• d. A proper title for the article?

If you can help with this, or know anyone who can, then I would be extremely grateful. The article is in development here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillbillyholiday81/sandbox Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question - I think an article called Pablo Picasso as author or Picasso's poetry can work; I suggest that you include his plays Desire Caught by the Tail and The Four Little Girls - [19] and his poetry [20], look here also for material - [21]...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the input and the links, they look very useful. It will take me a while to dig through these sources and my books, probably need to visit the library n'all. Feel free to edit my sandbox if you like (you can do that right?). Cheers again! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've finally finished the piece on Picasso's purple prose, I've gone with "Picasso's poetry". Thanks for your most helpful input (and the prompt reply). I'm about to nominate this article for the DYK slot, but there so much hook-worthy stuff in there I don't know where to start, so I might have to ask for suggestions. Thanks again, Modernist. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent - good job!...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Picasso's poetry

One of the more Off-color humor hook-lines to get on main page? And surely one of the more off-color articles! Thanks for yr advice before, and the edits after this article got made.(btw, the spelling of off-color humor sets my bad British teeth on edge..) Cheers! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated - the article is terrific! Thanks...Modernist (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Of all the gems i unearthed, i am really chuffed with this sentence: The artist reportedly said "that long after his death his writing would gain recognition and encyclopedias would say: 'Picasso, Pablo Ruiz – Spanish poet who dabbled in painting, drawing and sculpture.". I hope he really said it.. ..it only took us 40 years! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well actually it might take a few more years for these to catch on...Modernist (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert with no reason

Hi Modernist, you reverted the insertation of picassos Signature without reason. As you can read here, I am Wikipedian in Residence, autor since 2004 at de:WP. Whenever I insert a image, it will have a reliable source. Not difficult really, because I am sitting inbetween 90.000 books, 30.000 architectural plans and 600.000 photos. Not all free, not all historical. But enough for 20 years of work, if it would be possible for me to grasp it all. It is entirely my decision, what I sensed all of this stock.

What was the reason, you reverted me? Because I have not enough edits als Hubertl-AT? Don´t worry, I made some edits more than you, but that should not even be relevant. Imagine if I would actually be a new user. Do you think that leaves a good impression on him and he would be motivated to continue to work on Wikipedia? Or you suffer from an oversupply of authors in en:WP?

It also begs the question of whether it even make sense to do a cooperation project in the GLAM-sense when it produced images in Wikipedia should not be used. Thats what commons.wikimedia is for. It must be added that a total project cost of $ 25,000 has been invested from the WMF for that and additionally 3-4 years of my, of course, private unpaid time. --Hubertl-AT (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Consensus is against signatures being included in articles about artists. Over several years there have been long discussions as to whether signatures should be included in articles about artists and consensus was against the inclusion of signatures for a variety of reasons. Please don't add signatures to articles about artists. We all devote time and energy here and work hard, sorry to have reverted without explaining first...Modernist (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Modernist for the friendly way to clear my problems. Some final thoughts about banning signatures from articles: I am a little disappointed about, because getting the knowledge of the world (oh Jimbo, what sick ideas you have ;-) means for me, almost everything which could be the need of anyone at anytime. Some of the major decisions I made was, that I don´t want to scan and postprocess anything I could get in this library, I only will scan items, which can be used in wikipedia - using commons simply as a data-container. Scanning is not the real problem with this project, the most time is claimed by preparing it for Commons and then Wikipedia. Right now, I have another 4000 artists with about 6000 signatures and monograms to prepare, 1000 signatures are uploaded.

It's a little risky to prepare everything - I expect some 2 months work - then, when negative decisions were made and that those signatures can not be used.

I accept this decision, but I fear that this may happen in other Wikipedias alike.

So I think that I neglect to prepare the entire, already scanned signatures. Currently, the letters A and B are completed (plus some others) and uploaded to Commons. This should then just stay that way. Thank you for your help. Greetings from Vienna! --Hubertl-AT (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed they should stay that way - artist signatures are dicey and may present a myriad of problems that it's best not to deal with. Given all the other fantastic work you are doing - let me say thanks, and all my good wishes...Modernist (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Tune

Hey man long time no talk. Thinking you might like this, also this. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks man...Modernist (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw you helping on the deletion of the Guguin statue; not much we could have done there. Very fustrating, considering the shit they have on commons. But, sigh, thats life. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

They have to be watched, they are voracious; and seriously stupid... - did you see the wooden replacement?..Modernist (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Im clutching the mouse very tightly in exparation here man. I mean like seriously. I notice you fight the good fight; I dont because I'd loose my cool and start shaking people. Ceoil (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotta try to keep yer cool, my friend...Modernist (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And not throw my big feet in head first, to mix metaphors. Yeah, realised that a while ago, but I never learn. In happier news I see Yoman, Riggr and JNW are around, bless em. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Have you seen this? And (related) this? Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Modernist! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to William Blake Task Force

Hello! I wanted to invite you to the new William Blake Task Force. This new task force will help organizes and coordinates Wikipedia's coverage of Romantic poet and artist William Blake. In Fall 2013, I, User:Sadads, will be having a WP:GLAM internship with The William Blake Archive, and has started the project to organize and support efforts to improve content related to William Blake, the collection of The William Blake Archive and other topics related to Blake's contributions to both literary and visual culture. Some of your previous contributions indicate an interest in Blake, so I wanted to invite you to the project! Hope you join us and happy editing!Sadads (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant! Will keep you informed as we move forward! Sadads (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that

you just plopped a tag or project something on Mary Rogers (artist). For the record, I have a couple of books out on women artists and am creating stubs for a bunch of them from the List of artists in the Armory Show. I am not a project person, but you might like to check them out for that reason, and hopefully more. They need help. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You certainly took care of that. Nice work. Carptrash (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep turning red to blue...Modernist (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I will. I am on a complicated one right now, but will try and remember to include your VA template right at the start. Perhaps I will look for a simpler route to go through this one. Carptrash (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

PS update. Power blackout on a perfect spring day wiped out about an hour and a half's work. Damn. Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nighthawks

I see that the image is currently FURed for 8 articles, 6 of which contain the image. However, I only think it is really needed at two articles (the work and the artist). Articles on broad art topics should only use the image if it is necessary based on the content of the prose. Then normal NFCC should apply. I don't know what you think I should contact AIC for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's your call Tony - the painting has been included in the article Art Institute of Chicago, since its (the article) inception in early 2007. It seems to be a local treasure of Chicago - it's in danger of being deleted from the Art institute - up to you...Modernist (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just stumbled across...

User:Модернист! --Shirt58 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha - it ain't me though...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Art in China: On script and cutting edge?

I think there are several interesting videos on this page, called "Art in China: On script and cutting edge?". I wanted to share them with you. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!

Hello, Modernist. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Xiangju (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you know everybody

"I think you know everybody." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - quite a group...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Baby Doe

Thanks so much for the copyedits there! I wrote it too fast and I never see my own mistakes. Thanks too for adding the see also - that's a good addition. Nice to see you around. Victoria (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What a story...Modernist (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really fascinating. I mined (!) what I could from google books, will now have to order dead tree sources from the library to finish it. When I stumbled on the page I knew it was one that needed to be developed - actually there's a whole suite of articles that can be done from those stories. I've been there, it's way above Leadville (very thin air!), and the history of that period is really interesting. Victoria (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes on it, rags to riches to rags to....Modernist (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl

A soon to be Lichtenstein FAC. Tony is asking for a hand with it. Your input would be appreciated. Hello, bty. Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 now open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out...Modernist (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your editorial assistance at Drowning Girl in recent weeks. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  
  • Thanks for the Kudos. Next up Whaam!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Early Netherlandish painting‎‎

I know you said its not to your taste, but I would really value your help on this one. Its been a long project for me, I'm about 75% there re content, and I'm now calling in the heavies for help. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look...Modernist (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Émile Zola, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ENA

Crucifixion Diptych (Rogier van der Weyden)

The image in the diptych section isnt really working for me. Do you have suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I like the one that is there now; however this one from the Philadelphia Museum of Art [22] is dynamite - Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden), but it is very large and it's purpose and history is uncertain...Modernist (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is; but stikes me as two wings of a dismantled triptych. Much as I like those, and the Met crucifixion, they dont seem representative. I'm very undecided, and would like to play around with suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nude Marilyn

The discussion about the nude image of Marilyn Monroe at Playboy has been reopened after I added this whole paragraph describing its significance. I'm notifying everyone involved in the review discussion to see whether we can build a consensus deciding how to best portray that image within the project. Diego (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! and imagery

Just wondering if you would care to weigh in here. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bus Stop, while I agree with a lot of what you said there; I need to pass for now...Modernist (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I have taken up this issue here. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded...Modernist (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved. I have made this edit to the article. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Modernist. I'm sorry to bother you again. Could you look at discussion and see if there is any input you could provide? I am trying to argue in a reasoned way. But it is difficult to even make reasonable points. Do you agree? Or disagree? Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've shortened the post there considerably, if you'd care to read it: Newer version. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Question?

Did I edit in space reserved for admins? Why this?[23] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong - it was an error on my part, sorry for worrying you...Modernist (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all right. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dresden Triptych

Jan van Eyck: Dresden Marienaltar, c. 1437

Hi Modernist. Am in a spot of bother in the FAC for the above - its beeen mentioned that including the frames violates fair use terms, as its 3D - I'm not sure what that means. The suggestion is that we get a local editor in Dresden to take a pic and release the rights. I have a few issued with this - 1. the frames are heavily inscribed with lettering that comment on the individual panels, and showing and understanding them is fundemental. In fact they have a decidacted section in the page. 2. Photographing art works is a tricky business to say the least, and this work is a minituare to boot, so even a talented photographer is probably going to come back with a less than idea capture, compare to what we have (its from Google Art Project - and by far the highest res image available on the net). Have you come across a similar situation before, can you help build a FU rational that would allow us keep it. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue seems to me to be bullshit - the frames should also be in the public domain. If the frames are modern additions to the triptych then use the image without the frame and then describe the frame and its inscriptions...Modernist (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The image you have there to the right greatly reduces the educational value of the article. Plus the colours are completly wrong, thus contradicting what the sources say about about the work. Panels, frames, whats the bloody difference. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said I do not understand at all the rational against using the framed version - whoever is giving you a hard time is wasting everybody's time as far as I can tell...Modernist (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it's a total waste of time - I wouldn't touch that nonsense with a ten foot pole - ridiculous and petty objection that if I were you I'd take it up with the foundation...Modernist (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well its Crisco, who is a nice guy by any standards. He is just pointing out the way it is; I thinking if I can get a convincing rational on the image talk and post that defence on the FAC, I might be out of the dark waters. Thinking aloud, its one of the few van Eyck frames to survive; might go down that route.

Hello from unusually sunny IRE by the way. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with the nice guy...Modernist (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam!

I have responded at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1#Comment_from_Modernist. Your clarification is urgently needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I responded there at FAC...Modernist (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have such a long history of discourse on many issues and even watching many of the same pages for a while, I wonder how you would feel if we try and talk here on your talk page rather than enter the fray that has become the FAC on this article. Let me know what you think. I think we are more likely to make progress in this regard if we talk without interruption and general scrum that this FAC has become. I am pretty sure if I can get you on board with general content, Bus stop will follow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me, lets try...Modernist (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW basically I'm saying move that section to Roy's biography and then link it to Whaam! Most of those refs look like blogs, and what is being used seem to have an axe to grind - Sooke ends with Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all.. yet that is not used or mentioned. Lichtenstein sold the painting in '63-64 for around $1000.00 and nobody complained; when his auction prices went through the roof these issues have surfaced - and IMO - should be discussed in his bio...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW are you planning on including the same material on all the other paintings in this series?. One good reason to place it in the bio and then link it to the individual articles...Modernist (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, what WPVA needs to hear is that COMICS is making points that There are some very questionable aspects to Lichtenstein and Whaam! is the prime example. At the FAC you say the comments are "nasty and irrelevant", but you say they belong in the bio. Thus, they are relevant to Lichtenstein. What I think the COMICs people are saying is that this particular work most embodies these questionable aspects of Lichtenstein. This is the work they parody to make their point. This is where they convene to meet to discuss these issues. I don't plan on working on any more individual Lichtenstein article toward FA. I may bulk out Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! for A-Class at MILHIST if there are any takers who want to review it. Thus, I don't plan on adding all this stuff to every comic-based work. The thing is Lichtenstein should be a GA if so many of his works are going to FA and GA. However, I am not too interested in much beyond his early 60s. If there were a group of people who wanted to take his article to GA, I would help though. The long and the short of it is that stuff that you say is "nasty and irrelevant" is not exactly that or you should not be directing it to his bio either. I saw a recent post by Bus stop that almost says he was a fine artist so the COMICS viewpoint does not matter. We are not going to get anywhere with that approach.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly the remarks are nasty and essentially relevant to the larger issues regarding the corporate suppression of comic artists. While Lichtenstein benefited perhaps unwittingly perhaps less innocently from those comic artists and their misfortune - and now re-awakened good fortune - (thanks in part to MoMA, Kirk Varnedoe and the 1990-1991 High & Low Exhibition [24], [25]); the information should be voiced on Roy's page - although it must be presented in a balanced way. When Whaam! was painted it was a festering sore perhaps but by 2013 it has exploded into a mini-industry; thanks perhaps to Lichtenstein's auction success for whatever reasons that monetary success represents. Any mention of this issue in the Whaam! article should be balanced, and minor - a sentence or two and a link to the larger and to a large extant important issue regarding copyright, ownership rights, plagiarism, and appropriation...Modernist (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this "festering sore" issue. However, in terms of being nasty, keep in mind negative comments must be adequately summarized. I would concur that they don't belong in every random Lichtenstein comics-based work. However, this is the one that they point to as the example of all the negative issues. There is negativity towards Lichtenstein for reasons claimed to be examplified by Whaam!. The article needs to relate this to the reader. Yes greater detail belongs at the bio. What we need is to summarize the "copyright, ownership rights, plagiarism, and appropriation" issues and state that Whaam! is said to exemplify these issues. You understand the issues are copyright, ownership rights, plagiarism, and appropriation. This is good. The COMICS views on the issues are negative, but must be dealt with in the bio and the work that embodies them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The festering sore issue - refers to the enormous resentment for various reasons among various and disparate groups in the art world and the culture at large at the time of Lichtenstein and Warhol's debut exhibitions in the early 60s. Not only were the commercial art interested parties bent out of shape but so were the 'High art' interested parties as well - see the two reviews of the High & Low show I added in my previous remarks, as well as the general public. That said...the introduction of the more recent uproar regarding copyright, ownership rights, plagiarism, and appropriation is just that - relatively recent - and mention at Whaam! should be placed in careful and balanced terms; linked to more in depth discussion of the complex issue; which frankly requires an article on its own, although it should be discussed in depth at the Lichtenstein biography. As far as I can tell Masem and I are in accord as is Bus Stop...Modernist (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• We are doing well if both sides think Masem is in line with them. It means that there is likely a way to express things that both sides will agree with.
• Have you seen his 1-sentence summary of paragraph 1 of the general contents? What would you think of summarizing the paragraph like that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Honestly, I looked at those reviews and thought "What do they have to do with our discussion?"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem is suggesting placing the material into Roy's biography and removing it from the article and I agree with him. As to the 2 reviews: The times review is neutral while the Kramer review (Kramer was known as a very conservative art critic) is hostile to the concept of the High & Low exhibition, you can imagine his take on Lichtenstein in the 60s - Kramer was a powerful source of 'high art' criticism. Just saying it started as a festering sore in a lot of places...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we readd File:Gibbons after Novick.jpg to the remaining text on the COMICS issue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if it's properly covered in the text and with a valid Rationale...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! archiving

I've let GrahamColm (talk · contribs) know here that you have concerns with his archiving of Bus stop's comments. Please keep in mind that none of the editors who commented at the FAC asked him to archive them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough...Modernist (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have posted here that I am not really concerned about anything that has transpired, as I am focussed on writing the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now three weeks old and has now had over 250KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I did not expect an Oppose. Thought I had found the sweet spot where both side might agree. Now you say "misconstrued reading of that reference". Furthermore, you are contesting on the basis that "one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey" is overexaggerated. You are an expert on Modern Art. I am of the impression that in terms of pop art one might choose this among the two or three most important depictions of the genre. Are you contesting that the other two don't belong in this sentence or that this one doesn't?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying - simply - is the reference says the paintings are influential and you extrapolated from that comment that they are the most influential; I'm sorry Tony but your inference goes too far...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

They're important Lichtenstein paintings; although as far as Pop Art goes they are interdependent with Johns, Rauschenberg, Warhol, Oldenburg, Rosenquist, Thiebaud, and Wesselmann in putting over the movement - but that's another story...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does not actually say these are the three most influential. It says each of these three is among his most influential, which I think is in keeping with the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC (not about you)

• Would you be willing to sign off on this? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll think about - definitely a screw loose over there...Modernist (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

Since you voiced an opinion at FAC1, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony I'll keep an eye on it...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Blake Update 1

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of Moab.

William Blake Archive GLAM Update #1 Check out the first update on the GLAM-Wiki cooperation with William Blake Archive and the William Blake Task Force, Sadads (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) This is a transclusion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake/Updates/Update 1/Announce. If you would not like to receive future messages about Blake GLAM-Wiki, please remove yourself from Wikipedia:Blake#Members. This update was distributed by User:Sadads

Blake's illustration from For Children The Gates of Paradise

FA Thanks

This user helped promote Drowning Girl to featured article status.

Thanks for your editorial contributions to Drowning Girl, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Frank Stella

This would be a mistake, wouldn't it: "Frank Stella, a fellow Pop artist…"[26]? Frank Stella was never a Pop artist, was he? Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's wrong...Modernist (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input

Modernist—if you get a chance can you look at and comment on my latest posts on this page? I am referring to my last 3 posts currently at the bottom of that page.

Also, do you happen to have access to the book by Bernice Rose called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published in 1987 by the Museum of Modern Art? I would like to confirm the quote by Bernice Rose that I am considering adding to the article. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your comments seem particularly interesting although I don't have the Bernice Rose book - if you can validate the quote it's worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've requested information here and here. Maybe somebody will have information on that quote. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I have validation on that quote.

This confirms the wording of Bernice Rose saying: "Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he…"

The wording ends at the above on Google Books. For the rest of that final sentence I find at this search ("The drawings of Roy Lichtenstein - Page 17"): "In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Also an editor at the German Wikipedia confirms that in translation we find the same idea. That can be seen here.

And at the Visual arts thread User:JNW points to this. The wording there is: "Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

So while neither I nor anyone else has seen the English version of the book, I think I can be confident that the quoted language, which I originally encountered here, is accurate.

By the way, I have also raised this question here but I've so far gotten no responses. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO you have confirmation of the quote...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hey, Modernist, are you interested on commenting on this? It got quickly buried. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—your "paraphrasing" is misleading. You are placing emphasis where Bernice Rose is not placing emphasis and you are removing emphasis from where it was found in the original. That is not acceptable paraphrasing, and why would paraphrasing be called for in this instance? The entire quote can be left out of the article. We can use the implication of her quote to support assertions in our article. That is not hard to do. And assertions deriving from Bernice Rose's commentary need not be confined to only one place in our article. If similar implications find applicability at two locations in our article, I think that should be acceptable too. There is no reason that I'm aware of that we should resort to paraphrasing in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I proposed it for discussion. So discuss it and work out the kinks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!

Given your active participation that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thank you for your attention to the Whaam! WP:FAC discussion. Your expertise was quite helpful.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations Tony...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

An afd that may be of interest

I'm reminded slightly of User:Leningradartist when I saw the Afd on Sergey Zagraevsky. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

About Informalism

Hello Modernist,

I disagree on merging Informalism into Tachism, as Tachism is only a part of Art Informel or Informalism. Doing this would be an art history mistake. As I am not satisfied with what i have written for now, I am working on it. I would like to have your opinion on this. What I agree on is that I realized that my translation of the Spanish page, Informalismo, is not relevant because the Spanish page was not. I think as well written and comprehensive as the French one. I will redo the page using the French one as a model and complete it with right sources. Regarding merging Informalism under Tachism, I agree in merging both but under the umbrella of Informalism since that was the primary artistic movement and Tachism was a part of Informalism. Tachism is an informal process, a pictorial technique that certain Informalist painters developed but the majority of the Informalist used various techniques, including tachism. Wikime54Wikime54 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikime54 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Place all comments to talk pages on the bottom of the page. Regarding your idea - I am opposed, Tachism stays as the article title; a merge is possible although I think you should just add your information provided it's sourced and notable to the Tachism article...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction Sutton Hoo Helmet

This is not simply a matter of preference. If you haven't read the discussion, you need to.

There has been objection since April 2012 to the use of a 20th century reproduction object as the lead image, when there are thousands of genuine objects to chose from. The editors should have taken heed a year ago, before I bought into it.

I'm not keen on those Visigoth crowns, but another editor has them high on his list of preferences. The genuine Vendel crown (one revert back) was better.

Amandajm (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I answered with mine...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Violation of Fair use rules

Stay off my page!...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just talking

Sometimes I all but lose my equilibrium. The other day I was doing a demo painting for a class, a rapid and abstracted study of a model in the interior, and a new student got between me and the painting, pointed at the nose and asked why I hadn't finished it. No need to respond, just figured you'd appreciate the situation. Best, JNW (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes they do say the strangest things...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To thank you for your work on History of painting. It's a wonderful article, exactly the kind of article that makes people love Wikipedia. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you SV, this means a lot to me...Modernist (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your additions to History of painting

Would you add them back? I reverted the deletions until this entire issue is settled but when I did so it reverted your additions also. NFCN doesn't enforce article size, and admins aren't police. If he wants it cut it down let him take it to the appropriate board and we'll get more eyes on this. Don't fear taking this to a higher board; WP policies are not your enemy; fear is. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, - I had only re-added a Rublev and a Chagall - it looks as though those are back in place...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

An individual editor has very little influence when dealing with these types of problems. If you want to help correct this mismanagement of Wikipedia policies, you need to expand your interests beyond this one article and get involved in resolution discussions, because the problem is not confined to this page. See the other discussions at WP:NFCR and the one going on here and make your opinion known. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, believe me - I know - I've been arguing these issues for years...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. --Pharos (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it that ...

you don't like packed galleries. These were introduced about 3 months ago by the WMF and I like them in many places. They almost eliminate the wide borders that dominate the earlier galleries, i.e. you can see the pictures much better.

May I ask you to play around with the mode=packed option and see how galleries can now be better formatted? I think in many cases people's eyes are just used to one option and a new option just jumps out and surprises them. After seeing the new option for awhile, it might however be less surprising and more useful. I'm just asking that you try something new, not that you revert these back.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The articles read better as they are with the existing galleries; please refrain from changing the articulated galleries in articles that have been worked on for years by many editors. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 FA Thanks

This user has written or significantly contributed to Whaam! Featured articles on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Whaam!, which recently was promoted to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Women artists!

Hello Modernist! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2012 Munich artworks discovery

Hi Modernist,

you recently added a link to a Haaretz interview with Joel Levi to the external links section. Unfortunately I do not have a subscription, is there any other place to find the full text of this interview? Or is there a freely available interview with the same information somewhere else? It seems that he was interviewed by several TV stations and papers on the discovery and restitution issues. Thanks! -- (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not available anymore - although it was when I first posted it. I found this link which mentions Joel Levi's comments: [27]. I probably should delete the link now...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Too bad... but that new link makes for some really interesting background reading. Thanks! -- (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bracha L. Ettinger

You reverted my edit of Bracha L. Ettinger. I think you felt that I removed valid references. Could you please explain how the references cited support the claim that the Bracha L. Ettinger is "among the most influential [..] contemporary painters" . I've carefully reviewed the references and I don't see anything that supports that claim. I believe they're invalid references. It is perhaps worth noting that the editor who made the edit that I take issue with on 4 September, Cosmotraumatika, claims to be a "Student, applicant and Wikipedia digital archiver for artist, philosopher and psychoanalyst Bracha Ettinger". Michiel Duvekot 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)

I do appreciate your work so far, however we don't remove valid references like those in the lede in the Ettinger article. While I agree the claim was over exaggerated - and the rhetoric was somewhat over the top - and needed changing, modifying, editing etc. We edit - we make clear - we don't erase references. Please use the talk pages in the future before removing references, thanks...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your statement - I've carefully reviewed the references and I don't see anything that supports that claim. I believe they're invalid references. - They are valid references regarding Ettinger as a notable figure; although they do not support the claim - (agreed) then remove the claim, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...Modernist (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Greetings from another NY Wikipedian

Hi Modernist, I wanted to reach out to you because I've encountered your edits many times on articles about art and museums in New York City and really appreciate your work. I also wanted to extend my greeting as Wikipedian in Residence at the Metropolitan New York Library Council. I have been at METRO since August and have been trying to reach out to New York Libraries, Archives, and Museums to get them hosting Wikipedians and also editing internal on their collections. I would be curious to know if you have any interest in GLAM-wiki or have already been involved. I also thought I might invite you to the Edit-a-Thon that we just started planning for February 1st in Chelsea at Eyebeam Gallery. Details coming soon. Cheers, OR drohowa (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (Dorothy) Metropolitan New York Library Council GLAM Page.

Hi there, please keep me informed, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Lady and the Unicorn

Hi M, thanks for this edit. I was trying to find that on the Met website and should have looked on Commons! Victoria (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it got lost...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Hockney, A Bigger Grand Canyon.jpg

This file is still missing a rationale for one of it usages. Werieth (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Your hard work on the Arthur Dove article is very much appreciated Modernist. You're the best. Coldcreation (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Monet

While you were reverting and leaving a note, I was leaving a detailed message. - Your message it pure bullshit...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the use of galleries in articles, but seventy-five images lumped together in a seemingly random manner is not an effective way to present an artist's work. - every painting deserves to be there...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Images need careful choosing and placement. - and who do you think you are to imply they were not carefully chosen - HOW DARE YOU...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The images, either singly or together, have to convey information. - And they do...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In a gallery, this needs to be done by very careful arrangement. See for example Sketch (drawing) where twenty-two images have been used to illustrate the medium, the styles and the purposes of sketching by some of the world's greatest artists over 500 years. The images were chosen from hundreds available, and were laid out in four rows of five, as carefully as if they were in a printed publication or on the walls of a gallery. irrelevant bullshit...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on Monet needs work. Some of the expression is very naive. I will put it on my list. Meanwhile, I suggest that you restore my changes. I don't want to get into an edit war, but "Monet was a famous painter" simply isn't a good enough reason for having a mish-mash of images jammed together without though or rationale. - Then learn a little about painting...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Amandajm (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't revert or remove those paintings - you don't know what you're talking about. I am not getting into this with you because I don't have the time. If you remove those images I will restore them. I really do not want to get started on you - but I will if I have to...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Captions for pictures

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions

Quote: "Note: some editors prefer "Title, Artist" to the other way round. This should be consistent within an article. A short explanatory caption is often desirable, showing why the picture has been included, if necessary at the expense of some of the more technical information." Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I found that there were a number of inconsistencies in the captions of Italian Renaissance painting and have followed through with the same format as the ones that you changed as it seemed like the clearest system of labelling. Amandajm (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tune

If you dont mind the 80s production, this is a beautiful tribute to Spector era girl groups [28]. And her dad wrote a tune that *really* hit in Ireland.[29][30]. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday greetings!

Happy Holidays to you...

Loved Bob and the video...

Here's one of my soulful favorites.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Modernist, and Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays! Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Belated happy christmas and a tolerable new year.
	Wishing you all the best for 2014.[31] Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year, 2014
	From Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC) On New Year's Day, 600 years ago, Giovanni Bellini began work on a rather large "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it. At this point Titian stepped in. That's him on the extreme left. Bellini is sleeping it off under a bush.

Thanks for this; much appreciated, Happy New Year to you both...Modernist (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

All the best to you for the holiday season, Modernist, and thanks for the good wishes and the great song. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning User:SarahStierch

Could you have a look at this? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

troubling on both ends. This just ain't the place it used to be...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014! Thank you for the touching, beautiful song. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, much appreciated...Modernist (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Pop art/Alex Katz

Tell me if this edit is acceptable. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Art + Feminism Edit-a-Thon in New York

Hi User:Modernist Hope you are well. I noticed that you edit a lot of article on New York Art. Just wanted to pass along an invite to the Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism Edit-a-Thons nationally on February 1st. Please forward this page to anyone you think would be interested. Hope to see you there. :) OR drohowa (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Robbins (art historian)

Hello Modernist, happy new year!!! I was wondering if you could take a look at this discussion and voice your opinion either way. Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley. --Pharos (talk)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Video about Conservation of paintings

I think this is an interesting video about conservation of paintings. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great to see...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For being an important part of the team at Ezra Pound and for helping to make it happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SV and thanks to Ceoil and Victoria (TK) too; companeros all...Modernist (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates

You are one of a handful of editors with more than 25 edits at Talk:Ernest Hemingway. There is a debate at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Ernest_Hemingway_templates regarding the inclusion of {{To Have and Have Not}}, {{The Old Man and the Sea}}, {{The Killers (short story)}}, {{For Whom the Bell Tolls}}, {{A Farewell to Arms}}, {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the article. Previously at WP:NOVEL a discussion was held when editing at Fyodor Dostoyevsky got contentious. The discussion was held in May 2013 at a broad level regarding editors with multiple templates like these. At the time Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham were all in this group. Since then William Shakespeare has been added based on discussions at WP:BARD. That discussion reached no consensus but the closer suggested reopening debate on the group as a whole or on a subset with five or more templates which might be handled differently than those with fewer templates. He made no suggestion that the debates should devolve to debates at each individual author's page. The group with 5 or more would be Hemingway, William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, and Hans Christian Andersen. My interpretation of the current debate is centering on whether Hemingway should be laid out differently than this peer group of authors in the sense that this article be the only one with these templates removed. Please come join the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Reed Award

Hi! You reverted my edits on the Reed Award. Are you even aware what the prize actually adheres to? It is an art award. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an architecture subject...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

JFK, Bronxite

Sorry, I messed up on that edit. Thanks for the correction and the link to the fascinating article. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; it's cool - it is a fascinating and little known aspect of JFK's life...Modernist (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Instant revert

Being a fellow art aficionado I found your instant revert with summary: "better this way" to be rude and unbecoming of a seasoned Wikipedian. My gallery at the bottom was wp:npoved. It was a small improvement on the scale of things... but sensible? I would love to see more American artists in the gallery with GFDL repros, but not necessarity in place of an infobox as you did with Pollock. You probably don't like me going back to October 2009, but you can think for yourself, and not for other hip-shooters. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Pollock is just a lede image; It could be the Picasso. Pollock as the quintessential abstract expressionist and does symbolize the last half of the 20th century and an artworld that shifted from Paris to New York following World War II...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't give me that! It was a blanket revert of everything I might have improved. Poeticbent talk 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a hike...Modernist (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)