User talk:Modernist

	Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6

User:TAnthony/Userbox Active

Goya

FYI [1] Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been fighting that fight for years now, and it still goes on, one of the greatest painting of the 20th century that has to be in those articles...Modernist (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to deepen the text at the 3rd of May for the use of the painting - and if we can add text I will rewrite the Fair Use claim and hopefully that will be ok...Modernist (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly that, but dont have any Goya stuff to hand, all back in the attic. But yeah, I would be up for that within a week or so. In other news, tune to ease the misery of it all - strange, witty and beautiful, [2]. Take care. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was nice, I opened a beer, whatta gaze...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a return link would be out of the question. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. The Third of May: I can't see that Guernica and Massacre in Korea are necessary or justified, and the latter so obviously refers to Goya, that it is the obvious choice. Text concerning Guernica would be ample. Maybe there is another work by a different artist that could be used, though nothing occurs immediately. The last two paragraphs here could add to the legacy section... Ty 00:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a great find Ty, I don't know how you do it, amazing. The Massacre in Korea is definitely the direct descendant of the Third of May although as the text states Guernica was probably directly influenced by Goya and it's Picasso's masterpiece. I think the text you found should be added as a reference, and I'll look for another image. But I think especially with this text Guernica can be used as a demonstration of the power of Goya's legacy. This quote by Picasso is powerful:

“The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? … In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death”. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess such things are often serendipity as a result of various search term permutations in Google, when the first one doesn't yield the required results or maybe ropes too much into the net. Ty 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would like to re-add Guernica I'll let some time pass, see what develops...Modernist (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes revertion

Ciao! There is a guy user:Ceoil who is patronizing several articles, reverting the standard painting infoboxes I am adding. Can you help and have him stop? Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes are not required and clearly several other editors who have worked very long and hard on those articles have determined that they are unnecessary there. Please respect that decision. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respect you arbitrate, but honestly your motivation leaves me puzzled! "Having worked hard" on something doesn not give you the absolute right to decide what and what not has to be on those articles! Are you sure you are neutral in the matter (I ask this with no malice, be sure). Ciao e a presto da --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my opinion, since you asked; take it or leave it...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But what this experience with van der Weyden showed me that you belong to a specific lobby commanding and controlling a group of articles at their will. Not a nice thing to discover that even experienced editors like me are forbidden to introduce serious modifications to a group of articles. Hope I'm wrong. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to no lobby, I am an editor here pure and simple, as I said - take it or leave it...Modernist (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I recently raised the infobox issue on the talkpage and I'm certainly not part of any lobby, but I do keep articles watched after I review them. When an article goes through the FAC process it is scrutinized, as this one was, for MoS issues, consistency, and so on. The infobox is not a required element, and there's really no reason to add one to such a lovely article. Perhaps this could be discussed on the article talkpage? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As though working well with others was some sort of bad behavior; we should all function in a solitary vacuum; give me a break...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Modernist. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Brad, who agrees with me - please leave Ceoil alone, thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound

I saw your comment about Pound on Ceoil's page, but was logging off, thinking I could wait until today to respond. Now it's gone, and Ceoil's been blocked. Anyway, a short answer to the question, I think, is that Pound was mentally ill. I've been to the library and have books, so will start working on the article, and hopefully a more interesting answer will present itself. As for the material that was deleted: Pound's Cantos are not easy to understand; his life is not easy to understand; but the one thing scholars are clear about is the Cantos were based on troubador songs. Why that material was deleted is beyond me. Is there a policy about removing uncited material as opposed to trying to find a source? I've had a look at Active Banana's contributions and there seems to be a tendency toward quickly removing rather than finding a source. Also, does all this have anything to do with Ceoil's block? Sorry, long post. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thank you for adding this, and yes from what I have learned Pound was mentally ill. I am not aware of material being deleted; if material is uncited it should be tagged and remain tagged for a reasonable amount of time (years if needs be in some cases) until the material can be sourced. Deleting materials that aren't copyright violations is basically unnecessary and in my opinion should not happen. Unless there are such serious issues that the material can cause damage. Ceoil's block stemmed from a rather unfortunate mishandling of communications between a couple of editors and an admin concerning Ceoil's basic dislike for tags; and his rather colorful way of expressing himself. Ceoil is an excellent editor - invaluable to the project and he has a short fuse when it comes to the rule-niks. Sometimes I think of Lenny Bruce...Modernist (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies in advance for the lurking and trolling, but that last sentence is pretty funny and probably apt, although things didn't work out too well for Bruce in the end...) freshacconci talktalk 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little example from the history of the Pound article [3]. Sections were tagged and then huge chunks deleted. It's taken a while to get through the history to understand exactly what happened, but I think this may have initiated later events. Certainly there is no reason to carve out pieces of article like this in such a cavalier manner. The good thing, of course, is that we'll end up with a better article, but only because someone is willing to fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, fortunately all of that material can be recovered, and sources found for whatever is worth keeping. I take note that Ceoil as an editor builds articles, and some editors can't handle that and need to delete material for some reason. There are all kinds of misreadings of the policy and guidelines that cause premature deletions under the umbrella of WP:OR while a simple search for sources proves more useful...Modernist (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they'll unblock him and cut him some slack, you are always welcome here btw Fresh...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which rationale should be used to upload this image of young Ezra? I know the photograph was taken in 1898 and he died in the early 70s. Don't know anything else. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be used as Fair use; if the 1898 picture was published prior to 1923 it can be considered in the pd however I would imagine that it was published after 1923...Modernist (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope it's right, but easily fixed if not. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rothko

Can you explain (probably on the article talk page to keep the discussion centralized) why we should be using a copyright image of some colored rectangles to represent a person when the fair use policies clearly suggest that copyright images need to be explained contextually and the explanation for this image is way down in the article and we have plenty of room to place the image BY the explanation? [4] Active Banana (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were already going there- Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The painting can be the lede image there is nothing wrong, people expect to see a Rothko painting when they visit that page. This dispute has been argued several years ago, let it be...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

[6]

The Polish Rider

If we work on The Polish Rider it could be featured on the front page as a good new article, see The Polish Rider. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank spam!

Hello, Modernist. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park

Hi - I might not be regarded as an established user but here goes. Saw your edit on Central Park. I want to totally upgrade the article, but I'm a newuser, and not a New Yorker. I am, however, educated to a high degree in the English language, and keen to see my edits work well. Thought you might like to collaborate. "Two heads" and all that - let me know okay? Markdask (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye over there, however do your best...Modernist (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My best is actually quite good, when I put my mind to it. :) Markdask (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Portrait of Otto Müller' or is it 'Portrait of Otto Mueller'

Hi Modernist, just wondering if you have any reference for the name of this work by Kirchner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kirchner_-_Bildnis_Otto_Mueller.jpg

The sources I have all refer to it as 'Portrait of Otto Müller' and not 'Mueller'.

Knavesdied (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically both are correct - Müller is the German spelling and - Otto Müller needs disambiguation when linked, while the English version is Otto Mueller and is working as a link to the artist...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So would you mind if I change the link to be Otto Müller so the hyperlink doesn't need disambiguation but the title of the work of art matches that in the English language references such as the British Museum catalogue? Knavesdied (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, if it works...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Mueller was a "Die Brücke" artist like Kirchner, so no Otto Müller. And that has nothing to with spelling! Greetings,--GerardusS (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you tell that to Knavesdied?..Modernist (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GerardusS, this isn't really a discussion of Otto Mueller's name or its spelling, but of what Kirchner called his 1915 woodcut. Do you have any references for this specific woodcut being named Portrait of Otto Mueller? Thank you for your help! Knavesdied (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Kirchner called it, we will call it by the usual usage in English per relevant sources. Ty 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly my take is the spelling should remain as Otto Mueller...Modernist (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, that's the interesting thing. All the sources refer to the work as being titled Portrait of Otto Müller. I cannot find a single source that calls the work Portrait of Otto Mueller. So on the basis of 'per relevant sources' it should be called Portrait of Otto Müller. Can you give me a source for this work being referred to by the spelling 'Mueller'? Knavesdied (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about it. I'm just saying we should follow the form used by the sources. Ty 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the portrait and compare with the selfportrait by Otto Mueller and you know that Kirchner spelled his name wrong.--GerardusS (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. We should go by the name it is usually called in English by significant sources per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That is for the title of the work, as opposed to describing the work. Ty 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for Otto Müller actually yields more results for Otto Mueller which strikes me as being that Otto Mueller is the correct spelling for us to use here...Modernist (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing that the artist's name is Otto Mueller, or that is the correct spelling for his name. However, as Ty as written, and as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, I have two significant sources in English giving the title of this specific work by Kirchner as Portrait of Otto Müller and no one has offered a significant source with any other title for this work. The sources are (1) Carey, Frances; Griffiths, Antony (1984) The Print in Germany, 1880-1933: The Age of Expressionism, ISBN 978-0-7141-1621-1 and (2) "Portrait of Otto Müller (1983,0416.3)", British Museum Collection Database (Retrieved 2010-06-05). I don't know why Kirchner decided to title his work that way, but until someone puts forward verifiable sources with an alternative title I am going to standardise the naming of this work with the verifiable sources I have access to. Many thanks to everyone for their viewpoints. Knavesdied (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here; this is a non-issue. In German the umlaut character can be written "ue" or "ü" indifferently; this is not a difference of spelling but typography. In fact Getty prefer Müller, but it is pointless looking at sources for this. It seems a tad unlikely Kirchner actually fixed a title, doesn't it? That would have been a tad bourgeois, no? Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod, I agree. I'm just going by the sources. And if it's good enough for Getty, good enough for the British Museum, and good enough for Carey and Griffiths, then it's good enought for me. Knavesdied (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van gogh's self portraits

Hi Modernist; re his right side in the image is in reality the left side of his face, in a mirror image, doesn't our right side stay right, the left side left? I take issue with this constantly in art history literature, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm all wrong. Shudder. Best, JNW (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the ambiguity is clearly unproven and open to guesswork...Modernist (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rouen Cathedral (Monet)

I don't understand. The Commons link deals with the specific series. APK whisper in my ear 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 reasons - first the commons link you added was blank, and the general Monet link has images that are usable, some of the more specific imagery from artbooks are not really viable IMO..Modernist (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't blank. See Commons:Category:Rouen Cathedral by Monet. My first edit was a typo, but my second corrected the link. APK whisper in my ear 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good - well done, leave both links, and add the new images to the article...Modernist (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter in the past, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond anything I have ever seen before - an appalling spectacle...Modernist (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand the behavior, and don't know any other way to address it. I know that not all editors are willing to sit around the campfire and sing folk songs, but this has been extremely puzzling. GregJackP (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems crazy, administrators need to be consulted, I've never seen anything like this...Modernist (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my butting in, but I was curious about this and could not find any information about what had happened, even checking dispute resolution archives. I'm sorry if this person was ghastly, and may I ask where I can fid out what happened? If this is too nosy or painful, of course, then never mind. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to let it be...Modernist (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list of 20th century women artists

You've improved it a great deal. I shouldn't be too surprised that there are lots of important artists not on the list yet. When I started it I was pretty haphazard about researching and placement. Thanks so much for taking it up. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help :)...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For the positive words on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Away for a few days on business, and just got back to town. Best wishes and keep up the great work, JNW (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, hopefully its over with...Modernist (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed spamlinks

You might find this discussion relevant: User talk:Benjamw#Possible connection to a cultural institution Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, and removed the spamlinks...Modernist (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Modernist. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Modernist. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

input

I think I'll keep my trap shut here; discussions like this have not gone well for me in the recent past. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its done, I added RS refs to whatever Tony was going on about. You might check em...I found a really cool magazine article from 1949, where 2 old guys were saying they knew Van Gogh when they were just little kids, - he gave them pennies if they could find birds nests, one guy said he offered him 3 drawings, but he said nah, I'd rather have the money...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a safe pair of hands, Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I just got cross, or rather crossed up for awhile...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did us proud, you did. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I involving Nineteen Nightmares

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

File:Arles portrait bust.jpg

Why do you believe that the image is PD-old? You are aware, aren't you, that images of 3D objects are copyrightable, regardless of the status of the image? Observe that the source for the image, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/communiq/albanel/cesarles08.htm, carries a notice of "photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM" at the bottom. Of course the bust isn't copyrighted, but that's irrelevant here. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if you modify a copyrighted image, you can release the modified image into the public domain? Please read derivative work — unless you can claim that modifications fall under fair use, you may not modify a copyrighted image without permission, and the resulting modification is still copyrighted by the holder of the original image's copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I objected because the image is replaceable. Why can't someone take a picture of it and release it freely? Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't because I live on the other side of the ocean, can you? I think the image should remain under the fair use rationale until such time that it can be replaced...Modernist (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Someone on the other side of the ocean can replace it. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just keep it per WP:UCS, after all anything can happen....sometime...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mondernist, Im purposly not cmting, for fear of a block if I spoke my mind. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, what an absurd state of hypocrisy and rule wonk...Modernist (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the old links, I have a fondness for the blues that I picked up early, before I found Punk and it never left me. Here is some thing quite pleasant...might appeal to a New York minimalist like yourself[7]. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really good. Reminds me of something, can't quite place, thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This? Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great film, and a similar sound, but not what I was thinking...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; I really like Marianne Faithfull, but hadn't come across that before. See what you make of [8]. Its spooky beyond belief. Ceoil (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy, I'll take the Basement Tapes anytime, although it's one of my least favorite Dylan albums...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then you and me are going to be falling out. Polly Harvy is very hot indeed, imo. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, the chick is hot, the song is creepy...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View from the Basement

Modernist, thanks for your contribution to the Basement. You clearly know this region. Please help us to improve the article, and I left a query. best Mick gold (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, thanks for your message I responded here:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Basement Tapes/archive1...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis

As I never figured out how; would you mind archiving all of the Bacon talk page. Its all circular bullshit thats best left hidden and in the past. If I was to expand I don't want to get wrapped up in things I just dont care about. His nationality is what it is. What is the point of defining it. If there are hassels, I have both guns loaded. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway ga

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Ernest Hemingway to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice surprise, thank you Tony...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{break))

Dalí

We've both said our piece on him, but Moni2 has poked out a fairly stong work (there are some!), and this is a monatge of a wide variety of old sources - a number tie in with Velázquez, thus me here. I'm mentioning this as you were always extreamly sharp at making connections and tieing things together, and would be invaluable in an article like this. So.... In other news, all quite; no other news. Preoccupied by Dürer, but thinking of making a pass at Bacon. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out...Modernist (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso

Hi, I'm disappointed that you removed my image about postal commemorations of Pablo Picasso. Both your last version and my own seem to me to work design-wise: why did you end up saying it "doesn't work"? SteveStrummer (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the stamp really belonged there. I'll give it another shot...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, it looks much better that way! I'm glad you decided to keep it! Thank you for your patient effort and precision. :) SteveStrummer (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Helen Frankenthaler‎~ Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...Modernist (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mym Tuma in the Hirshhorn collection

This is a link to Hirshhorn's own site which admits to having Mym Tuma a.k.a. Marilyn Thuma's sculptured painting's on display. I wrote Mym Tuma's wikipedia article and now they are claiming that it is an orphan article. I'm simply trying to link back to her article with verifiable information and sources to correct the problem. Hirshhorn Collection

I am still new at wikipedia, and this is my first talk back Please let me know if I did anything wrong. (GiovanniVegaz (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong, it's just that there are literally thousands of artists in the Hirshhorn collection and we cannot list everyone; consequently while your Hirshhorn collection link helps to establish the Tuma article's notability it does not establish her as a major artist in that museum collection...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Evans

VA artist on TFA today, if you feel like turning your vandel swatter up to 11. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eyes on the prize...Modernist (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prizes on wiki, mate. In case you were expecting something in the post, it aint coming. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd stay up and watch the article, but the only people touching it are those rewriting it, so I guess I'll be off to bed. Thanks for watching (both of you) and Ceoil, thanks for the rewrites. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back in the am...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, M. Ceoil (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed

a citation that should allow you to return the Jewish artist categories that you had placed at Jacob Epstein and that some wikibureaucrat felt compelled to remove. Do you mind putting them back? Or should I try and figure out what you'd done? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that you put them back....Modernist (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, but you might want to double check what I did because you-know-who certainly will. Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope it does in fact "work out" :). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, well done...Modernist (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Modernist. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Replied again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you, I am very pleased that you added so much of the truth about Epstein being a Jewish man...Modernist (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tune

You might like this [9]. Gets interesting at 0.47. You owe me 1 tune. Ceoil (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really great...Modernist (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound

I'm struggling with Ezra - for some obvious reason. The difficulty of balancing the early poet with the later poison is a challenge. Awadewit will be reviewing the article - and I suspect bring to it her unique perspective. I'd be interested in any critical comments you'd have to make. Am not overly concerned with the prose at the moment - am overly concerned about walking the straight and narrow w/out showing judgment, etc. Whether I've managed to achieve that I can't tell, and a fresh pair of eyes would be welcome, in case you'd be interested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe later today, when I am back, I gotta leave soon...Modernist (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not immediately. I'm not in a rush at all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Ching

Saw your comment on Truthkeeper88's talk page. Seems we have something in common, I'm also interested in the I Ching and think Wilhelm's version is the best.

Truce? Yworo (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to work together, truce...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with translations?

Modernist, I placed a question on my talk page, but maybe you don't follow it anymore; if not, please forget this one. I have a question: If I want to translate an English article (I translated for example Richard Maurice Bucke), it has to be imported into the German Wikipedia in order to retain the edit history; how about the other way around? We have a special page to put the import request to, and some admin will do it later; the import will be put into my user space first, preferably, and later moved to the right place. What is your procedure? So far, I simply created a new article in the English Wikipedia and copied my translation to it at once (or in parts, like with Douglas Cooper) which didn't seem to be a big deal as the German version was essentially mine, so the edit history didn't tell that much anyway. Should I proceed to do so, or what would be the correct procedure? --Nobrook (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well put

"... has probably forgotten more than many will ever know about this place ..."

This is very sharp. I was thinking that this would actually make for a great userbox, if someone were into that kind of thing. Hope you're well. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough spot - the line came from an old country song that Dylan and Johnny Cash recorded...Modernist (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in [10]. Not the tune, but fairly special. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those guys - the best....Modernist (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Johnny Cash version [11] - probably would be a cool infobox by the way...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dylan out-cools Cash in all thoes clips and recordings. Cash was tough, but Dylan was one cold motherfucker way back then. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singing like a choirboy, not a cowboy for a change...Modernist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He still is. Did you read his Cronicles; v intresting on Woodie Guthrie; I always found Guthrie distant, not well covered by biographers on this side of the water. Dylan, in his rambling way, brings him more alive than I've seen before. Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it - it was pretty good, apparrently he was livin' around the corner from here for a while in the beginning. Man, Denny and Drake - how sad, a bit like Buckley and Buckley...[12]...Modernist (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know I always liked Tim Buckley, in fact I really like Tim, but Jeff not so much. So he covered Hallelujah? That song was long ago ruined by over exposure. Here is something really fine from the late 1970s[13]. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I am liking Tim Buckley more and more and not so much Jeff beyond Hallelujah. Speaking of Leonard Cohen [14]...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard played in Dublin this year, and though i didn't go, thoes I know that did almost fainted. Apparently he has a lot of pesonal charsimia. Talking about Sandy Denny, their is a lot of ache in this voice[15]. She had a very promising early career, but burned too bright, too early. Then acholism and an unsually bitter press backlash. Same old story. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pong

Incoming. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import procedure

Hi, I asked the German specialists about the reasons for their procedure; they had long discussions about it before and maintain that otherwise the risk of copyright infringement is high (Ist dieses Verfahren sinnvoll?). The English Wikipedia has a similar practice: Wikipedia:Requests for page importation, although not well known. They fear that the English Wikipedia has a high risk of vulnerability due to hidden copyright violation by not importing the history. The discussion page, they argue, may get lost for some reason. I'm not smart enough to get involved here and will try the above mentioned system. --Nobrook (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that is the only way to proceed, as I recommended to you, however see how it works...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is to import via transwiki the whole article in German, including edit history (and I presume talk page), either to article space or use space (from where it can be moved into article space, when ready). Failing that, the minimum would be to note in the edit summary (and preferably also on the talk page) the fact that it has been copied from the original source on the German wiki, giving the URL of it there; if it's not overlong, the edit history can be copied and pasted on the talk page as here.[16]

A curious by-product of transwiki is that users from other wikis suddenly get a contributions history on the wiki where the article has been transferred to. See mine on the German wiki.[17]

I'm glad we now have an article on Douglas Cooper (art historian). Long overdue.

Ty 01:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm glad to have the Cooper article too. My edit history there is as an IP because apparently there is another modernist on that wiki, whereas I have 'almost' all the rest; although your edit history is very cool...Modernist (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could arrange something to deal with that like a user name on German wiki such as "Modernist on enwiki". It's not appropriate for editors' IPs to be revealed. Ty 02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now I'm there - Postmodernist...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that will stop an IP being credited. You might need to make further enquiries to ensure that your edits here are credited to Postmodernist, if they get transwiki'd. Ty 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Feuerman

Yours is the last edit. Watchlisted. Ty 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lillie P. Bliss

Translation finished - would you please have a look and lend your helping hand?--Nobrook (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks!--Nobrook (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!..Modernist (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tune

For you[18]. Hes very young, but supreamly talented. The recorded version is very expansive, but not on youtube yet. This version is ghostly. Recommended purchase. You owe me a tune....tap tap tap.... Ceoil (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever liked Scott Walker, or is he just a UK thing? Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know him...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a few listens to get this, but the drama, pomp; very phil spectorish[19]. If you give it time its just fantastic in a chanteuse way. I dont know if you like Brel, Gainsbourg. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that one takes time in a Sinatraesque way...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you telling. Its art house x 1500. Listen to the pay off at 1.36 though, and tell me Spector ever matched that. It sound like the sky has been split open. Ceoil (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pong

Email with multiple seplling mistakes sent. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxus

When you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the recent edits I made to this article, then look at this message on my talk page, and tell me if you think my edits were excessive? I would appreciate it. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly - I see nothing wrong with your edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and you simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - Ken Friedman might write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that! Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Modernist,

Thanks for your response. I didn't include the Owen Smith you cited. I simply listed the name Owen Smith, the one who wrote the book listed in the bibliography. If the UK politician of the same name was linked, this has to be a mistake of some kind -- I did not do it. For the reasons I state below, I won't be writing an article on Owen Smith or anyone else for Wikipedia.

The problem with the artist list is that it doesn't reflect the membership of Fluxus, but only the leftovers. It also is not clear in the article when someone quoted or mentioned is an artist or a scholar. Mentions of the artists do not always discuss their work or contribution to Fluxus, but merely cite them in a passing quote.

If you and the others are convinced that you're doing it the appropriate Wikipedia way, I'll bow out. Two or three times, I've explained myself to Wikipedia editors that have a different view on these things. I started to make Wikipedia contributions to this article as a result of my involvement in a debate about Wikipedia that started in the New York Times. I got a letter from Jimmy Wales telling me why Wikipedia is good. Thought I'd give it a go.

One of the problems with Wikipedia for subject experts is the need to explain oneself repeatedly from people who come from different backgrounds and different discourse communities. Experienced Wikipedia editors achieve a certain kind of standing and rank with Wiki stars and awards for the number of articles and edits they've been involved in. It's impossible to tell who they are -- most use pseudonyms and few step up to say who they are or what they do for a day job. At the end of the day, the differences in style become so great that one simply can't keep up. While I accept your view, I disagree with it. But it is clear that I can't persuade you. While I appreciate the Wikipedia venture, I don't have the time to accumulate enough edits or contributions to rise in the editorial ranks. I've spoken in the past with subject field experts to ask why they don't contribute to polish the articles on which they have done serious research with strong publications in peer reviewed sources. A few people told me that the problem was that anyone could edit, change, or remove their contributions. The first two or three times one must explain the reasons for a contribution or an idea, it's OK. After a while, one feels foolish -- Wikipedia involves a great many people with opinions. Most contributors are anonymous. While many are well intentioned, there is no way to determine their subject expertise, nor to offer a proposition in terms that would make sense to scholars.

While I would not argue that the changes to my carefully developed contributions are vandalism, I would argue that the effects -- for me -- are the same. Many talk pages make a point of saying that the editors have a life and they'll answer when they can. Like the rest of you, I have other responsibilities and I don't want to allocate time to protect my contributions to Wikipedia. I've done my best to make a case. Since several Wikipedia editors seem to be voting against me, the majority wins and my career as a Wikipedian now comes to a close.

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman[reply]

Good tidings

Just a note to say hello--been a while, and it's always good to see your fine contributions. Unlike Ceoil, I have a limited musical range for Youtube links, so you'll have to imagine a song of your choosing. JNW (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JNW - always nice to hear from you, no song required...

Not wanting to play up on a sterotype, but song for you Modernist[20] (forgive the tacky vid), and that I hope we are still friends. I'm VERY protective of friends. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Hi Modernist! It happens that I translated articles from English to German and elaborated on them and don't seem to feel inclined to translate my extensions back. See for example The Women of Algiers (still in the making) or Victor Ganz or Le Rêve (painting). Actually, it doesn't make that much sense for a non-native speaker to do translations, does it? Could we or any other person or group collaborate on these?--Nobrook (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This excellent editor knows both art and German: User:Lithoderm...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I contacted him.--Nobrook (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bolivar

Thanks for your persistence and well argued FU rationale. There is also the point that an artist's self-portrait is not necessarily something one should rely on as an objective portrayal. It is after all how the person sees themselves, useful but potentially misleading - and all the more useful if there is a photo for comparison. Ty 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6