Jump to content

User talk:Freshacconci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightscream (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 20 July 2017 (WP:CIRCULAR, WP:V). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trudeau

I did not add commentary, as you accused me of. I restructured a sentence to be more neutral an added another quote from a citation (the Maclean's article) already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.176.1 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're hardly making it neutral, you're interpreting the source to push your own agenda. The legacy section of the article deals with criticism of Trudeau. Stating that some historians, plural, call him overrated is flat-out wrong based on the source. It's only one (the other one is a doctoral student, which shows how difficult it was for MacLeans to find historians to agree with that). You have a specific POV to push and you are editing in a disruptive manner. Make your case on the talk page or walk away. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for you. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that's a very strong and aggressive response, for an alleged and fairly innocent mistake. That's how you scare away would-be Wikipedians -- what happened to "be nice to the newbies"? On first reading I found the original Wikipedia sentence biased, compare to the quotes in that Maclean's article. I didn't know one couldn't count doctoral students (so dismissing all the great minds who never had PhDs?) Perhaps you should have led with your argument, instead of just reverting my change and accusing me of having an agenda -- I have none -- or vandalizing. I also noticed that the Maclean's article never referred to him as "father of modern Canada", so I removed it. Can't be pushing a specific POV. I hope you treat the next "flat-out wrong" edit with some more grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.82.208 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Levy edit

My edit was not poorly referenced. My sister went to the same school and graduated with Eugene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.12.20 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of poorly referenced. We're supposed to take your word for it? See WP:RS and WP:V. freshacconci talk to me 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work of art essay listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Work of art essay. Since you had some involvement with the Work of art essay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi, am I to know the reason for your reversion of my edit here? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed my edits

You have reversed my edits twice about a notable Pakistani. I cannot seem to identify anything that is not properly sourced (in some instances I feel there are a bit too many references). The tone is also matter of fact, without making a positive or negative judgement. Please identify or remove language that you find unacceptable or let me remove the tag as I cannot improve the article further. 221.120.215.138 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Zehra Khan[reply]

If you cannot improve the article further then you shouldn't be editing the article. There are many problems with the article and your edits do not address all the issues. Feel free to make the changes you did but do not remove the templates as these are meant for other editors who may be able to edit further. freshacconci talk to me 18:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please highlight the problems? I really want to help, but you'd have to be more specific.221.120.215.138 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)ZK[reply]

Umar Saif

Specify the issues so I can fix them. You can't be making broad brush tags like these or half the wikipedia will have these tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen547 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the talk page. However, it is pretty obvious what the problems are in the article as it is terribly written. What is happening on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant, i.e. "other articles are bad, so let's just leave this one in its bad state". Too many new accounts and anonymous IP editors have come along and removed those tags without making any improvements. The tags are there for editors to know that there are problems. It's standard and it's unclear why so many new editors are concerned with the tags. freshacconci talk to me 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some 60 odd references in the article. I looked at some of the references; easily crosses the threshold for notable. Couldn't find anything specifically biased. Your broad brush statements not helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen547 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You again added the tags. With almost every statement backed up with several references, this has to be one of the better cited articles. Not sure what's wrong. Why don't you highlight the issues and I will try to fix. Otherwise one can apply such tags to half the wikipedia (perhaps a lot more) to erode their credibility. Such tags are not only for editors, but also erode the credibility of the article for readers. I see that your pedantic behaviour is not unique to this page, so I'd suggest you either start fixing what you don't like, or stop being trigger happy on such tags.
There's a discussion on the talk page already. Discuss it there. As for "eroding credibility", the article in question has none: it's not the citations that are the problem. In fact, the tag says nothing about citations. Did you even read them? It's tagged for neutrality and copy editing. The article is written in a promotional manner. That's what needs to be fixed. In many cases, this sort of article needs a complete rewrite. Why exactly are you concerned with this particular article? It's not a good article. It was tagged for improvement, you are not attempting to improve the article, just removing a template, which you've been warned against. There's a reason those warnings exist. You are being disruptive without attempting to improve the article. If you are not interested in actually reading the guidelines listed in those templates and reading the talk page discussion, I suggest you move on to something else. The article will remain tagged until it follows Wikipedia guidelines. It's as simple as that. freshacconci talk to me 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed the recent edits? Several edits have been made by several editors to address NPOV issues and improve copy editing. Notice the recent edits by Noah Kastin. I also checked for any single source edits. To the contrary, recent edits have been made by 18 different editors. Most of the biography content seems to be from a publicly available bio. I don't see any COI or NPOV issues, especially after major recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen547 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Fresh Acconci

I saw the weird things an editor was saying on their talk page about you, in relation to the Friedman article. Then I saw this and thought you would enjoy it better than a Barnstar! It's fresh Acconci.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HappyValleyEditor! freshacconci talk to me 13:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman

It was a spurious accusation. It was doublespeak. (S)he still hasn't bothered to answer the question. No incivility here; difficult people: yes. A patronising tone: yes. Me sick to the back teeth of this: quite right. If this message is uncivil, please feel free to edit out the words you find deeply troubling. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't care in the least what you say to me. You are free to believe what you want about the article, damning evidence notwithstanding. I take it we're done here. freshacconci talk to me 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You win! I'm gone. Unwatched. Have a nice life. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Mann

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Mann_(artist) that could use your opinion.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto30

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Cinema of Canada. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 10:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I included the link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Canada as this is currently the only and first course available (Creature and Character Design) for the film industry in Canada. Since this page is talking about the Canadian film industry, I still believe user should know. Unless you know another page. I don't care if no follow or followed. Most people these day's do not even know where to start if they are planning to work in the film industry. (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2016 (EST)

Wikipedia is not a directory. freshacconci talk to me 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program

Greetings Freshacconci:


It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!


Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hello I am Pelo I created page on wikipedia, so They put a deletion box on the top of the page, can you please help me to remove it please

Here is my page Mayestron (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peloluhabanya (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Just a note to let you know I have semi-protected your user page. If you wish the protection altered, let me know. Any admin can help you with that if I'm not around. Tiderolls 10:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Tide rolls. I had no idea that even happened, as I was off-wiki for a while that day. One of the stranger bits of vandalism to my userpage. freshacconci talk to me 12:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
Picture for Women
... you were recipient
no. 596 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Sperling

Hallo Freshacconci, I cleaned out the article Bodo Sperling, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_Sperling. I hope that I have done nothing wrong. Can you please again throw your eye on it, and check the neutral point of view now? Thank you for your help. 213.188.116.142 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


September 2016

Hello freshacconci , I've tried to communicate about this matter with Marvellous Spider on his talk page , but received no feedback or response. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marvellous_Spider-Man&oldid=739440917 I assumed that no response or feedback meant that my reasons for not deleting this page were accepted. Perhaps you could help/clarify. Many thanks

--xzis10z (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions take at least seven days, sometimes longer. Once nominated, only an administrator can close the discussion (after seven days) who then decides if consensus is keep, delete or no consensus (which defaults to keep). Removing the deletion template can get you blocked. Editors will weigh in and give their opinion. At this point, there's nothing you can do but wait, but if you created the article you are still welcome to contribute to the discussion, as long as it is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. freshacconci talk to me 23:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for clarifying. My apologies for breaking the rules.

--xzis10z (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Art

Why did you revert my change. I just added a link to the #1 generative art forum and archive on the planet. Seemed extremely relevant.

John alexander greene (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ok man, I read Wikipedia:External links. My link was indeed accurate and on-topic. It was a link to the #1 generative art forum and archive on the planet today : https://www.reddit.com/r/generative/

That's about as on-topic and accurate as it gets. Certainly more relevant than links to a handful of old papers.

So how, specifically, did my link conflict with this guideline? Is it a format thing?

Also you put back that dead link that I removed. What's up with that?

John alexander greene (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gilmour

Hi. Thanks for pointing out the error in the text. I have amended it from plural to singular and placed the word 'the' in front of it. Hope all is well in Canada and that the weather is okay. Kind regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I have re-read the entire paragraph and you were spot on correct. All hail Freshacconci. Cheers, Matey!The joy of all things (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuebrook

Thanks for pointing out the COI rules to me. My first edit was on an article about my father (!) I appreciate your handling of my blunder.

I've undone the three edits with notes about COI in the summaries.

Best regards, Shuebrook (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on the List of Sovereign states

It seems the edits you reverted on sovereign states are slightly irrelevant as such. I added the three Baltics to that list since they are actually de jure independent states during occupation. Please read State continuity of the Baltic states#Western non-recognition of annexation if this helps. 135.23.145.17 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Brittonic origin

Why did you revert my edit there? 106.68.149.57 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more sources (and there are plenty more if you care to use Google). Additionally, the information that "brat" is of likely Brittonic origin is already found at our article on Cumbric (section called "Scots and English") and on Wiktionary. So, do you have information to contradict this, or you just reverting me because you're a fuckwit who gets a power rush from making editors jump through hoops? 106.68.149.57 (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I had a look through your editing history and found that you've been blocked in the past for edit-warring as well! So should I go through your contributions and randomly revert them? Hypocrite. 106.68.149.57 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was only blocked for a couple of minutes and it was overturned because a sysop made an error. But of course, this has nothing to do with my reverts -- I was suggesting you discuss changes rather than edit war since your justified block lasted 24 hours this time and will probably be longer next time. Oh, and stay off my page. I'm done here. freshacconci talk to me 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Freshacconci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Modernist -- and to you and yours. freshacconci talk to me 05:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion (Fractal Expressionism)

Hi, you recently proposed a deletion of the page I just made on Fractal expressionism. You said the reason was original research. Can you point me to what in particular is original research on the page so that I may fix it? Fight for truth (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso discussion, no response

There's still no response on the talk page of Picasso and also the Dispute resolution noticeboard is not getting anywhere. One user is complaining that the DRN is not used properly. I already asked you on the Talk Page of the Picasso article: Why do I have to make so much effort to change things like this? Really, this is in my opinion completely weird. I'm getting rid of an oversimplification of matters, and it seems everybody is counteracting this. Why? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki help needed for Art+Feminism event in Hamilton!

Hello! Not sure if you are still in Hamilton but the organizers of the Art+Feminism Editathon are looking for an experienced Wikipedian to help on the day of. Would you be interested? If so, I will put you in touch. If not, can you recommend someone?

Thanks! Amber 13ab37 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amber 13ab37. When is the Hamilton Art+Feminism event? I'm not in Hamilton but I am near by. It may be something I can do depending on the schedule. Let me know. Thanks. freshacconci talk to me 14:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The event is March 7, 5:30 to 9 pm in partnership with Ladies Learning Code Hamilton. I'll put the project coordinator in touch with you as soon as she sends me her Wiki info ;) It would be great if you could be there. 13ab37 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Erin from Hamilton would prefer to be reached via erin.oneil@ladieslearningcode.com 13ab37 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sock strikes again

Check this out [1]...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public art

Hey Freshacconci - you deleted the information posted on the Public Art page because as you suggested, I added "promotional material". How is what I added promotional and the Big Art Mob paragraph not promotional? "On 31 August 2012, Alfie Dennen re-launched the Big Art Mob project and was given control of the project from previous administrators Channel 4. The Big Art Mob in its new incarnation shifted focus from mapping the United Kingdom's Public Art to mapping the whole world's and gained instant widespread global press.[22][23] At launch the site has over 12,000 pieces of public art mapped with over 600 new works mapped as of 05/09/2012."Obsoletum (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)obsoletum[reply]

Big Art Mob has an article and its inclusion in the Public Art article is independently sourced. Your material is self-referenced (links only to the website), the language used is promotional in nature and your account is only used to post that information, suggesting a connection to the organization. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote your organization nor is it to be used to establish notability. If it is notable and there are numerous reliable independent sources, an article could be created but you should not create or edit articles about organizations in which you are affiliated (see WP:COI). freshacconci talk to me 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. We'll add a stand-alone page for the Public Art Archive, like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Art_Mob. Thanks for the suggestions Freshacconci. Obsoletum (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)obsoletum[reply]

And I too was wondering about the ™. it will be interesting to see what their article look like. I went to the site and they had no Daniel Chester French works and 1 by Augustus Saint Gaudens. it might not be that encyclopedic. Carptrash (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be what they are about. [2]. Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone cluster

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Tone cluster. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have sent a message to myself... freshacconci talk to me 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Vtape) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Vtape, Freshacconci!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks! Some editors involved with Art+FEm Toronto are looking to greatly expand the coverage of Vtape in the near future. Please let me know if you're interested.

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Fiechter on Rock Balancing

See that's exactly what I am talking about. I ask you a question why you do what you do and you simply delete it, what kind of policy is that? Please do now explain why you delete my changes and why you do not answer my question even you yourself said "talk to me" how can I talk to you if you just delete everything. I would understand you if my changes would by offensive but my change in the article was constructive and informative and my question here legitimate. So once again, why did you delete my contribution and do not answer but delete my question to you for the 3 time. Thank you Ps: if you deleted my question because I did add "(Pascal Fiechter (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC))" instead of my username which I now did I am sorry I am new here, you could give me a hint User:Pascal Fiechter (talk)[reply]

You are adding your own name to articles, making changes to articles without explanation or sources, and adding your own photograph. Please see WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:COI) and WP:RS concerning guidelines and policy on notability, conflicts of interest, and reliable sources. freshacconci talk to me 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, yes I did add my name to this list and I see your point (guidelines) that to just add a name can be seen as wrong. Therefore I would not question your action on the page "Land Art". I do think it was not nice to remove the changes on Rock Balancing. I did make changes as a expert of this field which I wonder how this should by explained, isn't the change explaining it in it self? The change dos not have a opinion and therefore isn't of a particular point of view but a simple fact of the matter. Yes I did add a image I have taken - now I am a bit confused about whats wrong with that? If one adds a image to Wiki one need to have the right to do so, if its not my image how can I have that? I really don't understand. Now I can understand that it may had give you the impression that I am here to advertise my self but that was not my goal. The idea was to improve the article and therefore the change. This article includes a list of noticeable Rock Balancers. Looking of who is listed there and what actually they contribute I don't see it wrong to have my name in that list. I do think there are at least two people who I don't know why they are on that list in the first place, I can also NOT find any source for that listed artist, not even if I google their names there will be nothing which links them to Rock Balance. I did not take them a way of course since I don't feel that would by appropriate but adding my name as a full time Rock Balancer I think was not wrong. How can we improve this article so we are bot happy and agree with the change? Thanks for your time. (Pascal Fiechter (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

any suggestion? (Pascal Fiechter (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

The best course of action is to use the article talk page and discuss there what changes you want to make, including adding images. Be sure to be upfront that it's your image or your own work. An editor with a conflict of interest is actually not prohibited from editing, as long as you are transparent about it and you don't attempt to spam Wikipedia or add self-promotional material. By discussing it first on the talk page you can get input from other editors as well. freshacconci talk to me 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frutarine on New Media Art

The removal of Allan Kaprow, Gillian Wearing and Bill Viola from the list of new media artists in the article New Media Art is necessary as none of the above are new media artists. Allan Kaprow was a performance artist, writer and educator and while his writings are influential to new media art (see The New Media Reader) he is not a new media artist (this is even mentioned under Themes in the article) - he perhaps merits inclusion on this page under a different heading but not as one of its artists. Gillian Wearing works mostly with photography and video while Bill Viola is a video/installation artist. The only text on new media art that Wearing and Viola may have been included in to my knowledge is Michael Rush's publication New Media Art which is extremely dated and not very well considered as representative of what new media is. They are both listed in countless publications on video art and installation art. There are several other inaccuracies in the list including the listing of Furtherfield as an artist (they are an arts council funded organisation/gallery) and John Maeda who is a designer and educator however these are related to new media arts in one way or another and as such I have not removed them. (Frutarine (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2017 (GMT))

Video and video installation are new media. There are plenty of sources that support this and Viola's and Wearing's inclusion as new media can be supported as well. As for Kaprow, his Happenings could be counted at times as media art but that is a more obscure meaning of the term. I have no objection to Lynch's inclusion. I'm not familiar with him but looking at the article, he's clearly notable and a new media artist. freshacconci talk to me 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I'm not an inclusionist hellbent on including any and every name on the list. It is a long and unwieldy list. Certainly names can be removed -- there's one red link -- and I'm sure there are others that have been added over the years and forgotten, when they were not really applicable. freshacconci talk to me 17:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Video and video installation are new media. There are plenty of sources that support this and Viola's and Wearing's inclusion as new media can be supported as well." - I think you know as well as I do that anything can be argued and supported with references, the difference is the quality of those references and whether they are representative of what new media art is predominantly accepted to be. Video as a form alone does not have the majority of the qualities or features of new media e.g. interaction, databases, networks etc. and does not match up with the description of new media within the article. Nor does video align in any way with Manovich's five principles, which are arguably the most inclusive yet pointed description of new media art. Video art existed long before anything resembling new media art so it cannot sensibly be argued as new media simply that newer variants of it have in some sense been influenced in turn by its development. If your thinking here is that video art is now produced on computers, digitally, well so is every other form of media but that does not make them new media art - if it did the term would become meaningless. In addition there is no use of new media anywhere in Wearing's article - think about the user who clicks back to this only to read nothing in context to what they have just read in the new media article. "As for Kaprow, his Happenings could be counted at times as media art but that is a more obscure meaning of the term." - New media art is not the same as media art. If it was there would be no need for the 'new' as a means to delineate the two, which countless authors have discussed and argued about. (Frutarine (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (GMT))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birthday Suit – with scars and defects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Embodiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Lynch

I think the above page is likely an autobio, based on the edit history and the masterful puffery. In editing it I also found some fascinating things, like Rachel Greene's Internet Art used as a source when he does not appear anywhere in the book. Also, I have never heard of this artist, but if you read the article he's super famous. Please have a look if interested. I'd support at deletion if you want to take it there. 104.163.144.60 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Ray

I'm 179.7.103.223, i see that I was suspended. Two of the sources you quoted to describe the song as "noise rock" are not enough or not reliable. "The magnum noise rock opus" is not enough to define the song in the genre anyone would realize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both are fine. The Spin article is certainly enough (I notice you don't mention it). Leave it alone or you'll continue to get blocked. freshacconci (✉) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse

I had it, but thanks anyway. I've asked for a user block on the most recent IP, and page protection. Long term vandalism to the article. 2601:188:1:AEA0:10AB:7241:5DA8:D624 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that after I made the revert. There were so many edits that I wasn't sure what was left in the article. Thanks though. We seem to be monitoring a lot of the same articles. freshacconci (✉) 13:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently the 170IP wrote some edit summary stuff that needed redacting. What people do with their time... freshacconci (✉) 13:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's coincidence, since I'm mostly scanning recent changes. But certain articles tend to be high traffic vandalism targets. And as for use of time, well, I could certainly find better projects today. But there's always vandalism here to revert....2601:188:1:AEA0:10AB:7241:5DA8:D624 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can one correct an article when Mr. Freshacconci arbitrarily deletes any such correction

there are specific references and media content links, that where reverted without notice, nor are they in conflict with their usage. page Eric_Parnes. as the nature of the works is selective, and descriptive and has sufficent evidentiary internet material, there is no reason to delete such revisions while they are in progress. "too many problems to correct" is insufficient to justify arbitrary deletion, rather allowing the person who is currently editing the material to finish, would be in good faith, and here where on the merits does Mr. Freshacconci succeed in ruling on what is substantial and what is not. How many sources are required to full fill ones rightful assumption of false information. 2? Forbes? WSJ? NYT? or is a notarized form a prerequisite.

The influence of artwork changes overtime, here, new cited material has been unfairly erased before it is viewed in its context. Artwork is also visual, if something is descriptive, relevant, and has source material than if it is given with consent, there is simply no other way of accurately describing work that i visual. That would negate the medium of a photo and should instead suggest that any and all important visual images should be filled with paragraphs of descriptive empty language. Skepticism is heathy, however when it is predicated on false pretense it indicates selective personal bias. Please clearly indicate the alleged reasons for deleting a revision to a page in progress: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tron77 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I go by Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Please read WP:RS, WP:MOS, WP:NPOV. Definitely read What Wikipedia is Not. You should also probably read WP:COI. You weren't "correcting" anything; just adding stuff is not acceptable. You need to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. If you have anything you would like added to the article, or any corrections that need to be made, list them on the talk page. freshacconci (✉) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback. I will definitely reexamine my Janet Morton AfD vote today. My friend is an aspiring artist and I do endeavor to be fair and not overly critical in my AfDs.Knox490 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I revised my vote. It is now a Keep. Best wishes as far as your Art History PhD dissertation. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BC / BCE

"There is no such policy; we retain what was originally in the article for consistency." That is why I changed it to BC, which was the original usage, so I'm a bit nonplussed as to why that is not acceptable, but more to the point, why it has to be reverted. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I left it after your last revert. I went through the article history and the earliest versions use BC, and there's no other usage of either BC/BCE in the article, so consistency isn't an issue. freshacconci (✉) 17:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baader article

What's peculiar about it Krankmeister1917 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again and explained in the summary. I don't know what you think "an offbeat" means, but it's not proper English in that context. Likewise in Woodstock "some 400,000" means the same thing as 400,000, which incidentally is mentioned earlier in the lede. freshacconci (✉) 20:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate gives offbeat as one of the synonyms of beatnik, bum, nonconformist, provo etc.etc.etc. A grammar school dropout he surely was, but no criminal-that's a myth. Woodstock, see very first sentence where you have: "Woodstock was a music festival attracting an audience of over 400,000 people" - what is this any different from my formulation? How can 'some 400.000' mean '400.000' when one tries to say 'more than 400.000' ? Krankmeister1917 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use google translate for editing articles for grammar. It is incorrect about "offbeat" in the way it's used in your edit. As for "some" -- in this instance it's idiomatic. freshacconci (✉) 05:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2017

Hi. Thanks for the edit summary explanation on Acconci - no insult intended by the question, I hope you know (as you'll appreciate, archive sources are a whole step away from truly reliable sourcing). Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 14:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not insulted at all. Another editor changed the date of death in the article and I figured I'd update the Death in 2017 page and did so quickly, and lazily. Thanks. freshacconci (✉) 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruegel

I can't be sure but it looks like he's back: [3]; [4]. I hope I'm wrong...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides

Hi. Regarding [htps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_suicides&diff=next&oldid=783356307 your edit on List of suicides], material needs to be supported by citations in every article in which it appears. A wikilink is not a citation, as one Wikipedia article cannot be cited as a source in another, since that is circular sourcing, as per WP:CIRCULAR. With respect to the List of suicides article in particular, a discussion on that article's talk page, mainly in January and February 2010, as explained here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a local guideline for that page only. I wasn't suggesting anything like wikilinks being sources or circular sourcing. In other articles, a linked article which contains sourced material does not necessarily require a source, particularly in lists. If that was decided for this list in particular, fine. But it's not universal throughout Wikipedia. freshacconci (✉) 00:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on both counts. Material needs to be supported by citations in whatever article it appears in, including list articles.
Circular sourcing is prohibited across Wikipedia, and not just in that one article, as clearly indicated by WP:CIRCULAR, which is part of WP:Verifiability, a core policy.
Please learn these policies if you wish to continue editing here. They are what make the information on Wikipedia verifiable to its readers. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Renewal Movement

Please at least Google the Art Renewal Movement before ignorantly denying its existence. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't deny it exists. It's a website, not an art movement or style. freshacconci (✉) 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not one style (just as modernism is a movement that includes several styles, and post-modernism is a movement that includes several styles). The Art Renewal Movement is definitely a movement. Also, the Art Renewal Movement predates the Art Renewal Center, which hosts international salon competitions and scholarships for artists who are part of the Art Renewal Movement. The most important part of the Art Renewal Movement is perhaps the hundred or so academies and ateliers around the world, and the tens of thousands of graduates from these programs who promote this growing movement. For instance, Juan Martinez starred on Bravo's TV series Star Portraits, where he painted a live portrait of celebrity Jeopardy Host Alex Trebek. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#You violated the 3RR rule on the Contemporary Art WP page after I gave you a warning, which you deleted.]]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11pm (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Yeah, ok. freshacconci (✉) 16:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Art references

Thanks for your message about the Abstract Art edit.It does need a lot of references and a lot of work to make it read well.Paulaclarewilliams (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Art

I am working down the article to provide citations where needed.Thank you-great to have your help.Paulaclarewilliams (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art movement

Hello Freshacconci (sorry by advance for my poor english)

I don't undesrtand why do you delete my corrections twice. It's a notable fact, that Jacques-Louis David belongs to the neoclassical movment. His paintings are representatives to this art movment. It is logical to indicate the correct movment under the picture of his painting le Sacre de Napoléon and not the genre painting, in an article the purpose of which is to present the concept of movment in art. You said : this article lists genres and movements it's not true, the landscape painting, the portrait genre or the still-life genre, are not included, only History painting. But there are romantic history painting (La liberté guidant le peuple is an history painting), rococo history painting, academic history painting, or neoclassical history painting, Indicating that it is not an art movment. I really don't understand why you maintain theses errors in this article. Yours faithfully. Kirtap mémé sage 14:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freshacconci, please don't revert good-faith edits with the rollback function. Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I explained myself in the edit summary. I only rollbacked the first time as it appeared to be a disruptive edit. Good faith works both ways -- I've been here over 10 years and and don't need "scolding" for a routine edit. freshacconci (✉) 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land art

Appreciate your watching this page: Jacek Tylicki, thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Renewal Center Sources

I've noticed that at the top of the Talk:Art Renewal Center, there are dozens of sources that User:Ecoleetage found way back in 2008. Maybe we could add those ones. Buffalo Soldiers (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not opposed to improving the article and adding sources. As long as the text is not promotional and adheres to guidelines, I'm fine. If you refrain from editing from different accounts and IP addresses and just focus on editing rather than edit warring using different IP addresses we can move forward. For the record, I didn't add the notability template originally. However, as another editor raised the concern, it needs to be addressed before removing. freshacconci (✉) 03:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freshacconci&oldid=791536883"