User talk:Freshacconci/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Art bollocks[edit]

I'll be loading lots of stuff onto Art bollocks over the weekend. You might find some as well, and add it to the article. (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nathaniel Stern[edit]

Seems Nathaniel beat me in terms of trying to talk to you on this one - yes, I do know him as a Wisconsin artist / see your point there. That being said, I agree with him (you were very quick to undo my edits, but still haven't answered him. Why?). And don't you have a conflict of interest here, as someone involved in the original debates? Look, everything in my edits were true, and cited from credible sources. Your edits are false and not what the originals say. "Formatting is fine; please sign in next time" is your argument as to why you don't have to follow Wiki standards? It's pure hypocrisy to say Wikipedia Art doesn't belong on the wiki (which you did) then _also_ pull rank when my edits do belong and yours don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're a "friend" who just happens to hold the exact same viewpoint, is also from Milwaukee and restored Stern's edits exactly. What exact "rule" is being enforced by your edit? Providing sources is only part of what is done here. The information I removed was extraneous per WP:UNDUE. The Wikipedia Art incident is mentioned. Nothing more really needs to be said about it. If WP:SOCK does not apply here then WP:MEAT certainly does. If you feel more needs to be added to the article, discuss it on the talk page or to the WikiProject Visual arts talk page and try to build consensus. freshacconci talktalk 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Freshacconci.

Just saw the edits. Honestly, that wasn't me. I guess I can see why you would think so if that IP is indeed in Milwaukee, but it's a big city (about the size of Seattle or Dublin), and the recent buzz because of the Wikipedia Art Transmediale nomination has meant resurgent interest, especially in my current home city and state. For example, that nomination has been tweeted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel arts writer and blogged by Peck School of the Arts in the last week or so - go ahead and check up on it if you want. I've gotten congratulatory emails from all over the world.

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding "Stern's edits exactly," because 1. I do not edit my own page (the "Nathaniels" edits are an image upload and spelling errors or linking) and 2. this person wrote a lot more than was ever on the page beforehand, even if your accusations of sock or meat puppeting were true - and they are not. Actually, a lot of people hold the "viewpoint" the IP presents (although the edits contained only facts, not viewpoints, as far as I could tell) - the value of the piece is why it was on the Venice Biennale and is a finalist for Transmediale, and why s/he was able to put forward the potential edits based on citations from credible sources rather than personal opinion alone. Why, according to you, can you do whatever you want regarding what you think is "undue" (the authors of the articles you cite would disagree), but s/he must build consensus? You are a party of one as well, and the current edit is both lacking in necessary information about what Wikipedia Art is in order understand it in any encyclopedic way whatsoever, and misleading in terms of the outcomes of the project.

All this being said, the IP which you accuse me of being has done me no favors (if you are reading this, please stop!): I wrote to you several well-reasoned arguments about your edits in good faith, which you did not answer for over a month (yes, you were away, but you are obviously paying attention and happy to be involved), and now you get to feel justified in totally ignoring and then deleting these arguments. Why would I go through the trouble of addressing you directly and imploring your better judgment, telling you specifically that I would not edit my page, if I was going to do it anyhow? Regardless of what you think of me personally, and you obviously have an opinion, my history would prove I'm a bit brighter than that.

To my point, I'm not now arguing you should put back the IPs edits, and no longer attempting to get you to listen to my pleas. Although I should care a lot more than you do (since the page is actually about me and my work), you obviously have an agenda here, and aren't going to budge. Continuing an argument with you wouldn't go anywhere. But if you are not going to honestly justify your Wikipedia Art edits (not to mention the deletions of the other stuff), or bother mentioning what Wikipedia Art even is in the section about it (what the majority of the "undue" text in most of the articles referenced are actually about), I feel I have to see about at least removing the verifiable falsehood you have put on the page about me and my work. The article you cite explicitly states that Wikimedia asked for the domain name to be forked over in their letter. I get that you don't think my project deserves as much attention as it got (and continues to get) and want Wikipedia to reflect your opinion. I also understand that you don't want to make Wikimedia/Wikipedia look bad. But you are not the gatekeeper. If you insist on not putting up / repeatedly removing any actual information about the piece itself or the facts of the threatened litigation, I'm sure most would agree to at least also remove the lie that "the Foundation requested that Stern and Kildall post a notice on the Wikipedia Art website to distinguish it from Wikipedia". Your current citation reads this PR quote as a fact that PBS verifies; in actuality, their article says something very different, and this is a quote from a biased source. At minimum, if you are going to put in a PR quote from an article, you should attribute it to the aforementioned biased source, and also present the truth from the article (and probably another quote from someone from the other side). Wikipedia is not a place to conceal and manipulate information so as to make its readers prejudge.

Regardless of the fact that this page is about me - in fact, perhaps because of it - I can easily make the case against your continual propagation of this outright lie, at least, to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. It is precisely what they say such a page should not be: poorly sourced and potentially libelous; according to Wikipedia rules regarding biographies of living persons, it must be removed immediately. I have been extremely patient and am, again, giving you every opportunity to do something about your behavior, in good faith. I'll remind you that what both of us do and say is all documented in the history of these pages. I asked you to be a good Wikipedia citizen, and you are refusing to do so. No matter what your opinion, or where you think the argument should take place, you are the only person visibly in the wrong here, and, no matter what you think is due or not, no consensus needs to be reached about that. I now know you are looking and watching, so I am not going to wait another month before moving forward on this. NathanielS (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked an uninvolved editor to have a look at the edits and see what he or she thinks (message found here). I'll also post a message at the Visual Arts Project talk page to get more input. freshacconci talktalk 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw your note. I hope they respond/take a look. I had also put it up on Bios of living people after my last post, and more recently added to that that you are trying to get a third party involved. I think it's the right way forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniels (talkcontribs) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

this discussion moved here NathanielS (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Walter Benjamin[edit]

Freshacconci, Greetings to you. I NEVER advertise. All my critical media research is free to all and uncopyrighted. My entry onto the Walter Benjamin site is simply an explication, indeed, an example of one of Benjamin's founding notions... that of Trauerspiel. I have successfully linked my research to Wikipedia's Baudrillard, Hurricane Katrina, Marshall McLuhan, etc., with no difficulties.

Please see my work on Trauerspiel again for yourself: It is a rigorous and muscular exercise in allegorical lament of which, I believe, Benjamin would himself encourage. (I would argue too that Wikipedia itself is in some way a form of "Benjamin Briefcase.")

But to point, exactly where does one find advertising on Yes, I do "sign" my pages, but nothing more:

It would be most courteous if you, or someone, could reinstate the link I tried to establish some time ago on the Walter Benjamin page.

I appreciate this opportunity to state my case. peace, holland wilde Hollandwilde (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Emily Schooley[edit]

Thanks for your note at my talk page. I had the salt request up during the conversation and have now posted it. Bigger digger (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK edits[edit]

Er...I don't understand why you're reverting my edits to DYK. Since the hooks are supposed to be removed from the page when added to a prep page. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I've been trying out Igloo and you got caught in some crossfire. I'll try to be more careful and I'm really sorry for the vandalism warning. freshacconci talktalk 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries! Stuff happens, it's cool. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a neat little tool but it may be a little too automated. I didn't realize it was dishing out warnings on my behalf. Now I have to go through my edits and make sure I didn't do the same to other legitimate edits. freshacconci talktalk 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove The Comments About Ramon Ayala That You Have Posted.[edit]

Greetings Freshacconci. Ramon Ayala Is Innocent Of All Charges Against Him. The Mexican Government Dropped All Charges Against Him. Everyone Attending The Concert Was Arrested Without Exception. As You Know, It Is Not Wikipedia's Job To Be A Vehicle For Spreading Titillating Claims About Living People's Lives, Or To Vicitmize People's Lives That Have Been Proven Innocent, Or For Vicitmization To Public Figures. Wikipedia Polciy Also States That Material That May Adversely Affect A Person's Reputation Is Actionable, And To Exersise Restraint, Because It Is Not A Tabliod. Also, To Include Only Material Revelent To Their Notability, And To Use An Impartial And Inappropiate Tone. Now, I See That You Are A Professor, And I Know You Are A Smart Man, And I Respect That. I Also Read Other Wikipedians Comments To You, Asking You To Be A Good Wikipedian. I Don't Know What That Is All About, And You May Very Well Have Been The Correct Party. I Personally Have Known Ramon Ayala For Over 20 Years, And Can Tell You That He Does Not Smoke, Drink, Or Do Drugs. He Is A Very Hard Working Man. Humble, And Very Generous To The Community. He Is Not Invlolved With Illegal Activities. A Promotion Agency Contrated Him To Be At That Event. Mr Ayala Did Not Sign The Contract. As You Know, Performers Are Contracted To Perform At Facilities That Their Ownership's Actions And Backgrounds Are Unknown To The General Public. Yes, The 2 Links On Your Comments Are News Media Writeups. The Media Is Usually Always Ready To Put Somebody Through The So Called Meat Grinder In Order To Sell Their Product. I Guess I Would Do The Same As A Reporter, But That Is Why I Am Not A Reporter. As A Friend, I Ask You To Please Remove The Comments You Have Posted About Him. Thank You, (Suburban7 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Colin Campbell: my bad[edit]

Yeah I didn't mean to erase Lady Colin Campbell; I was only targeting the actor. Good catch, thanks! –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also wow at the comment above mine. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. And yeah, not sure how to even respond to that message.... Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 04:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Farmer[edit]

Hi Freshacconci,

I appreciate you taking an interest in this entry. Your work on Wikipedia is impressive. Since I am new here, I will be interested to see your edits to the article. I will take it as an opportunity to "learn from the master".

Many thanks Filtrate (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, welcome to Wikipedia. There are few editors interested in art topics let alone Canadian art topics so it's encouraging to see someone not only take an interest but actually create articles that need creating. The first piece of contemporary art I ever saw was Micah Lexier's installation at the Hamilton Public Library in the 80s (although I didn't quite understand it at the time it did make an impression).
I solicited some help from other art editors here at the Visual Arts group (you may consider joining as well). I won't be able to work on the article for a couple of days because of Real Life but hopefully someone else can help out as well and I'll be able to devote some time in a day or two to the Farmer article. Don't worry about the deletion proposal. I'd bet real money based on my experiences here that the article will be kept. freshacconci talktalk 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Neoism article[edit]

Hello Freshacconci,

Why did you revert the edit of the Neoism article, i.e. delete the added picture?

Florian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantsin (talkcontribs) 11:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gehry rollback[edit]

Hi Freshacconci,

Why did you revert the addition of information into Frank Gehry? It was a good faith edit and it was my understanding that WP:ROLLBACK was for intentional disruption. I'm not in anyway in favour of adding this information, I've nominated the Order of Charlemagne by the same editor for deletion, but have also tried to explain my actions for their benefit. Bigger digger (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: revisions to the Aeolian Hall, London Ontario Wikipedia page[edit]

Dear Freshacconci,

I am the current owner of Aeolian Hall and would like to upload a more thorough history of the hall. It has been well researched by sources at The University of Western Ontario and the London Public Library. I'm not a fluent user of Wikipedia, but I sense there is a protection on this page from your side. Would you allow me to upload this more elaborate history?


Clark Bryan Executive Director The Aeolian

Clark Bryan (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong--I'm not seeking to grant permission or anything. An important part of Wikipedia is WP:OWN, which basically means none of us should take "possession" of any given page--and that includes me. Please do feel free to edit anything on Wikipedia. All that is asked is to exercise caution when editing articles you have a connection to. I will post a standard welcome message on your talk page which will give you some links to basic policies. When posting information, just make sure you have proper, reliable sources and keep the language neutral. Otherwise, welcome. freshacconci talktalk 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

«the onus is on you»[edit]

By what rule? 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just keep it on the article talk page. I've started a discussion there. Don't edit war. freshacconci talktalk 18:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok but please answer here to my question. This is important. 18:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
His ethnicity has been listed as Russian-Ukrainian for some time now. You want to change that which means that you need to provide the rationale and the sources to make that change. Usually, changing something is fairly simple if it's not controversial. In a case such as this, two editors strongly disagree about something which means a discussion should take place on the talk page rather than an edit war. WP:BURDEN is mainly for editors attempting to add information but the same principle applies here: you want to change something that another editor says is sourced. That means you need to provide reliable sources to convince others to establish consensus. freshacconci talktalk 18:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
«His ethnicity has been listed as Russian-Ukrainian for some time now.» —
Who you this say? This is another myth west or what? Can you prove it and how? Ethnicity "ukrainian" total-only popular myth how and ethnicity "moldovan" (Stalin so call Brezhnev). Or you're are confused in ethnonym and demonym? I do not understand this.
«That means you need to provide reliable sources» —
And they were provided. What problem? Collier's Encyclopedia:«Родился 6 (19) декабря 1906 в русской семье в Днепродзержинске (до 1936 - Каменское) на юго-востоке Украины.» Approximate translation (sorry, bad english): « Born 6 (19) december 1906 year in russian family...» —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Glass brick[edit]

I think your instincts were right with this revert: [1]

The material came from here. I'm going to revert to the last version before the copyvio addition, but as you seem to be watching the article, I thought I'd mention this to you.--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

site specific art article[edit]

hello fresh Acconci,

I have seen that you have deleted all my additions in the article. I'am french speaking and does'not express myself in a totally proper way in english. But I am susprise by some of your correction. By example , the first sentence that you change for the ancient version it does not seems to be a better english or better meaning. I would like you to explain it. And I do not understand why you delete an external link which is totally in accordance with the definition of site-specific art. Hve you only been watching and reading that external link (english version exists) before deleting it ? I agree that my adding was maybe not enought "sourcés" but the whole article is far to be complete , and has a lot of missing informations . It should be consider as a work in process and thatis wat people here are supposed to do. Adding their connaissances .

Thanks. --Ildiko Dao (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art[edit]


I have just edited the Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art wikipedia page, I have rewritten it in a more neutral style and added information about the director, funding, notable exhibitions and lots of references. It would be great if this could be reviewed and you could let me know if there are still problems with it! I am just getting to grips with editing Wikipedia myself so apologies if there are any technical issues- let me know.

Thanks a lot! Umbrellaki (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership[edit]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC).


Happy Holidays[edit]

Hi FreshAcconci, Best wishes! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! [2], [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Terry Ananny[edit]

Because you have been so instrumental in tracking this problem, I thought you might like to see the latest: More Ananny sockpuppet problems. Thanks for all you've done here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up--found another one. She always seems to be active around the holidays. freshacconci talktalk 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground discography[edit]

Hi Freshacconci

Spotted your edit to this page. I have now created the album page for the compilation Andy Warhol's Velvet Underground featuring Nico. In my laziness, I added the album to the Discography page and used the red link to edit/create the album page. Apologies. Anyway the album page is there now, would you object if I re-instated my edit? I'll update the Velvet Undergrond and Nico infoboxes later today and fix the chronology sections for this album. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do Irae4dfc (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Please re-add it. I thought it was referring to the first LP. I'd never heard of this compilation. Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Could you please not remove my addition. The information has been changed since the first comment, if you would have read it. All the references are secondary sources, there is no conflict of interest. Ems2715 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're undoing edits without explaining yourself, you haven't discussed the changes on the talk page at all, and there's still the issue of WP:UNDUE. Undoing an edit without an explanation and repeatedly adding contentious material can be viewed as edit warring. Make your case on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The design page discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ems2715 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. That's what I meant. Changes to any article are discussed on the article's talk page. freshacconci talktalk 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Phillips collection[edit]

The article about the The Phillips Collection and the references added are being attacked by an IP who clearly is an editor in disguise and who doesn't like doing editing just tagging, I would appreciate your input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and will keep an eye open. freshacconci talktalk 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for helping to sort out the comments mess over at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting It seems like my attempts to fix it after I did the first reversion only made it worse but everything seems to be back in place including the section that was temporarily lost. Cat-five - talk 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. freshacconci talktalk 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Hutchison page[edit]


I am not sure if you're a real person or a bot? I think you are putting the notabilty tag on this page, yes? Can you tell me why this tag was placed there? I am new to Wiki and would like to learn. My interests are local arts primarily. I would like to learn more about listing artists that are local and/or living. Can you give me any tips on doing so? Why is it not notable? How is that determined? I looked around Wiki trying to figure it out. I saw a lot of these tags used and am not sure why. They are on some extremely notable indivuals. Also, I am not trying to vandalise the encyclopedia and I am not sure what you mean.

Thank you. Crystalh1982 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Colour My World (Chicago song)[edit]

I appreciate your contacting me to indicate the correct spelling for "Colour My World" and fully agree with your point that despite the band's American origins, the "Colour" form preferred by the author, James Pankow, must be respected. In fact, owing to the link you provided, I was also able to confirm that the band's preference for such spelling also extended to another selection on Chicago II, Robert Lamm's "Fancy Colours". All that remains now is to make the appropriate revisions within whichever articles require them.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

question / plz help[edit]


could u please tell me what is exactly the copyedit problem at the Abed Abdi page? I am new here, and would like to correct... or is it all of the issues mentioned on top of page together?

thank you for help

Abdis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdis (talkcontribs) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


I wonder where you are studying your doctoral thesis and who you are? Perhaps I know you from Hamilton? FloraFloralday (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Speedy deletion requires only a mere indication of importance, which is much less than actual notability.And [[Lee Ward (professor) is quite possibly actually notable by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


"Clientele" has been an English word for over 400 years. A search of online dictionaries via shows that 31 list "clientele"; not one lists "clientèle". This is an English encyclopedia, and should use English words unless quoting foreign names or phrases. Wiktionary is not an authority on the English language, as any clown can update it. "Clientele" is understood by all, and Wikipedia is not improved by giving in to hyperforeignism. Chris the speller (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay... freshacconci talktalk 17:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

List of canadians[edit]


I believe the addition of Mailloux to the list of military figures made sense. In any case, I don't believe it is in any way vandalism. Could you please explain a bit more the deletion? I created the page on Mailloux and I am trying to link it up to others so it is not an orphan.

Thanks in advance

Johnsadler2020 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about this edit. Perhaps your intention was not vandalism, but putting messages into articles is not constructive. If you have concerns about the page or want to make suggestions, use the article talk page. The link to the Mailloux appears to be fine, however. freshacconci talktalk 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hidalgo, etc.[edit]

Interesting, huh? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to know a lot about Wiki shorthand (i.e. rvv) for a newbie. freshacconci talktalk 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cold revenge (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You know who i am drmies Cold revenge (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to convey messages to Drmies at Drmies's talk page. freshacconci talktalk 05:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
nope.jpg, he is evil. Epic revenge (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Whatever. Just keep it off my talk page. freshacconci talktalk 05:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Freshacconci, I've already reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. He has a long history on the page, as I'm sure you know. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably look at getting the page protected. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but OTOH it usually comes when they block the user anyway.... but I see that Orlady has already done it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Freshacconci. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The/the Beatles[edit]

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [4] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


I recently added a link to a website on the article about contemporary artists. I noticed that you had removed this link as you did not feel it was appropriate. is a UK arts charity presenting contemporary art practice. As such it features 3,000 profiles of contemporary artists. I thought providing a link to such a resource would benefit the article and offer further scope for people wishing to see more work by contemporary artists. I am new to wiki and so would be interested to hear your view on why you believe this link is not appropriate.

Kind regards

Markataxis (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Image removed[edit]

Hello Freshacconci,

An impromptu remark in answer to your comments regarding the image The_Magic_Universe_of_the_Anishinaabeg.jpg‎: "questionable notability, apparently a Dutch artist (difficult to find info on him") and "not an example of Woodland School of Art style by a practicing Woodlands style artist". First of all: I was not the one who posted the image. Secondly: I am not a Dutch artist. I am an American artist who lives in the Netherlands. Part of my ancestry lies in Baawiting (Sault Ste. Marie, MI), I belong to the Ojibwe Marten Clan, and I have always considered myself an artist in the tradition of the Woodland School of Art. My question to you is this: who decides if I am a Woodland School artist or not? And what does 'notability' mean? Is it perhaps the same as 'marketability'? There are many Medicine Painters with lots of talent who cannot even be found on the Internet. Have you looked me up on the Internet? Try for instance Zhaawano Giizhik Woodlands Art. Or: Zhaawano Giizhik Medicine Painters. (Most of what you will find there is written in Dutch, however I do not believe this devalues its merit.) Sincerely, Zhaawano Giizhik Zhaawano (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zhaawano: On Wikipedia notability refers to an important guideline, WP:NOTABILITY. Without reliable sources to support the notability of the artist or work, an image will not remain in an article. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Dear Freshaconcci,

I hope this email finds you well.

Could I politely ask you why you deleted the entry on metamodernism within the post-postmodernism entry? Metamodernism is a widely accepted term to describe current developments in current affairs and contemporary aesthetics. Vermeulen and Akker moreover have been associated with it across academia, the popular press and the art world. They are in the process of preparing an edited collection on post-postmodernism with a number of the authors mentioned above, as well as a monograph, an edited collection, a number of articles, and an international conference on metamodernism (which I co-organise). You write that the term should not be included because the term predates current use, but postmodernism (!) too was a term used by a great variety of people before it became associated with a certain paradigm or structure of feeling in the 1970s. Would you perhaps be so friendly as to explain your choice to omit the term entirely here (even from the related topic list?) so I can alter the entry accordingly.

Kind wishes,

Fredrik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrik holmsted (talkcontribs) 20:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

dear Freshaconcci,

Let's start by saying that your efforts as a wikipedian are much appreciated. Judging from your editing-history you are an involved volunteer. As a scholar of digital culture, I am well aware of the importance of people like you for the wikipedia-project. As a student of post-postmodern, or,metamodern aesthetics and culture, however, I feel that your judgements concerning the paragraphs on metamodernism are too harsh.

I understand that we can discuss the content of those particular edits - for that's the nature of wikipedia - but i do not understand why there should be no place at all for metamodernism on this page. After all, my colleague Timotheus Vermeulen and I have published two peer-reviewed articles on metamodernism, with more to come, have been interviewed about the metamodern sensibility by several newspapers and have been publicly speaking about the topic on numerous occasions. All of these examples, are ample evidence of - and provide sources for! - the fact that our analysis of metamodernism is part of this discussion.

Your argument that the term "metamodernism" predates our use is correct, yet we always acknowledge this. More importantly, however we use the term in an entirely different fashion and for entirely different purposes. Also, as Frederik rightly points out, the notion of the "postmodern" predated the whole postmodern discours, and had been used to describe various phenomena, until it got appropriated and applied to analyse the postmodern condition. Moreover, if you are too judge the other notions on this page by the same standard, you also have to reconsider the use of performatism, for example. Of course, this would be ridiculous and undesirable as Raoul's contribution to the whole debate on the end of postmodernism is entirely original, insightful and invaluable. (As an aside, if you go to our website, you will find a paper on metamodernism adressed at a conference, co-organized by Raoul Eshelman, on post-postmodernism - once more a source to demonstrate that our conceptualisation of metamodernism is part of this discussion)

It would be very much appreciated if you would reply to my mail. Meanwhile, I will once more add a few lines on metamodernism; a few lines that will take your previous objections into account.

kind regards,

robin van den akker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin van den akker (talkcontribs) 11:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes...[edit] was a mistake. :) Thanks for catching it. — Hunter Kahn 04:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Toronto street fight[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful intervention regarding Floydian's language at the John Street Afd. But may I ask: why did you remove all the other Afds from the Ontario deletion discussion page, here, which Gene had tried to add? I've restored them; I'm assuming it was a rollback error, or something of that sort. Each AfD had been tagged as added to the discussion page, and it was causing confusion. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK--that is really odd. I seem to have made only 4 edits on February 4. I have no idea what happened there other then accidentally hitting revert on my watchlist. Trust me, that was completely unintentional. Maybe I can blame one of my cats; they tend to walk all over my keyboard. I'll have to open accounts for them. Thanks for the heads-up. freshacconci talktalk 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Randall Szott[edit]

Hello Freshacconci. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Randall Szott, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Greenbelt[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you were a member of WP:ONTARIO. I was wondering if I could ask you to weigh in on a discussion to move Greenbelt (Golden Horseshoe) to Ontario Greenbelt. The discussion is stagnant, and I'd like to gather some consensus. Thanks. --Natural RX 17:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Spirituality in AA[edit]

Hello Freshacconci. I see that you deleted the bit from Loren Archer on Spirituality on the AA page. So you'll know, the only reason that I left it there was as a placeholder for a section on Spirituality that encompassed the broad spectrum of thought on this subject. I never got around to it so thanks for the deletion. The concept of spirituality in general and as it relates to AA specifically is difficult to pin down since different people define the concept in different ways. Best wishes,Desoto10 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rosendale DYK[edit]

Hey, I just reread my response to your comments at the DYK discussion on Rosendale Village. I accidentally left out the word "then", so it may have come across as sarcastic when in fact I was thanking you for participating. Just didn't want you to think I was a jerk.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Just so you know, the major editor of the above article deleted my CSD tag a few hours ago and a bot didn't pick it up, hence (I presume) your later AfD. I wonder how long your AfD tag will be on the page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you did notice the tag deletion. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Artgod1 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Morpheous satisfies the requirement for being published according to Wikipedia: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. via his published works please remove your recommendation for deletion.

Thank you

It doesn't work that way. It's been nominated for deletion and the discussion remains open for seven days. At that time an administrator decides if the article is to be kept or not. You can find more information here: WP:DEL. freshacconci talktalk 04:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...[edit]

... and we probably will meet again. I agree that "The Bar at the Folies-Bergere" is an important painting and deserves a better article. I have little knowledge of art, yet I've seen the painting before. My contribution to the article is there, ready to be inserted when everything else is ready. I am interested in a lot of things and I doubt that I'll come back to it. Wastrel Way (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


I am not comfortable with this article and editor [5] - what do you think?..Modernist (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, what's the deal with the huge picture? Obviously, this is COI and I can't see any sources that are useful: they're all blogs or press release articles. I'd be leaning towards AFD based on the lack of sources. If we cleaned it up, would there be much left? freshacconci talktalk 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I googled her and she is somewhat notable, but the image, and the rest seem puffy and beyond the pale, Teapot George deleted her list of museums none of which (except one) mention her. I'll rethink it...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Relational Aesthetics[edit]

Hey, I saw you recently changed the title of the Relational Aesthetics/Art page. The other user in question changed the title to French, but as is customary on the English Wikipedia, I tried to change it back to the correct English title: Relational Aesthetics. Unfortunately, the articles are so mixed up that I'm not sure how to do this anymore. If you know how to fix it, it would be really great. Cheers! GuzonjinSin (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV question[edit]

Hi Freshacconci,

I received a message saying that I did not follow the NPOV rules, and I am wondering if you can give me a specific example of what I might have done wrong and what I can do to change it.


KatieNB (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Freshacconci, the material KatieNB added was a copyright violation from here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


I was under the impression that the Norval Morrisseau article was being monitored for edits? So perhaps you can explain why there are so many edits taking place again? For example, the Sworn Declarations the artist signed have been removed without any proper justification. Those documents have been filed into evidence in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-00366828) and in other cases > all resolved. One of the individuals who was editing the article and censured by WIKI for vandalism has been identified in court as per a recent decision by Justice Godfrey. These Sworn Declarations are evidence and are in the public domain. Copyrights are not required. The person who was identified in court via IP evidence as the person editing this WIKI article is a person who is closely associated with the individuals who were recipients of said declarations by the artist. And once again _ we find edits which conveniently delete the Sworn statements of the artist filed into evidence in a court of law. If the statements of the artist cannot be included in the WIKI about him - then WIKI has no credibility. This is not about balance and bias. These are facts. Those selling paintings the artist said were "fakes" have bullied WIKI editors and been editing the articles which expose them. How's that for bias? Not including information can be just as unbalanced and biased as including information. Sherwaypaint (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not idea what you're talking about. Nothing appears to have been removed from the page. And it's not my job to "monitor" that page or any other page, so I really don't owe you any other explanation. Monitor it yourself. freshacconci talktalk 10:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who imposed NPOV and other restraints prior as I read it. And now you claim it's not your job to monitor? So you just edit when you feel like it and then let it all go to hell? Pathetic. And yes - there were items removed from the entry. The artist's sworn declarations were there as jpegs and they are no longer visible in the entry. And btw - 123habs was identified in court as an individual with a criminal record. He also lost all his cases. Nice to see they can harass you into an NPOV but you wash you hands of it after. WIKI is a joke. That entry was being monitored and you interfered. Now you claim it's not your job? How convenient. And you're rude. No need for that either just cause you don't like the feedback.Sherwaypaint (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Leap into the Void[edit]

As a rule of thumb, people should look from the image to the text, drive their bike from the edge of the page to the center or jump from the diving platform into the water, not on the land. And you want the leap into the void directed out of the article? Your reason might be convincing, just tell it to me, please.--Fluss (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about the placement of the Klein image. It's standard that the lead image be placed in the right side of the page as the intro paragraph is always flush left. After that, images are staggered for balance. This is why the info box is always on the right. We should, however, keep this discussion on the article talk page. I do have it watchlisted. freshacconci talktalk 17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external links Sillyfarm (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[edit]

The websites and links in question on the article of body painting were to the Face and Body Art International Convention website how is this advertising? It is reference material. There are other convention links on the page, and there's blatant advertising in every single wikipedia article by putting external links, why was mine removed?

Because it is advertising a commercial entity. Please read WP:EL. freshacconci talktalk 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Warning off my talk page.[edit]

I posted the comment on the page about the worst songs, I deleted it and your reply. You then put a warning on my talk page. I think I am allowed to delete my own post, I also deleted yours because it would not make sense alone. Please take off the warning from my talk page. I am asking you to do it because you'd probably just put it back anyways.


Shamanbeet Shamanbeet (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)