User talk:JNW/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crispin and Scapin, Honore Daumier. See WP:Canvassing.
The ideal tone of communication between wikipedia contributors. See WP:LOVE.
And please don't bite the newbies.



While there was an AfD, it ended early as a result of the speedy deletion. So it was really a speedy deletion, and not a deletion from the AfD process, that led to its deletion. That's why I declined to delete it as a repost—although it was clearly not article material, so it did wind up getting deleted anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--I did wonder about that when I tagged it, but figured since it had gone to the AfD process...well, this is how I learn new stuff. JNW (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


?? Dlohcierekim 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me, either. Must be my mistake--sorry! JNW (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Dlohcierekim 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy[edit]

Thank you, I very much agree with the change you have made, an improvement to the article. Feel free to remove this comment, just wanted to say thanks for listening. ~Elijah

I did not carefully read the previous version. Trying to balance an unsourced statement with another unsourced statement compounds the original problem; if practical, it's good to neutralize the claim with the simplest language possible. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

Hi Fvw, I am wondering whether user: was vandalizing with this series of edits [1], or merely updating information about the most recent addition to Obama's cabinet. If so, the vandalism warnings and block might merit a review. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I agree it was probably good faith, and the first time it came up on WP:AIV I didn't block. When it kept up some sort of shot across the bow was necessary to get the guys attention. Thus far the part where I was reasonable. Then I got to the block page and must have automatically given a week because I saw he'd already been blocked for vandalism. I've fixed the block (12 hours now, is that still too long?), and I'd already put something sensible on his talk page. Thanks, --fvw* 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Tough call. Several of the edits appear to have been either testing or trying to update the photo gallery for cabinet positions, but I do think the deletion of content under 'speculation' showed intent to update Lahood's appointment. I'm dubious as to whether the motive was vandalism. Problem is the contributor doesn't engage in discussion or explain their motives. JNW (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the announcement isn't official until Friday, so the edits, and my support of them, are probably premature. Time for me to take a break. JNW (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The block wasn't for the content of the edits, it was for not communicating. If he'd just said that the matter would have been done, and we wouldn't have valued wikipedians taking breaks and getting lured back into the outside world. --fvw* 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you just broke me up. Thanks and cheers again, JNW (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Thanks JNW! Hope your Christmas is full of Peace and Joy! Love the Beano! (a big feast is known as a "beano", in Aussie slang!) Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! I just saw your newbie painting! How revolting! Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. It was placed there by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back--initially he gifted me with the Goya version. Either way...they are both great pictures, and I appreciated the humor. Cheers, JNW (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Raft of the Medusa[edit]

Hey again JNW, I'm planning on a expansion of this over christmass, would appreciate if you kept your usuall watchful eye over it. The colourisation on the standing nude on your userpage is very lovely and very sympathetic by the way, and I like the diagonals and shadows on the mat. They spead very well against all the verticle lines of the figure and the background. It would be nice to see a higher res version if you have one. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you dont have books to hand I trust you openion and judgment and feel safer and more confident with you watching. Happy holidays to you too. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Outriggr sent me the most fantastic high res copy of the raft if you would like to see it. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sent. I hope you enjoy, the physicality and violence of the work doesn't really come accross in most reproductions. And he died so young. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The Eakins is a fine article, and an interesting image. I really like the bursts of green in the top right and lower left corners. I'll watchlist, and add when I can. Thanks for asking. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You have mail. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note--I will look into it. And thanks, too, for your contributions to the Swimming Hole. I will look at the Raft soon. JNW (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole is looking good, the Bazille was a good find! Happy Holidays again....Modernist (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's amazing what the right keywords and Google can help you find. Happy Holidays to you, too. JNW (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all[edit]

My audio cards for all Wikipediaddicts: [2] and [3]. Best holiday wishes, JNW (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm glad that we are not relying on Adams as the last word on Eakins...The more I read about him though, the more I realize how difficult a character he was; a really difficult character who was both influential and helpful to some and scary and possibly harmful to others. I agree that Adams goes way too far in his conclusions based on the ambiguity of the remaining record; but the tragedy surrounding the suicide of his niece and the intensity of his relationships with his students both male and female is pretty edgy....I hope your holiday is a good one, thanks for the tunes (above)....Modernist (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and thank you also for your contributions to the article and its talk page--I agree with you on all of the above. I hope you are having a good holiday as well. I can't listen to those two tunes with a dry eye, what with personal memories they recall of times and people past. This holiday is a very good one, though I have to get upstairs and clean an appalling kitchen. Best, JNW (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-E1216-0301-001, Neujahr, Frau mit "Glücksschweinen".jpg Christmas was yesterday: Happy New Year! Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09082-0001, Neujahrsfest.jpg

Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord2 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Same from me. Happy new year JNW. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year, JNW..I think the Swimming Hole is pretty much done, what do you think? Modernist (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


What is puzzling to me is the use of a wide array of IPs and the initial hostility towards me at the Garden Talk page, and then a change of tune..A creation of an account, and clearly an agenda..What caught my eye at the Garden was a comparison between owls and various evils..thanks for tagging, I think watching the pages, and maybe seeing what develops, I'm tempted to delete material if the material gets a little beyond neutral, but I'll wait...Modernist (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I am not using a wide array of IPs, it's just I don't always log in and the computer obviously generates different ones for clearly having an agenda, well I'm a lapsed Roman Catholic who does feel an affinity with the heretics but I think everyone has their biases, don't for saying the article on the garden of earthly delights is about a painting, not a book, well the book I read was about the art of Bosch, about his paintings ...I didn't really change my tune, I just thought on reflection that what Id sought to add did look amateurish in comparison with the rest of the piece so the deletion was fair enough..I think tagging the few articles Ive put bits on from Lynda Harris book is a good idea - the articles are unbalanced as they stand, but then I can't help that as I do feel sympathy with her interpretation and did make it clear it was just one possible interpretation didn't I ? for the owl as Satan, Harris cites J.C.Coopers Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols, and as for the owl's identification with the Jews, she cites books by H.W.Janson and P.S.Beagle ..Bosch did paint an awful lot of owls! Sorry to put all this on what is probably the wrong page. Sayerslle (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I would not presume to ask you to alter your biases, but as you well understand, contributing to encyclopedic content demands a special level of circumspection. JNW (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


If you want a detail cut out of a larger image, that's no problem. Just point me to the full image and indicate which detail. I think it's good to have detail images in articles. Ty 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let Raul do it if he will. Ty 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Eakins[edit]

Can you give another look at The Swimming Hole? Modernist (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I'm attempting to retire from Wiki (again)...the article looks very good, and I was really pleased to read that Raul got in touch with William Innes Homer, and received a positive response. My sincerest congratulations to everyone who has worked on the article for a job well done. Cheers to all, and very best regards to you, Modernist. Until next time, JNW (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your entitled to a break; looking forward to working with you again at some stage; the next time JNW, whenever that is. My best to you. Ceoil (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations JNW...The Swimming Hole passed FA today...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


The raft passed. Thank you for all your help, insight and input, was very much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your excellent and knowledgeable additions and hard work helped the article to become a FA...enjoy your break..Thanks..Modernist (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Winslow Homer - The Gulf Stream - Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg The Barnstar of High Culture
Congratulations JNW for bringing The Raft of the Medusa to FA and for adding so much insight, knowledge and character ...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Concert Singer[edit]

Hi JNW..If you've got the time, and the inclination, this might strike your something to work up..Modernist (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Modernist. Maybe at some point. For what it's worth, the underwear and Ella Crowell passage reads as jarring; there needs to be a lot more content added to place the speculation on scandal, which in this case is tangential to the painting, in proper context. Even with the time and inclination, though, I'm loath to become involved again. JNW (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Miss Amelia Van Buren[edit]

Great work! Raul654 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes that's my favorite thing to do: start or expand an article in secret, then let others refine it. It is a painting I've always been fond of. I have my eye on some others, for the future...cheers, JNW (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, The article is terrific! Not much to add except maybe a little more about her..and her photography...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--good to hear from you. I agree, and can add more about her, if you don't get there first. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Eventually we're going to fill in everything at Template:Eakins ;) Raul654 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new one to add sometime: Professor Henry A. Rowland. JNW (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy amd letter to Gorbachev[edit]

I think that Kennedy's contribution was significant and, of course, could well go in the article on KAL 007. But do you think that you could find a place in this article on Ted Kennedy that is more appropriate that where I had placed it?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that, significant as Kennedy's contribution was in writing the letter to Gorbachev, it is an issue that is peripheral to Kennedy's biography. My suggestion is to discuss it on the Ted Kennedy talk page, and see what other contributors to the article have to say. Best of luck, JNW (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Will doBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I remember the incident well. Wikipedia editing aside: my thoughts are with you and your family. JNW (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Infinite chicken[edit]

Hi there; yes, you are quite right. I had caught up with myself and deleted before you poked me! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's got me thinking of an Infinite Crustacean Theory, or some such thing. JNW (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Miss Amelia Van Buren[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miss Amelia Van Buren, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Singer with a glove[edit]

Great work on Miss Amelia Van Buren and on The Concert Singer. On the latter I made an edit that may need correction; see what you think. Ewulp (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded there--thanks for cleaning up. JNW (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

S. Thomas' College[edit]

I made some changes in the S. Thomas' College Mt.Lavinia page so it looked different from the college website page. please check it out and please be kind enough to point out any partisan points if there are any. Thanks...Ashtonkemp (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Heads up - I've just started a new article in the series. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done! be quickly followed by oh great, now I'll have to schlep out the books again... My recollection is that he was nicknamed 'Turkey' Billy Smith. As for the painting, one of the best male nudes in American art. JNW (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks - I guess it's under control for the moment. I didn't realize that your edit took when I was attempting the same one! We'll see what happens when he comes back - I'd say there's some COI at work here, but could be just a matter of not knowing policy. Tvoz/talk 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally when the edits form that kind of promotional pattern it suggests conflict of interest. Well done. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Raft TFA[edit]

Its the 10th, get that in you (There was no Guinness left) Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2009. Finger on the revert button. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Congratulations, Ceoil. The good news is that the vandalism will last for only 24 hours. Then we can brush ourselves off and share another transcontinental toast. Make mine a Guinness. Or a vodka martini. Or, in this economy, tap water with a twist. I'm not fussy. JNW (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, your input was very helpful and much appreciated. How is all otherwise? How is the market these days? Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Its dog rough here too; in a town of 250k people, I know of around 5-6 galleries than have closed down in the last few months, most of which were triving only 12 months ago. And I can see falling prices each time I do the rounds, but with rising taxes and falling incomes (yep), its understandable. Bonnard is never somebody I took much notice of, though obviously he is a major figure. Very surprising the article is so underdeveloped. You must share a copy when you are finished. I'm ok-ish only, bty ;) Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No the cliffs are still very much untacky and very much spectacular. If you do ever make the journey, the road from Sneem to Killarney is the most worthwile 30 minutes drive your likely to make over here. I'd imagine also you'd appreciate Gougane Barra, a tranquil 6th century monastry near where I live. I suppose I would say that. Of course our landscape looks twee compare to ye guys. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

As I usually say after reverting someone's talk page..I'm always uneasy doing it. Some edits, though, I just can't let go. I'm glad your are ok with it. See ya' :) Tiderolls 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salutat[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salutat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I'd like to thank you for deleting that personal attack "Notability" warning that was slapped on my user page. That was quick acting! Taniwha (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. JNW (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake[edit]

Sorry about the earlier copyright message, I'm not sure why I put it here... – Toon(talk) 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done that kind of thing, too. Keep up the good work. JNW (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sari Mercer[edit]

The speedy deletion criteria for A7 only applies for articles that do not explain why the subject matter is not notable. A typical case where A7 could be used is when you run across an article that reads, "Sarah goes to John H. High School. She is my best friend for ever." In the instance of Sari Mercer, although it is a very short article it makes the claim that she is a professional model and that is enough to establish an indication of significance. However, it would be perfectly acceptable if you or another user places a prod on the article due to lack of sources and notability. Hope that helps. If you still have questions, let me know. Icestorm815Talk 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the criteria for A7 and I don't see any distinction made between music ensembles and creative professionals from other groups and persons, so I'm not certain that there's a higher bar that needs to be reached for specific types of articles. The main thing that I see is that the article asserts its significance. That's enough for the article to not be speedy deleted. All that aside, the article was just created a couple of hours ago so I think it's best to give the author and other editors some time to improve the article. It seems like there might be some potential to build up the article content so it's possible that this could develop further. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, I feel that a prod would be the correct avenue to persue the deletion. Icestorm815Talk 00:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I find "Vancouver based Canadian model" an assertion of significance in itself. I've prod'd. Ty 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


I declined the speedy tag you added to JANSON DESIGN GROUP because the article included several references. The article obviously needs work, though, and ought to be moved to Janson Design Group once the original contributor has finished his or her current round of changes. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, an unexpected courtesy. Though I sometimes disagree with the rationale for overturning a speedy nomination, such actions are invariably made in good faith. Plus, you might be right. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it appears that the subject meets notability standards. Thanks for declining the speedy. JNW (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your note--the article is still lacking in a number of areas, and this was one of them. I've been meaning for months to put my notes into shape & expand it a bit; anything you can add will be welcome. Ewulp (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pester bug[edit]

Thanks for restoring the CSD tag on the Pester bug article!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. JNW (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Randy Myers (Golf Fitness Trainer)[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AvidGolfer (talkcontribs) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if I changed the title from Randy Myers (Golf Fitness Trainer) to Randy Myers (Golf), it would help? I am open to your suggestions as to how to improve the entry and to make it more encyclopedic. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvidGolfer (talkcontribs) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't the title; it's that the entire article reads as an advertisement, a promotion for the gentleman, as well as the businesses with which he is affiliated. Most of the sources underscore the promotional tone. Please see WP:SOURCES, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM. Also, if you are the subject, or a close friend of the subject, WP:COI is a concern. Please read more about WIkipedia and its purposes. Good luck, JNW (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


on the way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of user:Eckstasy[edit]

Hi Nixeagle; I'd like to question the decision to unblock user:Eckstasy, whose last series of edits was strictly promotional; who was also operating under a sockpuppet making the same promotional edits [4]; and who under either guise left inappropriate messages or templates on my talk page and accused me of vandalism [5], [6]. Thanks, JNW (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am standing by the unblock I made. The indef block on that account was the first block the guy had. A typical first block would have been around 1 week irrespective of the additional account, which was around the time he was effectively blocked. If he continues the behavior and does not wise up an indef block may be in order. We don't ban people on first offense, which is what an indef block effectively is unless an administrator does an unblock. ;) —— nixeagleemail me 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (P.S) reply on my talk page.

Experimental space acid rock[edit]

I have removed your CSD tag from this article, as it does not constitute a test page. Please read WP:CSD. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction and explanation. I suppose it is bloody well not a test page after all. JNW (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of works by Thomas Eakins[edit]

(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)

After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Great work thus far, by you and the usual suspects. When all is clear I will try to add to it. JNW (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I did mention on the article's talk page that Goodrich's 1982 publication has numerous revisions to his catalogue of almost 50 years earlier, and offered to make the amendments where I found them [7]. No apparent receptiveness to the idea, and with many excellent editors working there already, with more recent sources, this will surely be seen to in time. Best of luck on the page. JNW (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do. I've been having issues with his amendments and would like to see the page fixed up. 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul. Some of the discrepancies look to be confusing. JNW (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New to wikipedia[edit]

Why is it that if there is no original source material on a subject that i can't be free to write my analysis of what i see? I know this is considered in violation of the pillars but i dont see why this dust-gathering article cant be a place for new insights expressed and viewd and added to by my fellow students at South River High School [8]

Thankyou, Southriver High School. Grade 11

Kindbuddysh3rb (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The answers are all well expressed in Wikipedia's guidelines; the articles constitute the pages of an encyclopedia, not a blog or a place for personal reflections, which means there will be a minimum of editorializing and personal opinion, insofar as that is possible, and information must be supported by reliable third party sources. Hence, a description of your high school's social and political strata may be an appropriate topic for a school writing class, or as editorial matter for the school paper, but not for a worldwide encyclopedia. Good luck--there will always be appropriate venues for those who can write well, and you may one day be financially compensated for it, which Wikipedia can't do. JNW (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW: the insights are not really new, and are as given to social stereotyping as the folks being described. One does remember high school--it was indeed a bitch. JNW (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you[edit]

Never a problem. --Rrburke(talk) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the reverts to my userpage. I thought these were simply some good-faith edits by someone who didn't understand wiki-basics. Then I go away for awhile and all hell breaks loose. And all for that article? At the risk of being seen as somewhat uncivil, all I can say is, what a dick. Thanks again! freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Pure speculation, but my guess is that this is an owner or dealer of paintings by the subject, possibly attempting to support sales; a descendant of the artist, or a scholar, would have been more inclined to engage in discussion. JNW (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JNW. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling GA delist warning[edit]

As part of GA Sweeps, I reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling. I have placed it on hold in hopes that editors might bring it up to current standards. It had a flurry of activity for more than a week, but has now gone unedited for a full week. My most glaring concern is that it continues to have 16 paragraphs without any citations. Based on your editorial history with the article, I am notifying you that if no one makes it clear that very near term continued improvement can be expected it will be delisted in the next few days. See discussion at Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The list[edit]

Hi JNW, You've been asked to join this group and I am not sure that you've seen this list yet: [9] ...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note--I had not seen it. I'm flattered to be nominated and to have your endorsement. Truth is, I'm hardly a contributor of content anymore, just doing the easy reversions of vandalism and posting speedy deletion nominations, doing my research and creative writing elsewhere.
I have benefited in the past from the support of a number of wonderful contributors like yourself, and have sought to do likewise for others. My hope is that such mutual respect will always continue, with or without membership in such a forum. Besides, you know what Groucho said about country clubs... JNW (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, and Groucho knew more then most of us will ever know. However you are simply one of the very best contributers of real substance here; and I would feel much more confident about the project with you on board. So far Johnbod, Ty, Ceoil, Fresh, me and several others are giving it a look. Modernist (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, and that makes it hard to resist--that's a very good bunch. For the moment I think I'd prefer to see where it goes, if for no other reason than that I'm dubious about how much I could or would contribute. I'm not a policy wonk, and a knowledge of and interest in the way Wikipedia functions seems a qualification. Perhaps more relevant: Forums seem to demand orators, and though I try to speak clearly, I really do not speak very loudly. JNW (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess Groucho had a good point! [10]..Modernist (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You bet your life. I have never been much of a joiner to begin with, though being asked is always nice. I admire the ambition and idealism behind such proposals, but for numerous reasons it's hard to make such concepts work... As always, it's good to hear from you no matter are a tireless and wonderfully productive contributor. With respect, JNW (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A firestorm of protest ensued...he said the secret word and he's outta here [11]..Modernist (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


...for this. I hope taking care of that didn't distract you from something important. I appreciate the help. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Keep up the good work. JNW (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


[12] Thanks. Unschool 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Keep up the good work. JNW (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

Not a problem. :) Glacier Wolf 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Glacier Wolf 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


I wanted to instead use his caricature of Al Jolson, but I could not find it. Do you have a copy? Pepso2 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The FPA drawing is a good one; if I can help with this I will. JNW (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra[edit]

DGG/JNW, This content I am adding is not just copy and paste. The web site is the web site developed and maintened by my self. I thought it would be easier for me to add things in stead of writing it again. I am currently adding stuff and put the hangon tag on top so that you guys show enough courtsey till I finish. He was a very notable archaeologist whose contribution is very significant for Orissan Archaeology, Art, Culture and History. I am fully aware of the and believe on copy right violation on Wiki. So definitely I will not add any thing that is in-appropriate.

Trust this will give you enough reason. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Retrieved from "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikoo s (talkcontribs) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Three points which I think are relevant here: the article ought to be re-written so as not to violate a copyright--in the last version I read all the passages were copied, not only from your web site but from others as well; the article must be re-written in a neutral tone (the current prototype is a heartfelt memorial, and is not acceptable as encyclopedic content); there need to be objective and reliable sources supporting notability--your own article as reference does not appear to be acceptable, and links to websites that sell the doctor's books aren't advisable, either. JNW (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I trust I have provided the ISBN number where ever available, publisher name, place of publication and published year what else you think more authentic. Search with Amazon or any leading book seller for the book name or as Dr. R. P. Mohapatra or Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra you will see the result. But question raised by here is irrelevant as I am not trying to sell books here. I merely trying to highlight his magnificent contribution and the reason why he was notable. It seems you have no patience to wait even I put hangon tag on top,allowing me to complete it.

Can you please let me know where I copied from other web site other than my own web site I mentioned earlier? I think you just limited insight and impatient.. You just try to prove your point by any means. I bet I will remove it if you give me right information instead of saying merely I have copied from other web site.

If you want to know why he is notable read Historians and Historiography in Orissa by Prof. P.K. Mishra. Delhi, Indian Pub., 2001, ISBN 81-7341-195-6

I bet I can provide enough source matterial for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikoo s (talkcontribs) 14:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC) --Tikoo s (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for crediting me with limited insight and impatience; usually only those who have gotten to know me well make such assessments. Since the page was deleted, I can not specifically cite the individual passages, nor from whence they were copied (although in nominating for speedy deletion, I did note two such web sites)...but copied they were, as indicated by Google searches I ran of each paragraph. This is a link to one of the passages you copied word for word: [13]. The issue is not whether you are seeking to sell books; it is that this was a copyright violation, and not an acceptable source. I have no point to prove; the doctor may or may not be notable, but the approach to building the article thus far has not worked; I have already explained why on your talk page, and above. It will surely help to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines per WP:COI, WP:SOURCES, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COPVIO, rather than blaming contributors whose interest is in maintaining those guidelines. Good luck, JNW (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The content you mentioned I copied from [14] is just other way around. Its in the Jacket of the book Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves. That books copy right is with us. So before doing a google search and come to conclusion please enhance your knowledge and confirm with the source. Thats why I said earlier you just impatient to potrey youself as most knowledgeble before even acquiring knowledge and proper information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikoo s (talkcontribs) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then as a jacket blurb from the book it is not acceptable as an objective source. That books copy right is with us is a pretty clear admission of conflict of interest. Again, there is no substitute for reading the Wikipedia guidelines; please don't write here again. JNW (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

By mistake I mentioned the book copyright is with us. Its the website copy right is with me. I wrote about the what the book is all about and to give precise information if you do not refer the book and Jacket then what will you refer?I will definitely read the guidelines but please stop behaving the wikipedia is your own property by writting 'don't write here' it reflect your arogance--Tikoo s (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nobody's property, but a contributor has every right to ask another not to write on their talk page, especially when one has been accused of 'limited insight', 'impatience', and now 'arrogance'. I do have a clearer understanding of the encyclopedia's guidelines than do you, and I am not trying to push an agenda here, as you are. Please read WP:CIVIL. Once again, I will ask that you respect my wish not to continue this discussion here. You may use the article talk page. JNW (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Face-smile.svg Thank you for reverting multiple cases of vandalism to my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Cst17 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to. JNW (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)




Really not sure what to do. How does one get the various messages deleted about not adhereing to policy, etc?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. JNW (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Canaletto[edit]

I have conducted a review of this article which has a large number of issues which need attention. I have delisted it. The reassessment is at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Caravaggio[edit]

I have conducted a GA Sweeps reassessment of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay Talk:Caravaggio/GA1. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to WP:GAN when these have been addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


This user keeps removing content from Wikipedia, citing the reason as "I only removed our own added content, since this still has to ondergo additional regulatory approval. Will add revised version asap." I don't see how the content he is removing is "his" own content. Would you advise on reverting his edits? I'm contacting you as I saw you revert a change that this user made. Thanks. Netalarm 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm just going to watch his contributions and ask him for his reasoning. Netalarm 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
His explanation can be found on my talk page. I'm thinking the content should be added again, because they were properly cited and do not violate any Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Netalarm 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It could be that a technician was zealous in presenting new research, and I'm hesitant to restore content that may not yet be cleared legally. Yet the explanation may or may not be genuine; it's brief, and gives little to go on. JNW (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Please do not add the content again. Indeed, RoanneVista was a little zealous and uploaded the wrong version of the content. Next week, after official legal approval we will add new approved content, which will be similar, but every detail counts in the medical/pharmaceutical space. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon999 (talkcontribs) 13:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Content is in the public domain once uploaded. More text was also removed on some article than was added by Roanne. Maybe once you publish than it can be changed to the new version. Much of this content is not breaking news. It is congruent with that found on James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
IMO it looks as if someone added information to wikipedia that is also on the free content website that they are working for/developing; then they or their employer realized that adding the information to wikipedia made it less likely someone would go to their website to read the same info. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't know much about medicine, but my olfactory mechanisms indicate that something smells funny. JNW (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Of Stephanie Baird[edit]

JNW, is there somewhere (like the sandbox) i can create content where I can get it evaluated before publishing it? Spending time to contribute, learning how this works to have your contribution "go down in flames" is a bit discouraging. Or is all editing done in a reactive manner and it is expected that I would review editorial remarks, correct any issues and resubmit for review? Robertbaird (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was pretty thorough in addressing this on the deleted article's talk page. You can use a sandbox, but I think the same concerns will persist regarding your apparent conflict of interest, and the lack of reliable objective sources required to support the subject's notability. You may want to discuss this further with the administrator who deleted the article [15], and try reading this [16] as well. JNW (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

it's a well-known story[edit]

Hi! I don't really have any problem with ur editing so this is just something i want to respond to ur comment in edit summery. Sometime, certain trivia are well-know in the country u are from but not in the rest of the world. Only the facts that are globally well-known should be described as "well-known" on wikipedia IMHO. I seriously doubt whether this facial hair story is officially "well known" in People's Republic of China, the Middle East, Indonesia and Democratic Republic of the Congo.--Da Vynci (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A very valid point. My edit summary was meant with a smile, not as a put-down, and reflected my continuing surprise that the lore of my childhood might now be forgotten, or, as you note, not familiar to the broader world. By the way, to find the cite I just followed the wikilink to the article on the girl, which was well-referenced. Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Folk Festival[edit]

Hello. Regarding your request for action at WP:AIV regarding the repeated essay inserted into the Winnipeg Folk Festival article, I instead opted to

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.

Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

hey, do you know how I can delete this article? Fairfield Area School District

If you can read this....[edit]

In case you fall off the wagon again, Portrait painting has been enthusiastically but not expertly expanded (about a year ago). I'll do the early history at some point, but .... Otherwise all the best! Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. I'll have a look, and respond more fully. Very best wishes to you, as well. JNW (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose I'm up for this now. The only editing I'm doing is the simple stuff, reverting vandalism as an anonymous IP account. I have an article to write for publication, and I've been putting that off... best wishes, JNW (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, all the best! Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: THE Bus (Hernando County, Florida)[edit]

A while back, you tagged the article THE Bus (Hernando County, Florida) with a copyright violation tag. I have another problem with it; The article reads too much like an advertisement, and I've been trying to reduce this problem as much as I can. ----DanTD (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Disasters of War[edit]

Hey JNW. I'd appreciate if you kept an eye on the delelopment of the above page at stages when you have time. You have always been careful, informed and insightful, and your input would be most welcome. <cough> Note I lifted large tracts from your The Third of May 1808 page; reptition is enivatable, though by the final vesrion they should be different enough. Hope all is well, other than my, eh, plagarism of your FA.</cough> Ceoil (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, I appreciate your note. Before even having read it, I know it's a quality piece by virtue of the editors who've been working on it. And in any repetition of content I would have just been the middle man. Nonetheless, on a good day my prose is exquisite, and would impress both [17] and [18], so obvious plagiarism will be dealt with in an appropriate manner...I will look forward to receipt of voluminous royalties [19]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
JNW, there seems to be some misunderstading here. I wasn't apologising for robbing your words, I was telling you, in your face. You might have to stay up very late for any royalties. That said, I would really like to know you are watching the page, and jumping in here and there as you spot bits and pieces. If you care to unretire youre damn self and edit directly, well - fantastic; you would be amongst friends. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you put it so nicely, so generously, one is slightly tempted to have a look. To do so will require taking leave of my current and overwhelming responsibilities [20], all for the greater good of academic enrichment. JNW (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Jesus, I feel so guilty now! Humanity and things in general are going in want you say? By the way, your not keeping me updated on your pubished work. I enjoyed what you send me; more please, sincearly. Here is a random link [21]. Best to you. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Several links on the way soon, across the ocean, via the magic of personal e-mail. JNW (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I look forward. I already know your style and taste, so I know I wont be dissapointed. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. When called upon, I can damage both canvas and the written word. JNW (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm that sound like a promise. Do your worst to my user page. Apparently I am a scartistic pointy eared poataoe eater; and you are a published and respected RS; so you can make these facts official. Har, the fun never ends! Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sent a while ago. Let's give it time--sometimes the ether is thick with thoughts. JNW (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm scrambling for the few books on Goya I have scattered around the room! Good initiave though, ta. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much at hand right now, but it's a painting that deserves a good write-up, always one of my favorites in NY. Thanks for helping out. JNW (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The colours are fantastic here for sure. A rich mix of blues, greys and black, and then that orange bar. wow. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a Did You Know, accompanied by a more violent image:

Goya-Guerra (15).jpg
  • ALT1:...that Francisco Goya's series of etchings The Disasters of War was not published until 35 years after his death, when there would no longer be a risk of political repercussions? JNW (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I like that. (Hi JNW! Hope you're well.) It's one of the most emblematic plates from the series as well, no. Outriggr (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Great to hear from you, Outriggr; yeah, shades of Third of May. I'm fine, though about to call it a day here. Hope you are well, too. Very best, JNW (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks JNW, I'll try that. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to try it out here first. Glad you liked it. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

grand prix[edit]

(Re: edit summary. JNW, I actually like sarcastic pricks as long as I'm on their good side. :-P I don't claim it's a consistent position... Outriggr (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Vasnetsov - The Lake.jpg
Cheers to you as well. Here's one in return that caught my eye on Commons. It puts fields, trees, and water in just the proportions I like in RL... (Could have been painted by someone in the Group of Seven, at least the left two-thirds of it.) As an amateur, I am always surprised at how easy it is to identify Russian paintings as Russian. Even in thumbnail, it's just a different tonality. I think they get short shrift in art history (I think). Outriggr (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Terrific! I've never seen this one, but then my appreciation of Russian landscape pretty much begins and ends with Shishkin and Levitan, with all my chips placed on the latter. Really richly painted, beautifully drawn. In some ways very much related to what I try to do, only a century later... JNW (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock lifted.

Request handled by:xenotalk 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I have been blocked by mistake--serves one right for reverting vandalism--and would appreciate it if Willking or another administrator could help out. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki-wide issue/ not to do with your actions. cheers, –xenotalk 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, xeno, for the unblock and explanation. Much appreciated. JNW (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Some more help requested --it appears I am still blocked from editing. JNW (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done a search and it says you're not blocked. I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JNW_autoblock. You could try logging out, and back in again, even switching off the computer and waiting several minutes. Or doing a painting. Ty 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also did a search, but I have a bit of an advantage :-) You should be unblocked now. J.delanoygabsadds 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both! JNW (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


JNW, I'm wondering if you or your many talkpage watchers have time to look at Template:Timeline of Italian painters. I imported the model of this from the French wikipedia without really examining it, and it was essentially an unfinished project there, I think, because it lacked all the household names. Can you think of any important names that are still missing, or conversely, should any lesser known artists be removed? I'm stuck on painters that would fit between 1650-1800 (the timescale itself is rather arbitrary; I'd extend it to get us to Futurism etc but things can only be so wide). I don't plan to plaster this all over, just on a couple of Italian arts overview articles, if I'm not reverted (hopefully not; generally people like templates, I've noticed....). Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Outriggr, I will take a look at it, and look to add some names, if I can follow the template format--unfamiliar technologies intimidate me, but I shall forge ahead, bravely. JNW (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked at the "timeline" thing. I am somewhat interested in "tech" topics but have never familiarized myself with that realm (template coding) on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. I wasn't suggesting you edit it directly; if you prefer, you could just reply here... Outriggr (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank god; I just started to try to edit, and I'm completely useless. I will add some names here shortly. JNW (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting with these, but the list is growing long, so I'm stopping. Most (and more) can be found at List of Italian painters. I will soon add 1650-1800.

From the later period are Guardi and Canaletto. Also, and this is by no means an inclusive list

Thanks very much! You can take a look at the update: Template:Timeline of Italian painters to 1800 (where it started: [22]). There are just too many notable artists from the early 16th century to fit in this format. Ghirlandaio still doesn't have a spot. I'm not sure how productive this effort has been, but a learning experience anyway. Please do suggest 'notability' switch-ins/outs if you notice any. Salvator Rosa escaped your list above but fit nicely into the 17th c. :-) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(By "productive", I was referring to the time I spent on it, not your help.) Outriggr (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No need for concern, it was understood. This is where I'd insert one of those sideways grins, if I used them... JNW (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamed Minhaj[edit]

JNW, what information do i need to provide in order to keep the article on Hamed Minhaj? I have provide information, but if you need third party information. please advise what is acceptable.

WP:SOURCES, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BLP are all helpful. As well, the talk page observation re: the promotional tone is correct. Good luck, JNW (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

i have checked the links you provide. he does meet notability criteria. because he is been covered by national newspaper in afghanistan. more then one time. i will provide copies of those papers. which are in English. how do i send it? Kindly guide on this. thank you for your kind help

WP:CITE may be helpful--it helps explain use and format. You need not send the papers, but can cite the appropriate articles as references. However, Peridon's thoughts here [23] are worth noting. JNW (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Trueba's account of Goya[edit]

I added comment on this [24]. Interested in your opinion. Best, Mick gold (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, which add a welcome complexity to the tale. Replied at same page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Studio Wall[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Studio Wall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ceoil. Your contributions are too numerous to single out any one, or for that matter, half dozen projects. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


This is funny. Also, did you notice your role when this led to this. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note--I knew nothing. Noroton's page is indeed funny, and TFMWNCB should be made an Honorary Administrator in Matters Suitably Troubling to Elicit Repercussions, or a HAMSTER. And I have appreciated his humor. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User block request[edit]

See WP:ANI#User:S-J-S-F-M-W. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you hear? We're being evicted! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aaron Scott Robertson[edit]

Does it violate the wiki bio policy if someone writes their own biography? Dislocatedelbow1 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged. If you believe that's the case you can discuss it at the article talk page, or place a conflict of interest or autobiography template atop the article; see Wikipedia:Template messages. But such templates must be used in good faith, and with a clear and demonstrable rationale--vandalizing the page won't wash. I scanned the article with some skepticism, but it has already been rescued from deletion, and appears to be supported by verifiable sources. JNW (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since it has references, there's no real way to prove who wrote it, right? So I'm guessing anyone can write their own biographies as long as they have sources. Dislocatedelbow1 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Most autobiographies written on Wikipedia are not supported by verifiable sources, and fail to meet WP:NOTABILITY. If this is indeed an autobiography--and I'm not sure that it is, though the whole vanity/self-promotional component is discomfiting--then it nonetheless appears to satisfy guidelines. If I thought otherwise I'd tag it for notability or nominate it for deletion myself. JNW (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In the notability guidelines it says that the common theme is that notability requires a verifiable source to make a claim of notability. There is a Journal Sentinel article about Robertson, so what I'm curious about is whether you can write autobiographical articles on Wikipedia if you have a source like this. Dislocatedelbow1 (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we've gone over this. Again, autobiographies are strongly discouraged per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, but even if you have proof that this is an autobiography, the sources look okay. The article could use a good copyedit for the pruning of trivia, but your persistence, as well as your initial vandalism, raise the concern that you may know the subject or have a personal agenda. If you have further concerns, I'd suggest addressing them on the article talk page. JNW (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? You can write autobiographies or not? Dislocatedelbow1 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Done here. JNW (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up I tagged the article for multiple reasons, then asked for an administrator's input, and the article was subsequently deleted. JNW (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


The thinking is to take it to FAC at this stage. Do you think it is ready. If so can you keep a watch on the progress. If not we'll hold and work on on any gaps left yet. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a look, though I'm not an FAC maven--you know a lot more about that than do I!--and there are others with sharper eyes for copyediting. It does appear that the Dali image is still not working, so of course that will have to be resolved. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I cant figure out the problem with the Dali; it looks ok in preview, but knackered in real life. Weird. Re maven: I know the process, but thats a small thing, I look to you, Modernist and Johnbod for the knowledge and expertise, hence my asking. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Expertise, hell. Don't you know that I make up all the content, and then hope I can find scholarship to support it? Incredibly, it usually works out. JNW (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you did it, but you fixed that damn Dali. Ta. Re making things up; I wouldn't worry about it if I was you, mr RS. Just quote yourself, har har. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that others will take it apart and put it back together on its journey to inevitable FA status, but altogether I think it looks great. JNW (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to take a compliment from that and live happily from here. I'll get you a pizza and guniness if it works out. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to both pizza and brew, and not the virtual image crap we so glibly traffic in, but something FedExed across the ocean, on dry ice if necessary. And delivered by her [25]. JNW (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You can hold you to that, man. I wonder if she has an decendant in her early 30s. That would be cool. I'm a sad bastard yes, I know. Ceoil (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Being asked in the FAC to supply a ref for this sentence This impression is due in part to the lack of consciously artful presentation that would distance the viewer from the brutality of the subjects.... I suspect it is from Licht, 132–142 (the next para continues the thought but the sentences were broken during reord and copyediting). You know wiki likes all paras to end with a ref, so can you check and say aye or nay, pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure it came from Licht; will check on it later. Thanks for your note, JNW (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:N statement[edit]

In a recent AFD you stated (as stated at WP:NOTABILITY,attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability). This is clearly as it should be but I don't see this in wp:n. Am I giong blind or has this obvious statement disappeared? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not blind, nor has the statement disappeared; it's just in a different place, more specifically, WP:ORG, and more specifically still, [26]. My bad. Thanks for asking and cheers, JNW (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


You have mail. Ty 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Petaluma High School [edit]

You're faster cleaning crap than I am. lol Slightly more entertaining crap than usual. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, chalk it up to the experience of being a longtime academic, crapwise....besides, though I roll my eyes at the intended humor now, realizing that every high school class makes the same jokes, I would have found all this pretty clever at that age. JNW (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No longer, though. It takes a pre-adolescent sensibility to find the references to Andy Dick humorous after the first time. JNW (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

René Magritte[edit]

Any time. It was getting a bit out of hand. And no communication from the IP. A strange one. Ty 01:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Submit as another of many examples for yet unwritten essay on overdue policy change Why it's Time to End IP Editing on Wikipedia. JNW (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Edgar Román[edit]

Hello JNW, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Edgar Román) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I'd suspected your rationale as a possibility, but with the exception of an unsuccessful attempt to find the source through a Google search, I knew of no other way to check this out. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deane G. Keller[edit]

Aha -- yes. The Deane Keller of Hamden (1901-1992) is not the same Connecticut artist as the article I helped not at all by editing.

Yes, I see now that I was simply wrong. Though it may sound odd, the fact-of-the-matter is that I ignored the text, looking only at the "References" and "External links" sections. Believe-it-or-not, I generally think of myself as a workmanlike editor. Not this time.

I can't quite figure out how I managed to stray so far off in the wrong direction; but there you have it.

Yes, I will create the modest beginnings of a new article, but perhaps I should ask your advice about how to entitle it?

Do you have any comments about how best to handle the disambiguation? Headnotes and/or perhaps something else? --Tenmei (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No harm done, and you're off to a good start for an article on Keller Sr. I'd entitle it "Deane Keller", though you might have to change the disambiguation...I'm not too good on such things, but I do know that the son, whom I was honored to know and whose article I started, was differentiated from his father by the use of the middle initial. Best regards, JNW (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why Deletion of Article Content?[edit]

I'm writing in regards to the Fanny Pak page that you keep changing. Why are you deleting the information I've written about the crew. It is in no way copyright infringement, I wrote it myself for the crew. The picture I applied, I took and created from my own graphic. I also created the Fanny Pak logo. I've been working for Fanny Pak since 2005, not 2006 when it says they started... but didn't. Whoever wrote this page is an idiot. The information on the shoe section is incorrect. It is not a female line, it is unisex. The shoe line is not called the Battle I line, it's called the Battle line and the Battle I is one of the three shoes in the line. The information about the Movie Documentary... they're not in it. The website that it gives you as a reference even says they're not. I would know, I assist in their booking and we haven't ever received any contact from a Movie Documentary. Why is only Matt credited in the crew History and when I add the other 6 members, they're deleted. Why can't I add the information about their upcoming Album? Seems like a lot of other wiki pages have all of the same information... For instance... They have the same type of information I'm trying to put down, and there doesn't seem to be a problem on their page...

I don't see how me being a manager of the crew is a conflict of interest... I read the page you sent me saying I was and you're misinterpreting your own guidelines.

Please respond... you can email me if you like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willlangley (talkcontribs) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My messages were unambiguous: your edits appear to be copyright violations of youtube and other pages, none of which are accepted as reliable sources, and are clearly promotional in content and language. Having written the content yourself doesn't improve the situation; you are not citing an objective third party source, but merely quoting your own press releases. Of course it's a conflict of interest. If there are inaccuracies in the current article, the best thing you can do is correct them, including reliable third party sources to support the corrections. Perhaps other members can be added to the article, so long as the information is supported by reliable third party sources, which would confirm that the individual member(s) are notable apart from the group. But I'd strongly advise that such contributions be made by a disinterested party. Please read WP:RELIABLE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP for starters. If you have further questions, you may want to ask for assistance here [27]. JNW (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. The only thing I don't understand is you say "I'd strongly advise that such contributions be made by a disinterested party." How would a disinterested party know anything about them and anything what's upcoming in their career? People want to know what's coming up but only our team knows what's happening.

All of the crew members have notable careers outside of the dance group. They're not just a dance group but are signed now to BMG Records and will release an album this year, so I want to add that. I'm not trying to over do their profile, but have some actual facts on there rather than the false information that was earlier displayed. Everything on there now is factual. Also they've appeared in movies, tours, music videos and worked with several celebrities, so yeah they're definitely notable. I work with all of the top 3 crews from every season, and Fanny Pak and Jabbawockeez are by far the most successful from the show. As for that documentary movie, they aren't appearing in it. The website mentions them, but they're not listed in the cast. Again, I appreciate everything. Hopefully my changes will be okay from here on out. I will make sure to credit sources, I'm just not great at using the Wiki code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willlangley (talkcontribs) 06:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness re: your position and your goals here. To answer your question, a disinterested party would be able to limit content to that which is supported by objective third party references, omitting 'what's upcoming' if it has not been widely covered by reliable sources. A group's manager has a vested interest, and would, by definition, be apt to include primarily promotional material, and would be inclined to use articles as venues for publicity. That is why WP:COI starts with the following:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.
In short, neutrality is the primary issue here, and helps avoid the pitfalls of copyright violation, promotional edits, and conflict of interest. A page to request help from editors who work in the dance project is here [28]. JNW (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Are you really edit warring on Southern Utah University ? Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the reversion of non-notables and copyright violations edit warring? If so, I've misunderstood guidelines. But the implication that I'm off base is enough to have me close up shop. I'm logging off. JNW (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any copyvios. Help me out? Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see 5 reversions that were just removing student govt leaders (after you had removed the copyvio which I see). While I might agree that they're not really worthy of inclusion, they're not an exception to WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What's worse is you were using rollback in the EW. You really need to be much more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If my edits merit a warning, okay. Not my intention to edit war, but I believe the article's contributor was essentially stuffing the page with trivia, ignoring warnings, and not responding or explaining the edits. I'm back just to revert vandalism elsewhere, but consider me embarrassed to be doing this at all, good intentions notwithstanding. JNW (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, I can tell you're a solid contributor to the project with only the best of intentions. However It's probably worth re-reading when to use rollback and when not to. In short, only roll back edits that are obvious WP:Vandalism. I'd hate to see the priv removed. Good luck and let me know if I can help. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
After the first few instances, I do think the edits I reverted qualified as disruptive. However, your point is well taken. I need to retire, or at least leave for a while. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
JNW, I would'nt be put off by one stroppy, arrogant editor if I was you. I read this agast; how unkind, and how lacking in grace and good faith. Forget it; Toddst1 is a templater, a very diff wiki beast vs you. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil. Truth is, it's time for me to put my energies into other areas and stop playing Wiki policeman; if I suffer a nasty reproachful itch I'll revert vandalism as an IP. Stay in touch, let me know if you ever want help with an art- related project, and keep up the good work. JNW (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. Would be good to stay in touch, to know what you are working on in IRL. Best. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

For some reason, my personal user page was not added to my WATCH list. I recently viewed the history of my user page and saw that you reverted vandalism by an immature and now blocked user. Sorry for not saying this sooner, but thank you very much.

-hsxeric (talk) - 1:32, November 1, 2009

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school[edit]

Hi, JNW. I have rewritten Al-Najah Secondary School. Would you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school? My suggestion is to keep the current article and purge the page history which contains attacks on the school's principal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Hi JNW - Happy New Year, and Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah...somehow I think that you are working even harder here then before...All the best! [29]..Modernist (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All the best from me too. Nice to see you re-appear every so often here. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower article[edit]

Hi. I added some material, sourced it, in the controversy about POWs in WWII and General Eisenhower which you had flagged. I tried to balanced it out. It's in the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, in the area on Criticism. I reproduce it below referencing the book from the conference proceedings in 1990.

In 1990, invited historians, including Stephen Ambrose and Günter Bischof, gathered in the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans for an academic conference to examine such charges as Bacque had put forth. The conference concluded that there may have been mistreatment of German prisoners in 1945 but not as a result of any order from Eisenhower. The material that Bacque gathered was said to have been taken out of context and was careless scholarship as such. In 1992 a book with the conference's results was edited by Ambrose and Bischof and published.[1]

Best Wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, and for dropping me a note about this. I've removed the pov template from that section. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Thanks for flagging the section. I learned a lot from the research in the Ambrose book of papers. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I might add, that there's a similar controversy and conundrum in the article on James Bacque's book "Other Losses" and his methodology and claims. It cites the New Orleans conference. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Typing always slows me down, but that's what I should have done if I'd thought of it...I'll add it now. I haven't talked to you for a while, but belated greetings for 2010! I keep seeing your're more productive during wikibreaks and retirements than some of us are when at full speed. Ewulp (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Guilty. Plus there's all the editing I do as an IP. But lately I've enjoyed starting and expanding articles.... good way to pass the time while getting over a cold and less than fully employed. It's always good to hear from you. Belated greetings to you, as well! JNW (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fritz Bultman[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fritz Bultman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


It is appropriate call for a consensus BEFORE changing things over which there is expected to be disagreement.

It is inappropriate to change such things and then say a consensus is required for the restoring of things to the status quo. This is true whether one does so entirely by oneself or one does only part of such steps.

You surely must agree with these propositions.

Wishing you the very best whether you feel you can agree or not. -- (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to insert a format that is not standard, and then request a consensus before it's overturned. It would seem to be the responsibility of the editor who is introducing a non-standard format to supply an explanation, or better still, seek consensus beforehand. You've not done that. The article is about the book, a great one at that, but it's not a biography of the author. I've found no other such articles that feature birth and death dates in the lede sentence. Best, JNW (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that, at the level of basic fundamental principles, we may actually be in agreement. I would agree that it's inappropriate for Editor "A" to insert a format that Editor "A" ‘’knows’’ is non-standard, and then request a consensus before it's overturned by Editor "B" as soon after the posting as is reasonably practicable,” or at least provide some explanation for using this non-standard format.

We presumably disagree as to whether, in the subject instance, Editor "A" knew, or even suspected, the information (the year of death for the author who had just died that week) which Editor "A" added to the article, was in a non-standard format. So then, if that were the case as to Editor "A", I think then that Editor "B" should obtain a consensus before changing (or deleting in its entirety) the information added by Editor "A" in a format that Editor "B," acting alone without a consensus, believes in good faith to be a non-standard format. I think that except in the very rare case where there can be no reasonable belief that Editor "A" was acting with a good faith belief that he was adding to the article, but rather, he was vandalizing it, should Editor “B” proceed to delete or edit the work of Editor “A” without first obtaining a consensus, or at the very least, to receive a (favorable) response to his request to Editor “A” that there be a change.

I believe that a procedure like this is in compliance with “assuming good faith”, which as you know is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: It is this assumption that (other) editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. [2] that, I think, is what is missing in the approach taken by Editor “B.” That is, that Editor “B” should have approached the work (the newly added/inserted information) of Editor “A” with the assumption that we are all supposed to be operating under at all times, that Editor “A’s” additions/deletions/revisions/etc. were made in good faith, and that being the assumption, it cannot be appropriate for Editor “B” to single-handedly and without a consensus, delete all (or even part) of Editor’s “A” work. Does that strike you as an outrageous proposition? I mean, presumably Editor “A” and “B” share common flaws of imperfection found in so many humans, and presumably, going into the issue without any knowledge of the other editor, neither editor can presume that he is absolutely correct in every aspect and that anyone who views anything differently than he is a vandal intent on destroying Wikipedia.

Isn’t it at the outset basically a 50/50 proposition when an editor goes, to delete the newly added information by another editor, that he may be wrong in making that deletion? And if it’s 50/50, shouldn’t he ask for a consensus before deleting the work of another editor, or at a bare minimum contact the other editor and have some reasonable assurance that Editor "A" has received his note/email/posting/etc. before deleting Editor “’A’s” work?

I might comment that in our situation, it was not an instance of Editor “A” changing something that was already on the page and then Editor “B,” seeing what was obviously an act of vandalism in the changes by editor “A,” reverting those changes. Not at all. Editor “A” added new information (the year of death for an author who had just died), and Editor “B,” believing that it was presented in a non-standard format to have this information at that particular place, deleted it. Editor “B” believed that this date information belonged, if anywhere, only on a page devoted to the author himself, and nowhere on a page the subject of which was the author’s work, in this instance, a book.

I do in fact disagree with Editor “B” on that point. I find it very useful to see when, during an author’s lifetime, and also in relation to significant world events, an author or artist wrote or published or created a particular piece of work, Articles about the book, or other work, when discussing the writing and publishing, virtually always includes references to when he wrote the book or when he had it published and even references to when other drafts of the book were created (like Herman Melville losing the first finalized version of Moby Dick at sea and having to re-write the entire book years later, or other such interesting facts, like authors commenting that they would have changed many things in a book if they had written it after a particular event in their lives personal to them (e.g., the death of a beloved father, birth of their own child, marriage, good or bad fortunes, etc.) or events in their lives in which we collectively share in some part (the 9/11 attacks, sinking of the Titanic, WWII, War in Vietnam, the shooting of Ronald Regan/Kennedy/Kennedy/King/VJ day, VE day/man walking on the moon/the falling of the Berlin Wall, or the deaths of Roosevelt’s, Churchhill, Elvis, John Lenon, The Princess of Wales, etc.).

Since the dates of writing and publication or other creation are virtually always included, having the author’s years of birth and death gives me a basic reference to all these things. I find it interesting that Mozart was composing by age 5, and if I read an article not mentioning his year of birth, and only mentioning the date the composition was completed, I do then miss out on this interesting fact, do I not? Unless of course even more space is taken to write out that he composed this particular work at age 6, this one at age 9, this other one at age 8, etc. Isn’t it interesting to read that an author wrote a book set in large part in classrooms of a law school when he was only 14 years old of the writing? Or when he was 95? Or a book about a worldwide war before WWI? Or a book about space flight and a trip to the moon before the Wright brothers ever had a bicycle shop?

Having the author’s year of birth and year of death in parenthesis after his name adds this important and interesting information in a simple space conserving manner easily recognized by average readers. So common is the format and its use that readers instantly know that a 4 digit number separated by a hyphen from another four digit number in parenthesis appearing after a person’s name is that person’s years of birth and death, often without there being any reference to birth or death, or B.C.E. or C.E., etc.

You commented that you’ve “found no other such articles that feature birth and death dates in the lede sentence.” While we do, in practice base much of our own personal experiences, little is gained by saying to you that I’ve seen such dates referenced in parenthesis thousands of times immediately after an author’s, or other creator’s, or significant person’s, name in regards to a particular work; and that name has often appeared in the first, or nearly first, sentence, and certainly in what one would consider the story lede. I recently had someone say virtually the same thing (though a bit more dramatically by saying that in their “entire life,” they’ve never seen, etc.). I supplied him with a dozen links showing the very thing he said he’d never seen. I find that he responded as I expected, with, well, generally what I would say was a “so what?,” and then providing further limitation to what was his alleged point in saying that in the first place. I do not find that providing examples of what someone says they “have never seen” does anything but have then raise more qualifications on what they “meant” and then additional reasons why they’re not going to change their point of view or position in the slightest. I do not find the benefit in my searching out such examples provides any reward for my efforts. People who don’t want to be convinced don’t want to see things other than those that fit their position. If they wanted to see more, they would look themselves. You are no doubt reasonable and willing to change your position when presented with facts that are different than you have experienced personally. I apologized for having been soured by my experiences with others as to the effort I would have to extend to find and provide links to such examples before they then change absolutely nothing in their position when faced with multiple examples of the very thing that, by saying that they have never seen such-and-such, then by implication that therefore, they are taking the position that such-and-such does not exist.

Thank you for hearing me out. It is to your credit, not mine, that you have been willing to read what I have had to say and give to it the critical thought and consideration to which I hope to have had it been worthy.

Respectfully. -- (talk); now -- (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (I've been promoted by 5,044! - come on, that's somewhat mildly amusing.)

Thank you for taking the time to communicate your thoughts at such length on the editing of the Cather in the Rye article. I imagine the best venue for discussing the above is the talk page for manual of style [30], where others can weigh in, too. At the end of the day it's a minor point, I think, but it might be good to get a consensus there. However, I do want to say that I appreciate your points re: assumption of good faith, as well as your rationale for including dates. If my reversions of your edits seemed unnecessarily dismissive, or worse, rude, please accept my apologies. Similarly, it was not my intention that someone editing in good faith feel that they were being ganged up on. Best wishes on your continued efforts, JNW (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, again, for approaching this discussion of different viewpoints as a gentleman, and for leaving me believing that intelligent consideration was given to my views. With sincere respect, - - (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

dyk hook problem[edit]

Hi, your dyk hook has a problem. Perhaps you can address it here. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've shortened the hook. JNW (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hughie Lee-Smith[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hughie Lee-Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Witches' Sabbath (Goya)[edit]

Hey JNW, do you know does Licht have much on the above. Ta and, eh, hello. Ceoil sláinte 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're a busy one. I'm sure Licht has something, and I'll look him up when I have a chance. Right now I'm returning calls, etc. I've had to cancel a session with a model for the day--squirrels are getting into my country studio, the little bastards. In the meantime, I'm going to send along a copy of the most recent article. Incoming. JNW (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it and thanks. Not somebody I had heard of, but immediatly striking. No hurry with Goya - I just though since I had books to hand I might as well. I'll be preoccupied with a Titian for a while - not going well at all - so no rush. As for the squirrels; show no pity. They have shown me none so far, and have always been very harsh when they have me outgunned. As you say, the little bastards. Ceoil sláinte 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It happens that in 'Goya: The Origins of the Modern Temper, etc', Licht doesn't even mention this among the Black Paintings, or at least I can't find anything. Que lástima. The article is good, and I'd like to be able to add something.... JNW (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries or hurry; but I'd be assured if you kept you usual watchful eye on the page. Btw, I only noticed last night that you put together The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit, one of my favourite paintings. You are very productive for a retired editor! Ceoil sláinte 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Just woke up here, so I'm still bleary eyed; thanks for the kind words, and for adding images to Hughie Lee-Smith. Though he taught while I was at the League, I never studied with him. However, my mother took classes with him for a couple of summers, and really liked him. I see you've been on a tear with early Flemish portraits--great work! JNW (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
An cheap 2nd hand art bookshop opened in Cork just after chritmas; selling full bios and dedicated texts for €5-€6, though it has little on Goya. Still, happy days for me. And you just woke up?? Dude its the middle of the afternoon. Ceoil sláinte 14:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Not here, where it was 9:00 AM, way early by my standards. If I can find anything good on van der Weyden and company I'll contribute. Until then I'm just trying to stay clear of these: [31]; to elaborate on the above, the other day I chased one around the studio, up on a high window ledge, trying to scare it out the door with a stretcher bar. Chattering noisily, it perceived its best path of egress as coming straight through me, at eye level. Ech. Sure, you get into virtual combat online, but for me it's hand-to-paw business in the real world. The artist's studio is a dangerous place. JNW (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard that about painters; my advice is to tool up before you go into the studio. I get on ok with most squirrels, I think they are sound enough, but they say terrible things about you when you are not around. Not to make you parioiod, but I think they are out to get you. In fact, one of them told me during the week, "we are out to get JNW". Ceoil sláinte 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh shit, I knew it! You've confirmed my suspicions, but it's not just squirrels, it's the entire natural world. Well, I must skulk back down into my bunker, or, better still, go out for lunch. JNW (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Passive agressive msg from the SRCDF[edit]

How cute am I with my furry tail?

Let us humans and vermin liven peace and civility.

Or else trouble, buddy. Ceoil sláinte 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Bring it on, you sumbitch, and your tick infested buddies, too. JNW (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What's in store for all the fuzzy creatures who encroach on my studio. Of your demise art will be made.
Oh, and hi, Ceoil. I respect you immensely as a contributor, though your association with this extremist organization saddens and appalls me. Such is life. JNW (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I'll see you on AN/I, so. Sport! Ceoil sláinte 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting link[edit]

Hi JNW - I signed on here too - [32]...Modernist (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I just filled out the form as the hundredth account was accepted. Plus I forgot to sign my name. D'oh! JNW (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


What do you think of moving this to Helga Pictures. It would give far greater room for expansion, and given her retisence on the series (going by the Time article), avoid any blp issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with both rationales. Would you like to do the honors? JNW (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but might take a few minutes. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No hurry. It's good for the moment. I hope there are no BLP issues, especially given what I hope is the neutrality of the writing--nothing that isn't already very public. I'm done for a bit, and the change will necessitate a different lead, format, and expansion. JNW (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No there were no blp issues (I certainly didn't mean to imply or offend), and the writing is typically great. I can tweak for a bit, you have covered most of what is needed, it is relatively easy now to swap over. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken. The switch was remarkably quick, as was the successful rearrangement of content. There's a lot that can be added, especially under background, reception, and provenance. Feel free to have a go at it if you're so inclined, otherwise I'll come back to it at some point. JNW (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Its a date. They are a beautiful set of images. Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I was more interested in the article as a short biography of an otherwise unknown person made famous by circumstance. As an article on the paintings and drawings there's a lot to write about, from the expansive media coverage to the personal backgrounds to the public fascination and mixed critical reception. Personally, I'd like to have a strong reaction to the work one way or another, but even after almost 25 years I'm still ambivalent about many of the paintings, as I am toward his work in general, per these observations [33], as well as my inherent resistance to accept him, or him [34], for that matter, as the de facto representative of realism, just because the public or the critics do so. It is hard to separate the quality from the hype. I throw my cards in with [35] or [36]. So much for my neutrality. All this is by way of explaining why I may or may not add to the piece, which, especially under your watch, would be a terrific article. JNW (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

JWN, I think I might have jumped the gun and been presumptious as regards moving the page, I'm not unopposed to switching back your text to the bio (Ty could move back so that the history is preserved). This would be no prob, and then I could start afresh on the series. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No harm done, and I wouldn't encourage you to move it back. I'm being prickly, no doubt; some of the works I do find beautiful, but there's a stubborn desolation and insularity about him in general that one can find either romantic or irritating, or both. There are portraits that remind me of Eakins, yet he considered Eakins less than purely American for his study in Europe and the influence of Velazquez. I realize all this is neither here nor there, just chattering. JNW (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There does not seem to be much to recommend him as a person from those articles. Its often hard to seperate the work from the man, and if there is a harshness or meanness of spirit in the man, then it often seeps into the work. No not always, look at how life affirming early Van Morrisson is, and then look a what a, well, you know. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for El Jaleo[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article El Jaleo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Barber[edit]

Up for deletion. I thought you might find some of her work of interest.[37] Ty 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for passing this along. I do like some of them. They remind me a bit of a few painters here, among them [38], and his mother, [39] --two more artists who merit articles. It's good to hear from you; hope all is well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
So much art to cover. So few arts editors to cover it... Well, thanks. Ty 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The image in the article is a good one; a bit of Constable there. JNW (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad you approve! Ty 02:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dorelia McNeill[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorelia McNeill, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Helga Testorf[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helga Testorf, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whistler commemorative issue[edit]

Greetings 'JNW' I am the fellow who included the image of the Whistler postal issue. I offered it not as 'artwork', even though in my opinion I think it is a splendid example of art (engraving). It was offered as sort of a historical earmark to convey to the viewers that Whistler was so very popular among Americans that the Post Office chose to include him in the ''Famous Americans Series' of 1940. The series of 35 issues commemorates not only famous painters, like Whistler and Remmington, but also famous authors, scientists, educators, composers and inventors. There was much debate about whom would be honored in this series and the fact that Whistler was chosen is testimony of his greatness and fame. I am hoping it is a welcomed addition to the fine account of Whistler that you and others have provided here at Wiki'. GWillHickers (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi GwillHickers; thanks for your message, and apologies for my snotty sounding edit summary. Of course your additions of commemorative stamps are welcome. I think I was reacting, in part, to the prominence you gave the image in the article--I think that the stamp images probably work better in 'legacy' sections as thumbnails, rather than just beneath the lead image--and do not mean to cast aspersions on your contributions, nor toward the engravers who crafted these stamps. Thanks again for your note, and please continue. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stevenson Memorial[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stevenson Memorial, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Marine art[edit]

Any major omissions here, especially in the 20th century? I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First, congratulations on what I gather is virtually a single-handed transformation of the article. Some rapid thoughts: I think of Jacob Isaakszoon van Ruisdael in the 17th century. In the 20th century there have been some major artists in the genre--I think first of American painters, coast of Maine: Edward Hopper, George Bellows, Rockwell Kent, all influenced by Homer....Childe Hassam painted a lengthy series on the Isles of Shoals; Marsden Hartley, important modernist, Maine coast seascapes; Neil Welliver, major late 20th century landscape painter; didn't the Fauves use the Seine as a centerpiece for their work? And Pierre Bonnard (still my nominee for the paltriest article on a major artist) was big on the sea. In Canada, Tom Thomson; shore painters of note include William Merritt Chase....late 19th century, a substantial body of major shore paintings done by Joaquin Sorolla in Spain, and lots of ocean views, Thames paintings, and Venetian lagoons by Whistler; in Russia, Isaac Levitan.
By the way, thanks for helping out with street addresses on Whistler's Carlyle. JNW (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Great thanks; I'll copy this to the talk & work 'em in. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if I can help with sources, etc. I am sure that Modernist will know painters that I've forgotten. JNW (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for 'Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle'[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

It just needs the inline citation for the hook fact moved to the end of the previous sentence where the fact is mentioned. Mikenorton (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. JNW (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Valley Entertainment Monthly[edit]

Just saw your nomination for deletion. Guess you should go back and read the rules for deletion before you go nominating anything that in your infinite wisdom isn't "notable" ehough. A little quick on the draw, aren't you? If you had read the first two rules for deletion, this wouldn't be happening at all.

I just looked at the list of items for deletion today and many items on the list SHOULD be deleted. They are obvious attempts at self advertising, whatever. But Valley Entertainment Monthly was a newspaper that was printed and circulated in California, a historical document registered with the state and whether you recognize it or not, meant a great deal to a lot of people in an area where there isn't always a lot of popular entertainment available. Its obvious you are making this personal. The article is quality, contains some interesting bits of information and there are already many people who were familiar with the Valley Entertainment Monthly who have commented positively to me upon seeing the Wikipedia entry. But you want to kill it.

You are also fairly green if you've never heard of Flipside magazine. Along with Surfer and Thrasher, I don't think there were any more important publications available to us back then. All three were slick, corporately produced rags similar to a copy of Time magazine, and available in every state of the U.S., as well as every major city and most small ones for about $5 a copy.

The Wikipedia rules state you should do your research before jumping to a deletion option. Maybe you ought to take time to revisit them. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nighteen Nightmares

Thank you for your suggestions. Given my age, I'm flattered to be thought of as green. "Guess you should go back and read the rules for deletion before you go nominating anything that in your infinite wisdom isn't "notable" ehough. A little quick on the draw, aren't you?", "Its obvious you are making this personal", and the earlier comment at your talk page, "Otherwise, you are just a fly in the ointment and I will continue to remove them (maintenance templates). If you continue to put them back, I will also contact Wiki management directly to complain about the harrassment", don't represent you or the article well; nor have the multiple times you've, in effect, vandalized the piece by removing templates without adequately responding to their issues. It's important to assume good faith, but your mode of operation, especially for a presumably novice contributor, is a bit willful. I've started numerous articles, and always line up reliable sources before they're begun. If not, the articles would be challenged, and with good reason. If the subject of the article you've started is deemed notable, it will be kept--all this has been explained numerous times, by myself and another editor, and links have been provided to the pages detailing Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE; WP:NOR is relevant, too. And if it's deleted, you can recreate it, though if the same issues remain, a similar outcome is likely. The article is heartfelt and well written, and I gather that you're rather closely involved with a person or people relating to it, which often compromises objectivity. If I've been quick to nominate this, then that will out in the wash. JNW (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You might take a look at the article now. I've added several references, another external link (that's three in a week or so) and updated much of the admitted deadwood and "original research" you mentioned in your AfD. It doesn't matter how old you are, you gave no time for development or improvement of the article, instead opting for a very petty and vindictive approach to the whole thing. That was counter to Wiki's own standards of giving an article time for development. I removed the templates at first BECAUSE I WAS NEW AND DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER, YOU MORON! And as I HAD added some references, it seemed ridiculous to keep a template saying there are no references. Please prove how ignorant you are right now and argue that one with me. You can have all the knowledge in the world, stuffed shirt, but no wisdom at all. You just seem a sad, pathetic fool if all you have to do is sit around Wiki and nominate articles like this one for deletion. You have listened to nothing I've said directly to you to help you understand the "notability" of the publication as it applies to the people actually reading it back then, either.

You and your kind will not win. You will never kill the common man with your elitist approach. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Always a pleasure. Here I recline in my hammock in an ivy-laden office at one of the Northeast's most prominent institutions of higher learning while the dean of the department strums Roccoco tunes on an Italian lute, undergraduate lackies write an incandescent treatise on the state of American journalism, for which I will take credit and which will be reviewed with much ballyhoo in a forthcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly, all while being hand-fed triple-washed Peruvian grapes by seven scantily clad lovelies all possessing doctorates in Latin Theology. Later it's drinks with George Will and a network vice-president in a restaurant on a yacht. It is no wonder I've lost touch with the common man. JNW (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, my tagging and nominating an article for which you seem to presume ownership is not the problem here. Nor are my interpretations or actions in any way unusual--as you've seen, other editors have weighed in at the AFD page [40], and eventually an administrator will decide whether to keep or delete. Please do not leave further messages here, if they are to contain personal attacks. As I suggested above, they tend to undercut credibility, and they are a far deeper breach than any unjustness you perceive from me. I do wish you the best. Sort of. JNW (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings JNW - just a quick word of support as an antidote to personal attacks. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Ps. George Will?
Much appreciated Technopat. You got me. I was really discussing macroeconomics in the Keynesian tradition with [41] and [42]. Plus, she has a wicked good jump shot. It was a hoot. Best, JNW (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well at least you're more on than off.[43] Ty 00:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You will notice that I did not deny any of the aspersions cast my way--I only said they were improper. No one can say worse things than we already suspect about ourselves. JNW (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so that's what it means! Ty 01:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! This, too. JNW (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I had this in mind, before I went to your link! Ty 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on comment[edit]

Greetings JNW - thanks for your respectful comment on my comment. As I mention, I agree with most, if not all of what you stated, but I do see the other side of the argument as well - as I'm sure you do. Wikipedia must inevitably become more inclusive, physical space not being an issue. Won't take up any more of your time - and have some vandal reverting to do before I turn in. Catch up with you somewhere anon. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Technopat. Notwithstanding my personal take on the magazine--which, as described in the article, is neutral to positive...I like good prose, wherever I can find it--I'm less sanguine about inclusiveness. Look forward to chatting again. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cecilia Beaux[edit]

Agree with your move on those images, and thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure--I was hoping you wouldn't mind. A couple of years ago I expanded the article from a stub, and since then you've done great work on it. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks again, and you've done great work yourself. Have a lovely evening. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatia's real appology[edit]

Sorry we didn't want half of your country. You are all basically Croatian anyway what are you complaining about? Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just trying for a little light heartedness :) Polargeo (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd forgotten what edit you were referring to, but now I see. Terrific userpage--these must be hard times for glaciology, less to work with, one imagines. A friend and former student of mine has spent several months on Greenland over the course of a few summers doing ornithological research. I'm assured that it's never warm there. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nineteen Nightmares[edit]

Do you suppose it's time to start an ANI thread regarding this editor? So far he has called us panty wastes (sic), wikinazis, and said we have small minds, despite my warnings about civility and person attacks. Let me know your thoughts. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He continued to throw out insults, so I started an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nineteen_Nightmares.2C_continued_incivility_and_personal_attacks. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks P.D. I may add to the thread there, though I've no desire to extend a drama. Seems to be you've said it well, as have others. JNW (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank Lee Ruggles[edit]

Scrapes past CSD if one is being generous. Take to AFD. Ty 01:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ty. Maybe I will, but not with alacrity--the work is good, but in terms of reliable sources I'm not finding much on Google. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bathsheba at Her Bath[edit]

Lovely work as usual JNW. I'll see what I can find in the morning and help. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! Next week I'll hit the books and see if there's anything I can add. Ewulp (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ping. Ceoil (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you Excirial, for reverting vandalism to my talk and user pages. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem whatsoever :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Louisa Bertman[edit]

Thanks. Team work. Ty 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


[44], though I dont get Cezanne. You owe me 1 tune. Ceoil (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cezanne is wonderful. Any single passage [45] has more color and juice than a dozen pieces by almost any of his academic contemporaries--the construction and color harmonies; let's put it this way: he wasn't singing pleasant conventional ballads, but playing the guitar like Neil Young, or Hendrix. JNW (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I like this as I live on the side of a mountain, and suppose could be described as a hillbilly[46]. O nad when they played in Cork I had a drunken kiss with her! Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Good music with a story! New one on the way.... JNW (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
She is married so dont add it to the page: Trivia - Ceoil also kissed her in 2006. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I can add that, if we can find an objective source. Have you reliable witnesses? JNW (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
My ex-GF is willing testify to the fact, at lenght, in a hight pitched squeal. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Squeals are good and fine, but I'll need something in writing. Incidentally, I was certain this was you [47], and was considering having you banned from editing articles on the visual arts. Or nominating you as an administrator. JNW (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
nominating you as an administrator: dont dare - people have been choked for less. The admin corps, well the idle chatty faction at least, hate my guts for some amusing to me reason, which is fine and respocated in spades. Paul Kelleher had good stunt, cutting the head off Mararet Tahtcher as he did, and I am happy to share his name, but he is fat now, I am not. And Alex Chilton died this week.[48]. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice poingant and lonely song [49]. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. JNW (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you do break me up, and your contributions are grand. Thanks for the music. If you ever make it to New England, we'll find a pub....I used to throw darts, poorly.... JNW (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Season's greetings[edit]

Hi JNW (it is some season, after all). I don't know if you watch User:AlexNewArtBot/PaintingSearchResult, but it's where I discovered your Rembrandt article. It's also good for fishing out new my-friend's-an-artist articles, which I think you dabble in (but who could keep up). Thought you might find it handy. Cheers, Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Riggr. Well, it's maybe my favorite time of the year. Today it was a walk along the beach, and greasy sea food. Thanks, I had no idea about that page. As mentioned above to Ceoil, so also for you. Let me know if your travels ever take you near my attic, sequestered as I am, not unlike one of my favorites. Very best, JNW (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I dunno, "greasy sea food" takes on a new meaning lately! Maybe we should all get together, but it would have to be somewhere interesting. Ireland would be interesting to me, the east coast somewhat so, and where I am, well. Each of us faced with this dilemma, the only solution would be Aruba or other places where the colorful stamps in my childhood collection came from. :) I could see a documentary being made of this meeting, maybe shades of the film The Maiden Heist. P.S. It's a pity about Ceoil and Cezanne. Might want to break off ties with him anyway... Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
If either ye guys are ever in Ireland, I would ve very insulted if I did not get a bell. I spent the last two days looking at Cezanne and yes he is wonderful. It was more that I never paid proper attention. Ceoil (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My lass and I would love to go to Ireland. And yes, Riggr, I think a documentary film team must be in tow--if nothing else, its presence may compel persuade our friend to mind his manners. Things to do, in no particular order:
  • Paint here, or someplace similar;
  • Visit Ceoil;
  • Enjoy a pint;
  • At long last meet one of these;
  • See the same countryside and colorful stereotypes I enjoyed in this;
  • Expunge this from my memory;
  • Resolve to find out why they call it an Irish kiss. Eh, maybe not.
Not meaning to jam Cezanne or any other painter down anyone's gullet, just sharing an enthusiasm. JNW (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Ambrose, Stephen E.; Bischof, Günter, (editors), Eisenhower and the German POWs : facts against falsehood, Eisenhower Center studies on war and peace, Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, 1992.
    • ^ [Wikipedia:Assume good faith]