User talk:Xenxax

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


Hello, Xenxax, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warren Adelson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brookline and Lyndhurst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Charles Prendergast) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Charles Prendergast, Xenxax!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice start. I'll try and look out some good images for you.

Thanks very much, Jennie, for reviewing my article on Charles Prendergast. And yes, it would be really great to find some free-use images of his beautiful work; any help there would be much appreciated. I tried, but had no luck. Xenxax (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

His paintings indeed beautiful. A lackey has been dispatched ;). He's still in artist's copyright, but anything pre-1923 should be OK on the US Wikipedia. Let me know of any further contributions from you. This one was splendid. I love Wikipedia. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jennie! A trio of images have been added by 'Coat of Many Colours', much improving the look of the page. I've also found a great photo of Charles's first painting, "Rising Sun" (1912) at the 'Art History Archives'; they subscribe to a "Fair Use Policy" so I will try to upload that image later today and see if it is allowed. I'd think it should be, being a pre-1923 painting. Thanks again, your kind comments are very much appreciated. Xenxax (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Page looks good. Ill try and get you an image of "Spirit of the Hunt", which was sold at a Christie's auction back in 1998. There's no image left online, but there should be one in the sale catalogue I can scan up. I've ordered a copy, but it won't arrive this nick of the woods for a good few weeks yet since it's coming from the US. Sale page has a nice essay by by Nancy M. Mathews. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The link to the Christie's auction catalog is a great find. Interesting to have the auction record and Nancy Mowll Mathews' essay is very excellent. I don't have time today, but tomorrow will see how to incorporate it into the article - unless of course you'd like to go ahead and do that. :-) As for "Spirit of the Hunt", it's a beautiful painting and would be a wonderful addition to the page. Again, thank you very much, Jennie! Xenxax (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I might contribute a bit later later on if the muse moves me, though I doubt will have anything to add. It is curious there wasn't a page for so long. The catalogue should arrive by January 14th is the date I've got. I get them second-hand for a song off the internet. They're usually in near pristine condition and I have dozens of them, but I can't promise there will be an image, or that it will be worth using. If it's spread across a double page, which is quite likely given the size of this painting, then that's not usable either. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just added an 'Art Market' section to include the information from the link you found to Christie's; makes a very good addition to the page. As for "Spirit of the Hunt", it's reproduced in the two Predergast catalogues that I have, but unfortunately both are small and in b/w. Hopefully there will be a good one in the catalogue you receive. And I totally agree with you that it's curious this page didn't already exist; was quite surprised by its absence. Thanks again for all your help, Jennie. Has been very much appreciated! Xenxax (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nice section. A Merry Christmas to you if that's your season, and hopefully we will get together in the New Year again. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well and best wishes for 2014! Xenxax (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Prendergast[edit]

Hello, Coat of Many Colors. I've noticed (and very much appreciated) that you recently updated many of the images on the Mary Cassatt page. I just uploaded a page on Charles Prendergast - it was hard to believe that a page didn't already exist for him - but I was unable to find any free-use images of his beautiful paintings or his frames. So, I'm bringing the Prendergast page to your attention, hoping perhaps you could kindly use your expertise and resources to locate a few decent images. Or suggest a path to me. Xenxax (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xenxax. Nice article. Prendergasts new to me. I like Charle's paintings very much. I managed to find a couple of images I've put in a gallery for you, but there may be an issue with the screen (the frame) and it may have to re-uploaded as a crop.
I'm very far from being an expert on copyright (as you can see from the above). With the Cassatt images I updated, their copyright status had already been determined.
With Charles, there are at least three issues:
  • Artist's copyright. He died in 1948 so he's still in copyright in the EU, for example, until beginning 2019. So there's no question of an upload to the Commons
  • His nationality. Should he be regarded as American or Canadian? Copyright status will be affected.
  • His frames. These are 3-D and the photographer has rights. For example the photograph of the screen is probably relatively recent, so the photographer (Christie's?) has rights. I think it's quite likely that will be picked up by folk who look after these things and we'll have to crop the frames. Cross that bridge if need be.
Your best bet for images would be images of pre-1923 paintings, which are in the public domain in the US and can therefore be uploaded locally on Wikipedia, as I did those two images (properly three because the screen has a front and back).
As for frames you need to find an image (say on Flickr) which has been put in the public domain. I couldn't find any. You can always try writing the gallery or museum involved! Williams College Museum of Art, for example, has a media resource centre that links to huge museum databases (the entire National Gallery UK collection for example), so it would be curious if they were unwilling to release representative works from their collection into the public domain.
I couldn't find any more images on a quick search. If I do find any nice ones I will upload them. I'll look for a portrait too and let you know. I shan't do an infobox or anything myself, as editors have differing views on those. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but it's usual to have a photo or portrait upper right in the lead. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a very nice photo here (you'll have to enter a search for "Charles Prendergast" and select "people" in the result - emuseum links are unfortunately ephemeral), but there are no details at all which can determine copyright status and I don't think it's worth the hassle of uploading it as it will be immediately pounced upon. Your only recourse is to ask the museum for reproduction rights. I don't see why they shouldn't allow it. Or possibly another editor more clued up than I am might be able to assist.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough the two "screen" uploads have just been flagged by an expert for transfer to Commons ... I swear I can't get my head around all the issues here. It will involve creating a Charles Prendergast category on Commons. I'll do that tomorrow if someone hasn't meantime. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I'll create the category but I'll include myself out of transferring the file, which I think is a distinctly dubious move and I don't want to get a reputation for being a nuisance. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words about the article, for your very detailed response above, and especially for adding the three excellent images to the page and for all your subsequent work on this. An article about a visual artist without any images of the artwork seems rather bleak, so I really appreciate that you took the time and effort to add them and to follow up with more help.

  • His nationality. I always thought he and his brother, Maurice, were born in Boston, so in the course of putting together the article, I was quite surprised to learn that they were both born in Newfoundland - and I had good company in my ignorance: in the book I cited most often, Perry Rathbone (then Director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) and Richard J. Wattenmaker (then Director of the Rutgers University Art Gallery) both made the mistake of stating that Charles was born in Boston. I'd assume place of birth makes him a Canadian, but altogether it is confusing since he was out of Canada by the age of 5 and did all of his work in the U.S. (I see no one has added either of the Prendergasts to the Wikipedia lists of Canadian artists and painters.)
  • Images of pre-1923 paintings. The 'Art History Archives' subscribes to a "Fair Use Policy" and they have a photo of "Rising Sun", Charles's first painting in 1912. I wonder if that could be uploaded to Wikimedia under their "Faithful reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain" rule. It would be a great one for the info box, very simple and colorful. Will try to upload it later today.
  • Transferring the file. It looks like (User:Sfan00 IMG) has approved the your image files for transfer, so that's good. I'll check later to see if the category has been created; if so will try to figure how to move the images there.

Sorry to be long-winded here. I do very much appreciate your great help and advice. The Charles Prendergast page looks a lot better! Thank you! Xenxax (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure. I did it especially because I like his work. I suspect that image will be deleted forthwith from Commons if you did transfer it, but I don't know all the complexities of copyright law at all. It's an entire cosmos all of its own. I've kept copies of the images, so if it is deleted and the local upload gets caught up as well I can upload it again.
I noticed the Rising Sun. That would be great for an infobox and yes, it's before 1923 so on my understanding it's in the public domain in the US. Let me know if you run into difficulties. You will have to negotiate a box about "publication". That was the subject of the debate above. In practice Wikipedia takes publication as synonymous with creation. An examples is Picasso's La Vie where publication is just entered as "Painted in 1903" and I suggest you enter "Painted in 1912" for Rising Sun. I see the same user tagged it for transfer to Commons and it was re-tagged subsequently as "not safe". Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I just put "Rising Sun" into Wikimedia and then into the 'infobox' space. I think it looks good, especially as I was able to reference it in the text as his first painting (according to experts). I feel pretty confident that the pre-1923 label should keep it in the system. The page looks excellent now and hopefully other editors will soon come in to expand the text. Thanks again very much! You were a great help! Xenxax (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's splendid. Of course I forgot about the artist being American himself, so the image is after all probably OK for Commons. As I say I'm challenged by anything involving copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I created the Charles Prendergast category on Commons and transferred the local uploads I made. I've also emailed the curator of collections at Williams College Art Museum enquiring into the copyright status of the photo I mentioned of him. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your great help! Has been very much appreciated! I hope you enjoy a very happy and wonderful Holiday season! best regards, Xenxax (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And you too, Xenxax. It was a pleasure to help. I'll let you know if we get permission to use that photo. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Taoist sexual practices as qi practices[edit]

Why not? Only read Taoist sexual practices or Mantak Chia! I mean you have no competences on this theme.Кот на крыше (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was removing an image that someone put up that had absolutely no relationship to 'Qi' ... I have no idea why my revert also removed your addition; perhaps your addition slipped in while I was still working on mine. Was not intended and have fixed the problem. There is no need for you to be rude about this, however, and question the competence of people you know nothing about. Xenxax (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Stevovich[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

to User:Tentinator

Thank you for the DYK nomination of the 'Andrew Stevovich' article I initially created. Was a pleasure to see it on the home page this morning. Xenxax (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

to User:Yoninah

Thank you for approving the DYK nomination of the 'Andrew Stevovich' article I initially created. Was a pleasure to see it on the home page this morning. Thanks too for all the edits you recently made to the page. All much appreciated. Xenxax (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! It was an interesting article ... and the paintings are beautiful! Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Author/last issues[edit]

First, thanks for your work in eliminating the depreciated coauthor entries in citations. However, is there a good reason you are changing last=A|first=B style to author=A, B? Doing the citations this way breaks harvard referencing. I'm aware that the {{cite <object>}} family (unlike {{citation}}) don't produce CITEREFs by default, but that is another issue. To illustrate the problem consider the two citations:

cite book |author1=Fryde, E. B. |author2=Greenway, D. E. |author3=Porter, S. |author4=Roy, I. |title=... | ref=harv
cite book |last1=Fryde | first1=E. B. |last2=Greenway|first2= D. E. |last3=Porter|first3= S. |last4=Roy|first4= I. |title=... | ref=harv

They produce the HTML

span id="CITEREFFryde.2C_E._B.Greenway.2C_D._E.Porter.2C_S.Roy.2C_I.1996" class="citation book">Fryde, E. B.; ...
span id="CITEREFFrydeGreenwayPorterRoy1996" class="citation book">Fryde, E. B.; ...

with very different CITEREFs that will break any attempt to use {{sfn}} or {{harv}} for short form referencing.

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I've been creating any problems, Martin ... certainly not intentional.
Why I've been making the changes from "last" to "author" in the pages of early English bishops:
I'd been repairing a lot of the "Fryde et al" deprecated citations by using "last1=Fryde" etc. Then (while I was not directly contacted) I noticed that another editor - who'd been a significant contributor to these pages and even created many of them - was unhappy that I was using "last" instead of "author" ... and he/she had changed a couple of them from "last' to 'author'. I realized I had been making a mistake in not honoring the preferred style of citation for these pages. I've tried in the last few days to change the "last"s I had done to "author" so they were to the liking of the editors who were most vested in these pages. I had no idea these required the "| ref=harv" since it was never in the originally deprecated parameter. And I didn't notice the "harv" in the other citations either. (Perhaps only the longer pages with many references have them.)
If you wish, I'd be very happy to go back again and change them all to cite book |author1=Fryde, E. B. |author2=Greenway, D. E. |author3=Porter, S. |author4=Roy, I. |title=Handbook of British Chronology|edition=Third revised |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |year=1996 |isbn=0-521-56350-X| ref=harv ... adding the | ref=harv.
Please advise. I feel pretty bad about this ... thought I was doing something small but useful to improve Wikipedia
Also ... about the "repaired deprecated" pages that I did with "last" and have not yet changed -- should I just leave them as they are? Or do I understand that they also need the | ref=harv? Xenxax (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
First: don't feel bad - if I had thought you were doing something wrong intentionally I would not have either been so polite or given a full explanation. You are clearly one of the good guys.
Keep going with getting rid of coauthors, that is valuable work. Don't however change the last/first style to author in future, but I wouldn't bother going back over it, what's done is done. Unfortunately many people don't add the ref=harv, it is a pity, but that is another issue altogether and one that I fix on any pages I'm working on. The alternative is to use {{citation}} which does the Harvard referencing automatically and also selects its display style according to the given parameters. Personally I use citation always. Have a look at All Saints Church, Frindsbury for an example of {{citation}}, {{sfn}} and {{efn}}. You'll see how clicking on the number guides you down to the details.
As regards the author who didn't like last/first; either ignore them or point them to this discussion, they may not be aware of the reason for preferring first/last.
Finally: don't feel bad and above all please don't be disheartened. The foregoing is meant to be educational, not critical. From the date on the welcome notice above you appear to fairly new to this so help and guidance is what you need, not a slap in the face. Remember "the man who never made a mistake never made anything". Regards and thanks Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Martin, both for your extremely clear explanation and for your kind words. All are are very much appreciated. For one, I hadn't realized there was a difference between 'cite' and 'citations' references, and two, I thought 'last' and 'author' were simply an interchangeable preference. Now I know better! I will keep the 'All Saints Church' page in my notes as a reference to double-check my edits in the future, though I may let you know the next time I do a 'citation' edit, just to make sure it was done correctly.

Thanks again, Martin! Xenxax (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To let you know, Martin: I just repaired a deprecated parameter for Ralph de Warneville. I'm sure it's OK, especially as it's in a separate section called 'reference' and not in the section called 'citation' that connects with the actual footnotes. In any case, when I do these repairs, I'm now in the habit of double-checking that the footnote references are not broken. Again, thanks for your help! Xenxax (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look and what you did was perfect. While I was there I also added the ref=harv, maybe someday I'll change the citations to use either {{harv}} or {{sfn}}, but that's for another day. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Martin.
By the way, I see this morning that "Ealdgyth" -- the same person whose edit caused me to start changing my citations from 'last=Fryde' to 'author=Fryde' -- has removed your 'ref=harv' additions from Ralph de Warneville. Perhaps I will stay away from early Normans in my future edits. :-)
Thanks again very much! I think I have a good understanding of all this now and have really appreciated your help. Xenxax (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Also on this topic of "repaired deprecated parameter" you will be much better off fixing the gadgets that produce these parameters in the first place. One fix could save you hundreds or thousands of edits. These are official gadgets available from the preferences tab that use first last and coauthors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme. I appreciate your writing to me and your helpful advice, though I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I'd be "better off fixing the gadgets that produce these parameters" ... or better said, I'm not sure how I would actually go about fixing these (or any) gadgets. That job seems well beyond my expertise. And I really don't mind making these edits directly to the pages - it's kind of meditative for me - and as far as I understand, my edits are small but still useful contributions towards improving Wikipedia. At least I hope that's true and that I haven't been wasting my time these recent months. Thanks again. Xenxax (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I should have said that Wikipedia would be better off, since I was not understanding that you actually enjoy making these changes. If the gadgets used the recommended parameters then these changes would not be needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks very much for the clarification. Xenxax (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Stories of Eva Luna[edit]

Hello Mikeblas. With all due respect, I don't understand putting a "notability" tag on this very excellent collection of short stories by one of Latin America's outstanding writers. I didn't want to revert your edit, but think it may be good to reconsider the tag. Xenxax (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't establish how its topic is notable. As such, it gets notability tag to notify readers and editors of the problem with the article. As the box says: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd think a book by an author as notable as Isabel Allende would give it plenty of notability in turn; after all the book isn't a piece of trash written by some obscure hack, but c'est la vie. Wikipedia is a universe of opinion. Maybe when I have the time will try to add some secondary sources. Xenxax (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There's lots of opinion, but we try to stick to guidelines. Notability for books is established by the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Notability is substantiated by having reliable sources that describe the work. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply and I've read the guidelines, though I still think this book qualifies for notability under "Wikipedia:Notability (books)" guideline #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable ... etc." Isabel Allende has also won many major literary awards and is certainly a subject of academic study. An opera has been made from one of the stories and there are plenty of reviews that can be referenced. Anyway, I really have no interest in arguing this and totally understand your point of view - and I do agree with your statements on your talk page about quality over quantity, citing sources, etc. This particular page does need to be expanded - which is why I added a translation template last June - and as I wrote earlier, I may work on it when I have the time; hopefully improving it enough that you remove the notability tag. :-) Thanks! Xenxax (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mikeblas. I'm requesting that the "not notable' tag please be removed from The Stories of Eva Luna. I've added six referenced items to the page relating to a critical review and to three different theatrical adaptations of the stories; one of the adaptations is a long choreographed piece, the others are two different operatic adaptations. Aside from the fact that I think this book was already notable based on "Wikipedia:Notability (books)" guideline #5, my additions should address #1 and #4 as well. Thanks for your consideration. Let me know if you prefer that I remove the tag myself. Thank you! Xenxax (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you added references! They significantly improve the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for removing the "notability tag" ... very much appreciated! I'm also very glad you found the page significantly improved. Thanks again! Xenxax (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Stories of Eva Luna[edit]

I've just written to Mikeblas - the editor who put the may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline tag on the page - asking him to remove it; I think more than enough was added today to meet the standards. I'd remove the tag myself, but Mikeblas is a senior editor and an administrator, so am leery of doing that. Hopefully he will remove it. By the way, thanks for creating this page: great author and great collection of stories. Xenxax (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news. Mikeblas has removed the 'notability' tag. Xenxax (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your work expanding the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

El Negro Zumbón[edit]

Thank you for the thank you, StAnselm ... very much appreciated! Was actually just about to write you, to let you know that I removed the "redirect" from the song to the movie. And judging by your response, you are OK that I did it; am glad. Great song ... worth its own page ... great scene in the movie too, even if Silvana Mangano didn't actually sing it. - Xenxax (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing a title of an article[edit]

How can I change the title of my article? Errol Francis Sawyer should become Errol Sawyer? I would really appreciate your assistance. Fred Bakker (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fred. Here is the section in 'Wikipedia FAQ' that explains how to rename an article:
Hopefully that will answer your question. You may also want to double-check with User:MatthewVanitas, since he accepted your article and is a Senior Editor. Very good and interesting article, by the way. - Xenxax (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)