User talk:Artiquities/Archive2

Discussion page started for Task Force 373

Thanks for starting the article; I have created a talk page to discuss expanding and improving. Hopefully we can all keep a cool head on this topic, which may well become controversial. Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure any differences can be resolved through talk--if there are any. All the best, --Artiquities (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botched move

Please see my comment at Talk:Francis Bacon (philosopher). --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Talk:Francis_Bacon#Botched_move. Ty 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Calle presse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Calle presse.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated to include rationale. --Artiquities (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox

As this subject is very controversial, I would suggest that you build any such page in your userspace first before going to WP:DRV to move in to the main encyclopedia. Previous attempts to re-create this article have persistently ended in community consensus that such articles should be redirected to the article about Kercher's murder. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox from only 2 months ago. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will review the article's history at AfDs ----Artiquities (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jay Jopling 2008.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jay Jopling 2008.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Acather96 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, okay, my error, I thought it was a full CC share-and-share 3.0 license. --Artiquities (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Liam gillick.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Liam gillick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot has actually made an error. I will look at this when I get a chance.--Artiquities (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No error. Non-free photos of living people are not permitted, as they are replacable by a free image: someone can take a photo of them. See: Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. Ty 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification Ty: better get my camera out! --Artiquities (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. We could do with Maureen Paley and/or her gallery and Jay Jopling, while you're out and about... Ty 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josef von Sternberg

See talk page, please. --Chips Critic (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Coventry

Hi, received your messsge. Will make sure all changes to entry will be looged in detail. ps thanks for your encouragement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viccol1 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Frahm

Please let us know the reasons for your changes to this page. All facts are taken from articles in news magazines, the picture you cropped has no copy-right and was used in an article in Artreview, and all external links are about the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyarttart (talk • contribs) 10:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made depend upon WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:PUFF, WP:IUP and WP:CITE, if you want to improve the article I suggest you read these. The article is really in poor shape. The portrait (if at all) needs to be just that. Perhaps the photo of Nicolai with Jeff Koons could appear elsewhere in the article, maybe in the context of, say, working relationships with artists, the portrait in the lede needs to be only of the subject. --Artiquities (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Richardson

Hi Artiquities, thanks for your edit to Terry Richardson. I am often finding that editors are using the term "bibliography" to mean various things. Commonly, it seems to mean 'a list of works about a subject', 'a list of works by the writer' and also sometimes 'the list of books that are cited in the references' (so that full book titles don't have to be written out). This is leading mixing up of what goes where. In the name of simplicity and clarity it seems to useful to use the headings "works" and "further reading", to be clear. Have you found this to be an issue at all? I shall check with various WP guidelines and see what the current thinking is. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spanglej, yes, that is an interesting one. OED offers: "The writing of books. The systematic description and history of books, their authorship, printing, publication, editions, etc." The thing with "Publications" is that not all publications are books. What about: Photobooks by Terry Richardson"? --Artiquities (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God, sorry. I'm new to this - so easy screw up and not realise it. I was looking at my edit history and saw I'd made a typo on your page and corrected it. I guess, because it was an old version of your page, it blanked newer edits. It worries me how often I blithely wander around WP doing things I don't intend. I live and learn, but not quite fast enough, it seems. Apols.

I found this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Works or Publications which suggests the general heading of "Works". I tend to use "Works" as a cover-all. Does works, work? Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, good one WP: APPENDIX--right, so, "Works" is indeed the preferred nomenclature, thanks--shall we do it for Terry's then? --Artiquities (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yes, sorry I missed out the # (I really need to slow down). Time for a nap :0) Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image

Orphaned non-free image File:Shaw-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shaw-2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add to your talk page. If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Rationale and license duly replaced and updated. --Artiquities (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not actually orphaned, see: Chris Shaw----Artiquities (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Bond author.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bond author.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, need to find freely licensed media of subject.----Artiquities (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Biesenbach

Dear Artiquities,

The information in the article is inaccurate and therefore not a reliable source.

Best Pressintern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressintern (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contest the integrity of the reference do it here: Talk:Klaus Biesenbach (start a new section), this might lead to the insertion of "it has been claimed that..." But in this case the source introduces a verbatim quote. Are you suggesting that Marina Abramović's comments were a prank? --Artiquities (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danny Moynihan

The article Danny Moynihan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Film production and other cultural projects would not meet criteria for notabily at WP:NF, WP:NOTBOOK and subject does not meet

WP:ARTIST. Sources do not fully satisfy WP:BLP. or WP:RS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Camera years

Hello Artiquities. Today I was surprised to discover stubs on Peter Turner, Creative Camera, and (though not "yours") Gerry Badger. Could you perhaps expand this coverage? There turns out to be a fair amount at weepingash.co.uk and elsewhere, surely enough for articles on Osman, Jay, and Barry Lane. (I'm irritated to note that WP's Barry Lane is some golfer.)

I've found disappointingly little on Patrick Ward; if you have access to more material, that would be welcome.

(Meanwhile I'm sporadically tinkering with a draft that will become Daniel Meadows.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, ah, yes, I see, the Creative Camera article, right, now we have got quite some red links to contend with. I will try to get these to stubs at least. I do agree with you that the coverage does need to be expanded, on all of these. I added a stub on Mark Haworth-Booth last week, and that is another, along with the Ian Jeffrey stub, that could use more interest from editors. I am joining WikiProject History of Photography too. --Artiquities (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is www.weepingash.co.uk a reliable NPOV source? It is really an expanded blog, no? --Artiquities (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, it's not a reliable source. But it's very convenient and I think it's a usable source for the kind of claim that is unlikely to be contested. Reliability isn't really binary, yes/no; there is some grey, and as long as the main points of an article are backed with indisputably RS I think a source such as this can be used for some fleshing out. ¶ Haworth-Booth is a fine writer but unfortunately I don't know much about him; I'll probably have little to add. Well, at least articles on these people can sprout lists of books (thanks to Worldcat). -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely (not). Turns out that the article on Badger was plagiarized. And there are other problems one faces when ferreting honestly for information on Badger. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Evans

I request that you consult the edit I made to this article today. If you can't be bothered to learn the whole story regarding an episode like this and to use better sources than the Daily Mail, then I advise you to stay clear of BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, so what's the problem then? Daily Mail is RS.--Artiquities (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the Independent article that you have linked to is either the most comprehensive or the most neutral source. I think the Sunday Times, May 17, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7128911.ece is much clearer, more comprehensive and free of interpretation. However, I do feel that the word "exonerated" is not compatible with either of these sources, or indeed any other source than the THES article that is currently quoted. I also think that ensuring consistency with the primary documentation (the investigation report) is acceptable, although these are not cited ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.5.22 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuyoshi Araki

Hello Artiquities, I added the part about the flowers, the same day or the day after (I think it had been the same evening, but I am not sure) that I saw the feature/interview on television, didn't know how to reference it, therefor I filled it in the summary ("added diagnostic with cancer, impact on his work, source: interview at TV-Show "Tracks" shown on Arte (France and German TV Station", April 8th 2010). Can you tell me how to reference it that it meets the requirements? --87.162.54.103 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you mean this documentary from 2004?----Artiquities (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it had been this one: [2] (arte broadcasts the same program at the same time in French and German, sometimes with subtitles, sometimes translated, I watched the German version) I don't understand French that well, but I think the link you gave is a lot older (2004?), so that collides with the "news" about his cancer. The description in my link says /some months/ ago:

"Vor einigen Monaten erfuhr Araki von seinem Krebsleiden. Mit Gelassenheit, Witz und der Produktivität eines Getriebenen setzt er sein Werk fort. Dabei hat er sich von der rein sexuellen Funktion der Vagina abgewandt, die für ihn nicht mehr als Lust-, sondern als Lebensspenderin von Interesse ist."

Very rough translation of the text above: "Some months ago Araki came to know about his cancer. With calmness, esprit and the efficiency of a restless character he continued his work. Where he turned away from the plain sexual function of the vagina, which now for his interest is not (just) a pleasure giver anymore, but came to his interest as a giver of life."

--87.162.54.103 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject has a serious illness, then this likely deserves some mention with reference to a RS first before any comment on his reaction to it. Your translation (rough or not) would come under WP:ORIGINAL.--Artiquities (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Araki himself said something like that in the interviews, sorry but cant remember exactly what he said, and I am not able to quote it, my understanding of the written Japanese language is not good enough to find an original reference. What do you think, should we put this discussion on the articles talk page, maybe someone else is able to fill the missing links. --12:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.88.153 (talk)

That he's had cancer is well known; it's announced in his books. If you want an interview where it's stated, here's one. I believe that Araki is still happily taking photographs of naked women; I don't know his book Hana no machi (花の町) but its title means "town of flowers" and it dates from 1996. ¶ I'm sorry, I lack the effort needed to write up Araki. There's plenty about him in English, so I think others can do it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add but I will need an RS in English native. This googlesearch tells me that it has never been reported in the West. Anyone got a good'un? ----Artiquities (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You personally may want to see evidence in English, but Wikipedia has no such requirement. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, of course, but I cannot do much with no report to work with. I don't doubt his illness.--Artiquities (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this edit. --Artiquities (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bond Henry Kensington neutral.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bond Henry Kensington neutral.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC) You are owed an apology, This would appear to have been a mistag, Speedy removed :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Clark

Why did you move Tim Clark to Tim Clark (golfer)? This page was moved over a year ago, at my request, because the golfer is clearly the primary subject (based on page links). Please move it back the way it was, you've broken over 100 links. Tewapack (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, consensus on talk, I have requested move back at WP:RM.--Artiquities (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Chris wool the harder.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chris wool the harder.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Niccolò Paganini

Hi Artiquities, please see my edit summary in reply to your edit to the Paganini page. Graham87 14:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have just seen the "no infobox on classical and opera" guideline... --Artiquities (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Maurizio Pollini

Per this guideline, I reverted your edit adding the infobox to the Pollini article.THD3 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have just seen the "no infobox on classical and opera" guideline... --Artiquities (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensation

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to contemporary visual art articles. I notice you've been trimming the YBA template, and I'm interested in why you think taking part in Sensation isn't enough to qualify as a YBA.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your interest in this subject. Have you looked at the listing at Sensation (art exhibition)#Artists_exhibited_in_Sensation.

I was following this Tate entry as indicative. It seems that the term is most often used to refer to the scene of art which grew up from a series of artist-led warehouse shows (i.e. the artists were overtly "entrepreneurial"). Sensation was an exhibition of a wide range of art that Saatchi had collected through the '90s some of which was entriely unconnected to that scene, or Goldsmiths and the Michael Craig-Martin ethos. If the list were expanded to include all those then it would include many artists under the moniker who are not British, not young, etc.--e.g., to include Ron Mueck, Mona Hatoum, or Langlands & Bell, as YBAs would be patently absurd.----Artiquities (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incompleteness

This edit of yours puzzles me. The sheer length of the list may suggest that it's complete. When I added the warning that it wasn't complete, I had good reason to think that it wasn't complete, but I lacked the time and stamina to trawl through Worldcat etc to ensure that the list was as complete as humanly possible. Have you done a similar check to ensure that it is complete? If not, then what's "unencyclopedic" about warning that it isn't? -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, well, my thought was that many lists of books and other things on WP are incomplete, but this is not typically flagged-up as a flaw as it were.--Artiquities (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Damien Hirst 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Damien Hirst 2008.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Flickr page, you'll see that it's marked as by-nc-sa — non-commercial licenses aren't permitted on Wikipedia, except for images that could be uploaded under fair use even without the non-commercial permission. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, right-you-are then.--Artiquities (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Kerry Katona crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kerry Katona crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Jerry Saltz

Hi Artiquities. I appreciate that you tried to clarify a reference to Sister Wendy AND John Cheever that I admit was unclear. I see now what is unclear and it may be too tricky a copyediting problem for Wikipedia to handle. In the article that is referenced Jerry actually compares himself simultaneously to both a young swimmer from the John Cheever store (museums being his swimming hole) and to Sister Wendy. In fact, it is the Cheever reference that may be more important to his statement, because he was trying to express his fondness for museum-wandering as a leisurely summer pursuit. However, I thought that the imagery that he used and the various pop cultural sources that he draws from are a good example of his stylistic voice, and demonstrates how he thinks of himself to in relation to his audience. It'd be great if we could figure out a way to say the whole thing better because I think the current version takes the Sister Wendy thing out of context. Warrenking (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP; SAY listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WP; SAY. Since you had some involvement with the WP; SAY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim and Sue

Hello Artiquities, i wonder if you can advise me. I have added a number of 'non free use' images to Tim Noble and Sue Webster's wikipedia page. All of these have been disputed with a threat to remove them. I will write further justifications for these to remain as they are needed, i think, to explain the work, however i was looking at damien hirst's entry and saw that his famous shark work is included under a fair use argument. my question is could i make this argument for the tim noble and sue webster works? User:Mcarse

Hello Mcarse, Wikipedia is free, that is the idea, non-free content can only be used where is really is unavoidable, you could probably make a case for one or two non-free but not all. Have a look at Sarah Morris and Keith Coventry there you will see that the images are from Creative Commons. With the portrait of article subject there is no case to be made for non-free (I.e., image must be free to use). Hope that is useful.Artiquities (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Artiquities, thanks for responding and sorry for delay in getting back (have been unwell). Re Tim and Sie portrait, is there an argument to be made for this on the gounds that their work is about themseleves and their relationship and that therefore their image and their control of it is inextricably part of their work? On another matter - more advice - I see that all the image files I put up are marked for deletion and are due to come down by the end of today. I want to either write further rationalisations for these or re-submit them through Creative Commons, as you suggest. Is there a way of getting a stay of execution, so to speak? User:Mcarse

Blatantly commercial image

Hi, I uploaded the image board of old Toby Pimlico t-shirts, I have to disagree about them being blatantly commercial, as they have not been available commercially since the 1990's. I used the image to illustrate the transition of Toby Mott from his engagement with radical youth politics, music and direct action through art, to being a "gold card anarchist & fashion millionaire" as described by Stewart Home. http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/level2/dance.htm The shirts wear rather iconic in the 90's and worn by many celebrities of the day, the image clearly indicates this. All the best Chaosandvoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School of London

Hi, just wondering what you thought of having Patrick Swift included in that list of "School of London" artists? He is not mentioned in that link you used as a ref but he was certainly part of that group and a figurative artist; actually, many of those artist were part of his ‘X’ magazine. - TisTRU (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Helen chadwick.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Helen chadwick.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nairne

Hi,

Firstly, please excuse any errors as I am extremely new to the behind the scene of wikipedia. I mistakenly edited information about Andrew Nairne (mistakenly as I work for the organisation that he directs). I notice that you have contributed to Andrew Nairne's wiki entry. A small number of facts are now incorrect and I am struggling to find a way to correct them. Most importantly, he has a new job and is now Director of Kettle's Yard, University of Cambridge. Less importantly, he is no longer chair of VAGA (Visual Arts & Galleries Association) and is a past Nuffield Fellow.

Sources: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/kettle%E2%80%99s-yard-appoints-new-director/ (although Kettle's Yard is part of Cambridge University) http://www.explorermagazine.co.uk/2012/01/qa-andrew-nairne-of-kettle%E2%80%99s-yard/ Cambridge Magazine http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/All-change-at-city-art-gallery-17082011.htm Cambridge News

The images on these web sites are also free to be used.

Apologies if this is the incorrect way of broaching this matter. Any help much appreciated.

Best wishes, Susie Biller, Kettle's Yard --Kettlesyard (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Director of Kettle's Yard and placed former positions to past tense. It is a bit more complicated with photos. If you get a user name that refers to a unique individual person and not an organisation then you could make factual edits with references. - Artiquities (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for responding so quickly and making the edits. Susie--Kettlesyard (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Landy crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Landy crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Veilhan

Hello Artiquities, I've seen that you rated Xavier Veilhan's article as too commercial. As I'm quite familiar with his work, I'd like to improve the article. I think it could be good to write a section about the key concerns of his work, and another about the evolution of his career. Also, I'd like to re-write the resume so only the most significant exhibitions would appear. Do you see some other improvements to do ? Also, most of the interesting articles about him are written in french, can I still use them as references ? As I'm new on WP, I'd like to do the right things... Thanks Hugodeverchere (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hugodeverchere, it is worth reading WP: NPOV before you start - use assertions and facts that can be verified - WP: V and so too think about what your sources are - WP: RS. Yes you can use any language article - assuming it is a reliable source. Let's look at one example - in the current article it is stated that the artist is one of the leading artists of his generation or some such, but this is not really mentioned in the Artforum article that is used as a reference. The point is, he may well be a leading artist of his generation, it is better if the reader just gets presented with the facts and form their own opinion. Watch out for WP: PEA. Good luck and welcome to WP. Artiquities (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Smith (academic and philosopher)

Hello Artiquities. Regarding your move of the above article, according to the subject's Buffalo University page he is in fact an Ontologist. Additionally, there is a current OTRS request asking that the page be moved back or to something more like "Barry Smith (academic and ontologist)." Specifically, the word "philosopher" is being disputed. Would you be opposed to a slight change in the wording of the article title? Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tiptoety, this is something for talk page then - There is no list of ontologists - ontology is one aspect of philosophy - so philosopher is better for casual reader to grasp. This is not something that an Open-source Ticket Request is going to resolve though. Artiquities (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Education Program Fall 2012

Hi, Artiquities!

I saw you had a userbox that says you're a professor at a university, and I thought you might be interested in participating in the Wikipedia Education Program for the coming term. If you're still teaching a class and would like your students to edit Wikipedia as an assignment, please email me at jmathewson@wikimedia.org to talk more about the program! Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phillips de Pury for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phillips de Pury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillips de Pury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Artiquities (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allan McCollum's "Surrogate Paintings" date correction

Hello Antiquities,

Regarding your change to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_McCollum:

Your date correction "17:30, 24 June 2012‎ Artiquities (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,865 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Date more accurate)" was incorrect. You may be thinking of McCollum's series "Plaster Surrogates," first exhibited in 1983. The "Surrogate Paintings" were an earlier series (1978- 1982), first shown in NYC in 1978 and frequently thereafter, and further shown in places like Kansas City, Atlanta, three different galleries in Switzerland, the Marian Goodman Gallery in New York, and at his solo exhibition the Yvon Lambert Gallery, Paris, in 1980. It was the "Surrogate Paintings" series that became well-known back then, and his "Plaster Surrogates" were a later reference to these earlier works.

I undid your correction, I hope this makes sense to you

Trackway (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see - my aim was to link the artist with late-80s art scene - he was around in 1970s though for sure. Artiquities (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_wool_the_harder

Hola Antiquities and kudos for the excellent contributions. However, I did come across a very minor matter which you might like to review. It can be found in [Chris_wool_the_harder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chris_wool_the_harder.jpg] comments section:

"Wade Guyton Untitled (2008) Epson UltraChrome inkjet prints on linen 84 x 587".

The painting is by Christopher Wool, not Wade Guyton, probably titled (?), and it could not possible be 84 x 587"...

Cheers

--Xxx&booze (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HuffingtonPost.fr Article August 31, 2012

An nyoung ha seh yo Artiquities -- once again I have come across your fine handiwork in Damien Hirst // Plagiarism section. Nice work and reference below:

-- (cur | prev) 11:39, 3 September 2010‎ Artiquities (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,926 bytes) (+219)‎ . . (→‎Appropriation and plagiarism claims: added reliable NPOV ref. to consideration of these claims

Given my keen interest in this subject, I recently read another interesting and related article:

The HuffingtonPost, Le Prix Marcel Duchamp 2005 devrait-il être réattribué à LG Williams? 01/09/2012

Some editors have been trying to post this article in Wiki but they have been unsuccessful for no apparent reason. Therefore, I would like pass along the article to an experienced editor on the subject for your review so it can be posted in Wiki. Bless you for your time and attention in this interesting subject -- --Xxx&booze (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Avedon

I am not a Wikipedia "person" but I am THE owner/operator of the Seth Poppel Yearbook Library which houses 10,000 high school yearbooks of famous personalities. We have been doing biographical research since 1979 and do not rely on hearsay or guesses or circumstantial evidence. In the case of Richard Avedon, you evidently ignored my source (which I did not know how to reference in Wiki style, as my only interest was in trying to change a WRONG entry.) Richard Avedon wrote extensively for the DeWitt Clinton Magpie (literary magazine) and has articles as far back as 1939 in the Magpie under the name Richard Avedon and while he was alive. When we acquired the 1941 DeWitt Clinton HS yearbook (with James Baldwin) we hoped to also find Richard Avedon. We also immediately noticed the Richard P. Avonda entry in the book (especially since it was two above Baldwin's) and mused as to whether that might have been his original name (as was quite common with many of the 2nd generation immigrant family attendees at Dewitt Clinton during that era.) We contact Richard Avedon's office in the mid 1980's and were informed that his birth name was, in fact, Richard Avedon and that the presence of a Richard P. Avonda was a coincidence. We have run into aboiut 20 similar kinds of situations out of the 10,000 people in our library with very confusing names/etc. When I noticed an auction on Ebay which cited the Wiki reference for a Richard P. Avonda, I referred back to my notes. In order to update, since Richard Avedon is no longer alive, I contacted the archivist at the Richard Avedon Foundation. I received an e-mail from them which is quoted below (if you e-mail to me directly at: sethpoppel at aol dot com I can send you a forward of the original).

"Hello Seth,

I am glad that you wrote. We have tried several times to change that Wikipedia entry, and someone keeps changing it back! Richard P. Avonda is absolutely not Richard Avedon. Also, Richard Avedon absolutely did not have a twin brother named Frank! We have a birth certificate, family tree, and many personal family photographs to verify the fact that Avedon is, in fact, the correct surname and that it was never changed - not by Richard Avedon or by his father, grandfather, etc. This is a rumor that has been based on the yearbook photo that you attached to your email, and which has been passed around as "evidence" on websites like classmates.com. The yearbook photo is of someone named Richard P. Avonda, a young man who happens to have a name that is similar to the photographer's. They are emphatically not the same person.

It would be wonderful to crush this rumor once and for all.

Grateful for your diligence,

Audrey Chaney

Audrey Nevada Chaney Archive Manager The Richard Avedon Foundation 25 W. 53rd St. Floor 16 New York, NY 10016 (212) 581-5058"

Thus I edited the entry to correct it. If you would prefer to believe the misguided conclusions of writers in popular magazines rather than a primary source who is in possession of his birth certificate and is intimately involved with his foundation then that is your mistake and indicates that you have more interest in your ego than correct information.

Seth Poppel ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethpoppel (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing birth/death dates

Hello. Please stop inserting places of birth to lead sections as you did here. This is in violation of MOS:DOB. See also the relevant discussion in my talk page: User_talk:Omnipaedista#Editing_birth.2Fdeath_dates. Please consider undoing some of your latest edits. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Gallaccio

Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS and refrain in the future from adding material to articles that cannot be verified through reliable sourcing. And please discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page first. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping

Please note that when you crop an existing image already in Wikipedia, you must show the link back to the original image, otherwise you are technically infringing the copyright, as you have not fulfilled the attribution. I've done File:Rob crop.jpg and File:Tillmans crop.jpg for you - I think there's some more that you need to do. (NB to link to an image put : after the first set of square brackets - e.g. [[:File:Tillmans crop.jpg]] - then you get the link and not the picture). Otherwise they are liable to get deleted. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you have deleted two contributions to the YBA's pages on the grounds of what validity? The ground has changed in the UK and the media is no longer supine to these artists who have had their day or become part of the art establishment as RA's. As the UK is in recession and the media and Government are busy exploring the huge amounts art in storage, surely it is in the interests of academic truth to state that there are a number of significant art historians and philosophers who characterize their work as kitsch, devoid of both aesthetic and artistic value? Frankly the truth is the truth but wikipedia doesn't appear to need or require that?

From 213.162.108.168