User talk:Freshacconci/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Freshacconci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Star
Keep up the good work. Tyrenius 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For your work upholding BLP. Tyrenius 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
Congratulations
Well deserved, you are doing really good stuff these days. Modernist 05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Add this to the 'well-deserved' column. Congratulations. JNW 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of duplicate names of artists in the article New York School
Hi freshacconcispeaktome! I wonder if you could help me to solve the following problem: One year ago when I started to edit Wikipedia I tried to create a Category: New York School artists. This attempt was deleted. Category: New York School artists. The Category was deleted but the comments requested the list of the New York School artists. i.e.: Comment: I think "New York School" is not completely interchangeable with Abstract Expressionism. Certainly there were non-NY abstract expressionists. I'm not sure the term "New York School" was widely applied to anyone who was not an abstract expressionist. I think a list might be better; I also think we need to clarify the criteria for inclusion, because something like this is useless to the reader if criteria are not clear. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC). In the past I listed the New York School artists of the 1950s. The list changed by the addition of artists who were not New York School artists and the dates of birth showed that some of the newly listed artists in 1950 had to be 3 or 5 years old or 13 and 15 in 1960. When you looked at the biographies of these artists it became clear that they did not belong to the list of New York School artists. (New York School artists are not equivalent to artists from New York City.) Some of the other added artists had nothing to do with this specific group of abstract expressionists. I added new references and reentered the list of artists under the newly referenced title so the readers would find the information through clear criteria. The problem is at hand that now there is the old list which has a number of duplicate entries. I would like to delete the duplicate names for the sake of clarity. Would you be kind enough to let me know how to proceed? Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
I hope you are well and the vacation is only for clearing your thoughts. The list that I was concerned about is partially fixed. It still has to be corrected but as always "one step at a time and we will get there." Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
Toronto
What is the deal there? I left a post on the TO Project, no action yet, and you look to be the most recently active member there. It is almost like you're caught in the grip of paralysing winter weather or something. I wouldn't know, I moved to Vancouver 354 days ago (exactly)
Anyway the Toronto article, in External Links, there is a stripe "Templates" and "Show" shows nothing. There is some kind of screw-up, I just took out a lame template, someone needs to fix it up.
Don't you guys have anyone who's template-worthy? Or paying attention at all? LOL just poking, waiting for the federal gov to save your lame butts as usual?Franamax (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Honest, I don't know how to fix the Toronto article - can you help? Franamax (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Message to 88.111.104.111
Hi!, thanks for the message, but it was definetly not me who made the edits!lol!!. Will try harder to make edits signed in more often now!lol!. My IP or the person who made the edits must have a dynamic one. 88.111.104.111 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not vandalise
I did not "vandalise" those pages, at least I didn't mean to. -68.224.117.152 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Avant-garde artists
What makes you believe that Pygmalion Books is not an avant-garde book arts collective? If your personal bias does not like the way I write about them in other articles, fine, but at the very least, it was simply not wrong to add them to the SI article or the list of avant-garde artists article. I would like to further understand why you removed them, it's really not making sense to me. What is your criteria for even understanding what avant-garde art is? Working in a university has very little to do with it. Neither does reading Renato Poggioli from an uninvolved art history class vantage point. From what I'm able to glean about you in your profile section, I find it doubtful that you have ever contributed to anything resembling avant-garde art, hence it seems doubtful that you are much of a judge. I would be very happy to have you prove me wrong!
For instance, I see that you "work for a media arts festival." Pygmalion Books has explicitly rejected the formal 'festival' procession as an avant-garde tendency (i.e. http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23974#p23974) in the past. Their bulletins are also loaded with comments on the situationists left and right, including the desire to move beyond them in practice. Have you read these bulletins prior to rejecting them? You seem to be entirely without any sort of coherent qualification or reason to be editing them out in my opinion. I would like to understand your motives.
Also, I did not add my "personal analysis" to the Arthur mag page. I quoted a verbatim passage from one of their bulletins.
Furthermore, I would like to add that prior to this latest blind crack down, Pygmalion Books has been in the SI external link section for nearly a year now. It's painfully obvious that in many cases where it used to be Ok for their mention to be there, now any links related to them are simply being censored in the most uncritical of ways and by very poor readers who seem to have no idea what they're talking about beyond relating the mass deletion to other instances of "spam." But this makes no sense at all. If some contributions were bad, this is not grounds to remove them all, especially not the contributions that have been long standing up until now.205.200.244.98 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I would like to directly contest the fragments of Wikipedia policy that you copy/pasted to my talk page. I find the policy to be entirely irrelevant in this situation. Pygmalion Books is not by any means an "inappropriate external link" and you have shown no evidence to the contrary thus far. I am very aware that Wikipedia should not be "used for advertising or promotion." The relevance and notability of this group goes beyond this admonition. I am not "affiliated" with Pygmalion Books. I live in the same city as them and heard about them through word of mouth. The external link that I am trying to defend, which has been in the article for a long time by now, does not promote a product. In fact, considering how Pygmalion Books does not actually sell any of their books, the link does this far less than any of the other publishers listed in the external links section (who do sell books, thus the link is promoting their products in a much stronger sense -- already this is, if not laughable, at least dismissible to anyone who has ever attempted a serious reading of the situationist concept of recuperation; again your actions here would seem to illuminate how little you seem to actually know of both the subjects you attempt to police). You tell me to "see the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations" but nothing written here goes against the reason for adding this publisher. I am aware that "Wikipedia uses nofollow tags" and have absolutely no concern about whether or not the external link I add alters their "search engine rankings." 205.200.244.98 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
freshacconci, do you plan on responding to this? I can see below that you have been doing other things in the mean time. I'm not making any demands -- I'm only curious. 205.200.244.98 (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page-it is appreciated. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why tag for deletion? It was obviously a new user's attempt at creating a disambiguation page, why not clean it up? J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see where you are coming from. We do have a lot of DAB pages based around surnames, but I agree this one is less useful, with (currently) only one real link, and I can't find anything else worth linking to. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ringo Starr and English language articles
Hello, Im not sure what is going on with these articles being related to my IP address, I have not however vandalised the Ringo Starr article or English language articles, nor has anyone else used my computer to do that, it is possible, that my IP belonged to a previous ISP user and hence I am recieving this message, though I am not sure, however I am not a vandal.
Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.61.203 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
beatles
Hey I removed a completely unsourced section on the beatles article as per wiki policy and you reverted me. Why? The had been a tag on that section for over a week saying it needed improving or deletion and nothing was done. Im supprised at your actions considering for long establishment here. Realist2 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If its correct or not is not the point and I think your fully aware of that. It still has to be sourced and If it isn`t it can be removed. I dont care if its true the point is that theres nothing to prove it. Im quite supprised by your comment there, it goes against wiki ideology entirely. You must have a liking for the beatles. I will leave it a week I suppose it could do with some more time. Other than that it must be deleted.Realist2 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont have an agenda against the beatles but your statment that the information is definately true and doesn`t need questioning seemed at the very east a little biased, i am so if ths was a mistake but im sure you can see how i made the mistake. I look forward to seeing the improvements over the next week. Yours Realist2 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
While adding a tag can be helpful, it is often more helpful and courteous to go to the talk page and highlight specific words, sentences or sections you feel need attention, rather than leaving a generalizing tag and leaving other editors of the article to attempt to guess which words you feel are peacock terms. Thanks. --TM 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have emailed you. Tyrenius (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Problem seems ongoing, the latest from an anon, so it's semi-protected now. Tyrenius (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Warhol
I have added internationally known pop artist and music industry legend Sid Maurer a/k/a Sidney Randolph Maurer to the Warhol page, because he was the other of only two artists in the 1950's hired by RCA Records and he was instrumental in Andy's early career prior to Warhol going off into more "serious" art. When Sid met Andy, he was doing shoe drawings for I. Miller shoe advertisements. They remained friends until Warhol's death. This is factual info that is essential in describing Warhol's early career. A bio on Warhol is factually incomplete without the inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenStuartCohen (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help ~
Much appreciated ~ Since I am brand new here, any and all help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again! Kind regards ~ Best / Ben BenStuartCohen (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) BenStuartCohen@aol.com
71.247.78.188 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Terence Koh71.247.78.188 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Terence asked that I have his accurate information posted to his wikipedia page. Please allow me to make appropriate edits to his page.
What do you need from me in order to confirm this? Terence is annoyed at the incorrect information posted about him.
terence koh
if need be I can have his gallery email you verification, please let me know how to do so. you can contact me at ass@asiasongsociety.com.
71.247.78.188 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
can't see where to contact tyranius, sorry. this dialogue interface is new to me and doesn't make much sense. I'd gladly have someone from his gallery send his updated information, if you could give me a viable avenue to do so. 71.247.78.188 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been emailed and replied as follows:
- Sorry for any problems. However, the reason for this is that editors have to be very careful about letting people put unsourced information in articles, especially about living people. You may be genuine but there's no way to tell if someone is impersonating you - and imagine how annoyed you would be if that happened and false information was added.
- Basically we need information to have a reliable source. The Saatchi Gallery is one such, which says he lives in New York.[1] Just update Terence Koh's official web site with any info that needs to be included. Post a request on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terence_Koh, stating the correction(s) needed and link to the web page where it can be found. Then editors will be very happy to correct the article.
- Tyrenius (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could email me directly or via the wiki interface. Tyrenius (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Got it. Tyrenius (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet
I am greatly offended by your insinuations. How dare you imply that I am a sock puppet! I am a real person. Kindly withdraw your accusations or I will be forced to take action!
Regards
The Cat with 2 Heads (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like this has been resolved (although I was looking forward to seeing what "action" he was going to take). freshacconcispeaktome 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Miaouing? (twice). Tyrenius (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello Freshacconci, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Tyrenius (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you reverted an edit I had made to this page. I would like to ask you why you feel that opinions about this particular singer should be in an article about a song he has performed once. The song's article really shouldn't be about critique of him as an Americal Idol contestant, in my opinion. I don't see how it is necessary, and according to Wikipedia policy, I think it would then have to be balanced so that we also have some of the positive opinions about Sanjaya in the article. But like I say, I feel it would be much better to just steer clear of that whole discussion and leave such observations for Sanjaya's own article. But I'd like to hear your reasoning for wanting this in the article, so that's why I'm asking rather than starting an edit war :-) Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion on this subject at Talk:You Really Got Me#Sanjaya Malakar cover version. The Malakar reference has been repeatedly inserted and deleted and I ultimately concluded the notability of his version depends entirely on his perceived reputation – good or bad. If it's deleted, it will only pop up again, sans the reference to his controversiality, which therefore renders his version's notability nil. Again. Grimhim (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I agree, there may be very good reasons for not having his version on there at all. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Terry Ananny Artist
It appears that Wikipedia takes a very hard stand against commercial art galleries as illustrated by the recent editorial decision to remove all references to commercial art galleries in the content from this artist's article. Perhaps not all details regarding collections and exhibitions are necessary to list, but certainly editing out all references of a commercial nature could be seen as ommissive by some. Further edits were also made to discredit the integrity of the artist by attaching an unflattering 'conflict of interest' tag at the top of the article. Where is the conflict? The sources the edit attempts to discredit are all verifiable third party sources for example: The artist had work appearing on the Canadian Health Services Research and Development - annual report cover 2000. Verifiable archive files of the artist biography information are held in: National Art Gallery of Canada Library Files - Artist's in Canada Art Gallery of Ontario - Edward P Taylor Files Musée d'art Contemporain (Montreal)- Media Files Several ommissions were made to year references for selected work for card collections of Children's Wish Foundation and Cornerstone 52 Foundation - all verifiable. Significant information pertaining to the artist's early career development was completely removed. Other hard copy verifiable material which references the artist is contained in the Magazin'art publication of a feature story of the artist appearing in their winter edition 1999/2000 - this was also removed from the article. I would like to add references made to the artist in: "The Collector's Guide to Canadian Artist's at Auction" Volume 1 and Volume 4. The Quebec Ministry of Education selection of image for a curricular related publishing in the spring of 2008 as well as to mention the several major auction houses that also contain verifiable third party sources of records of the artist's work in auction. For example Levis Art Auction's lists the artist in this manner as well as Hall's Auction House and many paintings have been also been auctioned at Hodgins Art Auction.
Jane Rushmore
Doctor WHo Prime Minister
Hi; you accidentally nominated that article for deletion even though i'd already done so; see here for the original (my) one. I've put a speedy-tag on your (second) one.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I wondered if you could provide any of that media coverage you mentioned? Tyrenius (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Franz Biberkopf (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)/Re;Defastenism
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for your information regarding my "vandalism". I'm genuinely sorry that I seem to altering the information currently displayed but much of it is either wrong or biased. Once again,I must remind you that Padraic E.Moore does not wish to be labelled as Christy Moore's son in this context. The Defastenists did not show at the Irish Museum of Modern Art. That was a misprint in Irish Times in which an architectural critic was asked about the cutural highlights of 2006. Several comments were mistakenly combined in the editing process. Furthermore,the information regarding the Celebration on the Guinness estate is reductive and misleading as is much of the description of the groups continued practice. This group of practitioners have effectively been misrepresented by this entry. If I make some changes in the coming weeks and subsantiate them according to sources etc,will they be retained?
regards,
Franz B
abstract art
Please let some decent information show up on the page about abstract art. Unless we can start making it not be a completely stupid and factually wrong article, then we won't have time to bother posting citations. Your actions seem contrary to the goal of the free flow of accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.10.85 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page-it is appreciated. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Scott Listfield
Hey there, I'm still a bit lost as to why you have deleted Scott Listfield's entry on wikipedia. Maybe I don't know the exact format that has been prescribed for influential artists to be listed, but it is apparent that the moderators of wikipedia artists don't care to check the references and national publications that validate them, or even take the time to read the entries. The page was up for less than 15 minutes.
I fully believe that you have only helped close the scope of wikipedia's grasp on influential art in a misinformed and poor manner.
-Jason Chase —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonchase (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Liverpool UK
Canadians really say, Liverpool, UK? Go on, look me straight in the screen, keep a straight face and tell me you would would say to one of your friends: "I'm going to visit Liverpool UK." Cheers:) Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Go on then, I believe yer, you've got an honest keyboard:) Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
tags added to October (journal)
You added cleanup and original research tags to the article October (journal) but neglected to supply any discussion to indicate what passages prompted this assessment. Please supply details to the discussion page. Thanks Grhabyt (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:User Hamilton, Ontario
A tag has been placed on Template:User Hamilton, Ontario requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver Edits
My edits were far from "unconstructive" and do not qualify as "vandalism" by definition. They were intended to point out to the reader that most, if not all, the text in the article is woefully out of date, speculation, biased opinion, or a deliberate attempt to deceive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.109.60 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
article: Paul Salvator Goldengreen
Ouestion to user Freshacconci: Which passages of the article Paul Salvator Goldengreen has to become more neutral? And how can I contribute. The article is based upon an article in the German wikipedia at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Salvator_Goldengruen. Paul Ricken (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Tried to better up the article according to the different aspects. If there are passages that are not accurately enough , please let me know. Paul Ricken (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A Day in the Life, extra beat
I see that you reverted a change I made on A Day in the Life. Perhaps this is because I should have brought the topic to discussion first. Forgive me if this is the case; I am new to this. In any case, I wrote something on the Talk page for A Day in the Life regarding this. --Jeferman (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
just getting into it
i FA -- thanks for the heads up... i did not plan to do this before May, but the subject was preying on my mind, and i came up with this pretty decent i think formulation... it is now out there - and hopefully other folks can roll it forward, take it apart, what have you... and i'll check back when my life slows down! 131.247.129.44 (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. freshacconcispeaktome 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Infobox
Prototype at {{Infobox Art Group}} with documentation which is transcluded onto it at {{Infobox Art Group/doc}}. I've based it on Infobox Artist and have changed some of the obvious parameters, but have not worked properly on them, so this needs to be done before they are put into use. Basically you have to change the template and the doc so they match each other. Tyrenius (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Revisions
Hi there, I saw that you deleted my entry regarding the Neo-Externalist Manifesto, which is an underground art movement currently active in London, England. I feel that this manifesto is a very important and significant development within the genre. Please allow other people to view it and decide for themselves on its relevance. Thank you. S7740 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by S7740 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Compromise
Hi there, the inclusion of this manifesto on wikipedia is not an attempt to gain exposure or publicity for the movement behind it, but instead an attempt to provide relevant information to the wider public. The manifesto has already been widely circulated at private views and art colleges in the London area and has quite a few adherents to its stated doctrines, therefore I feel it is important that this information should be freely accessable to those who may require it for research purposes etc. So while I have to say I can't agree with your position, I do nevertheless understand your concerns, and so in the spirit of compromise I'm going to create an entry in the more basic 'list of other contemporary manifestos on the internet' instead of the larger section 'examples of manifestos on the internet' with its accompanying explanations. I hope this solution is mutually agreeable, because some of the manifestos already listed there would not necessarily fulfill your personal criteria for notability either, but are by definition 'contemporary manifestos on the internet' (as stated by the title of the list) just like the Neo-Externalist manifesto. I would also refer you to the discussion section of the art manifestos page, and the particularly relevant points made by Tyrenius.
Best wishes.--S7740 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted the entry and commented at User_talk:S7740#Neo-Externalist_Manifesto. Ty 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I did NOT delete nor edit anyone's message. NO. I just wrote a comment when i wasnt logged in, then a logged in and signed. You probably thought i signed the message instead of someone else. That was MY message. :)
Boky (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, my bad. I will be more careful
Boky (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary art gallery
It was not my indention to spam. I just thought of adding an information regarding the new idea - borrowing & exchanging art. Any better idea? Cqixk (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
can you explain me why you erase the 2 links i put? Bob Verschueren is a great belgium landart artist. Some monographies are printed about him. it's not because he his not knowing in the USA that he don't exist. And the blog art-nature on blogspot is a french blog about landart international actuality, there is no internet site about that in france. thanks to answer me the link to verschueren site : http://www.bobverschueren.net/bvn/bvnindex.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprune (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
paige powell
hi
paige powell was advertising director for Interview magazine in teh 1980s, and was frequently warhol's "date" for dinner parties etc. i've done an oral history wiht her, in which she told me that warhol wanted her to help him adopt a baby; apparently he was feeling the need to ba a father. she dated jean-michel basquiat for some time in teh 1980s. she took many photos of warhol.
AWMarchivist (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I DON'T LIKE PREJUDICE ACCUSATIONS, DO YOU?
Jimbo Wales never even erased the content, it was a user named Squeakbox. He falsly accussed me of labelling Thresa Knott of as a white supremacist. I have only been saying that when Ms. Knott labelled me as "a stalker," it was the equivalent of a white supremacist labelling a black person as inferior because of their race. I love to edit film I knew anything about who this user was. I have been editing different film content before the issue, and I always try to preserve the NPOV policy. Best.Kevin j (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care. Don't delete others' talk page comments. freshacconcispeaktome 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem
I've listed the problem at WP:ANI. Corvus cornixtalk 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
edits
I only removed my own comments, this is not forbidden by wikipedia is it?--S7740 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, first you could have simply asked. Deleting comments, anyone's comments, on someone else's talk page is a bit uncivil. Second, you seemed to have started an edit war with another editor over this. Finally, you claimed ownership and copyright control over your comments. As was mentioned, you don't own the words you write within Wikipedia. The fact that anyone can check the history also prevents "erasing" comments completely. But in the end, it's just bad form. Talk pages are records of the discussions that take place, and unless something libelous was written or private information revealed, deleting comments usually isn't done. You can delete comments on your own talk page, but going through other editors and deleting comments – even if their your own – is impolite. Whether it's forbidden within Wikipedia, you'll need to check with someone more experienced with wikipolicy than myself. But I choose to keep all comments more or less as is and periodically archives all comments. And that's my choice to make, not yours. Thanks. freshacconcispeaktome 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't intentionally 'start' an edit war, I just didn't realise that somebody was instantly reverting my edits, so I thought something wasn't working. So please don't jump to negative conclusions. I now realise I don't have copyright over the comments, but nevertheless, their removal is not forbidden. Terms such as 'uncivil', 'bad form' and 'impolite' are your own subjective personal judgements and therefore completely irrelevant regarding wikipedia policy, which you freely admit to being ignorant of. Such ignorance totally invalidates your claim to have the sole control over my comments, and therefore I respectfully suggest that your assertions about whose choice it is have no credibility at all. Please refrain from stating things as fact if you haven't made any attempt to clarify the rules. Thank you.--S7740 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, other editors have clarified the rules and pointed out Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments to you. And since Wikipedia is edited anonymously, all your comments are attributed to S7740 not your real name, so no harm done. In the end, as I have said, I prefer to keep all comments as is. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- The comments in question are located here for the sake of posterity. S7740 feels his comments are not part of the larger discussion. I disagree: part of this sort of community is the dialogue that takes place in building this encyclopedia. Yes, that's hopelessly Utopian of me. In the end S7740 had initially attempted to insert some information into the written history of a topic. When two editors challenged this, he became belligerent (and, dare I say, often pedantic) in his frustrations: Wikipedia simply wasn't doing what he wanted it to do. We were all at fault. We moved too slow. We were pedantic. freshacconcispeaktome 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, other editors have clarified the rules and pointed out Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments to you. And since Wikipedia is edited anonymously, all your comments are attributed to S7740 not your real name, so no harm done. In the end, as I have said, I prefer to keep all comments as is. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't intentionally 'start' an edit war, I just didn't realise that somebody was instantly reverting my edits, so I thought something wasn't working. So please don't jump to negative conclusions. I now realise I don't have copyright over the comments, but nevertheless, their removal is not forbidden. Terms such as 'uncivil', 'bad form' and 'impolite' are your own subjective personal judgements and therefore completely irrelevant regarding wikipedia policy, which you freely admit to being ignorant of. Such ignorance totally invalidates your claim to have the sole control over my comments, and therefore I respectfully suggest that your assertions about whose choice it is have no credibility at all. Please refrain from stating things as fact if you haven't made any attempt to clarify the rules. Thank you.--S7740 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
re: AllTriumph POV edits
Thanks for the fanism cleanup. I am thinking that the Rock and Roll Machine International page that AllTriumph created can just be re-directed to the already existing Rock and Roll Machine album page. It has the "international" track listing as part of its content and the 'Rock and Roll Machine International' really serves no purpose. AllTriumph addedsome to the Just a Game page as well. I partial rv'd some... but a second look from you may show I should've just rv'd the whole thing. Your call. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS Just noticing the AllTriumph is pretty much ignoring your NPOV message to him and is still adding his fanboyisms and original research to Triumph related articles. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the second set of eyes. I pretty much rm'd him as he was editing... quoting policy and guideline as I went. And he seemed to catch on for the most part. But its always worth a second read through. Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.222.121 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
PS a little while ago you had NPOV tagged the Triumph main article (justly). That same day I thought it would be a great little edit project and decided to take a stab at cleaning it. After the first four paragraphs my eyes started to cross. It was/is a pretty poorly written article. I pledge that someday I will get back to it and "fan" clean the rest of it. In case you are curious as to the prolific history of this anon... I used to have an account (over 20000 edits with it) But half of my edit count was vandalism warning on IP talk pages. At the same time I noticed a growing anti-anon trend which, I felt, went against Wiki's "anyone can edit" philosophy. So I decided at least one IP range was going to contribute regularly and positively... my own. I abandoned my account for the 'purity' of anonymous editing and have never looked back. Over 30000 IP edits later and no regrets. Accounts are fine if you want to be an admin. But I rejected 15 prompts to let my username stand for RfA. I've always just wanted to edit. And you don't need an account to do that. Along the way many of my admin friends took to calling me "Libs" I am a librarian, go figure :D Feel free to call me that too. I promise I will get back to the Triumph article someday. They were acquaintances of mine back in the late 70s. Nice people, talented rock musicians who deserve a decent page about their long history. Take care! 156.34.222.121 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done
Your edit to Figurative art is appreciated. Once one school gets linked... Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Artist-run space Linkfarming
Well done on removing these. Perhaps the See-Also should also go? These always bother me - if they have a substantive link it should really be in the main text or not at all? AllyD (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
the page describing me (Rohit Gupta)
Hey --
It is true that I have contributed to content on the article describing myself (Rohit Gupta), and when you put a banner on my page, I read your motto that if I need to write about myself, I'm not notable. I agree with that, so I would prefer to have the article about me removed from the Wikipedia, rather than have people see a strange banner there accusing me of self-promotion. I can prove that each an every piece of information I had contibuted was true, and not just to my own description. So now you please edit the article after going through my background and do as you please, remove the article entirely if you think my work history is not notable, but you are not right in leaving the banner there as it is.
As for now, I'm removing it. I look forward to your edit, and I do advise you to go through my work first.
warm regards, RG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadereu (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ok...
I haven't been on wikipedia in a while and my mate andy was round and he's an ED fan. He got his account banned for vandalism and he was like can i use yours. Since the time of vandalism i have made a good edit to a page. I wont blank any pages any more for a laugh and i did know about the history button. Up to you if you reply mczack26 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia...
I cant code to well in it and i wanted to add a way for users to contact me if i (non-admin) rollback something that they did. I've changed it now. When is happend i was staring at the screen going, "Please don't ban me, it's an accident," i changed it back though. It's all fixed now anyway and i hope you dont mind that i borrowed it. nearly up to 100 good edits! Mczack26 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thanx for your support, a lot has changed since then, im now the best of friends with many of the people i originally argued with. However i have lost faith in this place, why should i an exstablished editer have to put up with racism and the ip adress involved gets a 12 hour block for calling me a nigger, black bastard, sticking porno on my page, saying i should be lynched. If wiki doesnt take racism seriously i cant stay here. Realist2 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"They Don't Care About Us" comes to mind. --Realist2 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx again i really appreciate all the support ive been getting, made me realise i am valued. Really hurt that it was a wiki friend who said all that, that really hurt, but as my barnstar shows, i am resiliant. Realist2 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Need Your Help and Advice
Hi Freshacconci ~ Hope this message finds all going well for you on your end. Don't know if you recall, but back in January you were very kind, and helpful in regard to an add to Warhol's article @ Wikipedia on behalf of the inclusion relating to his work alongside artist Sid Maurer for RCA Records in the 1950's. The line added, and edited by you, has been altered and Sid's name removed in the past day or so. I have been looking for my notes and Wikipedia password all day, so far to no avail, and thought you may be able to determine who and where the revision came from. Any and all advice that you can provide would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing back 66.176.49.51 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Kind regards, Ben Ben Stuart Cohen BenStuartCohen@aol.com 66.176.49.51 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- An editor was doing some copyediting, mainly for grammar, and removed the mention of Maurer. I'm guessing he thought it was unnecessary information and didn't realize there had been a discussion on the matter. I've put Maurer's name back in with an explanation in the edit summary pointing out the discussion. That should be that. Thanks for the heads-up. It's easy to let things like that pass by. freshacconcispeaktome 02:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again!
Thank you for your help in regard to recognizing the significance of, and maintaining the inclusion of Sid Maurer in the Andy Warhol article as it relates to that pivotal point in Warhol's career. Hope all is well ~ Talk to you soon...Best / Ben BenStuartCohen (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for voting to let me keep my UserName, but only one other user did. Thanks anyway. Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Double Warning?
While I know it is necessary to warn vandals, can I ask why you felt it necessary to add a second warning for the same edit? I'm pretty sure we generally only warn once for each vandal edit. I'd appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you please shut up?
Stop sending intimidating messages to me. Everybody has the right to edit the Wikipedia. It is not your monopoly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafarw (talk • contribs)
Your Postmodernism Revert
Howdy. It seems totally backwards from how things usually work, but I just undid your revert on Postmodernism to the version by 86.133.180.53. As was (kind of) discussed on his talk page, although he comes across as abrasive in his edit summaries and appears to have been blocked under another name/IP, his contributions to Postmodernism were actually constructive. I removed the "Rest of the article" header, which was inappropriate, but otherwise, I think he helped the article along. I still don't love the article, but it reads a lot more smoothly now.
Note that, as I may be wrong, I will not revert on this article again. Fogster (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Terry Annay
Can you help? Jane Rushmore keeps removing the conflict of interest tag from the Terry Ananny article. Her account is used solely to edit this article, she has the conflict of interest, surely it is not for her to remove it?. Teapotgeorge (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The dispute over inclusion of a band on Country rock should be settled with discussion on the talk page, not edit warring. — Scientizzle 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see that Talk:Country rock has at least the beginnings of a discussion. You might try an RfC to get wider input. In any case, it wasn't obvious vandalism, and therefore the warnings and a block aren't clearly necessary. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably. — Scientizzle 16:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:63.199.244.228, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:63.199.244.228 is pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:63.199.244.228, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Scott Walker Edits
Would you mind explaining why all my edits were deleted? The article was incorrect regarding solo albums and the article shows a distinct lack of context regarding Walker's vocal style. Mort Shuman's Brel lyrics are not necessarily 'ably' translated. That is pure opinion. The complete ignorance of the huge and overriding influence of singers like Tony Bennett, Jack Jones and Mark Murphy as well as popular composers like Michel Legrand is foolish.
Walker's albums that contain Brel-influenced songwriting do not sound like Jacques Brel. This link is constantly exaggerated for effect.
The deletion of accurate information on Walker's BBC TV series seems ridiculous as does the reinstatement of the incorrect assertion that Scott 4 was his 4th solo LP. It wasn't.
Apart from that, this article is riddled with poor grammar. I thought the idea of Wikipedia's edit facility was to avoid these sorts of errors, no to perpetuate myth.
Warm regards.
Sebesky (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This is much appreciated. I am a big fan of Mr Walker but I think it's important that the reality of his (brilliant and innovative) early work and its clear context as part of an MOR popular music is not overshadowed by later, very different work that confirms his current status as an 'outsider' artist. Many fans of his later albums prefer to imagine that he has always been an artistic rebel and I felt that previously the Wikipedia entry was rather biased to this point of view. (Oh and I'm embarrassed that I misspelt 'new' on the edit summary. Unforgiveable!) 87.114.64.105 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) ^Sorry - this was from me. I forgot to sign in. Sebesky (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
My User Talk Page
I didn't see what that user had done until a glance at my talk page's history. Thanks for taking care of it, even though my initial words to you were not entirely civil. The mark of a true gentleman. 63.199.244.228 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:65.93.73.172 & spam warnings
This is a dispute over content, not spam, and your warnings to this editor were therefore inappropriate. I for one am getting heartily sick over editors warring over whether Scaruffi should be used as a source. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums cites Scaruffi as usable, and until that changes by consensus, this kind of to-ing and fro-ing will not be tolerated. I won't revert you for two reasons: 1. it will clog up my watchlist and 2. WP:AGF. I'm thinking of an WP:RFC on the topic anyway, since it takes up way too much of my time. --Rodhullandemu 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
My deleted pages
I very much appreciate your comments...thank you. May I ask you a question? So am I to understand that you are condoning demonstrated ignorance and prejudice at the expense of proven facts and notability? Please explain...--Art4em (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on a bio about Brian Sherwin. Can you give me some feedback about this bio? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. This is my first major contribution to wikipedia so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
Be back soon
. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! But of course, it didn't last too long.... freshacconcispeaktome 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Freshacconci,
You've flagged an article called Sean Fletcher and Isabel Reichert which is an entry about me and my wife/artistic collaborator, Isabel Reichert. We are actually trying to use this entry in Wikipedia as a medium for our art, and are writing to let you in. We are creating an online art piece in which we will carry out a marital dispute over the direction of our art using the history section.
Of course, you are correct that the most recent edits are bias. You are completely justified in flagging the article, but we would appreciate your input on how we should continue without having the article completely removed.
So far, the edits are improvements to the existing article and we hope the tone is still neutral ... so far.
Thanks so much!
Sean and Isabel
talk to Sean Fletcher
--Sean.fletcher (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)May 28, 2008 @ 20:33pm
Dear Freshacconci,
You have accused me of sockpupperty connected to the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine (which I founded) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellus_Audio_Cassette_Magazine. My archivist was kind enough to check the new entry on Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine, which was created by a stranger to us, and was instructed to have a nuetral 3rd party verify the text. So I did. We work from the same office (my studio) on different computers.
Also we put some 3rd part references to Tellus on the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tellus_Audio_Cassette_Magazine
I hope that clarifies things - and that you will remove the tags at that page.
OK?
Thank you.
Dr. Joseph Nechvatal
PS: If you wish I have a logo that I created which was used for the Tellus project that I can send you, if you wish to add it to that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oidkdufjggd (talk • contribs) 11:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)