User talk:Printguy

Please don't remove tags from articles like you did from Peter Ilsted. I tagged it for accuracy because there are some glaring contradictions in the article (e.g two different birth dates). Better to discuss it on the talk page, or ask the editor who tagged it. Djcartwright 22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem lied in the fact that I was making changes at the exact same time that you were...and our edits passed in cyberspace. Printguy 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fireworks in Paris V by Tavik Simon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fireworks in Paris V by Tavik Simon.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It's really important that, when you put comments on talk pages, you put them down in order. If you insert a comment out-of-order, it may get missed altogether, and will make it seem as if it were written months or years before the comments below it.

It's also important, when there are sections on a talk page, not to put a comment in the wrong section, as this will mean that people will assume that the comment bears upon the subject within that section, and perhaps not otherwise. You can always create a new section (at the bottom of the page!) if you feel that no existing section is has the right topic, or if the appropriate section is old enough that you don't think that it is still being read. —SlamDiego_←T 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/E. M. Washington

The article on E.M. Washington has been nominated for deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article survived. As a result of the consensus expressed during discussion of the proposal to delete it, I have heavily edited the article to provide foot-notes and to flesh-out the story. —SlamDiego_←T 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I am very happy to see that this is no longer an advertisement for "Earl Washington"... though I think the question of whether these are actually woodcuts or merely photocopies remains. -User: Printguy, 15:21. 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented in reply at Talk:E. M. Washington. Basically, I don't think that the prints are photocopies, but even though I might be mistaken we need evidence (or notable testimony) before raising the issue in the article itself. —SlamDiego_←T 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl

Earl M. Washington is now on eBay as fineprintarchives. —SlamDiego_←T 11:05, 19 February 2009 (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]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Savannah Guthrie, you may be blocked from editing. So you insert your own opinion in a BLP as well as some sleaze. I really should block you on the spot, but I hope you won't do this again. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]