User talk:Wjblacklock

Welcome!

Hello, Wjblacklock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Hebrides (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William James Blacklock

Hello, Wjblacklock, and thanks for making a contribution to the William James Blacklock article. Nobody else had done anything to it since I created it in August and I was wondering if anyone had noticed it at all!

I thought I'd just drop you a note about the fact that I reverted one of your edits. You changed "His work was likened to that of William Mulready" to "His work was unique and ground breaking", a change which I have undone. I thought I would explain why.

"Unique" can probably be applied to any artist who is not engaged in deliberate forgery or imitation. So I don't really think that it adds much to the factual content of the article.

"Ground breaking" is one of those terms which authors sometimes use to try to make someone appear important or significant without actually stating anything specific about what they did. In a similar way, other editors describe people as "renowned", or "important", etc. In writing the article I tried to use facts to communicate his importance instead of making unspecific assertions.

The other factor to consider when editing Wikipedia is that it is very important to cite reliable references to back up the facts you are adding. The comparison with Mulready's work comes directly from the excellent biography of the artist at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2526 (I intended the [1] at the paragraph end to apply to the whole paragraph). Please feel free to add further facts, but you must also include references to your sources. If you need help with the rather cumbersome syntax for adding these, do feel free to drop me a note on my user page.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy collaborative writing and working together on building this reference work. Best regards -- Hebrides (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)==Blacklock== Many artists may be said to have been proto-Pre-Raphaelite in some way. Christoper Newell, who I know personally, is probably not the main expert on PR landscape, though he is certainly very knowledgable. That would be Allen Staley, though I'm no fan of his tedious writings. The fact is that we have a ridiculously long list already, since virtually every Victorian artist gets linked by someone or other to the PRB. There is simply no point in adding names willy-nilly. There are a number of artists who are generally acknowledged as precursors, such as John Rogers Herbert, William Mulready and William Dyce. None of these appear in the list, because that is not its purpose. In any case the PRB were not essentially landscape painters. Landscape as such was a genre of associated artists. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making any sense at all. The article should give a reasonable overview not promote fringe claims and make excessive claims for very minor and largely obscure artists. You do not even cite your claims. If you have references to the writings of Nicholas Eastaugh that support your points then provide them, but they are best placed in the Blacklock article, since the artist has almost no presence in mainstream literature on the PRB. It looks to me as though Blacklock's style is closest to the Norwich School of Crome and Cotman, and only tangentally similar to the work of the PRB. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means send articles to me. You can send them to:

Dr Paul Barlow

School of Arts and Social Sciences

University of Northumbria

Stanhope Road

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 8ST

Don't think I don't appreciate Blacklock's work. It's beautiful and very subtle. But I think you make some insupportable claims about his influence, for example you say that Blacklock's painting of Haddon Hall influenced Millais' A Huguenot, and that it contains huguenot figures. I can only see a couple of figures in modern (Victorian) dress, and the style of the lanscape is in the picturesque tradition. It doesn't look like Millais' early work at all. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know Anne Bacon, who has now retired. I'm afraid I don't know who you are, but I think it's a bit rich to be lectured on knowledge of art by someone who spells Cézanne with an S! I am actually an expert on the Pre-Raphaelites after all. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe image will not confuse anyone as ling as it is properly captioned. Removing it is utterly bizarre, since it is actually a painting by this artist. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willb.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Willb.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. TN X Man 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User:Cyfal. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Cyfal. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. ツ 18:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 18:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to User:Johnbod. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ 18:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wjblacklock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

doing nothing wrong people deleting what i have been saying. it is the truth do some research before acting. Paul Barlow was one of the

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you were right or wrong, these types of edits are unacceptable. Your block is not indefinite; I suggest you take the time to review your edits and why they are disrupting the encyclopedia. If you need any advice, please feel free to ask. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.