User talk:JNW

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

DYK for Bathsheba at Her Bath

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading image

Done. Hey, have a go - practice makes perfect...! Ty 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

JNW, just to say your contribs these days are many and fantastic; please accept this weird, catchy and very long tune as thanks.[1]. I was saving it for Sandy, but I think I'll spash out here instead. Paul (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am enjoying the painting-of-JNW's-day. Hopefully this continues indefinitely. As Ceoil would say, it's the least you could do.... Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Riggr. It's always good to hear from you, and your corrections of my oversights are greatly appreciated. If you know how to upload this [2] for the latest article, I'll e-mail you a virtual lager of your choice. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. I am not used to being called Riggr -- it seems like slang -- but I guess it's my first name now. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tasty (the pint--I can't comment on young sisters, unlike Ceoil).

I double-dare you to start an article on File:GSskater.jpg. It fits in with all the portrait work everyone's doing! Bit different era though, when everyone was dandier. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're on, though I might not be able to get to it for a while--will be away for a week. It's a grand picture, made a big splash for him when he was young. JNW (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another DYK nom!

Hi. I've nominated The Toilette of Esther, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That was quick work, Gosox! Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Aline Chassériau

Good morning, rescuer, would you save this poor stub Aline Chassériau like you did with Self-portrait (Chassériau) ? Your work is incredibly good and fast and we, art lovers from France, are grateful for it. --Cote d'Azur 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

Yes, I'd be delighted. I'll try to get to it later today. It would be really cool if someone uploaded an image of the painting of his two sisters standing together--that would be a great picture to write about. Cheers, JNW (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! Here is the picture for the "Aline" stub; if you like it I can ask the author to give it to you for publication in the Wikipedia: http://www.fotopedia.com/items/horden-QOi60HBsGxk I do not know if he already has the one with the 2 sisters, but he lives in Paris and goes to the Louvre to take pictures, so it would be no problem to get the one you like. He already took 90 pictures of paintings which have no articles in the WP ! We cannot upload anything because it is so difficult, but we can provide almost anything you wish. Can we, please, continue this discussion per email ? My signature is not working and I am perpetually getting into trouble for not signing my name --Cote d'Azur 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

Vickers de Ville vandal

...is back FYI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony1234512345. Ty 09:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can't believe this is still an issue, and that you've been subjected to further vandalism. All kinds of thoughts, none of which are appropriate here. Very best regards, as always, Ty. JNW (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Self Portrait with Two Circles

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep on going JNW! Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Toilette of Esther

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aline Chassériau

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Keene

thanks for your notes i will send jimmy an email tuesday i saw him in davos and he kidded me about my page.... background: a kid came up to me in Dayton? 4+ yrs ago and asked if he could do my wiki page. he did a great job. it was accurate and really quite lovely. i had not looked at my page in years. yesterday, i looked for the first time in 3? years and was just stunned at how bad the page was...how sterile, unreadable and there were two inaccuracies. i figured out how to logon and started editing. everything was accurate. i scrupulously took out all the dreaded adverbs. i studied other people like me sites. i am very private and left out my parents and children. after studying other sites i added my parents and a short sentence on my children. i even had my fathers click through (he is an item in optics) and a google map of my childhood backyard.

two basic ideas: there seems to be a delusion about facts. "Living People" make up "bios" that go out to public relations types and speaking groups that are then treated as gospel by wiki "editors". even worse is when the public relations people make up the bios. i've even had the privilege of speaking to jimmy about this. essentially, wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of readable clear fact-based articles but rather a regurgitation of public-relations bios. The other idea is of deleting family. There seems to be a massive double-standard that if a "Living Person" blathers on about their family in their "bio" its a fact versus the reality of a clear statement of facts ex-bio. do i really need to prove who my parents are?

i am worn out by all this and will figure out a two-sentence wiki page with a click through to a non-wiki readable accurate page.

thank you or your time. wikipedia is a profoundly important resource —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkeenetomkeene (talk • contribs) 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of the guidelines is that it's fine to edit one's own biography in order to correct errors--in doing so, however, one has the same responsibility as does any editor, to provide objective reliable sources for content, and to provide content that is appropriate for encyclopedic entry--it's my take that neither the information about your childhood backyard, nor what someone said at the office, belong in an article, hence my removal of such [3]. So, to answer your question, the mention of one's parents is relevant if there's an objective source that verifies your relationship to them; i.e., a newspaper or magazine article suffices. That sounds pedantic, but it's not about 'really having to prove who your parents are'; if it hasn't come up in reliable sources, then it has not reached the level of significant information. Likewise, if you are married, but there are no reliable sources that record the information, it's probably not significant enough to be in an article. A link to your father's website or other peripheral links do not qualify as sources. A Wikipedia article is not intended to be a blog or private web page. These are basic points regarding neutrality in editing, and they crop up inevitably when people edit pages about themselves. If I can help with sources and content, I'll be happy to, and that would remove any concerns with neutrality. JNW (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

thx for the note...i like the external stuff at the bottom vs Social Media what i know is the way it is now is dramatically better and more accurate than30 hours ago. again, wikipedia is a very important resource. tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a great resource. Best regards, JNW (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Skater

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

UNCSA

Dear JNW, thanks for your excellent content. I have removed the material about my departure from UNCSA, because my comments were never meant for a wide audience, only the NCSA family. I would prefer to keep it that way, Thanks for your understanding! R WilsonKv313 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Hi Ransom. Oh the stories we can share re: the marriage of art and academia. Re: Wikipedia, this is sticky for a few reasons. Your desire to remove sourced content is a conflict of interest: things were said in a public venue, and covered by the press, so they're part of the record. What's more, it's a matter of controversy, so of course people are interested--people love a disagreement. There's nothing there that appears to be libelous. That said, at the moment I'm not keen to insist on the item's inclusion. But I'd be remiss if I did not advise a reading of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Others may be less flexible on this, and I may yet seek further input. Thanks for your note, and best of luck, JNW (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is advisable, when intending comments for a limited audience, not to email them to the press: "Wilson wrote in a statement he e-mailed to the Winston-Salem Journal before the concert".[4] This tends to bring them before a wider audience, and hence makes them a legitimate inclusion in encyclopedia articles on the subject. That said, if the article were expanded, then this particular aspect would assume less prominence. Ty 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. It appears someone has already restored content. Thanks, Ty. JNW (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Automaticshutter

To begin, your comment to my page is incorrect. I am upset because I have 5+ years of experience editing for Wikipedia under several different accounts. I have started at least 50 new pages, and corrected many many more. This is not MY page - it is a page about a band who has affected my hometown in a large way. My neighbors (several, now) have asked me to write this article, and the only response I could give is "Sorry, it keeps getting deleted." I am very unhappy with your response to me. It was just plain rude. Do your research next time before you take a slash at someone's reputation please. --Automaticshutter (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am certain I haven't slashed anyone's reputation--given the presumption of anonymity, that would be fairly impossible. The onus of research is on a contributor who starts an article, and as several editors have correctly noted, there was nothing to support the subject's significance. As I noted at your talk page, a Google search returned nothing. Given your experience as an editor, you understand, as the band may not, the need for objective reliable sources, so it's difficult to make out the reason that you are taking issue with others. The hint of legal actions, and to a lesser degree, subsequent insulting of other editors on your talk page, are of concern. JNW (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So let's get this right, Automaticshutter. You regularly use sockpuppets, of which the one above is the latest. You have five years' experience of Wikipedia, but think that "my neighbours ... asked me to write this article" is a legitimate basis for one. Your current sock account is an SPA which has edited only in relation to the now deleted Undead Dinosaurs From Hell. Oh, and you are complaining that JNW has tarnished your reputation! Ty 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And in five years, you have not yet worked out how to sign talk page posts. Would you care to disclose the other accounts? Ty 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Given timing and content, edits here [5] suggest a close relationship between Automaticshutter and Nickasaur, who claims to be a band member. JNW (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help!

Just wanted to give my thanks for helping fight that IP ANON vandal. They were rather adamant on messing up articles and it was a race against time to issue the proper warnings in time to revert their next hit, wash and repeat again. I really appreciate it! Good hunting! Fox816 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes revertion

Ciao! There is a guy user:Ceoil who is patronizing several articles, reverting the standard painting infoboxes I am adding. Can you help and have him stop? Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Attilios. I'm late to this party, and it appears that the matter has been discussed at Ceoil's talk page. I often include infoboxes to articles when I start them, but I understand that their use is not required, that they are not always aesthetically pleasing, and that some editors dislike them. If you feel strongly about the formatting, you can seek consensus at the visual arts talk page [6], though I suspect it's probably come up there in the past. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Yea, well it looks as though Anonwiki has a problem with with the topic. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Nfou337's talk page.

Hello, JNW. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Landscape, Branchville

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Buttons

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I was thinking about your handiwork recently. While visiting The Huntington, I was amused to notice that all three of the Gilbert Stuart paintings in their collection depict their subjects above "the fifth button". (It's a shame that that hook wasn't used in the DYK. Oh, well.) I've enjoyed reading your expertly written articles which enlighten me with facts such as that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have liked the fifth button reference, too--it's an art history chestnut. Apparently Stuart was a bit profligate, spent money like water, undisciplined, etc. I'm thinking of the next few articles I'd like to start, but perhaps it's time to do something for print. I'm so lazy. Best regards, JNW (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart was a great American original and "The Skater" is a really important and unusual work. He did spend like crazy. I bought a really niceStuart/ Washington attribution some years ago that I think is true, but he and his minions turned out a lot of them because old George was such good business. The best Stuart story is how he promised to finish Martha and George's portraits and because he used them as sketches for the league of others, he never got around to it, so they sit unfinished to this day. I managed to see the large Stuart show several years ago in New York.ArtnHistory (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK

We have expanded one or both of these by five times, I think (if that's still the standard for existing articles). Would you submit one for DYK? You were the inspiration -- thanks for that. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I already did, recommending The Jack Pine on June 6. It's not very sexy, though, and since you've expanded it feel free to offer a better alternative hook. JNW (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please don't add pornographic images to my talk page. JNW (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know I was kidding about the above.... JNW (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You bet. I also thought the other night that this could be the first DYK in years that a passing reader actually "did know"! Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is an easy one, but I couldn't scratch up anything better: (Did you know....that The Jack Pine in no way refers to an Ontario municipal council member?). And besides, our love for esoterica is not shared in all quarters. Mencken had something to say about never underestimating.... JNW (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing the hook for being too easy, just referring to the topic. I don't know about you, but I have known anything about the subject of a DYK hook about oh, three times in my wiki career. I think the hook is fine: it does not have to be clever when referring to something particularly notable (by that I mean one of a country's most famous paintings). It has to be clever when it's about a super-specific topic, which most new articles now are. Well, now I'm thinking one could argue the opposite, but hopefully you get the idea (see first sentence). Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Tom Thomson is definitely not a household name in the States. When I've brought books on the Group of Seven into landscape painting classes, very few students have ever heard of them or know their work. I especially like Thomson, early Harris (not the later iconic iceberg pictures), and Varley. And I like The West Wind better than The Jack Pine, so I regret not waiting and proposing a DYK for that painting instead. But it's Thomson, so it's all good. JNW (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Had a reply started, but screw it, I basically agree with you re WW and will refrain from more typing about art for now. :-) Besides, I'm in a living room 8 feet away from the monitor/TV and it ain't ideal for this. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. I'm trying to start an article on Rembrandt for publication, and the wheels are grinding so slowly the sound hurts my head. JNW (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Pine (painting)

• ... that The Jack Pine (pictured), painted c. 1916–17 by Tom Thomson, is considered an iconic image of the Canadian landscape?

5x expanded by JNW (talk). Nominated by JNW (talk) at 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Verified. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted the hook as per WP:YEAR. A closing year is normally written with two digits (four digits is ok, too), but it should definitely be separated by an en dash. Sorry to be picky, but it's the homepage... Schwede66 10:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Jack Pine

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Emil Carlsen

As far as Emil Carlsen Thanks for putting the info box back on the article. I was going to have someone help me with this today. I didn't mean to wipe it out, wanted to expand it a little and make it more uniform. I don't think the "influenced" section with Jimmy Swinnerton makes much sense. An artist like Carlsen could have :influenced hundreds of artists. John Singer Sargent, thousands and so we could never put them all into a box. I want to add his awards. I enjoy the writing but as an ADD type, learning the simple programming stuff isn't my forte, so I try to hand that off to someone else. Working my way through what I have done in the last months to add notes and citations from my notes now. I will add some more to Emil Carlsen later, have to locate a couple of catalogs on him at my warehouse that I didn't have handy and some old International Studios from the 20s. Can someone take the "orphan" or "stub" label off old Carlsen? I have linked him to Twachtman and Weir and with the work I have done, he should have a "family" now. I intend to expand Weir and Twachtman and possibly Theodore Robinson later. Also lots to do on some of the French artists. I have done a lot of research and writing on the American Impressionists, the Illustrators, as well as the California artists, a number of the 19th Century French and even some on Russian and Chinese, but nothing on the Group of Seven, though I enjoy them. Thanks ArtnHistory (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced Swinnerton with Guy Rose in the infobox--if he wasn't the best example of influence, we can always remove or replace him. I also de-stubbed the article. Everyone has their strengths here, and anyone who can bring content is highly valued. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I can be of help. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Rose is excellent as a student, he actually dedicated his last Stendahl exhibition catalog to Carlsen who was a modest, much loved man. I see we have similar artistic interests Levitan, Sorolla and many of the others. At some point perhaps I should upload my shots of Sorolla's studio. I have a tremendous array of books, catalogs and bound magazines and like to rely on a broad array of things for reference. I want to do a page for Chinese Painters in the states or the states and Canada at some point, what would you recommend "Chinese Expatriate Painters" or "Chinese Artists in North America"? There is a real movement of really well trained Chinese here, teaching at many major art schools and I have information on a number of them to start.ArtnHistory (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably "Chinese Artists in North America", the more specific designation. There's an excellent Carlsen nocturne, quite large, that's part of a museum collection where I live. I'm lucky to have built a good art library over the years, though it's narrow in focus, which betrays my prejudices. Several years ago I expanded the Sorolla article--one of the surprises when you start writing here is the inconsistency, but overall it's improved remarkably in the last few years, thanks to a team of contributors. In 2006 I was appalled to read the articles on Renoir and Manet, which were largely 8th grade level essays! Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the quality of the essays. They are improving. The major problem that I see is that often the person who opens a page is not familiar with the field or perhaps is even a non-native English speaker. So, they may have just some really short little entry in a book to work from. Yet, they want to start something for someone worthwhile. Then, I guess people start something and just get busy with the rest of life. As more people who are specialists get involved, it will improve. There are a few people who tend to dominate each field of art history. You see William Gerdts name again and again when it comes to American Impressionism and Jean Stern or Nancy Moure when it comes to California Art. They have done super work and I want to do a Wikipedia article on each of them, to credit the researchers who have brought these artists back from obscurity. For me, I also like to see what was written, especially by other artists back in the day. It is the interconnectedness that is one of the thing that interests me. That is why I plan to work on the artistic circles Twachtman/Carlsen/Weir, Robinson/Will Low/Robert Louis Stevenson, Rose/Miller/Frieseke/Buehr and some of the California artists. Well, off to a late dinner, Thanks ArtnHistory (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As recently as the beginning of this year I noticed that the Gerdts biography was still a stub, with a notability tag [7]. Ulrich Hiesinger is another writer who's published a lot on American Impressionism; Lisa Peters is the Twachtman expert. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter in the past, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I will comment there. JNW (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings JNW - just a short note on the above. After a quick and superficial review of the issue, I have been unable to draw any clearcut conclusion and have therefore limited myself to a comment. This in no way modifies my support for you as the victim recipient of one of Nineteen Nightmares' uncivil attacks. Catch up with you somewhere or another. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Technopat, no offense taken. But I am no victim, just an occasional recipient of others' displeasure, as are we all. This situation has unfolded, in part, because there are individuals who identify with victimization, and as with all such identification, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Best, JNW (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire thread should be moved to ANI - what do you think?. Enough is enough...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GiftigerWunsch has left a link to the discussion there--I don't know if moving the thread there is the way to go, but defer to a more experienced wonk! Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have now moved the complete discussion to AN/I with an introductory note which I've collapsed, and left a note at Wikiquette to redirect anyone who looks for it there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette Proposal

This is a quick note to inform you that a proposal has been added to the discussion at the Wikiquette report for the user Nineteen Nightmares, which you have been previously involved. This is because a firm proposal had not yet been made. Feel free to indicate your opinions on the proposal under the appropriate heading. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

G'day!

'Owyagoinmate?

I have recently had a lovely few weeks in the UK. Got held over by the volcano, and really suffered no inconvenience whatsoever, as it enabled me to catch up with Johnbod. See Painshill Park for the photos of the lovely day we spent there.

It also meant that I could take in the Fr Angelico to Leonardo exhibition at the BM, a hundred drawings that are not usually on display from the BM and the Uffizi. The exhibition was brilliant. They got a number of paintings from the National Gallery and put them alongside the associated cartoon or sketch. It included the early landscape by Leonardo. I could have stood looking at it for an hour.

We also saw a Gorky exhibition, and a fabulous exhibition on the Avant Garde which included everything from posters to Bauhaus architectural models and Rietvelt furniture. Didn't have long enough!

So I have come home fired up by van Dyck, Velazquez, Gainsborough, Whistler and Sargeant, determined to paint white satin..... you could probably help me... got any suggestions?

Amandajm (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just put a picture on my user page. Maybe you could take a look. It's badly photgraphed. The face looks rather blobby in the photo. Amandajm (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done. The face is particularly sympathetic and well observed. The idea is reminiscent of the youngest of the Boit girls: [8]. JNW (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you! Sargent is the one to study for broad passages of white garment. Here's a bit of advice I recall receiving from the aged Robert Philipp: When you paint white drapery, don't mess it up with too many dark halftones in the lights--keep it white. The traditional art school exercise for learning how to control light tones is to paint an egg on a white plate against a sheet of white paper. Good examples: [9], [10]. It's late here, I'm bleary and signing off, but looking forward to continuing. Very best, JNW (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, JayEnDubbleyou.... Those four Boit girls look singularly unco! That one in the red dress is skinny from being regularly sent to bed without her supper. Granny's little darling just give a stare like the Medusa from under her blonde eyelashes which is rather hard to capture. Amandajm (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Firecane

Hello! Your submission of Firecane at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —mono 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mono. JNW (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

I'm going through a 70s rock phase at the moment; Tusk, On the Beach, Hawkwind the bitter Dylan and Lennon albums. From your pics, I guess you are about 34, but you do seem to know a lot about this area. Links please, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I put 34 in my rear view mirror a long time ago. Let me know how I can help, and I'll try. JNW (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil is listening to elephants and a disambiguation page, and some band not worthy of an article. Yeah, he needs help then. I thought JNW was a teenager? I don't talk to people over 36. At the risk of being obvious Ceoil, Tangled Up in Blue? Do people listen to gypsy music in your parts? And how about Neil Young's best album, Rust Never Sleeps? The last two are straddling the decade... Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but Blood on the Tracks is so good. And the endpieces to 'Rust' are great, especially the guitars on 'Into the Black'. But if you go back a few more years into the heyday of Motown you get this [11], a perfect piece of studio-produced r & b which I like even better than Marvin Gaye's version, and an immaculate bit of harmony from the west coast [12]. Lately these chestnuts have been on my playlist [13], [14], and when I was an adolescent I thought listening to this was equivalent to reading good literature [15], and almost as long as a novel, at that. But there's nothing I like better than them, so there you are. JNW (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And as a bonus, here's your anecdote for the new week: in the early 90s I was painting a cityscape in front of a Manhattan apartment building when one of its residents walked by and smiled. An older doorman came out and tried to chase me away, but I kept working, and soon afterward his younger associate came over and told me to ignore him: the resident said it was just fine if I wanted to paint there. I gave up soon enough anyway, the painting sucked. JNW (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Oops, I intended to name the Dylan album, not the song... Had one of my, er, 19-year-old moments. Not a regular listener of the M's&P's but that was clever (and it sounds like they influenced the White Stripes, who just halved things up [or more, depending on the fat jokes involved]). I miss the days of the album, and am trying to "consume music" in album format these days. I do this mostly at work, where I can concentrate on it. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Throwing a dice [16] or the really decadant stuff [17], which has a 60s look but the bleakness of the early 70s. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hair color aside, the gal in the second video has the look and attitude of her, as seen here [18]. Tusk was an odd one, what with the marching band and all. When I was in high school, they chose our homecoming queen one year. The world has not been the same since. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It could have been worse, dude. When I 'graduated', Kiley Minogue was at her zeinith and long baggy un-revealing wolly jumpers were the height of fashion. Tough breaks. Ceoil (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre. Re: your latest edits: Did you know that she and I had separate exhibitions in the same museum at the same time? The big difference being that she's a lot more famous....and a wonderful photographer. JNW (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

She was an early favourite of mine. Shame that her article is not illustrated. Em, to go back to Marchesa Casati, [19]. Ceoil (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it. JNW (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:198.68.16.40

I am considering nominating the above IP and related users for a sockpuppetry investigation; I noticed you have recently tagged some related articles and wanted to verify that I was not duplicating efforts. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or feedback, and please do not interpret this as an attempt at canvassing. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You have my blessings! All appear to be connected to Metaledge Records, and are promotional accounts. JNW (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

I would appreciate your input here [20]...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Firecane

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

tom keene photo

help as you can not urgent attached photo to page then added copyright and description could you look and see what i habve to do further thanks not urgent tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism to my user page. First Light (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. JNW (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I involving Nineteen Nightmares

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Gushing

That's Professor Kemp to you, JNW! Looking at his 3 contributions over 2 years, it could be him, although "Leonardo da Vinci has been the subject of books written by him, including Leonardo (Oxford University Press 2004)" does not quite have an Oxonian ring. Still, It's nice to see the odd world authority drop by. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And it's esteemed contributor JNW to him. Odd though, if it is him, that the edits were so baldly promotional. Perhaps it was a student or protege, though if that, the assumption of the professor's name is a little presumptuous.... JNW (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And though I agree re: the welcome contributions of a prominent authority, the manner in which the article was used, as an advertisement for the authenticity of the work, is anathema. JNW (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Series vs. cycle of works

I'm here to defend my honor, which is difficult since I don't like to talk about myself in such a venue, but I have a pretty decent fine art background and have never heard the term "cycle" used to refer to a series before. In fact, it took me seeing it the second time to even figure out what was meant, so I felt pretty comfortable about changing the term, assuming as I did, that it was a translation issue. It's apparently important to you to have "cycle", since you changed it back. I normally do try to respect the UK/US divide when I see UK spelling, but "cycle" just didn't even make sense to me, since I think of such a thing as coming around to the starting point again, whereas "series" to me better describes an artist working out multiple ideas on a theme, each one a new discovery on a progressive path, but generally not returning to the point of origin. Cycle implies circle to me, a return to the point of origin. I have known painters who knew before the first brush stroke just what they were going to do. That's the kind of thing I'd think of as a cycle. No discovery, just banging out another canvas. If the term is understood to mean something else by many, so be it. Cheers! Marrante (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to defend your honor--it's clear that you were making improvements to the article, and all your edits were done in good faith. Nor is using 'series' wrong in any way. I'm a painter and writer, and I agree that 'series' is the word that's most always appropriate, but 'cycle' has been commonly used in the literature on Kollwitz--I don't recall seeing the term used for another artist, so there must be a rationale--so that's why I reverted. On at least one museum site they use both terms, which might be a good compromise [21]; they also refer to the institution as Berlin School of Woman Artists, which is the name I cited from Bittner's book. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cycles" are very common, in fact usual, as a term for older works, especially wall paintings etc (there are difficulties using "series" when it's the same wall), but increasingly less so for later works. That's my experience anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful. JNW (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of really bad translation out there. Just because it appears in a book is no reason to use it. The original name of the school is Berliner Künstlerinnenschule, so "woman" isn't even correct. I nearly changed a quote on the Kollwitz page, too but I saw it came from an English language book, and since it was cited, I left it. (The line was "there has been enough of dying" which is simply not anglophone usage. You'd say "there's been enough dying," right? Good translation is not supposed have an "accent," which this clearly does.) I can give you a really extraordinary example of bad translation in a book. I came across it recently, when I was working on the Hans Litten article. There is just one biography of him in English and while the book is good, the author really blew it with the translation of Obersturmbahnführer. Have a look at this and note the next to last paragraph. It's a review by a German journalist who also writes in English. The term is a high-ranking SS officer, but the author rendered it as some kind of train conductor. Surely, his gut told him this was wrong, but he went with it anyway. Ah, well.

Getting back to Kollwitz, I read a great thing the other day about her when I was writing the Dringender Appell article. She signed the appeal and her life was never the same. I just happened across the German Wikipedia article and decided to bring it over here, only having a small idea of its significance. Cheers! Marrante (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your research Marrante, and for the presumption that I could possibly read the German text--if only. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for the compliment. Sorry about making the presumption. I thought about that later and hoped you weren't offended. That article is very moving, full of quotes from her. You might try Google Translate, though it's iffy. On individual words, it can be pretty good, but on passages, it ranges from "pretty good" to "incomprehensible". Unfortunately, the greater frequency is on the worse end. Marrante (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: In the days since I've come across usage of the term 'cycles' several times in art literature, per Johnbod's observation. It's a welcome variation from the overused 'series', which I find myself resorting to way too much. JNW (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, JNW! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

You work on Stevenson Memorial was very good, Sadads (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated Sadads. Let me know if there are any specific painting articles I can help with, a line or source here or there. Best regards, JNW (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: speedy deletion nomination

hello,

i want ask why does my the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. because when i look for this page( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet ) than i must say the same becaus it will also promote the website, i think my artikel is some parts to explain about how the alexa traffic is working and how you can catch good alexa ranking.

i hope you understand me, because i think this part is very importend here in germany.

best regads

Olaf1969 Olaf1969 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article you used for comparison is thoroughly sourced and neutral in tone; the one you started wasn't in English, appeared to be promotional in tone, and had no objective sources. Best, JNW (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Julia and David White Colony

For the last year, colonists have found the preceding entries on the Julia and David White Colony of Costa Rica to be one-sided and incorrect. Many of us are discussing the revisions to the page. It does serve a good purpose, as an outside evaluation by many users of a remote retreat. We want to link our own artist pages with work done here and narratives of our experiences. As this is my first day on wiki, I do not know how to do footnotes. We are all trying to get on for the first time so bear with us. We represent ten years of experience at the colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorWriter (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted several times over the last few years, including once after a WP:AFD discussion, for lack of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a website designed to link to personal pages, or to share personal experiences. In short, it's not for advertising or blogging. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GROUP, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:RELIABLE. Unless you can provide published sources supporting the colony's significance, the article will continue to be deleted. JNW (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The three refs refs [22], [23], [24] are directory listings, only one of any length and not in themselves enough to justify an article. It needs better sources, e.g. some newspaper articles featuring the colony, at least with a degree of substantial attention within the article if it is not entirely about them. There are a lot of mentions of the Colony on Google, but all I can see are short acknowledgments or announcements of residency opportunities. Ty 22:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Despite all the hits, there are no hard sources--I'm certain the deleting admins found the same thing. Well, a good excuse to say hi. Thanks for your input. JNW (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bushmiller

Please contact me through the CONTACT page at:

www.fletcherhanks.com

I look forward to hearing from you,

Pkarasik (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Paul

Thanks

Hey JNW, I appreciate your advice for editing wiki pages. I'm new to the process, and haven't really read the guidelines carefully enough I guess. Anyway I don't know how the sockpuppet thing is relevant, but I'll use your advice for future pages for sure. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchensponge (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, though you will surely comprehend my skepticism. The sockpuppet business appears relevant, as your edit and misleading summary is in keeping with the edit history of 12431 [25], and is not the sort of obfuscation one normally sees from a novice account. JNW (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Minnie Pwerle

VA article at FAC that slipped under our radar. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. There's a lot that gets by me these days.... though I notice your prodigious contributions. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

UAA Report

The UAA report you just filed made me laugh, until I realized it was talking about this and not this. All I could picture was ladies of the night brawling over customers. Cheers! TNXMan 14:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good. It could have been worse. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping me deal with this. It was starting to really get on my nerves; that was my first AIV report, and I'm surprised at how quickly it was responded to. Man, Twinkle makes this so much easier. All that's left is for the page and talkpage to be deleted. Thanks again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do hope he's successful one day. Until then, he can always blog. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This might be an even better example than the one listed at TenPoundHammer's Law. These garage bands never stop coming; I've got one (we're in the process of picking a new name), but I certainly wouldn't try to create an article about it. All in a day's work, I suppose. When can I get a raise? ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 22:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep on playing, and editing. If I could sing, I'd have tried to do this a long time ago. I can't, so I traffic in other arts. Keep up the good work, JNW (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You got it; my band of choice is this (bassist/vocalist in a trio myself); the lyrics are an Asian-tinged version of Rush (I'm pure white myself, but I'm a history major whose favorite topic is Asian history), but my music sounds more like this. I've actually covered Smells Like Teen Spirit once (I sound a lot like Layne Staley and Kurt Kobain, and have a vicious death roar), it's a ton of fun. I'll keep up the good editing, and you do too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 22:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

An video

Ta for link. This is very abstract, in fact not really present at all, and the 'voice' seems to be fading and becoming more and more remote / descending as the music revs up. Thats an old trick beloved of psychedelic people since time begot, but very moving here. You owe me 1 trippy link. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[26] Its ironic that I like this tune so much, considering I spent the 90s in 15# flares and dayglo tops, listening to bleep bleep music at illegal raves on remote mountain tops at 4 in the morning. And that, incidently, is why I cant spell anymore. Ceoil (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, or something. I haven't heard that song in years, but my girlfriend in the 80s loved The Smiths, and them--I didn't get it then. She's gone, the dear soul, but this reminds me of another time.... JNW (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you say that, and without wanting to sound trite, liking the Smiths is a very good sign of a person. Ceoil (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye. She was a good person. Me, I'm still working on it. Thanks for the link. And an oldie in return [27]. JNW (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Things like that will always be with you. Anyway, night. Ceoil (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentimentality aside, I like the song, enjoyed hearing it. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the IP vandalism on my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

your edits to User talk:Alexplays

While this user was being rather thick headed and I have in fact blocked them, users are explicitly allowed to remove almost anything they like from their own talk page, and repeatedly re-instating things they have removed is considered edit warring. The relevant policy section is at WP:BLANKING. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In the second case, I considered the replacing of warnings with speedy deletion and hangon tags just a mistake, and reverted to previous. Overall, my interpretation was that the user was, in essence, full-bent on continuing. Today I've been frustrated with the lack of response to requests at AIV, and have reacted impatiently. JNW (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But really, there's nobody home, per this: [28]. So I do understand why people don't take the site seriously as a repository of information. This is a joke on those who make good faith attempts to fashion a decent encyclopedia. JNW (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Morris Weiss

Would you happen to have a picture of Mr. Weiss you could upload under a free license?—Chowbok ☠ 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If I locate a good one I will. Thanks, JNW (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay

Hey there. Just dropping a note to say sorry for the wait at WP:AIV on IP:71.238.165.178. Hopefully, the 55 hour block will keep them at bay for the time being. Keep up the great work; it's always a pleasure seeing you around the project, especially with vandal-fighting and general upkeep. Thanks! Jmlk17 04:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your words are really appreciated, Jmlk17. An encyclopedia's rhythms are not designed to fit any one contributor's expectations, nor cater to this editor's self-righteous outbursts. Just the same, though the articles I start and work on in the arts are usually esoteric enough to avoid broad notice and disruption, it's clear that something is wrong when so much energy is expended on undoing vandalism, promotion, and personal or political soapboxing. I enjoy the game, but it's ridiculous maintenance, and is something quite apart from constructing a knowledge base. There are wonderful contributors here who work and argue together--some of whom I correspond with, as seen above--and I can't imagine Diderot putting together his opus with schoolkids regularly breaking into his study to scrawl 'I like pie; suck me', and various business owners constantly inserting advertisements about themselves into his text. A wiki encyclopedia is a grand idea, but the disruptions are lunacy. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts and good efforts. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Grobble

Hi JNW. Wondering if you might have any Thomas Cole sources in your titanic library with respect to The Titan's Goblet? I have worked one journal article to death. Can't find anything else. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Titian's Goblet [29]. Great work you've done on this. I don't think I've got much, if anything, on the painting, but if I can contribute I will. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I was going to title this section "Titian's giblet", but I thought that might be disrespectful on a number of levels. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the Homer article. ("Homer"... it's hard to call a painter that. The magnets are for high-culture Greek or pop-culture Doh!) I am presenting you with a mini-barnstar. You can't see it. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the mini-barnstar; I'll wear it on my invisible sleeve. Great work starting the article--a very large invisible barnstar for you. All I added were trifles though my excuse is that I've been working on essays off-line, for the old-fashioned print press. JNW (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Goya III

JNW, I dont know what your schedule is like for the next weeks, but if you have time for doing another Goya painting, Witches' Sabbath (Goya, 1823) could do with your usual insight, attention to detail and imports from Licht. I think the article has great potential, the painting is interesting from both an art and social history perspective, utterly compelling, and once there is enough text, the page could be wonderfully illustrated. And there are a few skilled FAC'rs out there interested in witches that might help us out post nom. Aye, or nay? You may consider this link a bribe[30]. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but if memory serves I checked this out a few months ago, and found nothing--not even my reliable Licht covered this. Thanks for the link, for witch I owe you.... JNW (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My bribe not good enough, eh? Your on my list, motherfucker. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Such language, my Irish bastard friend. I might be old and slow, but I'm mean and can hold a grudge until I forget why, usually 8 to 10 minutes. JNW (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I havn't got 10 minutes. Price please. Note I a can accommodate, and have most major credit cards. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The party's at Riggr's place, the plane leaves for Canada in a half hour, and I'm a sucker for Cragganmore. JNW (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Might take me more than a few hours to get there, by which time yell all have crashed yer limos into and be drowned in the swimming pool. Arrived jet laged to sweep up that? Thanks but no thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no swimming pool, just a moat, from which ominous sounds emanate. JNW (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of an odd place. I'm now picturing the mansion in Eyes Wide Shut. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the police raid I made a quick drawing of the interior [31]. JNW (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I am somewhat pleased that, as a rank amateur, I knew who that was (probably) by. The police never found me, but I understand they were more interested in Ceoil, who refused to take the fourth-dimensional staircase and didn't have much choice but to give himself up. The question is, will he rat on me? Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. I believe he would take up arms on your behalf, so long as you buy him dinner. Thanks for taking notice of the Eakins--jump in if you have content to add. I'll try to get more tomorrow. JNW (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! QUESTIONS

Hi JNW, Thank you for the useful feedback. I am still new at this process and so any feedback is very much welcomed. You are right about Joseph Allworthy text reading to much like prose in an essay. What I did before uploading this info, is type it out on a word document first, so I guess it came out sounding too much like an essay, but I will work on it to make it fit the encyclopedic standards. Also, what information of the text would you say needs more referencing?

I can understand the COI you bring up. I have been researching tonal, representational-realist artists and have not come across many, which is why I created these two pages, because I felt I unearthed a plethora of information on Joseph that I thought very valuable on the American, early/mid 20th century tonal, representational-realist painters. There are several artists who claim, (via blogs, websites etc) that their style of tonalism was based on Joseph's and Max Melrum's technique and work, which is another reason why I decided to do this page. I would indeed like to add or contribute to many other pages, including Max Meldrum's as I have a book he co-authored with Joseph Allworthy. For J.Allworthy's page, a lot of the info/quotes came from his personal journals, letters, documents and manuscripts from this book and another he never got around to publishing; how can I reference this properly? I would also like to get around to contributing to many of the linked pages on J.Allworthy's page, but I feel like I need referenced info in order to make a contribution, is that correct?

Also, can you give me specific example's of what type of referencing I would need for Dorian Allworthy's page? Or, what can I do to make it better. Also, there are several articles written on Joseph and his work from Europe and Mexico, dating from the 1930's to the 1960's. These articles are either in Spanish, German or French. Would it be great to include these as references? If so, how?

Some of this info I have had access to from the gallery that is specializing in tonal representational art that is displaying their work. I have included the link in the External links sections.

Also, is the formatting of both pages okay? Or is there a better way to format these pages?

Thank you very much and I look forward to your feedback. LoliPelu (talk)

Thanks for your message. I've been away and busy for the last few days, but plan to respond sometime soon. JNW (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not responded until now for several reasons. You've done a good job writing and sourcing the articles, so I've stayed out of the way. This evening, though, your tendency toward conflict of interest was clear, which is why I reverted several edits. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've believed from the outset that you are writing about yourself and your adopted father, or at the least are very close to both subjects, which would help to explain the personal and anecdotal aspects, some of which are endearingly heartfelt, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think that the Dorian Allworthy article is thin on references, and may be questioned for notability; claims like "Allworthy has established herself as a still life, figure and landscape painter", and "She has built a reputable portrait career as well" need to be sourced. To answer some of your questions: I don't think you can use personal unpublished documents; likewise, blogs and personal websites are not acceptable sources; I'm not sure about the foreign language articles; the formatting looks good. My general advice is to be very measured in writing about yourself or those who are close to you, per WP:COI; it is difficult to be neutral in such circumstances. JNW (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I think paintings like 'Oak Trees' and 'Randy Scott' are very good, reminiscent of Fairfield Porter in their painterly vision, but what I like personally is of little relevance. JNW (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans

Victorian VA on TFA. Victorian's are getting a lot of bad press these days; vandels everywhere; no mercy or favour expected, killer. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Patricia

Since you've identified the source of the copypaste material, couldn't this be listed as a db-copyvio? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I was this close to doing so. I refrained because the subject appears notable, only part of the article was clearly a copy/paste, and I wanted to give the editor an opportunity to rewrite. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now; thanks for the insight into your reasoning. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So much for my rationale: [32]. JNW (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for that revert on my talk page. You beat me to it! Much appreciated :) Airplaneman ✈ 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JNW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.
Message added 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've answered your question about what to do about User:Gertie1999 cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had engaged the editor, but gathered that they're very young and mostly mean well. I don't think they're inclined to listen, but I hate to shovel ascending warnings on them.... JNW (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)re

I agree, we should assume good faith, but at some point we have to get firm. Since her edits are largely good faith-y, I recommend that one of us places a note on her talk page saying something along the lines of "Hi, Gertie, I know you mean well with your edits but they really aren't that constructive. One way you can learn how to edit constructively is through the Adopt-a-User program." If she just blanks the page again without responding, we need to get firm and say please stop doing this, we don't want to report you to the administrators, but we will if necessary. We should use that as a last resort but, as you said, it's kind of annoying to have to follow her around and clean up the mess. -- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you cymru lass. Well answered. JNW (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :) Do you want to leave the message, or should I? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I've already done so, perhaps it will carry more weight coming from a different editor. But perhaps wait until editing continues--they've made some good faith efforts to clean up after themselves. Very much appreciated, JNW (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie doke, I'll keep an eye out for her. I might get caught up in classwork and not be on here for a while (unlikely, but possible), so it might take me a bit to notice --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Left her a message on her talk page. She's still doing good-faith editing so I directed her to WP:ADOPT and WP:TUTORIAL --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I'm keeping an eye on Gertie1999's contribs so I can help her learn how to edit productively and clean up any mistakes. I've also given her suggestions about making article drafts in userspace. Hopefully, she'll be able to use userspace drafts to make sure her articles meet Wikipedia article standards before moving them to mainspace. You've also pointed out that she edits from an IP address, so I've given her information about Wikipedia's sockpuppet and alternate account guidelines. I've explained the proper and improper uses of alternate accounts and that she should disclose any alternate accounts (including her IP) and place the alt account templates on their pages. I'm going on holiday for a few days so I won't be able to check in on her, but I don't think it will be a problem—most of her recent edits have been to a draft article, not mainspace. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've noticed your attentiveness, which evidences patience well after mine's run out. You've been terrific-- 150+, huh? They've never tested my IQ, just figuring it's about in line with one of these, but an extremely high-functioning one. Have a good holiday. JNW (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a rough estimate for my IQ, as well. For all I know, I'm the next Peter Griffin and everyone's just deluding me into thinking I'm smart As for my patience, I don't know where it's coming from—in real life, I'm the most impatient, stressed out person I've ever met (if one can indeed meet one's self, if not, then I'm the most impatient, stressed out person I've ever heard of). Thanks for the holiday wishes, I spent a couple of hours in the world's largest bookstore. I love the smell of books. It's like my drug --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At 15 I couldn't entertain the notion of communicating intelligibly with another soul, let alone exhibit patience--thank goodness one's metabolism slows slightly with age. Years later in New York, I visited here religiously, stocking up mostly on the art library. Now the material rewards of leafing through shelves are largely replaced by the convenience of cybershopping. Still, I dread the end of the printed page.... JNW (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. There's just something about holding a physical book or newspaper in one's hand that e-readers just can't duplicate. Maybe it's the smell? Maybe it's the fact that I can't visualize stories on a digital screen the way I can when reading a book? Maybe it's the recurring page cuts? Whatever it is, I just can't get into Kindles and the like. Also, you can't copy-edit the New York Times if it's on an iPod. Believe me, I've tried. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In large part it's the preference for the tactile over the virtual, and in turning real pages there's also the sense of continuity with the past--not to romanticize the old days, but flipping through a book is not high on my scale of labor intensive activities that ought be streamlined. With each bit of progress something of equal importance is lost; I can never find it, but somewhere in Delacroix's journal he notes the creation of a new, faster clipper ship, and laments the loss of leisurely travel. One needn't be a Luddite to reasonably entertain such reservations. JNW (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a total technophile—I can work pretty much any operating system within five minutes of being introduced to it. I also get incredibly excited about things like electron microscopes. But there's absolutely nothing like curling up with a good book and going to some alien planet :) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm addicted to this online site, but I really like writing for print--it's been around hundreds of years, and I'm not yet convinced that this particular medium has permanence. In my short time we've gone from vinyl to cds to ipods to, what? We should be excited about electron microscopes--it's in our best nature to be inquisitive. But one is more ambivalent about change for its own sake. JNW (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheez; I don't mean to sound like such a crab, but sometimes the shoe fits. JNW (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

True that. I'm wondering what kind of electronic medium we're going to use to link to the Internet next... Computer contact lenses? Our brains? Sounds like something out of a Robert J. Sawyer novel --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BCC Notable Alumni

You instructed bio, now it's bio and/or *article*. BTW, one of the musicians appears in red in the corresponding band article. In any event, I think you're incorrect on Flavin's notability as the case can be found in every major law library in the land as well as Nexus-Lexis and other digital research sources. I'll leave it at that as well as the BCC page. Seth1066 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against notability based on a personal opinion of who's notable and who's not. The guidelines for criteria in lists as well as stand alone articles are covered at WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If you think a person is notable, then amass reliable sources per WP:RELIABLE and start an article about them. JNW (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion of edits

Hello, I am wondering why my edits keep being reverted? I have added additional works and other data and sourced and published by this person (works match some works already on the jenniferabbott page but there are additions, all coming from theunited stated copyright office, published catalog. Thank you, Uscopyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscopyright (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit warring and appearance of sockpuppeting, reverting was not an inappropriate choice. If you think the current content is wrong, I strongly suggest taking this up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for further input.... and editing from one account. JNW (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not warring, and had simply lost password on this page, I created last yr. I was simply adding correct information sourced from government published records via copyrigth office. Her additional movies and books. As some other keep putting incorrect data that is being mixed up with two other jennifer abbots. Can you please review the changes they are accurate and sourced through the us copyright catalog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscopyright (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the copyright document used as a source, so I'm uncertain. Again, I'd suggest asking for input at the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard, as I'd be interested in hearing from others. JNW (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Gulf Stream (painting)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

JNW, you have been so productive in the last 6 months I'm ashamed by comparison. How goes it otherwise, any improvement in the market? I notice prices are improving over here (eh, bad thing for the likes of me, good thing for the likes of you). Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me-- once in a while I make a modest start on a page about a painting, while you continuously offer major contributions of a far wider scope. The market here is abysmal, so I'm casting a wider net for teaching and writing venues, and hoping for things to improve. In the meantime, I refuse to relent to my own pessimistic tendencies--had a good evening with friends, and am enjoying life. Good to hear from you, as always. Best, JNW (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Did not notice these expansions/additions... nice job. We could do a whole set on Homer. I volunteer to make the one-sentence stubs saying "is a painting by", with the thumbnails beside them. Then you can do the easy stuff of writing the article... Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're on. I've got material on most of the major ones. Might be too late for me this evening, but this could be a good one to start with [33]. JNW (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to trust you on that one! I read about [34] when I had the NGA collection book. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job but I won't be holding up my end of the deal. Couldn't find much on home sweet home online, or at least I don't feel like close-paraphrasing what I could. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very early painting, and not in the same league as the mature works. Still, I've got something on it. As for Fox Hunt, I was much amused by Hess' interpretation; sometimes a crow is just a crow. JNW (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eight Bells

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams

Excellent work on this article. If you want, I can show it to Bill Homer next time I chat with him and get his opinion on it. Raul654 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be honored. But not yet, I'm going to add more from Goodrich and Wilmerding. By the way, I've got a signed copy of Professor Homer's book on Eakins. And I have my eye on a few more of the portraits, one of which I already wrote a piece on for publication....though I won't self-reference. JNW (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done for now, so feel free to share. JNW (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi, I've nominated Self-portrait (Thomas Eakins) for DYK. Please don't hesitate to edit, replace, or suggest alternate hooks as you see fit. I'm afraid I did not use the DYK formula which you supplied on my talk page, as I didn't manage to get in any sexual innuendo. Oh, well.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mandarax. Perhaps the aforementioned oversight will be overlooked. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the material for a sexy hook on Portrait of Maud Cook. Please let me know if you'd rather that I didn't nominate your articles (I did wait a few days in case you wanted to nominate it yourself). I figure there are plenty of hooks about sports, warships, and whatnot, and we need to see more art hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice your message until just now; by all means nominate whenever you see something worthwhile. Very best, JNW (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Winslow Homer Artwork

Hi, I'm in the process of uploading about 30 hi-res Winslow Homer pieces from the National Gallery of Art on wikicommons. I see you do a lot of editing on his article, so I though you might find them useful. Scewing (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrific. Thanks for the heads up--I'll take a look. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maude

"The light reveals her face in strong relief" - What does relief mean in this context, I get the jist but not the exact meaning. Ceoil (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased. JNW (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't a critism, I've seen the phrase quite a bit, just never got it; I do now though after that edit. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and accepted as a good question--I figured if such an erudite contributor was uncertain then it needed clarification. I was thinking along these lines [35], adopting the sculptural terminology. JNW (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead in Relief there is very densly written though. Not a lot of clarity: too many statements, clarifiers and punctation that would make baby jesus weep. Its almost in the direction of bollocks, you might say. Hope all is well otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Nice work so far: [36]. The christ child can rest peacefully. JNW (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

<Ass brays sweetly in the background, in light relief (no not that type of relief [oh not that type either, get your mind out of the gutter])> Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Per instructions, I waited the whole day for something interesting to load on your talk page. I'm beginning to grow skeptical. JNW (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's those damn Wikimedia servers, man. Make a donation and maybe the page will finish loading... It's tax-deductible and ensures we can continue to enjoy a time-wasting hobby the sharing of knowledge. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In case my drollness has caused any offense, I'm not saying you're wasting your time. After a day of uninspired bureaucracy-by-email I feel I should clarify that. I'm sure you know I rarely intend to offend. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly no offense was taken. Sometimes I decide there's no reason for me to try to one-up the last message, although truth be known....I was about to come back with something pithy, and end with a note about what a great party we had at your house, or Ceoil's, complete with an image purportedly taken at the party [37], but then I decided it was gratuitous. And I heartily agree that an awful lot of time is wasted here, though at least it keeps me off the streets and out of trouble. Mostly. JNW (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. You know, I don't really want to click on that link... unless it's just Manet or something. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries; it's a Rubens. JNW (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how you came across that image. I really do. Possibly the uploader? JNW & his models?I didn't stay long enough to check. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, like you've never gone looking for images under "nude cooking" [38]. Nothing like the internet. JNW (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but I don't subscribe to the free-wheeling, free-love, free-willy bohemian lifestyle of guys like you. I have gone looking for, e.g., [39]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and that isn't just a little troubling. Clearly it is our Canadian brethren who are a bit libertine. Here we acknowledge the modesty of every living creature, and clothe all of our animals. This gets troublesome when it comes to slipping a pair of pants on a goldfish, but I'm sure they appreciate the effort. JNW (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eakins paintings

Thanks for the compliment re: the Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams. I've added a few more references and whatnot. Would you be interested in going for FA status on this one?

Bill Homer said he's going to review your articles and get back to me. Are you planning to write any more? Raul654 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather you were directed to some good sources that I would never have found. Yes about FA for Addie, though the specifics of bringing an article to that level are not my strength. Perhaps we could bring in some of the usual suspects, i.e. Modernist, Ceoil, Riggr Mortis, Ewulp, Johnbod, Tyrenius, Sandy Georgia, Yomangani (sp?), Lithoderm/Petroproxy (sp?), and others who are great with visual arts pieces. Right now there's not another Eakins on my radar--when I have the time I've got my eye on a Winslow Homer--but I do have enough material to make a decent start on most any major Eakins painting. Let me know if there's one that particularly interests you. Just this week real life obligations are picking up a little--more teaching and an article for publication I've got to start on--but long term I'm always interested. Thanks for your note, and I look forward to input from professor Homer. JNW (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Self-portrait (Thomas Eakins)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Maud Cook

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More videos from Ceoil

You obviously like to look at strangeness, try listening to it [40]. Its all the same thing you know. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a sonic experience--with images, it really needs to be experienced in Imax, perhaps with a margarita in hand. This [41] is another killer, with a neat video idea, except the images are awful quality. JNW (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you speak Scottish, but my. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm listening and enjoying it as I write. When I find a good one I'll send it along. Very best, JNW (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And here it is [42]. And a bonus [43]. JNW (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI case?

In this edit, were you intending to start a sockpuppetry case? Or were you simply tagging the page for future reference? Those edits are most certainly Gnative editing logged out, but what with having to WP:AGF, the fact that this is an IP, and the lack of good evidence of an attempt to deceive, avoid scrutiny, or etc., I don't think there's much percentage in pursuing it as sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Mostly I just wanted the observation to be recorded--it's difficult to assume good faith given the long-term pattern of unsourced commentary and erroneous edits; perhaps the account(s) mean well, but whatever the intent, the record is a disruptive one spanning numerous articles over a sustained period [44]. JNW (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't lied yet. ;-) It's a long-standing mess. I think discussion needs to address the long-term overall picture, and not on any one detail. --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I rarely prevaricate gratuitously, and otherwise lie so transparently that it's hardly worth the drama. Yeah, I see that you've been up to your neck in those edits for a long time, and you're to be commended for attempting to keep things straight. It seems that population data are among the most frequently messed- around bits of content on Wikipedia; usually folks do it for self-validating purposes (my group's bigger than yours), but sometimes it's just a lark. JNW (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence

		The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
		JNW, I am pleased to award this MBE to you in recognition of your outstanding contributions in the field of the visual arts. Your articles are always extremely well-written and interesting, and I always look forward to reading them. And your work fighting vandalism is also greatly appreciated. You are truly one of Wikipedia's brightest stars. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mandarax. Coming from you, this is greatly appreciated. I'm always of a mind to give up Wikipedia, and then something like this just reinforces my addiction. Very best, JNW (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Romano Page

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to understand your comment about the tone of the article. I am writing this completely objectively with informational facts that I am citing as I go. It's difficult to try and do this all at once and I am still learning. I just don't see the issue with the tone you are speaking of. Tgozdzielski (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi; it's not encyclopedic by a longshot, and really does read like a promotional piece. I can go into it and clean it up in a few minutes, but the article still has issues re: reliable sources; WP:BAND and WP:RELIABLE are helpful guidelines. In short, are there any published pieces on or interviews with Mr. Romano? His resume is solid, but that's not enough. He needs to have been written about by objective sources. JNW (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help with all this. Over the next few days I will add additional sources and work to clean it up, and try to focus on a more biographical encyclopedic way of writing. Frank himself approved the biography, so I'll work with your comments and and clean it up. I already saw that you had inserted areas where I need citations. It won't happen overnight, but I'll work thru the weekend. Again, thank you for your help! :) Tgozdzielski (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I've found one minor mention in a USA Today article from 2005, which I'll add. And the subject of an article has no approval rights; that's conflict of interest. What he can do is use the article talk page to raise objections if something untrue or libelous is written. Best, JNW (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha...again, thanks for your help. Please feel free to continue to critique and make suggestions as I work to improve this page. Makes me a better writer in the long run. Tgozdzielski (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for understanding. By the way, if he has any, it would not be a conflict of interest for the subject to supply you or me with newspaper or magazine articles written about him; as long as an objective contributor adds the information and includes sources, that would be very helpful. JNW (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

!!Birthday!

you'll need to use use both hands

Guinness and Ramones,[45] what more could a young man want on his birthday? Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta say happy birthday JNW [46]...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Ramones, Beatles and a couple of pints--it was worth dropping an unsubtle hint. A gem for both Ceoil and Modernist [47]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The MBE above was intended as a subtle birthday honor without outing the date. Now that that's no longer an issue, I can join in and openly wish you a happy birthday! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I figured as much--it was a good start to the day, though man I woke up feeling like mud. Things improved, as they do. Thanks, Mandarax, and best wishes, JNW (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I still amazed you like the clash, not sure why anymore though. If you know them, its not far to the most dour, sharp and bittersweet of that generation (elvis costello included), Wire [48]. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, one does get lost in the supermarket. JNW (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• My longtime dark choice--now where did I put my bottle of gin and noose? [49] A long time ago I showed here, when he was part owner. When I got my paintings back they stunk of cigarettes and booze, but that's what you get for showing in a bar. JNW (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More happy times [50]. Time was I couldn't work unless I had something loud, dark, or both playing. JNW (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I never bother much with late REM (Dodds will kill me for saying that), and "Country Feedback" is a new one for me. I'm really likibng country at the moment, and Mondernist is doing a great job in scoloing me on its more obsqure backwaters. I wish there were twenty Bill Callaghans[51]. How is the head this morning? We can whisper for the day if you wish. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Though nobody would describe them as country, here's an alcohol-addled recording from their early catalog [52]. No need to whisper. Yesterday's schedule included a meditation workshop, followed by lots of food, my usual vice of choice. JNW (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jnw if you are still around, I just totally lost my cool and could do with a friend to swap 70s links with. I'll open with 10cc, not as bad as you remember. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JNW. You have new messages at Scewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

good call

[53] was about to do this, too, after reading the whole thing Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a big weekend for pre-election crap. Makes one long for a benevolent monarchy. JNW (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mahalia, etc

JNW: Its definitely not a case of vaunting. Its merely fact. You mentioned the Google searches and found the title belonging to Ms. Walker, well of course you're going to find many articles now that she recently passed. General consensus holds Mahalia Jackson to be not only the "World's Greatest Gospel Singer" but the "Queen of Gospel Music" as well. You definitely didn't do your research as thoroughly as you should have. There are numerous articles online, in magazines and in other media that designate those titles to Ms. Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrettyVillan (talk • contribs) 01:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to add the content, the sources must be provided as well--'general consensus' needs a source. And as already explained, it sure appears like you've got an agenda by removing legitimate references to Ms. Walker's nickname. And frankly, the sourced assessment as "the single most powerful black woman in the United States" beats the heck out of Queen of Gospel, etc. JNW (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, its just the true history of gospel music that I'm interested in. As far as the "World's Greatest Gospel Singer" you wanted proof, check out what's written on the grave. http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/jacksonmahalia3.jpg I'm not sure what other proof you need.

(talk page stalker)People say a lot on gravestones... that's not WP:RS Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And I expect we'll find a reliable source soon enough that confirms your point. I'm sure not arguing it, just maintaining the need for a good cite. My rationale: that a great individual merits a great article, which means well-written with airtight sources. Perhaps I'll go through her bio at some point and take a good look for copyediting. JNW (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be waiting.

Well don't wait: keep looking, or supply the magazines and media you mentioned. Also, please indent your talk posts, and sign them. JNW (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

http://reocities.com/BourbonStreet/2675/ebony/ebony.html, This is from Ebony magazine, April 1972.  ::::::::http://tri-statedefenderonline.com/articlelive/articles/1010/1/Mahalia-Sings-Again/Page1.html

These are all wonderful sources, I do have more if you want them. PrettyVillan (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They are good sources, PV. I've just added a bunch of online cites, so we might not need more. But welcome to the community--I've written a lot of text here, and I don't add anything without a solid source, even when it's a no-brainer like this. A tempest in a teapot, but the results were good. JNW (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've learned alot, per this dialog. I'm just a graduate student, doing research for my thesis on American Music and its effect on Popular Culture and just happened to see differences in the articles and literature I have concerning Ms. Jackson VS Wiki. Just a little mix up. PrettyVillan (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I gather you're a quick study. Good luck on your research. As a sometime academic and writer who's added some credible scholarship here--never original research, mind you--I know too well that Wiki articles are of uneven quality, and aren't acceptable sources for college papers. Alas. JNW (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link source

The source you added in a copypaste tag you put up recently, http://nepaljesuits.org/nepal-jesuit-society/fr-marshall-d-moran-sj/ is a dead link. You could try re-addressing the text of the site if you want. Minimac (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You've been mentioned at User_talk:WikiTome#Odd_acceptance_of_unsourced_edit. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As you properly noted, the region is a hornet's nest for the reconfiguring of population numbers, etc. I've reverted the number back, per a more thorough reading of the CIA source page, as explained in my last edit summary. JNW (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COIN

I have created a thread here concerning COI issues on Gary Herbert that you may be interested in. Spalds (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. JNW (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thank you for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about User:SamRule. However, the edits in question are not vandalism. You may like to consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and if a report to administrators is needed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is a more appropriate place than Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--I'm certain you're right. I was trying at vandalism because his (or her) edits have included a tasty melange of violations, including copyvio as well as edit warring after final warning, and coi. JNW (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sociomarketing

Hello JNW. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sociomarketing, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: speedy already declined by an admin, saying "let's see how it goes". Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JohnCD. Since the previous decline a spamlink has been added as the article's sole reference; given the name of the account that created it, and the Google search [54], I think this commercial application of the term is the extent of its use. JNW (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're after removing the link; but I have put it back to make clear that this is a proprietary term, and PRODded it. There is a useful sentence in WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term", which sums this one up nicely. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The rationale makes good sense. It smells like sneaky spamming. JNW (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Right and Left

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Artistic exploration or atavistic exploitation?

Hi JNW. My last remaining business is to look at your new articles (not Ceoil's so much; not after he snubbed me after I snubbed him; this eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth business is not godly. Matthew 5:38-42: "You have learned that they were told, 'Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.' But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you." (WWJD? You have your answer.))

Along those lines (the original line, not the aside, and they're parallel lines, so they'll never meet): do you have anything to write on "pre-coital renderings"? You might try this theme in your own work. There are a number of methods by which one could become "inspired". I won't mention anything specifically, as I expect you've visited the late Fat Man's apartment. Surely this theme would enliven the viewer more, creating a sense of anticipation and galleries of male visitors who don't want to face the center of the room. A purchase is then assured and everyone's "business" is taken care of.

Another avenue for exploration is the "withheld-coitus rendering", better known as Expressionism (the architect here has told us too much). I am sure, in fact, that one can produce a nice thesis that relates changes in sexual values with artistic movements. As for the "abstinence rendering", well friend, all the artists who produced them have been selected out of existence.

Cheers, Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I'm up to going down this road--oh lord now there's nothing I can write that doesn't sound like a double entendre. Do keep in mind that the choice of words was not mine, but quoted by the media from the Sotheby's catalog; perhaps it added a million or two to the purchase price. It--"post-coital rendering"-- is indeed a silly description, aimed right at the crotch of the marketplace. Perhaps I'm too advanced in age to remember clearly, but it seems to me a lot more such painting gets done before the descent into amour's grasp....

My own work? I can assure you my studio practices are decidedly free of physical diversions, as a skein of exasperated (or grateful models) can attest. Art historians are ever in the market for something salacious, perhaps for vicarious reasons, what with being sequestered in the world of letters all day, and scholars are no less immune to romantic notions of hijinks between the artist and the comely model than the rest; in fact, artists generally do little to dissuade such speculation, the better to pique interest and sales. One of my teachers advised his students not to mess around with the models, but of course folks don't listen to such advice unless it's already part of their nature. And there's a gal who posed for him who confirms that the artist avoided affairs until he'd finished the painting because it would ruin his concentration/objectivity, so when she'd had enough of posing she seduced him; end of painting [55]. However, there are a few greats who have more than justified such notions, and have done so much screwing around that their legends trail after them and attach themselves to the rest of us by implication. In fact some are so prolific (and it's a good bet that most of his drawings, and his, fall into the pre-coital category, so filled are they with anticipation and the certainty that desire will be answered affirmatively), that it's possible many of us descend from their caprices. Cheers indeed. JNW (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for indulging my nonsensical post. I must have been relieved that is was Friday or some such! In part it was a sly reference to the earlier discussions about indulgent interpretation and your userspace joke article. Some dealer and auction house are enjoying the benefits of Modigliani's private life quite nicely now, it seems. My post was no more nonsensical than the world...Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A pleasure--your messages are always enjoyed. I kind of figured it spun in part from my spurious Homer rant, and you gave me a chance to take to the podium, for better or worse. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way: last remaining business? This is disconcerting on two levels: primarily the indication that you are bidding adieu to Wikipedia, where your contributions are so valuable, and secondarily, that one would find my literary quirks worth checking in on from time to time. A long cold winter is in the offing, so unless you're planning a trip to visit Ceoil or someone who abides in warmer climes, perhaps you'll return to fuss with something that would benefit from your attentions here. JNW (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob Hillary

Hello, I've removed the speedy on Bob Hillary as it asserts notability. Notability is pretty borderline though, so you might want to prod or AFD it. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't know that notability is even asserted. I'll wait at least two minutes so we don't bump edits. I'm content to give it some time, lest someone come up with a reliable source... can't find anything, so notability appears to hinge upon his proximity to other notables.... Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

never said nothing

[56]. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Picasso

Hi,

but I saw a whitish statue on wikipedia and not a picnic as on the site you told me http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Musee_dOrsay.html . please check and confirm why the picnic photo is not there on wikipedia

If you read that page you will find, consistent with the description of the photograph: Finally they are isolated, denuded, enlarged and left in the natural park setting of the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. Picasso is having fun and is emphasising the humour that Manet concealed behind his dandyism and his firm resolve to renew painting.

Picasso sculpted, isolated, and denuded the various figures from Manet's painting--one thing it isn't is a self-portrait. JNW (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Modigliani DYK

Good work on this. This is the sort of hook, article and image that we should be trying to feature on the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks John! But it's not exactly stable. Would you mind taking a look at all the discussion of the Leonardo da Vinci talk page, and also look at some of Murray's previous edits, which I keep having to remove, at the riskk of offending him. There is really no way that this work is a genuine Leonardo. On the other hand, it looks exactly like the series of pics that dell'Altissimo did for the Medici. That was the first impression of Vezzosi from the Vinci muuseum, and I agree with him. I don't know how much clout he has as an art historian, as the Vinci museum is basically a museum of reconstruction of Leonardo's inventions...really quite fascinating! However Vezzosi and I disagree over the bicycle, which is a ghastly, amateurish scratchy scribble, just like a funny little face on the same sheet. Obviously drawn by someone who has had access to that manuscript.

Murray is good at constructing scenarios. Well so am I! I can just imagine some ancient cardinal who has been asked to mind his great nephew while doing research in the archives..."What can I give little Carlo to keep him quiet for a bit... oh, this one has pictures!" And yes, thas sort of thing does happen. The archives of the Anglican Church in Sydney were almost impossible to access, even for a PhD, except by a bishop. A bishop turned up for a confirmation service one day with a document from the archives, to illustrate the notion of God putting a seal on a person. This parchment had a huge royal seal attached, of red wax, which was on a piece of red ribbon, and was contained in a little metal box. He dangled it so it dropped off the ribbon, and then shoved it back into the box without actually focussing on what he was doing, so that it almost certainly got scraped. He was a people person, a wonderfully dear people person, not an archivist. One never knows through whose hands an object may have passed. My uncle, who was a rude little boy, got his pen and ink and drew poo-poos falling from all the animals in an 18th century bestiary. So while some "experts" say that it is impossible that anyone other than Leo could have drawn the bicycle, I continue to say that it is impossible that Leo drew the funny little face that accompanies it.

All this is an aside. Bottom line is, this is not a Leonardo. Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not by Leonardo, but there was the irresistible hook right in the opening. If you're uneasy with the current suggestion please do offer an alternative hook--it's worth mention in some form. Very best as always, JNW (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crehan

As many references were added that i could find today to the edit page of Michael Crehan. Please help. Is this enough? Thnaks so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecrehan (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will respond at AFD page. JNW (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nude Sitting on a Divan

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that 8!

Hi JNW, and thanks for the save--I'm forever teleporting 18th- and 19th-century people into the 20th century with these typos... Ewulp (talk)

To sift through your meaningful contributions in order to (finally) find a typo offers a pretext to say hello. Hello. And best regards, JNW (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Blind Pew

You are the funniest mortal enemy I've ever had. Well done sir. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(Blushing in response, if it were possible given my age and leathery skin tone) Hopefully I am not your mortal enemy, as ever striving for immortality. JNW (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vindictive?

Hi. It appears that you edited my entry - which, by the way, I did not write myself. (I corrected a thing or two, but I have no idea who wrote the original entry.) Odd that you chose to add as one of two external references the worst print review the Davis book received instead one of the many, many raves. Odder still that this change occurred on the very day that I was criticizing two other Wikipedia editors about another entry. I don't think the two events are unrelated. I don't think vindictive changes are what Wikipedia is about. I ask that you be fair and balanced and add references to, say, the daily New York Times review (a total rave), the USA Today review (a total rave), the Publishers Weekly review (a rave), the Washington Post review (a rave), etc. --EdSikov (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi indeed. Let's take these one by one: The Times review stood out by virtue of being the Times; I'd be happy to include others of a more positive nature, like this, which I hadn't seen before [57]. I did see your conversation with other editors, and then read your bio, which had no objective reliable sources. Rather than tagging it for lacking independent sources, I added two links to strengthen the claim of notability, which is pretty clearly merited; one of which was the Times review, the other an NPR interview, and removed an unsourced assessment of a class you taught [58]. An NYT review, positive or otherwise, is pretty solid for establishing notability. I'll reinstate the Times review, and seek to add others as well. And whatever conclusions you choose to jump to about another contributor's edits, removing a prominent review from your own biography is not the way to go here--it's more WP:COI than your darkest perception of my motives. JNW (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That particular NYT review was one of the first ones, if not the first, to come up in a Google search of your name. I did subsequently find more positive reviews, one of them also coming from the Times. I've restored the review you deleted, and added a few more positive ones as well. I'd be happy to add more, and to help with the article further. JNW (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine! Thank you - sincerely! I was only attempting to live up to the ideals of the site: "the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." I did not see neutrality at work here, given the two incidents happening on the same date. I'm still not convinced that they are purely coincidental. But no matter - you have improved my entry now, and I am grateful. Thanks! One more thing: I have had to retire completely from teaching and stop writing serious film books because I now have Parkinson's disease; it has become a central fact of my life. May I, or someone else, add this fact to my entry? It is easily verifiable online. By the way, here's a source for the thing you deleted as being unsourced: http://bicollegenews.com/?p=2019--EdSikov (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added something on the popularity of the Haverford course, and on Parkinson's--if you can refer me to a published source besides the blog it would be great. Very best, JNW (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also added some content re: sexuality. This is tricky for several reasons: I'm uncertain that there's enough objective coverage to warrant mention in the opening sentence, but I wanted to offer something that had been published to support the rationale; at the same time, personal information is subject to WP:BLP guidelines--if the information has not received significant coverage, and the subject finds it intrusive, then it ought not be included. However, this need be balanced with WP:COI, in that the subject ought to, for the most part, stay out of the editing. Whew. My take was that given your public statements you're okay with this; another editor may well decide that it's not appropriate or necessary for the lede.... All explained not so much for the sake of political correctness as to adhere to encyclopedic guidelines. JNW (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: the above-- I've since found mention in several publications, including The Washington Post's 2007 review. JNW (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're the greatest! Unfortunately, the only other place that has "published" the fact of my Parkinson's is a website limited to people who have the illness themselves - patientslikeme.com, and I don't think you can have access to it. I have talked about it in public several times, but nothing more in "print". Sorry. But to repeat: You're the greatest! You really live up to the ideals of this site. I am most impressed as well as grateful. Thank you!--EdSikov (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed: thank you. I'm glad you jogged me--it was plain lazy scholarship on my part to settle initially for the one review. Your body of work is most impressive, and I wish you the best. By the way, Modernist is terrific, and a great contributor on articles in the visual arts; we regulars are zealous in getting things sourced and correct. You are welcome to keep in touch. Respectfully, JNW (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Postscript; a long time ago I had a girlfriend who studied at Bryn Mawr for two years in the late 70s, and her social scene included the guys from Haverford. Nowadays he's a family friend, who, coincidentally, I think I'll call tomorrow. Small world in the arts community.... JNW (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques and Berthe Lipchitz

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lovell Birge Harrison

You may be correct in saying that Lovell Birge Harrison's book on landscape painting is still in copyright, but that should be checked. I do think that some additional material on the book can properly be placed in this article. I happened to be editing the article at the same time that you deleted the large block on his book, so I was startled by the sudden deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No intent to startle; I came across the article as you were working on it. Perhaps a paragraph on the book is appropriate, especially if its impact can be established by reliable sources. As it stood it was a sprawling and poorly explained section that I suspect was based on an individual's advocacy of its content, rather than on its contributions to the study of painting. The sources I added ought to help. JNW (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the section you removed as questionable for the reasons you cite, and I agree that removal was the proper action. I would prefer that you or someone else better informed on artistic issues would expand a bit about the book, which seems to me to be important, but long neglected. Perhaps some request on the article talk page would be the best course for now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look and add more about it; probably the article in general will profit from expansion. Just now I'm loopy with food.... JNW (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Leocadia

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

De nada. JNW (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

cheers

If you are on your way, I just wanted to say what an excellent contributor you've been, and I enjoyed interacting with you. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to echo Riggr Mortis's comment -- you're a great editor and a joy to collaborate with. I hope you'll reconsider. Raul654 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping that after a well deserved break you can return; the work you've done here has been brilliant...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! Another one! Thanks anyway, it's been great. Maybe one day.... All the best Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you are one of the good guys, alway interesting to read your articles and share work. Hope good things are coming IRL. Ceoil (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This cyberscribe has greatly enjoyed collaborating with each of you. I’ve loved contributing to articles in the visual arts, especially secure in knowing that one or all of you would watchlist and improve whatever I'd worked on. Times are tough, and my heart doesn't appear to be in it, at least for the foreseeable future. Keep in touch on or off Wiki. Very best regards, JNW (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you returned yet??? I thought that the Sirens of Wikipedia would've lured you back by now! I certainly respect your wishes, but just know that you are greatly missed.

On to some unfinished business. I've been wondering for over eight months what Alice Neel said. Would you please tell me, either here or via email? Yes, I know, it's a bit of chutzpah to basically eavesdrop and then demand more info, but there ya' go. I bet you could write a book filled with stories of your encounters.

Happy winter solstice! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Mandarax. I'm done, unless an art siren summons me for a specific purpose. As for the stories, I am certain I have no more than does anyone who has spent time around painters in NYC, but I know how to tell them: When I was 19 or 20 I attended a slide presentation given by Alice Neel, who would have been about 80. After it was over I accosted Ms. Neel (she was surrounded by people) and showed her a self portrait I was working on--in it I was nude to the waist, looking straight out, quite vain. She looked at it and asked me "Are you Italian?" I replied "No, Jewish", and she said "Same thing." Laughter, then she said something complimentary. Within a year she painted this [59], which was the only self- portrayal she had ever done. I've since wondered if my youthful arrogance may have served as a sort of sub-conscious inspiration. Great artists take from everyone.... (apparently not--the NPG website claims that she'd started the painting five years earlier). Have a wonderful holiday and a happy new year, JNW (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal post script: About a dozen years later one of Ms. Neel's granddaughters, then a college student, sat for her portrait by me. JNW (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. BTW, I thought I might have seen the Alice Neel self-portrait you linked to at a large retrospective a few years ago at L.A.'s MOCA. I tried checking, but I've been unable to find any evidence that that exhibit ever happened. I may have hallucinated the whole thing. Oh, well. Happy New Year! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No hallucination. This link bears out your recollection, from 2007: [60]. A very Happy New Year to you, too! JNW (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the story! I hope you'll occasionally grace us with more stories to tide us over til you write that book I suggested. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mandarax; I'm sure I'll find occasion to drop more anecdotes, if only to confirm that I've bumped up against notable personae now and again. About 15 yrs. ago I was working on a book with a NY publisher, but I scotched it because the concept was getting diminished while it was only in the beginning stages. So here I've been writing for free on Wiki.... go figure. JNW (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR...Modernist (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And the same to you, Modernist. Very best regards, JNW (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll be back by and by...and in the meantime, best wishes for the holiday and a happy new year! Ewulp (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

JNW takes up a hermit pose. From here its either comtemplation or regression. Ceoil (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ewulp, and very best wishes to you. This odd and humbling year almost came to an absurd end yesterday morning--I was running errands and doing almost 70 on the highway when I was surprised to see a driver going the wrong way, coming straight toward me in the left lane. Given aggregate speed, the whole thing was over in little more than two seconds--my brakes and tires worked very well, and I was left unscathed. Must now return to revelry. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

[butting in]..Funnily I had two near misses in the last week, did a 360 on a slip road in ice, car just went off on its own and I lost total control, left sitting there spinning thinking "I wonder what will happen now". Nothing, luckily; soft landing on a briar ditch. I was driving on a secondary road on tuesday when a large truck came skidding out from a connecting road, skidding on ice again, vering left and right so close I could make out his face. He stopped within inches of my small car. I blew the horn as in "WTF", and oddly he blew his back, seemingly in anger, as if to say you should have been in my path in the first place. Hmm. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(E.C.) These things happen so fast; if we walk away it's with gratitude and a story to tell. Have a safe new year, and drop in anytime. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit! Will you guys please be careful, I don't wanna be left here all alone...Modernist (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not real fond of winter driving, and with the weather that's headed our way today I'm looking forward to staying housebound. JNW (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, I love the image, and enjoyed your initial comments [61]; I've had similar experiences, where drivers who almost took me out of commission behaved like their mistakes were somehow my doing--one late night many years ago someone ran a light and nearly hit me; when I honked at them they followed me to my door. One thing we can't do is choose who we share the roads with, so god love 'em all....because I suspect I've made my share of absolutely brainless moves, too. So, in that spirit, [62]. JNW (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I find that "video" to be disturbing. Imagining the Beatles of the era pictured performing that song makes my brain hurt. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Less jarring, perhaps [63]. JNW (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Schools

HI JNW. A UK school, Kingsley College, Redditch, you have created or contributed to has been updated. You may want to keep this page on your watchlist. You may also wish to stay up to date with developments o Wikipedia school articles by visiting the Wikipedia Schools Project pages.--Kudpung (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just when you thought you were out, they suck you back in.[64] Don't do it JNW! Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Pretty much the only articles I'd return for would be on paintings of female nudes. I'm old enough to revert to adolescent interests under a thinly veiled patina of scholarship. JNW (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So we understand each other so. Good. Do you know how many depictions of venus there are out there? Lots, and in some you can see everything. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true, dude. Art totally rocks! JNW (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and you can edit articles like this, and pretend its all normal, even intellectual somehow. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And this, too. JNW (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats too far, I'm deeply offended, both as a woman and a 6#3 man deeply in love with Christ our Lord. You have tainted the formerly sacred internet; I hope you can live with that. Ceoil (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly, I can, perhaps because I've become inured to my own appalling behavior, which each day challenges my better nature, ever reminding me of my dualistic mortal conflict. Now, to respond to the question you crossed out [65], it depends upon your field of interest. There are many good researchers and writers of prose, and Clark was excellent as a popular historian, eminently approachable. In my readings on Eakins I've immensely enjoyed Lloyd Goodrich, who is just a flat out fine writer. He wasn't an art historian, but as an appreciator John Updike wrote a number of pieces which were collected into book form, 'Just Looking' and 'Still Looking'. Lawrence Gowing was good, and brought an artist's insight to his writing. The art critic for New Yorker magazine, Peter Schjeldahl, is a splendid writer; if you don't subscribe to the magazine you can probably find back issues in the library or online. There are many more, but I confess I usually choose the subject first and hope the writer does justice. JNW (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would highly recommend John Rewald, his complilation of Pissarro's letters to his son Lucien (Camille Pissarro, Letters to his son Lucien,) is one of my all time favorite books, as is his Studies in Post-Impressionism...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I know Gowing ‎through Bacon, speaking of which David Sylvester remains one of my favourite writers, a little excitable for sure, but I've not since seen a critic who had such empathy with his subject, who "got it" so exactly, who basically made the man's career. Goodrich et all I'll look up, we have a pretty good art book shop here. Ta again. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

JNW, not sure what you'd make of this [66]. Fairly abstract, and utterly beauitful. The album was a year zero moment for me, and I spent a lot of time in a band heavily influenced by them for much of the 90s afterwards. The possibilities it suggests havn't been realised yet, at least properly. Its a bit of a cul de sac, but I'd guess it will happen yet. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, thank you for sending that along; sometimes it takes generations for something to resonate and be expanded upon--I'd like to hear a sample from your band. In the meantime, a melody in return, by a guitarist who changed genres at the drop of a hat, but always wielded a sonic switchblade [67]. JNW (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, keep him talking Ceoil. Happy New Year all! Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good. A very happy new year to you, Johnbod. If retirement from editing means more time chatting with all of you, I've no complaints. JNW (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Quo on their 19th farewell tour, Hammersmith Odeon 1978

+ <deleted comment from Ceoil>

Yeah happy new year Johnbod. This latest retirment of JNW's one of his least convincing. I'd put it in third place, after his great retirment of Oct 2009, and the later one in Nov 2009. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To those who doubt my resolve

JNW, as he may be seen on a given evening.

It's not easy to walk away from an addiction, but those who scoff at my intentions would do well to peruse my edit history, and see how many contributions I've made to articles in the last month. I am no longer a practicing editor, but a flâneur. Someday perhaps I'll return to what I used to do, spoiling canvases..... JNW (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention at your DYK contribs before the last month. Nobody is scoffing, we well understand how it goes, I assure you. Some support group, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, I'm not completely serious about the scoffing business--my thin-skinned-ness is more deeply tied to my real life career, the one that was healthier before the economy tanked. This too shall pass. By the way, your familiarity with my previous retirements, dates, etc, makes me feel rather special, though I am thinking of calling a different kind of support group. And you really needn't have removed the earlier comment--your posts are enjoyed, and no offense was taken. JNW (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grand; I've returned the Quo pic, for two reasons; I am heartless bastard, and I've said good bye wiki myself a few times; had my userpage deleted even, a few times, so it was kind of a self knock. The 2nd reason is a mid 90s fashion disaster you dont need to know about. I can imagine how the current economy must be in your business, and sadly its like that in most. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A very happy new year, from one bastard to another. JNW (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And to you too. Ceoil 04:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Phillips collection

The article about the The Phillips Collection and the references added are being attacked by an IP who clearly is an editor in disguise and who doesn't like doing editing just tagging, I would appreciate your input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; they appeared to be editing in good faith, though I can see why the templates looked harsh, especially since you were in the process of improving the article. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

US 70s/00s

70s tune played a few yrs ago. I will be annoying you about Ingres in the weeks to come, you best be warned. You are retired, which is fine and good for you, but I see an executive producer type roll in your future. Or in other words, what ever roll you want, but I will need to have your ear. Ceoil 10:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that--kind of Neil Young meets the Pixies. My door is always open, though today my Ingres book is at the studio, and I'm blanketed by a cover of snow elsewhere.... JNW (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Handel's collection of paintings

Dear JNW, I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can you give your opinion? Taksen (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, but it's rather peripheral; my inclination would be to limit it to one or two sentences within the article. Best of luck, JNW (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Amusing diversion

From Raul654 - Give this a try and see how you do. I tried and I got 54 (out of 101)...Modernist (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but I'm away, and checking in from a public computer. But this looked really important, so.... I got 75. Someone around here will put us both in the shade. JNW (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

75 - Impressive! Puts me to shame. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudos, 75 is a good number...Modernist (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

75 is excellent. Low 40s here, but sure my spelling held me back. Géricault anyone. Ceoil 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do I collect my cash prize? Sure, all the things I'm decent at don't pay, except for the admiration of others. Alas. JNW (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh It'll pay off - just you wait - and keep working...Modernist (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and many good wishes, JNW (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Morris

Thank you for the kind words. It's been wonderful seeing the article grow through many editors' hands from the short piece I'd created; User:Pepso2 is an especially knowledgeable contributor to comic-strip articles. I'm so happy to see that your dad is still with us, alongside such other Golden Age greats as Jerry Robinson and Carmine Infantino.

You make a good point about what a sharp-eyed user might notice as a color disparity, and even though I've no doubt you are indeed Jerry Weiss, I know you know, as a longtime contributor yourself, that the OR policy is bigger than us two, for reasons you know as well as I. I'm sure any users who notice will assume the color was adjusted for an Internet scan, as often happens.

Now then: When are we going to see your dad and Lank Leonard's Mickey Finn show up in collected volumes through Dean Mullaney's Eisner-winning Library of American Comics?! It needs to happen — and your dad needs to write the intro! The syndicate, I'm sure, still owns the rights, but that's true of all the LAC reprints. Your dad's availability might be an impetus to spur that collection. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ignorant re: the Library--I'll have a talk with the subject! The syndicate closed over 20 years ago, and though I can find no documentation, Morris gave most of the Mickeys he drew to Emerson College, and was honored at their commencement ceremonies, late 1970s. I've been attempting to add to the article in a balanced manner, sans OR-- call me on it if I err. By the way, in recent years Morris kept in touch with Will Eisner, and only a few months ago met with his widow.... JNW (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG! Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDW_Publishing#Dean_Mullaney.E2.80.99s_Library_of_American_Comics

I've actually known Dean for decades. In the 1970s he was a pioneer of creators' rights as publisher of Eclipse Books. The Library won the Eisner Award in 2008 for The Complete Terry and the Pirates.

On a separate note, the Morris Weiss article could surely use an image of him in the infobox. If you as a photo rights-holder could add one, that would help raise the article's quality and provide an important contribution. Oh, and yeah, your edits have been great — well-cited, neutral, apt, informative. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting--a few years ago somebody else contacted me with such a compilation in mind, but as far as I know nothing has come of it. Thank you for the link to Dean Mullaney. As far as the image goes, is it legal to download a photo from a newspaper interview [68]? I also have a photo of the Flagg portrait, done when MSW was 19. If I can figure out how to scan that it would be très cool. Not knowing what I'm doing adding new images, I copied the format for the Sunday page from the article on Edwina Dumm. Thank you again, and congratulations on all your fine work as an editor here. JNW (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We have a good bunch here. I'm afraid we can't use a copyrighted newspaper photo, and we already have an example of his work. But if you have a family photo of your dad, in digital form, you can upload it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload . The directions are pretty straightforward, and if you want, just upload it and fill out what you can, and let me know at User talk:Tenebrae, and I'll fill out the rest.

In the "Licensing" pulldown near the bottom of the page, pick one of the lines that begin either "The copyright holder" or "Own work," depending on how you want to release it; the greyed-out text above the choices tells you what they mean. The best choice for a family snapshot, in my opinion, is "Own work, release into public domain" — that's the best way to ensure people everywhere will see what Morris looked like. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't have many photos at hand, though I might have something recent digital.... the drawing would be neat to use, having been done by Flagg in 1934....perhaps not the most recent option, but a beautiful image. JNW (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We might run into rights problems with Flagg's heirs. I'm no attorney, so I can't say for sure; sounds like a grey area, at the least.

Just had a thought: As a family member, you could scan one of the photos given by the family to Alter Ego for his interview, and upload that with your rights clearance. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be the best way to go. I don't know the legal ropes, either, but the Flagg head was reproduced in both the Alter Ego and Cartoonist Profiles articles, as well as an article in Nemo magazine. There's also a marvelous cartoon that Ham Fisher made of my father face to face with Joe Palooka.... Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The strip is a good choice as the colors are vibrant. I have lightened the tone, eliminated paste-up line between tiers, changed the .tiff to .jpg, and brought it down to less than 300 KB. Does Emerson College have a strip collection? I recall that the former head of Emerson had a personal strip collection. Same? Pepso2 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work as well, Pepso2. My assumption is that the Mickeys are part of the College's permanent collection, as they were given to the school. I was happy to end up with that particular page, which was one of my favorites, especially for the dumb pachyderm, which looks heavily influenced by Knerr.... JNW (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mickey Finn Sunday by Morris Weiss.tiff

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mickey Finn Sunday by Morris Weiss.tiff. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a new barnstar, of which I am proud to be the initial recipient, especially for Firecane

The Barnstar for creating properly sourced articles, often for idle amusement, that nobody gives an alpaca's ass about. Keep up the good work.

"The Barnstar in recognition of possessing the masochism required to administrate an anonymous forum encyclopedia that attracts trolls. Keep up the work." --RM

I wouldnt say nobody cares... didnt rick flair also use one of your theme tunes as his entrance music. Thats amazing and should be in an encyclopedia. Ceoil 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No self-pity here. Just practicing humility before handing them out. Feel free to distribute some, in time for Valentine's Day. JNW (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know a few candidates, but people, I generally find, dont like to be told that nobody at all cares about their articles. I have a few that can go a year without even a blip on Henricks tool. Such is life. Ceoil 17:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, though I did conceive it as a tongue in cheek note for my colleagues who feel similarly misbegotten at times, lest we take ourselves too seriously. Lately you're becoming more diplomatic than I am....perhaps it's just that I'm entering Wikipedia dotage, and you're drawing inevitably closer to becoming an administrator. Don't bother denying it, I predict it within a year. We'll have an inauguration party, with funny hats and cake with frosting. JNW (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See? [69]. First you're an ambassador, then an admin. It's a slippery slope to respectability, sir. JNW (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This can only end in tears. Some wide-eyed newbie gets tossed over the coals--hm, I think I got that metaphor wrong, it's probably a somewhat helpful act!--for editing "H.D." with a space between letters (or vice versa). Hopefully Ceoil has enough self-awareness to blank his page and retire. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm too firey to be an admin, and frankly currupt to the bone. If I had the tools, even for a minute, I'd smite all my enemies, gone...dust. You do have the temperament though, but I far prefer to see you do this than blocking members of the Riggr farm. Ceoil 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You still have bile, but you've gotten wiser while becoming one of the lions of arts and letters. And I think you'd exercise restraint as an admin, though I demurred a while back for similar reasons. Agreed re: contributing content, and I enjoy the chatter far more than compulsively reverting vandalism, which I'm glad to have stopped doing. If we blocked all the Riggr incarnations he'd reappear under another guise anyway. Canadians are stealthy, ay? JNW (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Riggr is the first Canadian I've gotten to know, and while he may be a fine example, I'd say slippery rather than stealthy. Re admin, its a thankless responsiblity, and I wouldnt want it, ever. You would be far more suited than me, and there are quite a few admins that I think ver highly of. Moni3 and Cas spring immediatly to mind. These are people I would go for a pint with. Ceoil 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Slippery" -> Yes, Canadians apparently have an "identity complex". I don't know what characteristics of a geopolitical entity would lead to such a description, but you could certainly say that of himself. What? Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The vetting process for adminship seems to be a bit like that of running for paid public office. I'd be compelled to forsake my libertine ways. No, I prefer to be hand-fed pre-peeled grapes, typing this as I recline in the arms of my dearest one, who is sometimes mistaken for others. Oops. One of the grapes rolled to the floor. Must retrieve before our pet does. JNW (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Grapes. I can't watch it (Hulu) cuz I'm Canadian. This is tantamount to a hate crime, in Canada. I'll just assume it's the sketch I'm thinking of. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But for the discrepancy of gender, it's as if someone filmed me at home. JNW (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, your saying the stripper I organised for your last retirment will work against you? Oh dear for you, but dude I have far worse dirt. video. Ceoil 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Organising and quaint pleasantries are not to your credit. In the twitter age you've got to live in a cave not to be the subject of some sort of self-incrimination, and even then people will speculate on your compulsive need for privacy. So unveil the videos. I stand naked before you [70]. JNW (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I interst you in some rumour and character assassination? Juicy stuff, if your game. Ceoil 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re last edit summary, I'm watching "paranormal activity" atm, and its creeping me out big time. I just need to talk, blather, to somebody. Ceoil 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And I enjoy the chat, though I suspect off-Wiki life will soon intrude. Feel free to continue-- even if I don't respond immediately, will return later. JNW (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

JNW, have you considered going on Facebook? Might be a good career move. (Lol.) Me, it's the latest place where I'm doing nothing, other than creating various fake accounts with which to poke myself. (To see if I'm alive--get your mind out of the Guttr!) Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No interest in Facebook, as I am clearly averse to anything that encourages contact with the world at large, or that may be of any financial benefit. JNW (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm here, has anyone seen http://www.googleartproject.com/ ? Check out the image detail in these--e.g. http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/met/the-harvesters . Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

Whoops, you're right. Happens when you're dealing with a whole bunch of IPs all at once. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-retired

Maybe this template describes your situation better than {{retired}}: {{Semi-retired}}. I dream of horses @ 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly that would be more accurate--is that a new template? My only concern is that the likelihood of effusive going-away salutations is greatly minimized by using a semi-retirement template. Thanks and cheers, JNW 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that new, actually. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you're enjoying semi-retirement, and that the fish are biting--part-time, at least. I just read Bathsheba at Her Bath--what a wonderful piece of work. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for twice now doubling up on your warning templates at User talk:Supersonicman777. I'm going to leave them, though--maybe that will help. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies--much appreciated. Thanks also for helping out today. Perhaps the article is ripe for afd. And by the way, enough time has passed that I can reveal myself as the mysterious anonymous IP whose identity Mandarax figured out, and who you were trying to ascertain long ago. But don't tell a soul. JNW (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I had lost track. Somewhere I have a list of your IP addresses. But not to worry: your secret is safe with me. Nice to see you again, I must say.

Perhaps you have an opinion on these contributions: I reported the editor as a spammer (violation of the naming policy). Some of the links they added were nice (nice looking, anyway), but I don't think they rose to the level of notability. I'd love to get your opinion though--you know this artsy stuff better than I do. Hey, are you going to Burning Man? did Mandarax get the second ticket for you, or does he have a secret lover? Drmies (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree re: that account--though the links themselves were often helpful, they are all connected to Becky Daroff's website, so they look like backdoor links to her work. I hardly travel, and when it's to see art my interests are irredeemably old school, i.e. there had better be a roof overhead and frames on the work. Alternative events remind me why I stay in my studio, far from the madding crowd. JNW (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding--I finished that novel last night. No joke. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)