User talk:Lithoderm/Archive 2

I see you are on forced exhile (good man), but re: I could do something on William Blake's Illustrations to Milton, would you be on for sandboxing this over the next weekend or week, for a DYK on the 9th? I realise i'm playing devils advocate here, but what the hell, its the internet. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hrmmm. You know me well... I have been checking this page... I will be going to the university library, so I could pick up Essick (Gasp!) and a few other sources. I'll try for it! What I noted on OR's talk page about the clear rift between art scholars and literary scholars I think applies to his opinion of Essick as a "fringe scholar".. OR seems to be mainly interested in literature, and Essick has only written about Blake's art. I came across another example of this while re-reading Harold Bloom on Blake: "His paintings are archaic in a crippling sense..." etc etc. So yes. I will give it my best effort. There aren't so many distractions when I'm not checking my Watchlist every 3 minutes. I still don't understand why The Sea of Ice was the most effective DYK... was it you who nommed it? I didn't, and technically it wasn't eligible as the hook info was taken from William Edward Parry. But I can't complain! 74.140.162.131 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is that a static IP? Anyway, thanks re CDF, I hope it was the first of many more collaborations between us. With Blake being the ultimate goal. <sigh> Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

O and I didn't nom The Sea of Ice. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Milton wont be this weekend Lithoderm; I need to push forward The Raft of Medusa and H.D. (whoes FAR is about to expire, ulp!). I did get a few Blake books (on his art) during the week, so they should help. Yes Ottava is orientated towards the literary aspect, but I'm strictly on the visual, and that is a stenght we have as we have both bases covered. You seem to be somewhere in the middle, like lukewarm water, he he. Re the Medusa, have you any interest. Likely it will be at FAC before christmass, I was thinking that a nom from a dynamic IP would be soooo cool! Anyway, don't mind Ling.nut below re my talk; he's a cranky fucker at the best of times, but his heart is in the right place. Later. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I forgot that the library wouldn't be open the day after Thanksgiving, but I have been able to find some sources on the internet. Do you think that we should try for his illustrations of Milton in general, or just Paradise lost? He illustrated Comus, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, L'Allegro, Il Penseroso, and On the Morning of Christ's Nativity. There are two sets of illustrations to Comus, three sets of illustrations to Paradise Lost, and two sets of Illustrations to the Nativity hymn, so it's a rather complex subject.... If I can ever get to a decent library.... 74.140.162.131 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to be direct and obvious about this, the most recognisable image is surely there to your right. Other illustration might be too subtle for the average reader. Maybe ask Ottava the same question, though. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your IP seems to be static so I don't think you need to go creating a sock. The Fall of Eve is a very good suggestion, lets sandbox that on a subpage of 74.140.162.131, he he. I have a few hours of H.D. left to do, talk to you after that, so. Ceoil (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

And by the way,

If you want to build the article under this account, I can always ask an admin to reverse the exhile. Easily done. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS... Just how many alternate accounts do you actually have? Just curious... always like to know who I'm dealing with. ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is much deserved Litho....Thanks..Modernist (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you deserved it. You've been excellent to work with; I thought of offering you a three way but figured you probably had enough of them in your current location. ;) Which page is the best to get ahold of you on? Kafka Liz (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not lump PhilKnight and myself together- I had nothing to do with his actions, have not talked to him about this issue at all, and I have no opinion on what he has done at this time. If you have concern with my actions, you're more than welcome to raise them with me on my talk page or elsewhere. If your concerns are with PhilKnight, please raise them with him. We're not working together, and we're not one common "enemy"- I do not oppose the use of non-free images (as you pointed out, I use them on my own articles) but I do oppose overuse of non-free images, or use when they are not required. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am also a little concerned overall about the use of logos, album covers and such as having an "automatic" entitlement for use, but that's a discussion for another day. I think the thing to realise here is that the comparison is not actually tit-for-tat- I have no opposition to images of paintings on the article about that painting. Take, for instance, Campbell's Soup Cans. I have no opposition to a low resoluton image of the painting appearing in the infobox, at all, and I wouldn't even if the article was much shorter. This is the same as a company article, which can use a logo, or an album/videogame/book article, which can use a cover, but not the same as having the images on an artist, style or history page. If the images are significant enough to warrant a showing on the main article, then they should be significant enough to warrant discussion in the prose of the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the uploads..It helps, and keep em coming...Yeah that Courbet is something else..Modernist (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

is away, but needs piccies. Let me know what print ones you are working on. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have JSTOR, can you check this out & add, on the question of how many of the 1688 illustrations he actually did, and which? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check my talk page. I want to use Blake's drawings with a DYK that covers Milton's later poetry, his style, and his influence. Also, if you have any more things to add to the pages in the copyedit section, please feel free. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

why wa smy article deleted, can you please tell me the reasons. thanx Kolashnikov (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It did not appear to have any substantive content, and utterly lacked references; see the relevant guideline. If you dispute the deletion, you can take it up with User:Jac16888, the administrator who actually deleted it. He would also be able to provide you with a copy of the deleted article, should you wish to re-create it after reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Lithoderm 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Litho, thanks for the Picasso, although the color is way too yellow and light. I repositioned it at Picasso and Daniel Henry Kahnweiler but this site gives me pause: [1], as to how long it'll last...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great job...the new image is as good as the one the polizei deleted...thanks for the explanatory rationales, something to use as ammo..I guess...Modernist (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that you've had your hands full...I came online at the very end of it, good job..Modernist (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm finally done with the semester now, too. Lithoderm 13:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

...for watching my back. I haven't got a lot of time this morning, but I couldn't "check in" without thanking you. I really do appreciate it. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem... I would take you up on that three-way, but with that Yorkshirian fellow it would be something more like a three-hundred-and-forty-one-way. (actually I'm new to Cincinnati this semester and haven't gotten to taste the chili yet... I probably should.) Lithoderm 13:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

My "jihadi sockmaster" (a recently-commissioned Kentucky colonel (!)) recommends the Skyline at Clifton and Ludlow. (Couldn't find any pictures of bourbon balls...). Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, it's Cincinnata. ;) Aramgar (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the bourbon balls! It's been a while since I last had them... :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article contains the statement "it is the most visited school website in the United Kingdom". That's an assertion of significance if ever I saw one. Prod/Afd if you don't like it -- Gurch (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it just struck me that the link to the school was a redlink, and if we have no article on the school, why have one on the website? Lithoderm 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I partly agree; however, that doesn't make it speedyable -- Gurch (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Teehee. Sorry, chat lolz. Don't worry about it Lithoderm, we all make mistakes. —Ceran [ speak ] 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

Just the website is probably more notable than the school. I might create one for the school. Majorly ^talk 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you find a usable version of this Matisse painting, - French Window at Collioure, 1914? It's at the Pompidou in Paris..If not then FU will have to suffice I guess...Thanks..Modernist (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Matisse, it's one of my favorites and Diebenkorn's too, I'm using it at Color Field - the color is actually more like the one here on this page:[2]...btw my own favorite Matisse (besides the one on my user page) is this one:[3] Modernist (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks great..thanks..Modernist (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

A little less obvious but just as big an influence on Diebenkorn was View of Notre Dame, 1914..[4] another favorite picture of mine too..it's at MoMA and if we had it, I'd use it....Modernist (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that, lol. However, as I went to edit to see why the links were red, I was confused because it had the user data. I just checked over and over to see if I misspelled them. It took me a while until I noticed the orange bar and said "hmm, why not check". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sounds nice. Just drop me a link when you create the page and I will dig up anything that I have. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

:) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added information from three more sources. I'll go through and mine some of the other books that I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Charles Matthews, on the Milton page, also likes Blake. Perhaps we should create a page devoted to the relationship of Milton and Blake (i.e. what Blake thought of Milton), and incorporate his various illustrations and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

AH! AH! I'm NOT done yet! Jeez... Oh well... Just where did you add it? I Think that that could be added into the main Blake article, or into an article on Blake's illustrations... Please comment here:[5], by the way... Lithoderm 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added it to the talk page of the link you sent me. :P Also, I was thinking of having its own page, since it would be notable. It would serve half as a list and half as an analysis of their connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would move the page to project space and finish it. The notes on the talk page are the biggest things I could find that were missing. It should be mostly done for right now and it should be placed on a cue. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Co-nom is fine. I will add some things. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I plan on working on Blake's prophetic books and expanding that page and the individual pages for DYK starting after Jan 1st. I expect you to be around, to help with adding some info, and co-noming for DYK. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

A hook - (from one of your great lines) "that Blake's viewed his illustration of the Nativity Ode as the rebirth of Milton's poetry into the creative imagination of Christ" or something similar. I don't know how many characters that is. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

...that William Blake sought in his illustrations of Milton's Nativity Ode to depict the rebirth of John Milton's poetry into the creative imagination of Christ? Lithoderm 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought Blake's Songs would have enough editors working on them. I backed away from the Blake to just work on more difficult areas because of the amount of interest. I have difficulty trying to work with a lot of various people who may not have a scholarly background but are very opinionated on what they want (i.e. pop culture bsed understanding). The prophetic books just seem to be more fitting to that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha, I don't mean pop culture as a trivia kind of section. I mean those who come onto the page saying "I've never studied Blake, but I think he is cool" knda people. I approach pages as creating something to provide a strong basis for students to learn about a topic in a serious manner. Sometimes random people get in the way of that or make it difficult to achieve it. I tend to avoid busy areas also. If the Songs are that empty, we could try to build the notable ones up. I'll put that on my list. So far, I have some stuff for Milton, Henry Fielding, Byron, Keats, and Wordsworth to work on. I can easily fit in Blake's Songs and his prophetic books. I believe that I should be able to put most of the main stuff that I want to write on Wikipedia by January 15th. I lost a lot of time because my laptop's harddrive died. But, I should be able to manage. I have some more books to purchase in the meantime. Regardless. I'll continue my notebook based prep work and try to have things put up afte the 1st. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see that you're a very active editor and I respect that. I'm a fan of wikipedia and, more generally, of the idea of making human knowledge more accessible via the Internet. I work at Shmoop (www.shmoop.com) I received a number of emails yesterday from fans of the site (a few high school teachers and librarians) who had posted links on a number of articles over the past few months. Looks like you wiped them out pretty quickly, and I wanted to ask you a few questions about your rationale. Some additional background on Shmoop: we're geared toward high school students and teachers. Our mission is to make learning and writing more fun and relevant for students who were raised on the Internet and video games. Our content is written primarily by Ph.D. and Masters students from Stanford and Berkeley, and they cite their work. Please drop me a line (brady at shmoop), as I'd like to have a polite chat about this. I'm not a wikipedia flamewar kind of guy. Thanks. :-) Barriodude (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your assessment of the shmoop site (and have some other issues with it as well). Wouldn't it be a good idea to bring it to Wikipedia talk:External links for discussion? It looks like the place to get general consensus about linking to specific sites. --Bonadea (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the View of Notre Dame, it's great...This Miró [6], Personage, summer 1925, or this one: [7], Catalan Peasant with a Guitar, 1924, would be great too...as an influence on color field..or is 1924 too late for PD?....there is also this: [8] from 1925 too Head of a Catalan Peasant that can work, my first choice is Personage from the Guggenheim collection. Modernist (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, they're all too late for PDUS. Any other choices? Lithoderm 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will look for an earlier one.....Modernist (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think ironically that 1924-1925 is when that whole series began, oh well....Thanks for all of your good work - and Happy Holiday, and Happy New Year...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have a great holiday and New Year, and eat lots of bourbon balls for me. ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Second. Except for the "balls" part. Unless you are into that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh heh. Check the talk page of your project before you template me. Still using that ugly old template, eh? Lithoderm 04:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh my goodness!!! Hi there, season's greetings. Have been elsewhere away from the arctic wikiproject too long. Sorry about the template tagging.  :-> Yes still using this ole template. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about that article. The user in question has twice linked to Owen Williams which goes somewhere else. Thanks for the card: I mean, her work is lovely, I suppose. I just don't see any notability, and her actions during all this have been a bit much. As for Mr. Williams, I guess it'll be a wait-and-see. I don't have the time or energy to look into it. Why I'm even on Wikipedia right now is beyond me. I'm not religious, but it is Christmas. I should be drinking something strong, not editing. Cheers, and Merry Christmas. freshacconci talktalk 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! You reverted my edit to the Blake template yesterday, so I thought I'd just explain here what I was doing and let you, who is clearly more expert than me, decide if that revert should stand. I was just de-orphaning articles and noticed A Little Girl Lost was missing from the template. I certainly don't pretend to know anything about Blake's Songs of I&E.

I added A Little Girl Lost to the template, not The Little Girl Lost (the latter being the paired poem you referred to) and as far as I can tell (as per the articles and the list of works given at wikisource (#23 & #5) these are seperate poems. Am I mistaken about that? Regards, sassf (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No probs. Thanks for fixing the matter and good luck with one day sorting all those Blake articles out - there's a lot of empty space in them! sassf (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Coincidence? I was just in the middle of finding sources for that when my son, his girlfriend and another friend turned up. They wanted me to come with them because they thought that they had heard Ishigaq. All three are Inuk, under 30 and have no belief in Christanity. They needed me because they wanted someone who would (stupid enough) get out of the truck and take a look, and of course none of them would do it. It's the middle of the night and -43C, just what I wanted to do. Belief in some parts of the Inuit mythology is still alive and well. It's interesting too the number of people who while professing to be Christian will still believe that the Angakkuq can harm them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

So it is, as anyone who has looked at Inuit sculptures knows... However, I seem to be stuck in the distant past, attempting to differentiate many, many cultural complexes from the point of view of a field that I know little about (archaeology) and where my few sources seem to contradict each other... There's such a huge lot of work yet to do on the Inuit culture article, and I have promised more than I have time or energy to give. I am thinking of putting out an open call to the Archaeology, Indigenous Peoples of North American, and other related wikiprojects, then taking a long hiatus through next semester.. my devotion to Wikipedia has cost me. Lithoderm 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks..and I hope you have a great year...Modernist (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you find some sources per [9]? Thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's try to find other sources...for the raft there is this book: Grigsby, Darcy Grimaldo. Extremities: Painting Empire in Post-Revolutionary France. Yale University Press, 2002. 174–178. ISBN 0-3000-8887-6....p. 177 link-here-[10]..Modernist (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Litho here are different pictures but maybe as replacements - same source [11] and here too [12], and scroll up and down these pages for some really strange studies...Modernist (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Litho, school has to come first...please do your best there...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any chance of changing this so the source is from the Hirshhorn? for the article The Swimming Hole [13]. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Lithoderm 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant, thank you...Modernist (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It did used to be an acceptable form of ref to put in the EL in the text. I don't know if it's changed or not. I occasionally use it as a short cut, when I run out of steam and the article is still in a rudimentary state. Thanks for tidying. See the article talk page for some interesting info. Ty 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. We do a kind of special FA each year for april fools day (last year was the very tasty, delectable and honourable Ima Hogg). Duchamp's toilet is being bandied about for 2009 at the moment. Potential for a very cool page, or no? We'd get a lot of help from non artsy editors. And at the end a Duchamp FA....Good deal or what. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice article! I've suggested a slight amendment to your hook. If you could comment as soon as possible that would be helpful to avoid this getting passed over. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, got interrupted mid edit! I've amended my suggestion. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Dravecky (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lithoderm - {{Europe-museum-stub}} was specifically and deliberately not created, since - like many other continent-specific stub categories, the category was intended to hold country-specific stub types. As such, {{Europe-museum-stub}} is now listed for deletion at WP:SFD. Pleased stop creating extra work and follow the instructions at WP:STUB! Grutness...wha? 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about museums that are not in France, the United Kingdom, or Greece? What stub template should go on them, hmmm? Please AGF, I am only trying to help. If you look at Category:European museum stubs there is a big template (not placed there by myself), which looks like this:

The link to the stub template was dead, and there was already a category in place-- it was simply common sense. Lithoderm 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Concerning this edit] I would like to inform you that for for article pages we use Category:Year of birth missing (living people) instead of Category:Date of birth missing (living people). Please read instructions in both categories and WP:BLP for more information. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you don't have seen that already:

• Russian Wikipedia: ru:Terry M. Ananny
• Danish Wikipedia: da:Terry M. Ananny
• Japanese Wikipedia: ja:Terry M. Ananny
• Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Terry M. Ananny (deleted)

pages founded through Google search. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC), sysop on wp-FRReply

Shit. I had just been looking at the Danish and Russian Wikipedia entries, but was unaware of the Japanese and Portuguese Wikis.... Looks like Ananny has been spending some time with a dictionary or two... Lithoderm 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just found Terry Marie Ananny on the Swedish Wikipedia too... how extremely obnoxious. Lithoderm 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The swedish entry has been deleted. Thanks for the heads up!Mason (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good. That means that we still have these left... at least, so far as I know...

• ja:Terry M. Ananny (nominated for deletion)
• es:Terry M. Ananny (PROD, should be deleted on the 27th)
• ru:Terry M. Ananny

I would hardly be surprised to see Terry Ananny on the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia. Hwæt! Lithoderm 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lithoderm! I'm Thank you for your notification at AfD in JAWP. (ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/Terry_M._Ananny) I confirmed your notification and casted my vote for delete. Please check it. --Tan90deg (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yikes, this just never ends! I guess she's hoping to wear us all down. She has managed to get an article at wikibin, a site seemingly devoted to deleted wikipedia articles, under the notion that these were "censored". There was also a wiki for Canadian artists with a somewhat looser criteria for inclusion where I found the old wikipedia article on Ananny, but that site seems to have disappeared. freshacconci talktalk 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only ja:Terry M. Ananny now remaining... Lithoderm 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. All Terry Ananny articles have been deleted. Lithoderm 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply