User talk:Bus stop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jokestress 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Michael Richards (A)

Welcome again! I wanted to let you know that I removed your comment from the article above because it violated a policy of no original research. We can't say things like "I think that's great," etc. The Tom Green comment is interesting, but right now on the talk page we are discussion whether we should include reactions by other people. You can join us there to discuss it. It's Talk:Michael Richards. Thanks! Jokestress 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making such major changes and undoing the work of so many editors as you just did. Establish consensus first on the article's talk page. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus stop, what evidence do you have that MR is considered a comedian instead of a comedic actor? —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Why are you posting on my Talk page? The article has it's own Talk page. Isn't the article's Talk page the proper place to discuss this? And why are you following me around, from article to article? Bus stop 22:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't edited that article. I asked you this question because I saw this link on your talk page and I recently heard a discussion about this particular subject. This is the second time I have asked you to explain your position, and this is the second time you have refused. And, since you think I am harassing you, I will voluntarily withdraw from this talk page and direct all future communication towards you on the article talk pages. —Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- There are a variety of uses for both article Talk pages and user Talk pages. The definitions are not "carved in stone." But you've repeatedly shown a tendency to want to discuss issues about the content of articles on this, my user Talk page, and to address issues concerning my abilities as an editor on article Talk pages. I think that there is a time and a place for each, and that there is something to be gained by trying to respect the different purposes for these two different types of Talk pages. But, thank you for trying to help me as an editor, and I look forward to relating to one another amicably in the future. Bus stop 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from talk page

Glad you are enjoying Wikipedia. I got your note on my talk page. If you look at the top of this page above the title, there's a + sign. If you press it, you can add a title to your comment. When starting a new topic.

Also, if you want to indent a comment like this, put a colon ":" at the start of your sentence. This is standard practice when replying to someone else's comment. Happy editing! Jokestress 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to sign talk pages

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. (→Netscott) 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie edits

You are changing the meaning of the lead sentence with your current revision and subsequent revert. Please see Hippie: Talk.

Wikipedia=one million block-headed editors=ten million arguments. Apostle12 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays, Bus stop. Could you make an effort to keep your comments brief and to the point? I'll also ask Apostle to stop the personal attacks. I'm also interested in resolving this argument, so if you want to try and convince me of why you think you are correct, you can use my talk page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Due to time constraints, I was hoping you and Apostle could summarize the main points in contention. Looking at the discussion, it appears to be a semantic, not a content dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, again. The meaning of visual arts in the context of the hippies appears to be in dispute, hence semantics, not content. As for the discussion, I am presently mobile, editing from my cell phone, and the IE ver. doesn't allow me to edit large sections for some reason, so I am unable to reply. I'll try Opera and see if that works. Either way, I would still appreciate it if you could summarize your position in 50 words on my talk page. Thanks! —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but you do understand that I'm having difficulty replying to that section due to it's length, right? That's why I can't add a comment. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

When one asks for a source, the protocol is to do so without removing content. If a source is provided within a reasonable period of time and you disagree with content, then the protocol is to add a counterpoint. Your approach is aggressive...therefore obnoxious. Apostle12 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- I think in this instance what I am doing is neither aggressive nor obnoxious, but you are entitled to your opinion. I removed something that was both un-sourced and untrue. I explained my edit as the material being un-sourced, but I was also concerned not to have untrue material left to stand. Any editor can take issue with my removal of that material, and that editor may prove to be be more "aggressive" and "obnoxious" than I am. The result should be a well written article that can withstand scrutiny. But I respect your point of view, and thank you for speaking up about it. Bus stop 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken in the best narcissist tradition...missing the point as always. Apostle12 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- I don't think I am "missing the point." I think I am addressing the point, the point that you made, that is. Are you trying to provoke me to respond angrily? You don't seem interested in constructive conversation. You seem interested in labeling. You seem to be trying to offend me, by labeling me with various negative terms. You seem unrelenting in your personal attacks on me. Bus stop 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't think you are missing the point! On "Hippie-talk" you had asked for tips regarding "obnoxious." Well, here goes, though I suspect there is little hope that this will somehow connect.
One might define two primary modes of human interaction:
Approach one is assertive and aggressive. It encourages contentiousness, countervailing powerplays, and narcissism--all talk, little listen. "Never give an inch." "My source bests your source." "I'm willing to revert more times than you are."
Approach two is collaborative and works through suggestion and a willingness to recognize the "other"--limited talk and an active attempt to listen. More demonstration than assertion. Encourages inclusiveness, creative editing and the addition of content to clarify subject. Asks for sources, waits for sources to arrive, discusses the issues, tries to arrive at consensus. Wholesale deletion of content and/or sources is avoided.
Approach one makes a virtue of narcissistic contentiousness. In some cultures this is the dominant mode.
Those who favor approach two find narcissistic contentiousness destructive both to the quality of life and to the human spirit...pushy and obnoxious. Apostle12 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- It looks like you are still trying to provoke me to say similar sorts of things to you as you are saying to me. The article that we both find ourselves editing should be the primary thing that we are discussing. Yet you seem to be intent on analyzing me as a person, making value judgments about what makes me tick, and playing pop psychologist. I don't recall saying anything about you, as a person. At first I tried to engage you in discussion, concerning your judgments of me, as a person. I figured we could just get that out of the way. But you are relentless. You seem determined to address the sort of person that you see me as being. How did that become the primary topic of discussion? Can I ask you to try to keep our dialogue on the topic of whatever it is we may be discussing vis-a-vis editing articles? Do you really expect me to discuss with you whether I am really a narcissist, or obnoxious, or aggressive? Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that I have called you any derogatory names whatsoever. Have I implied that your character is deficient in any way? Let's try to be more cordial towards one another in the future, OK? Bus stop 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You asked "How am I being obnoxious?" I told. Apostle12 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Bus stop, my friend, I agree with your sentiment, but I can also understand Apostle's frustration. Please do not continue to delete things that do not deserve to be deleted. Discuss it, use the appropriate tags, and engage other editors before you delete things like "art" from the counterculture article. That was really silly of you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Aren't you the one who wrote that un-sourced reference to "art" in the "Counterculture" article in question? And aren't you the one who deleted Korky Day's writing more than once from the "Hippie" article, citing as a problem that it was un-sourced, as your reason for deleting it from the article? As I recall he complained that you did not even talk to him about it before deleting his efforts. I recall him complaining that he put "30 minutes" into composing what he wrote and then you just deleted it without even talking to him about it. Do you see any similarities between your own actions and what you are now criticizing me for? Bus stop 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, please. The answer to your first question is no, I am not the author, however I did split the article off of counterculture, and that is where you will find the author-in the page history. To be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine any justification for your edit, and it almost approaches vandalism. As to your second question, Korky's information was not only unsourced, but appeared to be incorrect, and I did comment on the talk page about its removal. There is a huge difference between removing matters of undisputed, historical fact, exemplified by dozens of articles and categories, and deleting unsourced opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Viriditas -- Did you split the article off of "Hippie," or did you split the article off of "Counterculture?" It is not vandalism to delete un-sourced material. Material is supposed to be sourced. If material is not sourced, it is a candidate for deletion. I think you treated Korky Day with just as poor etiquette as you are saying I displayed in deleting the word "art" from the "Counterculture" article. Bus stop 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus stop, my friend, you are engaging in something called WP:POINT. Read and understand it. I just finished explaining to you that the article was split from counterculture, so why did you ask me which article it was split from? You are beginning to sound like a sock puppet of Korky. The article was already tagged as unsourced, so you would have had to have an additional reason for removing content like you did. You didn't and you don't, so your edit was made in bad faith. I suggest you drop this issue and go back to productive editing. —Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- You are the one who thinks that the word art is nothing but "semantics." I do not. To me art (and related terms and phrases) is a word that has to be used properly. If you scroll up on this page (and also in our conversation on your Talk page) you will find your reference to semantics in relation to "visual arts." You suggest that I "drop" this "issue," and I suggest you drop this issue. I thank you for sourcing the word "art," and you can thank me for calling attention to the need for it to be sourced. By the way, I don't agree that Korky Day's material was without merit. No, I am in no way related to Korky Day. Please stop throwing around terms such as "vandalism" and "sock-puppet." I "vandalized" nothing and this is the only Wikipedia account I have. I speak only for myself. I need nothing but my own brain in order to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not need secondary accounts to support my point of view. Bus stop 06:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I never said anything about the word art, I said you were arguing semantics on Talk:Hippie. I suggested that you drop the issue regarding sources because you are misinformed, and if you continue editing in a disruptive manner, an admin could block you. I don't want to see that happen. —Viriditas | Talk 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- This is a quote from your post on this Talk page: "The meaning of visual arts in the context of the hippies appears to be in dispute, hence semantics, not content." That is what you wrote on December 27, two days ago. Just scroll up to see it. For my response to that you will have to look on your own Talk page, because that is where I responded. I don't know if you are now going to say that those two instances were two different contexts, in two different articles. But if that is what you are going to say, I don't see it that way. In both the "Hippie" article and the "Counterculture" article, a very similar issue comes up. It involves shades of meanings of various "art-indicative terms." (I am making up the phrase "art-indicative.") In both articles the objects concerned were not (in most cases) paintings and sculptures and closely related matter, found in museums or galleries of contemporary art. As such I was not readily willing to apply the same terminology to the production of the "counterculture" or the "hippies." I am aware of the prevailing trend to call almost everything "visual art," or "art." I make no value judgments, but for the sake of clear writing, and so as not to mislead the reader, I like carefully choosing terms that are not too broad in meaning. Of course they should not be too narrow in meaning either. Broad, sweeping statements don't serve anyone's interests. They sound good, but they obscure more than they illuminate. As to your suggestion that I "drop the issue regarding sources," let me point out to you that it is the cited sources that indicate what sort of objects are being referred to by the word "art" in the "Counterculture" article. I cannot, as an editor, know whether the word "art" is being properly used, without knowing what it is referring to. Therefore I need to know sources. Bus stop 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You also need to read WP:REF. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Virditas -- It sounds like you didn't read a word I wrote, because you didn't respond to anything. In lieu of dialogue you referred me to a Wikipedia page for "Citing sources." You overlook that I didn't write the sentence containing the un-sourced material. What is your point? I removed the un-sourced information because it was vague and unclear, and I think that is what Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia does not want vague suggestions without sources to back them up. Consider this: Did the editor who wrote that sentence (which included the word "art") have oil paintings in mind or did that editor have tie dyed T shirts in mind? Without a source, no one has any idea what the word "art" refers to. It happens to be a vague word, in common usage. Wikipedia can overcome that unclarity, with due diligence. Bus stop 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you add a cite request. You don't remove words in articles due to your personal lack of knowledge. Don't do it again. —Viriditas | Talk 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Why are you so enamored of telling people what to do? Are you aware that after your shabby treatment of Korky Day, which he complained about in a long paragraph on the Talk page for the "Hippie" article, he virtually has not posted anywhere on Wikipedia again? Are you aware of that? He only posted one more time, and that post was not to the "Hippie" article, which he seemed to be very enthusiastic about. Who are you to boss people around? You are telling me, "Don't do it again?" I think you should check with someone who might know more than you about the general philosophy concerning un-sourced material on Wikipedia. Or perhaps you may want to research it on your own. It is my understanding that un-sourced material is a candidate for deletion. And please spare me your accusations of "vandalism." I deleted one word. I deleted the word "art." I wrote in my "Edit Summary" that it was "un-sourced." That alerted anybody who wished to provide a source for that word to do so. I helped the article by my action. My motives were good. The outcome was a good one, since you came along and provided the needed source. Why don't you drop this subject? I don't enjoy this interaction with you. I don't like your manners. I think you treated Korky Day shabbily. And you are showing the same personality to me. No one is an authority around here. As long as we try in good faith, and assume the same of others, this enterprise can work. Can you try to operate without telling people, "Don't do that again?" Bus stop 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of unsourced material is in error. That approach generally applies only to statements about living people. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Korky was treated badly in any way. And, I've already addressed this issue on talk. Do not continue to engage in WP:POINT. —Viriditas | Talk 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Do me a favor -- don't even talk to me unless there is something to talk about. You have been pursuing me and pursuing me and pursuing me. I did not initiate this conversation. And I have been trying to extricate myself from it. When you speak to me with the same courtesy that I speak to you, then I would be happy to engage in dialogue. But whatever this discussion is about has been long lost in the layers of accusations and counteraccusations. Can we drop this? If a genuine (new) need arises then we can try to talk amicably again. Bus stop 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie influence on the visual arts

One example of many:

"The so-called hippies, and other free spirits of the mid-1960s who congregated around Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco precipitated an "alternative" lifestyle that rapidly caught on in many cities, and even some rural areas, around the nation. Unlike the Beats before them, the hippies captured the imagination of middle-class Americans, especially its youth, who credited them with starting a sexual revolution that encouraged free love and with popularizing the use of marijuana and other hallucinogenics such as LSD and mescaline to "open" the mind. The visual art forms usually associated with hippie culture - psychedelic posters, album covers, comic books, and other graphic designs celebrating the hippie lifestyle or advertising outdoor gatherings called "be-ins" or "love-ins" - is fully represented in Made in California. So, too, is the work of painters, sculptors, decorative artists, and fashion designers influenced by hippie culture's embrace of unconventional media and libertine subject matter." [1] See also Australian artist Brett Whiteley. How many artists do I have to name before you change your mind? Three? Three-hundred? —Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- On the Talk page for the article "Hippie" there is a section titled "Hippie influence on the visual arts." This subject is being discussed there. Several editors have been involved in that discussion. I have asked you to please join us in the discussion there. This is not something that has to be discussed on my user Talk page. Why are you starting a separately, but identically, titled heading, "Hippie influence on the visual arts," here on my user Talk page? Can't the subject be discussed in just one place, namely where it is already being discussed? Bus stop 08:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I explained to you at least twice, that I was unable to discuss the topic on that page. Move this section there if you want. —Viriditas | Talk 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- So then wait until you are able to post on the article's Talk page. I also explained to you at least twice that my user Talk page is not the ideal place to discuss this. I've spent an inordinate amount of time over the past two days trying to contend with your various complaints. And to tell you the truth, I enjoy making my ideas known in a public space. I didn't join Wikipedia to get bogged down in a one to one debate with Viriditas on my Talk page. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a user Talk page when I first became interested in editing on Wikipedia. Each of the articles in question have their own Talk pages. That is where I would prefer that we conduct our conversations about editing the content of Wikipedia articles. Bus stop 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Many of my responses to you are to be found on your user Talk page. Bus stop 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have my permission to move the discussion, including both of our comments, to the relevant talk pages of counterculture and hippie. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- I wouldn't move the discussion to an article's Talk page because I think it is a depressing discussion bogged down in irrelevant pettiness. Bus stop 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Are you interested in contributing productively to the Hippie article? I have a section on Hippie art and fashion that I want to add, as well as move and merge related content from adjoining sections, and I'm hoping you will help. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Thank you for the invitation. That is nice of you to say. I will keep it in mind. But I tend to skip around. My thoughts are evolving. I am presently concerned with the appropriate use of art terms, as they relate to the field broadly known as visual art. That is probably evidenced in several of my edits. I am a stickler for the right terminology concerning these things. The words matter, and I would rather use more words or awkward descriptions than use the terminology that most readily comes to mind, but which fails to identify the visual entity being referred to with the appropriate amount of specificity. But, thanks for that invitation. I much appreciate it. Like I say, I will keep it in mind for the time being. Thank you.Bus stop 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Relevant Pieces

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_dense Apostle12 08:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Apostle12 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- It is not courteous to come back after a several day hiatus in our interactions to try to be offensive to me. If you genuinely had something new to say to me I would think you would find your own words with which to express it. There have been no changes made by me to the article on the "Hippies" that we both worked on, in the past several days, so why are you coming back now to post the above two links on my user Talk page? Apparently you don't want healing. Though you have criticized me as being too aggressive, your own actions, seen in the above post, seem to be aggressive too. You seem a mite too combative to be criticizing someone else for being too aggressive. Bus stop 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classificatory disputes about art

Thanks for note. Reply on article talk page. Tyrenius 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful what you call vandalism

I see you made this revert and claimed vandalism in the edit summary. To me, at worst that looks like a content issue of "undue weight" and bad spelling, but it is clearly not vandalism. And to be honest, to a younger editor, Richards is probably not known from Seinfeld as well as he is by his rant. Anyway, just please remember to assume good faith. —Dgiest c 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Bus stop 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing vandalism

Might be preferable just to write "Remove vandalism," rather than repeating the vandalism in the edit description. Apostle12 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Bus stop 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary art

Thanks for tidying up my misstypings; I really must stop editing late, when my fingers seem to be twice as large as when I'm fully awake and alert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Bus stop 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RexNL 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RexNL -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to remove that content. Thank you for putting it back. But, what I was trying to do was to make it so that one could "edit" the section called "Other Art-Related Terms" separately from the two sections below it, namely the sections titled "References," and "External links." How would that be done? Bus stop 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bus Stop. :-) I removed the link from Contemporary art because Wikipedia policy WP:EL on external links suggests avoiding commercial links. They tend to be seen as advertising and "spam" because if one commercial site is linked then every other commercial site in the world will want to add a link too. I hope you didn't think I was too harsh. It looks as if you're doing good work improving that article. Random Passer-by 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Random Passer-by -- No, after giving it some thought, I didn't think it was improper to remove that link. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, more links to the web sites of contemporary art galleries, and obviously they can't all be included. Thanks :-) Bus stop 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop art in America

That info about the factory and Warhol's house isn't relevant. Juts someone either trying to be helpful but not understanding the proper formats, or just playing. The Warhol article talks about the factory in depth and the bit about his house? Not particularily useful. Freshacconci 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would fit in on the Andy Warhol page. I didn't really check that page, but it is more likely a place for information specifically about Andy Warhol, as opposed to generally about Pop art. Thanks. Bus stop 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remodernism

The dates are linked per WP:MOS because this enables preference settings to work for desired date display, not because of their link to the date articles. This is irritating but necessary. It only applies when day, month and year are all stated. Tyrenius 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. I wasn't aware of all of that. Bus stop 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NeoPopRealism!

Thanks for your input. We're not supposed to actively campaign for deletion, but I thought I was the only one out there who thought this was ludicrous. I agree with the notability of the artist in question, and I suspect her page may be self-authored, but there's no proof. Freshacconci 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the promotion of food products. Hardly what I consider "art" or an art "movement," unless there is a joke in there. A bowel movement? I guess I don't have a well developed sense of humor. Bus stop 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they're deadly serious. That's the problem.Freshacconci 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Hey! How r u? I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get others' opinions before being so bold as to begin hacketing it on my own. Hope all is well with you. Cleo123 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am great, Cleo. Hack away. I'll weigh in with any opinions I may have, as the transformation takes place. Thanks for saying hi. Bus stop 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Russ

You've put an AfD tag on it which links to AfD for NeoPopRealism. I can't find AfD for Nadia Russ, so I've removed tag. Tyrenius 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius -- There are multiple, single purpose user accounts popping up regularly to support "Nadia Russ." They cite articles published on "Webspawner." It seems to me anything can be written on Webspawner. All you need is a keyboard. I tagged the article for deletion today, again. The supporters don't engage in dialogue. They think they can foist artists and terminology on Wikipedia readers without substantiating their claims with citations or at least an engaged dialogue. I would be more inclined to withhold my objections to this article if the supporters of it engaged in a dialogue with me, so that I could get a feel as to where they are "coming from." When they remove the tag proposing deletion, doesn't that shut down the dialogue process? And, over the past few days, I think I have tried to draw the participants into a dialogue with me on the Talk pages. That has not worked either. There is a "my way or the highway" attitude, it seems to me, on the part of the supporters of this article. I have been trying to find the template for the tag that says that the tag cannot be removed, but I have not been able to locate it. Do you know where that tag can be located? Bus stop 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Russ problems

Hey Bus stop--you may want to connect with Tyrenius--he's an administrator and somewhat of a goto guy for visual arts. We're definitely dealing with sockpuppets here. I asked Tyrenius to look at the NeoPoprealism article and he blocked one of the sockpuppet accounts. There's obviously more--at most one or two people at work. If you want to AfD Nadia Russ, I'll second your nom. Freshacconci 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci -- I don't think they have at all defined the term "NeoPopRealism." That is where I entered this discussion, several days ago. I don't think they have at all shed light on what NeoPopRealism means. Most of their argument for the importance of the art of "Nadia Russ" relates back to the importance of NeoPopRealism. They have shown, in my opinion, a distinct propensity for shying away from any discussion as to what they mean by that. So, in the final analysis, I don't see sufficient significance for inclusion on Wikipedia of this artist or of the "art movement" that they argue is associated with her. I do feel a little bit bad about trying to "knock an artist off of Wikipedia." But I don't think the reader of Wikipedia should be subject to an article that in my opinion has very little substance to it. Bus stop 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As much as we all in good faith attempt to be inclusive, given the scope and size of wikipedia, I also don't think this means we need to open the door to everyone who is an artist. There needs to be some standard for notability, otherwise all of this is meaningless. If an artist wants a web-presence, they can get a website. I'm an artist, but I'm not notable. Maybe someday, but not now. I guess some cannot accept that, or become over-zealous in their promotion of others. Whether or not the Nadia Russ page is self-promotional or not, I'm uncertain. But given the number of artists not included on wikipedia, it's a little irritating to see this sort of activity. To AfD an article, go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion and follow the steps. It's more involving than the other deletion methods, but it cannot be removed until closed by an administrator. Freshacconci 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems about right. Speedy tag can be removed by anyone apart from article creator. Prod tag can be removed by anyone at all. AfD tag can't be removed until AfD is closed (only by admin with exception of obvious keep). I have a lot of leeway for artists too, but the article has to demonstrate an adequate degree of shows/coverage/reviews or whatever and verifiable sources for the info. Blog-type sites aren't enough, and so far there's only one review from NYArt. However, please concentrate on the article and not the editors, despite the temptation to do so. If it's an article that benefits wiki (at the moment I don't see that it does) we should save it, despite its proponents. Keep me posted on any socks. I'm busy offline, but I'll keep an eye open. I think you and Freshacconci have exercised a lot of patience and understanding over this article. I recommend a bit more severe editing of it to see what remains that is worthwhile and verifiable. Tyrenius 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Ginsberg and pedophilia--some clarification

Ginsberg never advocated sex with pre-pubescent children, very true. He did, however speak of children's bodies as beautiful and he joined NAMBLA as a political protest.

Ginsburg also advocated, and occasionally practiced, sex with adolescent boys. This may have constituted a violation of "informed consent" laws in some jurisdictions--worldwide the variance in informed consent laws is great, from age 9 to age 21. Those who define pedophilia strictly would not count Ginsberg's fondness for adolescent boys as "sex with children;" others would.

In any case, Ginsberg hardly spoke for, nor did he typify, hippies....so I'm glad you reinstated "except sex with children." Apostle12 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He was in favor of free speech and he stood in opposition to societal taboos. But I think it would be an overstatement to say that he advocated for pedophilia. Bus stop 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But he was certainly there with the hippies and the Underground movement... Tyrenius 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was often around. Though more as our beat Godfather than a full participant. I recall one particular night at the Fillmore--he was always sitting, always watching, with his bushy black beard and a tape recorder by his side. I'm not disparaging his contributions, but he did seem quite weird. Not because he was gay; just his rather bent, benign presence. Apostle12 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Curtis (artist)

It could have potential, but it's not showing too much of it at the moment. I've speedied it once and it's been recreated. What do you think? Tyrenius 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tom Curtis (artist) article is problematic, in my opinion. I don't see that the artist has been the subject of suitable published work. I have indicated my opinion on the article's Talk page, and on the author's Talk page. I have also suggested for deletion the following article: Abraham_Lubelski Do you agree that the lack of published work about this person is also problematic? Bus stop 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article will have difficult surviving. Lubelski however seems to be of sufficient notability. He has exhibited at the Venice Biennale. Tyrenius 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)? I added some references. --Eastmain 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Air Fairs International is produced with "Word Press," described as a "personal publishing platform," and it links to Abraham Lubelski's "NY Arts Magazine." I think it is only promotional. It is critical of nothing. It praises everything. Bus stop 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards (B)

I saw your revert to User:Bulbous' text reduction. I understand. Looks like you may have upset User:Bulbous, however. He left you a message on the talk page. I opened a new discussion titled "Should we hold off?" Please, share your thoughts when you get a chance. Peace! Cleo123 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there's something I'm really interested in. Do you REALLY feel that the "fork up your ass" reference doesn't refer to lynching? Bulbous 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bulbous -- I wouldn't joke about such a thing. I have misgivings about reducing the seriousness of something that is in the realm of the very serious. I want to condemn lynching without any reservations. Nothing could be more barbaric. But I think it is unfair to attribute all of the barbarity of lynching to the comment that Michael Richards made. I think it is thoroughly wrong, what Michael Richards said, concerning that "fork" comment. But no, in my opinion, it is not a reference to lynching. In my opinion it is imagery used to convey the utter control of one human being by another human being. It is certainly derogatory. It certainly is deserving of condemnation. But it is only referred to as lynching by the news media because they have a powerful agenda. We happen to live in an age strongly marked by the need to distance ourselves from such things as racism. That is certainly a good thing. But in our frenzy to distance ourselves from such things as racism we sometimes distort things too. The news media could just as well have reported verbatim what Richards said. But they choose to interject words (lynching) that will demonize Michael Richards further, and thereby distance themselves from his racist outburst. We cannot do "original research" so my opinions are irrelevant. Our article on Michael Richards has to say that it was a reference to lynching, because that is what all of the news media have said. Bus stop 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been a fan of Richards for some time, but reading those specific words, I can't see how they can possibly be interpreted in any way BUT a reference to lynching? To me, it's extremely blatant. I appreciate your idea of "utter control", but isn't the "one human being by another human being" negated by the fact that Richards said "We"? Bulbous 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean literally one person. Yes, I used the term "one man." I chose my terms incorrectly. What I meant is the "control" part. I think Richards was trying to be insulting. None of this is proper, or civil. But in a heated exchange it is not inconceivable that one could blurt out such things. Bus stop 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm not trying to do anything here but analyze that phrase. What really settles it for me is the "Fifty years ago" part. I mean, what could that possibly refer to other than a political climate where violence against Blacks was more tolerated? How do you get around that part? Bulbous 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not denying that the reference alludes to, or at least comes pretty damn close to alluding to, violence to Blacks. I just take exception to characterizing it as "lynching." It is a reference to what it literally says. It is not necessary to interpret it. It says, "Fifty years ago you would have been upside down on a fork." Correct me if I am wrong. I think that's what he says. First of all, you've got to take into consideration, I think, that these words were not thought about for a long time before they were spoken. If Richards had a five minute time delay, and he saw what he said, I think he would have deleted his words. My point is that these words hardly represent his premeditated thought. But the words do not spell out lynching. If you put your emotions aside, I think what you see is a reference to food. What goes on the end of a fork? The reason why those words leapt into his mind is because food is utterly controlled. I know I am being irreverent. I don't mean to make light of lynching. But why interpret what Richards said? He said what he said. He didn't say, "Fifty years we would have had you hanging from a tree with a rope around your neck." He didn't say that. It's bad enough that there is a terrible history of lynchings. But do the news media have to incorrectly paint Richards as an advocate for lynching? Have you ever heard the trite saying that two wrongs don't make a right? Bus stop 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for responding. I know the cellular footage has been excluded from the official article, but for the purposes of our discussion, it should be sufficient. From that source, it sounds to me that the exact wording is, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass". I don't think it's a tremendous leap between an allusion to "lynching" (to which you object) and an allusion to "group violence against blacks" (to which you don't necessarily reject). Isn't the rest semantics? Or is the whole point one of semantics? Bulbous 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bulbous -- Does he say, "Fifty years we would have had you hanging from a tree with a rope around your neck?" That would be a reference to, because that would be description of, lynching. Is the "fork" comment evocative of the above comment? Yes. But there is a difference. Is the New York Times indicating that difference? It is a very serious charge to attribute to Richards a reference to lynching. Yet the news media (I'm just using the New York Times as an example, because of their stature) don't take the effort to stop at some point short of calling it a reference to lynching. "Upside down with a fucking fork up your ass" means "upside down with a fucking fork up your ass." Is news reporting about accuracy or interpretation? We, the consumers of news, don't need the New York Times to digest and interpret and regurgitate for us in a form that our feeble minds can easily grasp. In an editorial column they can feel free to expound on how the imagery of one statement is similar to the imagery of another statement. I don't see it as a reference to lynching. The reason why is because it is not a strict description of lynching. You can feel free to interpret it and reach a different conclusion. But then, shouldn't you preface your mention of "lynching" with something like, "according to my interpretation?" Bus stop 15:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No response

Okay, I'm not responding to him. It's killing me, but I am NOT responding! You gotta love this guy! I use the word bully as a VERB. He CALLS ME a bully ("like most bullies") farther down the page (not to mention accusing me of lying, being dishonest and disingenuous) and somehow he tries to twist it all around. Hopefully, an admin will dig a little deeper on him and read the Richards talk page, as well. I'm inclined to think that your initial theory on him may have ALSO been correct. Seems like the anti-Richards camp may have had alot fewer editors than it had appeared. Curiouser and curiouser... Cheers! Cleo123 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pro or anti Richards. Some things just make more sense to me. I see no need for a "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" page. The supporters of that page make it sound like that incident has an equivalent amount of significance as, say, the Boston Tea Party. Besides, it shares the term "Michael Richards" with the original article, so anyone searching for the "incident" article (unlikely, I think) will find the original article, and read the same account of the incident. Bus stop 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be on one "side" or the other either. I'm just using "their" terminology. If anything, I'm on the "side" of Wikipedia, as I suspect are you. If you get a chance - you should read the full talk page archive. It's AMAZING how MANY editors have remarked that the incident deserves no more than a few sentences. When the AFD is over, I plan on trying to get the Mel Gibson DUI article merged back into his biography. It's a dangerous precedent to have been set because it opens such a pandora box! Boston Tea Party? LOL!!! You're killing me! LOL Cleo123 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone may be following me around now. [2] I hope not. Cleo123 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's all part of the "Wikipedia experience." lol Bus stop 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clint Wright

I was very tempted to speedy delete this and associated articles. I didn't because the speedy tag had been removed earlier by another admin I noticed, and also by going to AfD it does two things: 1) a delete then has more weight 2) it gives the article time to redeem itself if there really are sources etc that validate notability. Tyrenius 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. As long as it gets cleared up. If they have sources, great. If not, we have to maintain Wikipedia's standards -- and the article has to go the way of the Dodo bird. Bus stop 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, the article on Dodo bird hasn't been deleted. :-) Tyrenius 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it. Freshacconci 04:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Tyrenius 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Dodo bird article lacks a neutral point of view.Bus stop 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Full of weasel words ("commonly used" and unsourced statements (only one ref in the whole etymology section). Tyrenius 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image development

Thank for your contribution to the Talk:Image development (visual arts) page. The article as been nominated for deletion if you like to vote for or against it. Oicumayberight 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing. :) Oicumayberight 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Edit By Me

Hey Bus Stop, on 31 January, you put this message on User talk:Tikitom9. I just wanted to let you know that this part of it: guideline|[[WP:N]] was causing Tikitom's actual talk page to be listed in the Category: Wikipedia guidelines. I removed it because it's (obviously) bad to have a user's talk page listed as a guideline, but I just wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers, Sarah 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I guess that's an example of the sort of thing that happens when you don't know what you're doing. Why does Wikipedia let people like me make changes? Thanks, Sarah. Cheers. Bus stop 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Just wanted to draw your attention to the above for posting new AfDs and finding out about them. Tyrenius 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Bus stop 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give them an inch...

Hey! You may want to take a look at the Maichael Richards Talk page. Alot of changes have been made, so much so that I had to withdraw my "agreement". It's such a shame! We were finally so close to consensus. Please, take a look when you get a chance.Cleo123 01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cleo. I happen to think the Michael Richards article is uniquely contentious. I suggest we start a breakaway article on The Unique Contentiousness of the Michael Richards Article. Bus stop 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, things have moved on light years since Cleo123's post! Tyrenius 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Kenda AfD

Hi Bus stop. I was intrigued by your commentless vote to keep Karl Kenda. I was about to write you a comment to ask why the change of heart, so I hope you'll pardon if I went back and looked at the earlier revisions of the page and saw your more complete thoughts on the issue.

I'm curious if you thought I was applying different standards in my nomination of this article, primarily based on it being original research, versus my vote to keep some of the street artists and delete some of them, largely based on the availability of outside resources to support their individual claims of notability.

I guess I'm really just looking to better understand what you were trying to say (and then I'm also curious as to why you blanked the comment). Cheers. Planetneutral 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot to mention that I wrote a response to the original author's comments on the Talk:Karl Kenda page. Planetneutral 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Planetneutral -- Thanks for the message. I was not even aware that you were involved in the articles for deletion concerning the group of "street artists." I simply hadn't taken note of that. I actually haven't thoroughly read everything concerning that issue. But here's what happened: I happened to notice the Discussion page writing from the author of the Karl Kenda article. I had prior to that (today) been looking at the AfD street artist issue. I was struck by the basically different approach taken by the defenders of each of these categories of artist. (I was wrong in calling it different "standards.") I was moved by the earnestness that comes across in the writer defending the Karl Kenda article. On a gut level I take a skeptical view of some street art. These are not Wikipedia considerations. But I just thought I'd cast my vote concerning the Karl Kenda article as my conscience, not my intellect, guided me. I deleted my explanations because they could not stand up under logical scrutiny. Bus stop 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look

  • Athanasio Celia
  • Verticalismus

Tyrenius 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernd Fasching

What do you make of this one? He is certainly enterprising, and possibly of minor notability, but it's no doubt WP:AUTO. Tyrenius 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, no, it's not patent nonsense per CSD criteria. I chanced upon it while I was working through CSD by the way. Try prod or AfD? Tyrenius 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell the original author about the AfD. There is a template to use on WP:AFD. Also you're getting the formatting slightly wrong on the AFD. And it's a good idea to list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Practice makes perfect! Tyrenius 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've looked over the advice that you've given to other people on their Talk pages, and tried to absorb some of it. It is really great. And thanks for the advice, above, for me. Bus stop 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure. Here's a couple of good templates:
{{subst:welcomeh}}
{{subst:refstart}}
They are my standard ones to help people get started, good for new users, and refstart particularly useful for new users who should insert refs in articles which are badly in need of them. Copy them into your edit box, and see what happens! You can always delete the result if you don't need it... Oh, and when you've listed an AfD on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts, you can leave this near the top of the actual AfD page:
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletions]]. ~~~~ </small>
Tyrenius 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual arts-related AfDs

Just done it! Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

{{subst:LVD}}

Result:


Tyrenius 00:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel De Caso (2nd nomination)

Just a reminder - let the author (and maybe major editor(s)) know. I've left note. I've also speedied his movement Rectroversion - see if it turns blue again! Oh, you left the LVD template on the page for the first AfD, so I deleted it. Hmm, just noticed the author hasn't edited since November, and surprisingly has only made edits to this article and related ones. Tyrenius 02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About misundersood of vandalism in "Minimalism" article

Hello. I was notified about vandalism in Minimalism article some time ago, but want to say i was just trying to repair link to Ru.wikipadia.org interwiki artcile, because it seems to me that "Minimalism" article in en.wikipedia.org has wrong interwiki links to all non-latinic wiki and they are looks like http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F So they are refer to nowhere :/ --83.167.112.18 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I know I'm getting a little reckless about accusing people of vandalism. There is so much of it. I'm sorry about that. Bus stop 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindly get a clue

This comment was 100% off base. While it was true that that editor's edit to Michael Richards was essentially vandalism it wasn't "racist". Such commentary on your part is defamatory and I would kindly request that you refrain from similar baseless expressions in the future. (→Netscott) 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I contend that this is racist: "Richards being a big fat racist!!!! Can you believe it?" Bus stop 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In another edit "racist-tirade" is changed to "truthful crusade." That too is a racist edit. Bus stop 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you ask User:Tyrenius about the comment you made on that user's page before you repeat such an inappropriate thing. (→Netscott) 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- Why? Why don't you just speak for yourself? What is it that you want to say? What is it that you think User:Tyrenius would say? Whatever it is that you think User:Tyrenius would say, why don't you just say it yourself? Bus stop 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm explaining and you're not understanding. I suspect that if you are told by User:Tyrenius you'll understand the inappropriateness of your commentary in no uncertain terms. (→Netscott) 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- You are not explaining. The edits to the Michael Richards article were not just any vandalism. They were vandalism of a racist nature. The whole focus of both of the edits were on characterizing Richards as a racist. That is racist. I pointed out on that editor's Talk page that such racist editing is unwelcome. Why don't you, Netscott, try express what you don't like about the wording I've used to communicate with that editor? It is possible for one to make progress in a discussion such as this one that we are having, but one has to be forthcoming with nuanced explanation. Yes, I have spoken harshly to that editor. But is that not called for? Racist vandalism should be frowned upon, should it not? Can you explain to me how you see those edits as not being racist? Bus stop 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- I generally don't post a comment to an editor if their vandalism is Potty humor. But I felt that racist vandalism to the Michael Richards article warranted a response. Bus stop 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) -- I see that you have now posted on User:Tyrenius' Talk page a complaint about me. Why is it that through all of this you find it so difficult to put into your own words, to me, what your complaint is? I've asked you more than once why you do not see that editor's two edits to the Michael Richards article as racist. You contend that those edits are vandalism, but not racist. I have asked you more then once why, or how, you can not see them as racist. But you can not seem to engage in a straightforward dialogue with me in which you express your point of view. And now you've complained to Tyrenius about me. Even if Tyrenius supports your point of view, will it be your point of view? Since you cannot explicate on your point of view, is it really your point of view? Bus stop 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I've been mentioned enough times here already... First thing that occurs to me - we're the good guys, remember? The best thing is to avoid possible contentiousness by simply referring to such edits as "derogatory" or "negative" or "contentious" etc as appropriate. Then no one can argue. "Racist comments" is ambiguous anyway, as it could simply mean comments which mentioned the notion of being racist, which of course the first comment did. It's not actually necessary to determine whether they are racist or not. They are a violation of various protocols anyway, WP:BLP for a start. I think time would be best spent attending to other things. Don't feed the trolls. Let's move on. Tyrenius 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (→Netscott) Now an Administrator???

Has Netscott been "promoted" to be an administrator??? If he hasn't I can't imagine why he would be reprimanding you for remarks you left on a vandal's page. What business could it possibly be of his? Perhaps, it wasn't necessary to "describe" the vandalism as racist - but I really don't see how that concerns Netscott. If he were trying to Help you, that would be one thing - however the less than civil title heading he has left on your talk page - coupled with this overtly insulting edit [3] would seem to indicate otherwise. If you feel that you are being harrassed by (→Netscott), I would suggest that you post a notice on the Administrators' Notice Board regarding his lack of civility. He is not an administrator, and I, for one, don't think he ever should be. It is important that others be made aware of his true nature. Cleo123 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Any user can draw attention to anything they wish. Admins don't have any special privileges in this regard. Tyrenius 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleo123 -- To tell you the truth I couldn't care less what anybody says about me. (→Netscott) can be as uncivil as he would like toward me. I think it is absurd to call Michael Richards a racist. And more than that, it is racist to call Michael Richards a racist. Richards apologized. That alone should clear him of racism charges. Richards is a comedian. Comedians push the envelope. That's what comedians do. The trouble is that the all too human emotion of anger takes over whenever we let a little bit of it out. I know I am playing pop psychologist but I see that as the operative mechanism in Richards' remarks that evening. It is really no big deal. He apologized and he was embarrassed by it and he felt bad about it. When people post accusations or implications of charges of racism on Michael Richards' article, those are (potentially) racist acts. The Michael Richards article isn't in perpetual open season for accusations of racism. I think if an article on any other living person were vandalized by charges of racism it would be called racism. Why doesn't Michael Richards enjoy the same protection? Because he is today's official-unofficial scapegoat for racism? I think it is an educational act to post on an editor's Talk page that their recent edit to the Michael Richards article was, among other things, racist. That is exactly why I responded as I did in this recent incident. The question is, how does one respond to vandalization to the Michael Richards article, especially when that vandalization includes implications of charges of racism aimed at Michael Richards. I am of course taking seriously Tyrenius' advice to refer to such edits as "derogatory" or "negative" or "contentious." But I'm still unsure why, in some instances, "racist" would not be applicable. Perhaps I should not have invoked the concept of racism in response to this most recent incident. It was actually a fairly mild attempt to smear Michael Richards with the charge of racism. But I think that in more acute instances it would be appropriate to respond with the countercharge of racism. I will try to refrain from doing so, and I will try to find other ways to say the same thing, but I'm unsure at this time why the countercharge of "racist" should be ruled out. I obviously respect Tyrenius' views, but I have questions about them too. Bus stop 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One good reason is that it links in with the language used in a policy such as WP:BLP, so everyone is clear what's being said and why. Introducing a more specific term such as "racist" then has the potential to open a needless debate as to whether it is or isn't racism, as well as possible counter accusations that the cure is as bad as or worse than the disease. Why court possible problems when they can be pre-empted. Tyrenius 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you revert my edit to the Michael Richards page?

From Wikipedia:Lead Section: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and BRIEFLY DESCRIBING ITS NOTEABLE CONTROVERSIES, if there are any.

As you can see I did not intend this edit as vandalism, it is actually neccesary to cite noteabl controversies in the lead section.Hoponpop69 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 -- I didn't think it was, strictly speaking, vandalism. I felt it gave undue weight to the incident you are referring to. That incident is covered in the body of the article. The incident is of a nature that requires balance. It also requires context. So, I felt it was best covered in the body of the article. I apologize for not giving better explanation in my Edit summary. Bus stop 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernd Fasching

Some good input needed on this one. Please watchlist, if you haven't already. See talk page! Tyrenius 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism at Pop Art and Richard Hamilton

I reported that IP address to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Freshacconci 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good. That one was persistent. Bus stop 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


He's now been blocked. Freshacconci 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stencil Edits.

I don't understand your new edits to the stencil page. How do they improve? --Knulclunk 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please -- I would prefer to converse by means of your posing a criticism to what I have edited, not by means of my responding to a wide question such as the one you are posing to me. Obviously I have changed the paragraph on the use of spray painting. But I think it is your responsibility to present a criticism to me, to which I would then be obligated to respond. I don't know why you are asking me to explain how my edits improve. I find the question too vague and general. At this moment I think the obligation is on you to formulate a criticism of the edit I've made. Bus stop 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see I caught you mid-edit. I apologize, and will wait until this evening before commenting further. --Knulclunk 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I wasn't sure where I was going with that edit. The cave painting idea only occurred to me after I made the edit about spray painting around three dimensional objects. Bus stop 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

It gets vicious sometimes, doesn't it? Freshacconci 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does. Bus stop 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Young British Artists

Comment invited on the colour choice for this template. Tyrenius 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I basically agree with your color assessments. Bus stop 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do comment on the template talk page. Tyrenius 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to join this. Please continue to do so. I am learning how Wikipedia operates. (I'm a slow learner.) Bus stop 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodern art

If you have anything to say to Stirling Newberry, say it on his talk page, not on mine. Hyacinth 05:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who are you calling dumb?

im not dumb, tho i did have my hair dyd blonde but its not my natural color.--Zedco 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That wig looks like you bought it at Bergdorf Goodman. Bus stop 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-conceptual art

Here's the text from that article:

Non-conceptual art is art that does not exist. No sources exist for non-conceptual art. There have been no artists working in this area. It has never been observed by those who follow events in the art world. It is theorised that it would be impossible for non-conceptual art to exist. Bus stop 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I appreciate it! Bus stop 11:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

Go to the article. Near your "edit" button is a "move" button. Click it and you will get an edit box where you can enter the new name of the article. It will automatically turn the previous article into a redirect to the new name, so anything linked to the old name will be redirected. You're meant to check to see if any redirects link to the old article, because redirects of redirects (double redirects) don't work, so you should change them manually to link directly to the new article. I shouldn't imagine it will be a problem in this case. FYI to edit a redirect, you have to search for it, but of course it redirects you to the new article, near the top of which is a link to the redirect page. If you ever want to move an article, and there is already something at the new name, you have to get an admin to delete it, before you can make the move. Never cut and paste to do a move, as it loses the edit history. Using the move button moves the history and also the talk page to the new destination. See WP:MOVE for more info. Tyrenius 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK -- Thanks! I think I did it. It's started, anyway! Bus stop 02:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conceptual art

You are about to break WP:3RR, but you are edit warring anyway and that can lead to a block. Please note that 4 reversions is a maximum not an entitlement. Use the talk page to discuss differences!!! That's what it's for...!!! Tyrenius 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really edit warring, though I can see how it might seem that way. I was just expressing my disapproval of the adding of names to the list of artists without establishing notability first. I had no intention of reverting it again. Bus stop 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That is, er, what edit warring is. Some friendly advice - you can get done before you reach 3RR. WP:BRD is a far better approach. Tyrenius 01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artaxerex

Check out the contributions history of Arteban 1 and the anon IP... Tyrenius 01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD is three steps

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephinejost: an AfD nomination must have an header or it will cause confusion in the fD log. Creating an AfD requires three steps. But please watch this one - it probably will not need AfD as long as another admin agrees to speedy her. -- RHaworth 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I couldn't figure out how to do it. Bus stop 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There are step by step instructions on Wp:afd#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Let me know if there's a problem with any stage. Tyrenius 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Bus stop 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/s/User_talk%7EBus_stop_fbba.html"