User talk:R.P.D.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on User talk:Tyrenius or you can type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

  --Tyrenius 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Van Gogh

As you say, probably best to start off small and learn the ropes. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Some neat amendments to Vincent van Gogh - well done! Tyrenius 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen your user page entry, so I can see why you spotted the mistakes! It would be great if you could add to this article, as it needs strengthening. Tyrenius 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I shall do my best. And that's quite a different welcome than in good old Europe. Thank you --wunny 00:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vollard

I've checked the article as you requested. You might want to check again, re. the Ph.D mention, which I removed as it didn't make proper sense. Tyrenius 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, thank you. I'll supply further facts a.s.a.p. Vollard is not anyone. But mainly I'd like to concentrate on the Van Gogh lemma. --wunny 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Van Gogh, again

This time some general remarks on the lemma and its present state. There are 3 points I would suggest to reconsider:

1. The present introduction is too long, and the lemma in its whole all but well structured.

2. Most of the text refers to secondary sources, and therefore contains personal views pushed by the authors referred to.

3. Van Gogh's primary contribution to civilisation, Western culture or however you want to call it, is difficult to appreciate from this text.

Therefore I would suggest to restructure the lemma, for example:

Introduction
Pronounciation & Spelling
Primary Sources
Biography
Early Life (1853-1880), Borinage & Brussels (1880-1881), Etten (1881); The Hague & Drenthe (1881-1883); Nuenen (1883-1885); Antwerp (1885/1886); Paris (1886-1888); Arles, St.Rémy, Auvers
Work
Draughtsman - Painter - ...
Posthumous Fame
Early exhibitions: The 1890s - 1900-1914 - 1914-1945
Early promotors
Early collectors
Scholarship
Myth
Forgeries
Present state of things

Notes, references &c.

Looking forward to hearing from you, --wunny 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this across to the Van Gogh talk page, where it will be more useful. Tyrenius 03:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Van Gogh and Gheel

First, I'd like to say how enormously valuable your comments on the Van Gogh article are. Many many thanks. There is so much that needs to be done on the article! You mentioned a little while ago that you could get back with some more details on the Gheel episode and the connection with the move to the Borinage. I'd be very interested in this. Stumps 11:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the flowers, but I think you do more fore this article.
"Gheel" happened in 1880, as we know from a letter of 1881. But for the time between August 1879 and August 1880, there is little documentation
Mother wrote Theo on 19 August 1879 that "after much pressure" Vincent stood at their door, took place and started to read.
Father wrote Theo on 11 March 1880 that "Vincent is still here", but Father is at the end of his patience.
In the first days of July 1880, Vincent wrote to Theo to thank him for money (Letter 133)
Theo forwarded Vincent's letter to their parents, who respond on 5 July 1880
Vincent breaks his silence, taking up again the correspondence with Theo, on 20 August 1880 (Letter 134)
The essential parts of the family correspondance with Theo are published in: Jan Hulsker, Vincent and Theo van Gogh, a dual biography. Fuller Publications, Ann Arbor, 1990. ISBN 0-940537-05-2
So far, the facts. On this base, Hulsker opted for a return of Vincent to the Borinage late in 1879, coming back to Etten early in 1880 and then finally returning to Cuesmes. The only reason for this interpretation: Vincent had announced that he would go back to his parents "only for a few days" (Letter 132). From my point of view no reason to "reconstruct" an itinerary like this, and at all, taking into account Vincent's financial situation this is little plausible.
Things go easier, if one is simply connecting the information we have: 15 August 1879 Vincent returns to his parents in Etten, in March 1880 he is still there. Now Father tries to put him into the asylum in Gheel, but Vincent escapes to Cuesmes. - As far as I see, this is the most reasonable interpretation of the few facts we have. The main problem to put it into Wikipedia will probably be that it is not yet published, but this will happen soon in the forthcoming Van Gogh-catalogue of Budapest 2006. If you want or need to do so, you can use my full name. --R.P.D. 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the catalogue for the upcoming exhibition at the Szépmûvészeti Múzeum? When does the exhibition open? Stumps 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
December 1st, catalogues in hungarian and english. --R.P.D. 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for so clearly setting out the argument ... I have copied your text above onto the Van Gogh talk page, and will consider our options for getting it into the article. Does the catalogue have an ISBN yet?? Stumps 08:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, not yet. --R.P.D. 10:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem ... as Tyrenius says consensus is the important thing, and I think your thinking on the Gheel episode makes very good sense ... I guess a lot rides on what sort of tone we read into the "Vincent is still here" remark. Stumps 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll put more on this on Talk:Vincent van Gogh — Stumps 10:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent and Courrières

What is your view about where the week's walk to Courrières fits in? Vincent says 'winter', he slept in the open, and saw haystacks which presumably were built large enough to last through the winter ... is there anything else that can help us know when this happened? — Stumps 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He hoped to find work, and says he would have accepted anything. In this moment I think he did no longer count on support from his family. So a date shortly after his flight to Borinage would make sense, and second half of March 1880 meets the seasonal indications: rain, hoarfrost. --R.P.D. 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ... late March happily matches the guess I had put at Vincent van Gogh chronology (another article that could do with your assistance!). I vaguely recall (don't have the book with me at the moment) that Gayford puts this in "early spring". Stumps 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As soon as my time permits, I shall have a look at Vincent van Gogh chronology --R.P.D. 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ... I found myself constructing it simply in an effort to keep my own thoughts in order, then I thought I might as well put it into Wikipedia. I don't think anyone else has contributed, so it is quite possibly littered with mistakes. Stumps 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goupil & cie

Well done on the Goupil & cie article! After your message about the http://www.culture.gouv.fr link, I thought this was exactly the right way to proceed, but hadn't found the time to make a start. You've done much better than I could have. Wonderful stuff! Stumps 20:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little question to the talk page ... I had thought Vincent and Theo were simultaneously employed in different branches .. possibly Paris The Hague / Brussels ... but I need to find where I read about this. Stumps 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ... I was thinking of Marie-Angélique Ozanne, Frédérique de Jode: Theo: The Other Van Gogh, 1999 ISBN 086565-236-8. — Stumps 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Gogh & the Tate

Hello again. I've left a small question about the reference to early holdings in the Tate on Talk:Vincent van Gogh. Stumps 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris 1886

Hello again. I see you've been adding some details to Vincent van Gogh chronology for 1886. I've left a question on Talk:Vincent van Gogh chronology about Wilkie's 'allegations' about a woman named 'S'. I haven't come across any other material relating to this. Do you know any more on this? I'm about to head off on a couple of weeks' holiday, so I'll be taking a short wikibreak. I look forward to resuming work on the Van Gogh articles when I return in early August. Stumps 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice time. Meanwhile I shall place some more material. --R.P.D. 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another quick question: Amsterdam & The Hague Nov/Dec 81

I've left another question on the chronology's talk page about the dating of Vincent's visits to Amsterdam and The Hague. I had supposed he was in Amsterdam on 27 November confronting uncle Stricker. Stumps 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidentally deleted material

Restored. You somehow deleted all the text in yellow![1]. Chronology looking brilliant! Tyrenius 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to happen again. Strange that it happens at the end of the article. I think I've restored it properly. This is most likely caused by you having installed the Google toolbar in your Firefox browser (see this bug report). If this is the case then you can fix this I think by one of the following:
  • uninstalling the Google toolbar, or
  • change to use a different browser
The problem is that all of a long page cannot load properly. Therefore if you just edit a section then there is no problem. Of course that is not possible when you edit the introduction! Which is probably when you noticed the problem. So for now, at the very least be careful when you edit introductions of longer articles.
Google toolbar's spellcheck is useful, but I belive the new version of Firefox will have it's own built-in spell-check.
If it is not Google toolbar + Firefox then it might be casued by using InternetExplorer on a Mac, or some other odd combination/old version of some browser and so forth. I hope this helps a bit. Stumps 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For brilliant and dedicated work on Vincent van Gogh and Vincent van Gogh chronology and harmonious interaction with other editors. Tyrenius 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can copy this to your user page if you want! Tyrenius 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that I still produce too much trouble for people like you. I only want to contribute knowledge, and my problem is that my knowledge on Wikipedia, on many things which are dealing with basics are very, very poor. Anyway, I am happy that you appreciate my contributions. --R.P.D. 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to help so that we get good articles, so let me know if you need help. If I'm not around try Yanksox who's a helpful person. Say I told you. Tyrenius 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name and date

Please get in touch whenever you want to. I'll provide the technical support (where I can). The discussion on names was herehere. However, this was for the main article. People should normally be referred to by surname, but where this creates confusion, then common sense has to be employed. In the chronology, it might be best to use Vincent and Theo throughout, and to make a note at the top to say why, e.g. "First names Vincent and Theo have been used throughout for the sake of clarity." Otherwise, Vincent could be referred to as "Van Gogh" throughout, and his brother as "Theo". There may be other acceptable solutions also. Tyrenius 08:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's strange - the above post appears on my screen, but not when I try to edit it, so I've reposted it. Tyrenius 12:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If your research has been published, then there shouldn't be a problem, as long as it is not both a)self-published and/or vanity published and b) extreme views likely to be strongly disputed. I presume neither of these applies. However, you might like to make a note on the discussion page that you are using your own published material but working in liaison with Tyrenius and Stumps on Van Gogh articles, and that you are keeping both informed of your edits, so they can be monitored. I think that should be safe. However, to be honest - and as you may have noticed - there's not that much activity in these articles, so it's unlikely you will run into trouble. As far as I'm concerned the huge improvement and amount of work you are doing in a neglected area validates your approach.

Some tips. It's not house style to have bold apart from the repetition of the article title in the first sentence of the lead section. Dates should be wikified [[May 1]], [[1888]]. However years on their own should not be wikilinked, unless for a specific reason. This wikilinking is to enable people's preference settings to display dates according to their choice of date format.

Again, let me say how pleased I am that you are creating such a high standard for this very important artist, and don't hesitate to get in touch.

Tyrenius 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'll keep this in mind and I'll place a note at the discussion page of articles I have altered or shall alter. You will see it, before I put it there.
Well, and house style, that's still my problem. I try to learn as much as possible, but it will take time to be perfectly integrated.
As to Wikipedia: I like this concept, I shall support it as far as I can (and my time allows) - and I think it has to keep the highest standard if it wants to be successful. There's already much nonsense inside. --R.P.D. 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask, and I'll keep a watch. If you let me know the additional years for the chronology, I'll add them to the top index for you. Tyrenius 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The best would be to have the complete set of years from 1851, the year of the wedding of Van Gogh's parents. From 1872 onwards, the years are already included. --R.P.D. 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Sorry, not my field of knowledge. Best to discuss with:

WikiProject Arts

WikiProject Arts
WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage.


and/or WikiProject Visual arts

Tyrenius 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam links

Just delete them, but the ones on VG look alright toe me. Tyrenius 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, in my case it's Braun. --R.P.D. 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VG material

I've restored it (I hope). Tyrenius 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Tyrenius 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean eliminate the "Myths" section and integrate it with the main text? That's fine with me. Tyrenius 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology - dates added per request. Also see talk page for possible continuation. Tyrenius 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Gogh references

Thanks for the welcome back. Which books do you not have? I might have them (but I am not living in the same house as my main library at the moment so I don't have access to all the books I'd like to). Are there particular footnotes that you want to focus on? Stumps 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Callow, Erickson, Gayford - and Arnold (I guess reference is to Wilfried N. - not to Matthias). I have the German translation of Wilfried N. differing in pagination, but I'll get along, if my guess is right. (Is this English, probably not!) Anyway, I would propose links to a letter, if information comes from such a unique, identifiable source. On the other hand, links to an author or an individual opinion should refer to a book or an essay. -
In the VG timeline I've already fixed those links, where the source was obvious. For the rest, I count on your support.
In the main text it's much more difficult for me, to verify the sources, and probably more important in the end, to see if they are valid. This applies especially to Ken Wilkie: Not one source is given, though it's easy to show that his "interviews" mainly recall information published years and decades before, and his further "discoveries" have been toned down in serious recent publications. Wilkie is a journalist, sex & crime are his business - I wasted much time with people like him.
You see it's good that you are back. --R.P.D. 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I do have Callow, Erickson, Gayford, an oldish edition of the Wilkie, and the Australian (originally) Arnold (the "Chemicals, Creativity ... " book, can't remember the exact title right now). I think I have checked all the main article references to these texts. I agree that we should use the letters where possible. (Trustworthy secondary sources in Wikipedia are ok, because they are sometimes more easily verified by other editors, but the letters are available online so there is no possible objection!). Gayford also doesn't specify his sources (apart from a very general note at the end), but is 'reputable'. In my opinion, the Arnold and the Erickson are well-researched and generally reliable works, both with very detailed footnotes throughout.
By the way, I only fixed something in the template. It was created by Dafoeberezin3494 a couple of days ago, and yes, it is a very good idea. Stumps 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double-squares and Squares

An interesting start to an article, but, I get no sense of what you are discussing here. Could you please add some explanatory information to the article? SteveHopson 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little bit to this, but feel free to change it. Tyrenius 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dafoeberezin3494

No problem with the Van Gogh template! I trust my template-making ability more than my writing style, so I don't know how much I can help on the actual Vincent van Gogh article. If I can just let me know!

You and User:Tyrenius. are doing an excellent job on the van Gogh article. I've never seen the book by Wilkie so I can't comment on it, but that seems to be the snag for you guys getting that page to FA status. Good luck and thanks again! Dafoeberezin3494 Dafoeberezin3494 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Gogh strategy

The article needs to be a complete balanced account of life and work. However, if any aspect gets too long, it can be turned into a separate article and summarised in the main article with a link to the new article. I hope that helps. Tyrenius 05:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wheat Field

Hi! I tagged The Wheat Field with the {{mergeto}} tag suggesting it be merged with Vincent van Gogh. I see from your userpage, however, that you are creating a lot of articles about van Gogh and his works, some of which (such as The Night Café) are fully developed articles. Hence, although it is still arguable that, due to lack of content, The Wheat Field should not exist as its own article, another argument can be made to tag it as a stub instead. As of right now, the merge tag remains. --CPAScott 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullfight

Thanks for starting the page. I have been thinking of linking this with the Roulin family who some commentators say are depicted here, and I also think it is an appropriate place to start talking about the "bull games" in general at Arles. Stumps 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, here are the dates: bulfight season in Arles started 1888 on April 1, Easter sunday, and ended October 21st. Van Gogh's painting is therefore no study after nature, but done "by heart". By the way, if you read German, I would be happy to present you a copy of my thesis on the yellow house and its decoration. --RPD 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A very kind offer! I'm sorry to say that my grasp of German is pretty close to zero. If I one day learn enough to be able to read a newspaper without running to the dictionary five times a sentence then I might take you up on the offer! Stumps 13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll be welcome whenever you would like to take up this offer. And at all, we can proceed as we did recently: You indicate where facts are lacking, and I shall try to supply them. --RPD 20:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, that seems to work well! I have spent a little time today — with no success — trying to track down a source for something I remember reading about Vincent’s death, that when Gachet said he hoped to save his life, Vincent replied something along the lines of "Then the whole thing will have to be done over again". What is the source for this? Is it from the son Paul-Louis?? Stumps 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In use

Just what you wanted:

{{inuse}}

Put this at the top of the article, while you are working on it, and you'll see magic happening and won't be troubled by merge tags. Tyrenius 06:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to The Wheat Field

I'm a bit concerned, because although this article has a link to Van Gogh, there are no links going to the article at all, so no one is likely to find it. I've started a "see also" section in VG and added a link. You might like to add links to the other separate articles you've written. In addition it would be good to add a "see also" section to the painting articles with links to the other painting articles and any other relevant artices, e.g. the chronology. That way people can easily access one from another. Tyrenius 06:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's give it a thought, before we continue. Stumps already said this will lead to duplication and pointed to the VG-template. I think he is right, but the template is not perfect: it could point to more and other central issues. On the other hand, the split on the main page between biography and work is not really happy, as I realised these last hours. One biography comprising life and work would be better, followed by notable works , legacy &c. Then, a special article on Van Gogh's Work in general could go to the depth, and supply the necessary links to groups of works and single paintings. - And what we really lack are images, to visualise the topics discussed. --RPD 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I also have been thinking that the split between Life and Work is rather artificial and arbitrary, and it is difficult to know where to add new material. I suggest however that we leave things as they are a little longer ... at least now it is clear what the gaps in the "Work" section are ... if we merged the Life and Work the omissions would become harder to see. Also - of course - the Life section is already very long, and there are still several areas where I think more detail and clarity is required. My preference is to "push on" with the current structure until we feel that there is good coverage of all the material and then to consider either reorganizing the sections, or to break out separate articles. Stumps 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent van Gogh's display at Les XX 1890

I've moved the article to the above title, as this is what it is about. However, should it be Vincent van Gogh's display at Les XX, 1890 (i.e. with a comma before the date)? The link to the image Ivy doesn't work. As a style point, bold should not usually be used except in the lead section for the title of the article, so I've changed painting titles to italics. Please don't put your signature in the article! And you mustn't leave notes (such as saying the article is in progress) in the article itself. This can be mentioned on the talk page, although it's usually unnecessary. Anyway, I was very pleased to see this article, and it's a great addition. Do you have Monet's quote that VG's was the best work in the show? And I think Lautrec and the duel incident should be included. Tyrenius 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll keep these points in mind. As for the Ivy, the link seems to work now - the real problem is that there is no colour reproduction, definitely! There are only old reproductions in black & white, do you think I should add it? But at first, I'll try to finish the text. --RPD 15:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem — I can provide such technical backup! Definitely put in a reproduction of Ivy. I may have mistaken Monet's quote, judging from the VG article, which says it was about another show. Tyrenius 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, so I'll add the image, or try to. For the Monet quote, I see no problem, as the final part of the entry has to deal with this second showing which was slightly enlarged, but is based on Vincent's selection. --RPD 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Vincent van Gogh

I've started a discussion on the template. Tyrenius 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe Terrace Arles

Superb photo! I really enjoyed seeing it. Tyrenius 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, but the honours go to Janderk. I only installed the link to the entry. --RPD 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow House bombardment

Nice clarification of the footnote on the bombardment of Yellow House (Arles) ... but we now have a discrepancy ... the article says 'June' and the note say 'Juillet' ... quite possibly June was my mistake (making a slip in my at times illegible notes) ... I can't verify this right now, so I've left the inconsistency in the article. Stumps 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault: it reads "25 Juin 1944". --RPD 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First use of term 'post impressionism' in English

I'm enjoying reading your edits to Post-Impressionism ... very clear summary. I've added a rather pedantic question to Talk:Post-Impressionism about the first use of the term. Stumps 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello RPD! Thank you very much for the barnstar! I'll see how much time I have off and on, I'll still be checking Wikipedia on the weekends. But for now I won't be doing much major editing, and I am about to start studying soon. Good luck on the Vincent van Gogh article, I think it is very close to FA status! Happy editing, and thanks again! Dafoeberezin3494 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Is this one correct?[2] Tyrenius 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

The edits seem correct. You reverted here, yet in Alfredo Muller he is stated to be a member of the Society. Is this not correct? The edits here seem incorrectly formatted, but not vandal (i.e. bad faith with intent to spoil the encyclopedia). Tyrenius 00:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, but keep alerted: the only link to Vess was created - and deleted - by User
My reverts may have been premature. But if "Vess" is an institution or company, and somehow confidential information has found its way to Wikipedia, it cannot be retrived. So it would be better to agree on a friendly solution. --RPD 00:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to believe it is confidential information? Tyrenius 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My stomach is educated since decades, and its rate to be wrong is low. Therefore, the change from Vess collection to "Private collection", already and forever documented in Wikipedia, provides room to think. --RPD 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Alfredo Muller as a copyvio. Please let me know if you spot any more problems. The edit history is not too important, as it does not get cached by Google, only the current version. Tyrenius 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secession

I don't see a problem. Anyway, Guinnog has removed the example. He is an experienced editor (and an admin). Tyrenius 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointillism

You have reverted the corrected entry which I made this afternoon to the prior incorrect entry in this category. The prior edits were complete gibberish when I fixed them today, and you have now reintroduced incorrect information and irrelevant asides - it is not pertinent that paint comes in tubes, for example; that has nothing to do with pointillism. Please restore the proper entry. Additionally, you have accused me of vandalism simply for correcting an entry which you seem to feel you own. You do not own it; that's not how things work here. I'll appreciate if you retract that statement. Thanks. - Corporal Tunnel 06:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please supply valid reference for your point of vue. Mine is based on reference works since Rewald's Post-Impressionism and art historical research published since then. As far as I see, the present version of this article does not supply any sources, and your revert does not either. --RPD 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointillism is a name for a school of painting. It is not a spoof, a parody, or a joke. It may have been once in the 1880's, but that time is long past. Pointillism is a school practiced by a few artists, whose non-ridiculous works hang without parody in great museums the world over. Seurat, Signac, and Cross are three of the best-known practitioners; I was also going to add Pissarro, whose work I am rather fond of, but there is a limit to how many examples are needed. I am not supplying a POV, just fact.
Pointillism is also closely related to Divisonism, a fact you should not have taken out. As for references, Google finds 347,000, of which 31 also use the word "ridiculize." I believe you mean "ridicule." As far as that goes, there are several hits - well under 1,000 - that use that word. Some of those mention that Pointillism was at first ridiculed, along with nearly every other expression of modern art, and was then accepted as a meaningful school. Most are off topic. Any mention of ridicule is pure POV and does not belong in an introduction to the subject. It should probably trail along somewhere by the end as an interesting bit of distant history, if it is included at all.
A few references:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79333
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/pointillism.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/seurat/
http://www.artfact.com/features/viewStyle.cfm?gID=31
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110603/pointillism.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012480.html
As to why you would remove a cogent and well-written simple explanation of how pointillism is like a modern press or monitor, or remove a relevant reference to a related school of optical painting, I find no explanation. Please restore my edit, which is correct and rather nicely written. Thanks. - Corporal Tunnel 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • At first, I have to apologise: I'am no native speaker, so you are probably right that it should be "ridiculed". Then, please have a look here on Neo-Impressionism, which I recently had prepared for rework and enlargement, but then I had no time to continue. There you will see the historical context which I was hoping to describe.
  • My alterations on Pointillism are meant strictly historical: Seurat as well as Signac would have prefered other terms, their friend and art critic Fénéon proposed a third (Neo-Impressionism - while most of the other critics amused themselves with this innovative manner to see and to paint. This is initially the background of the term. Later, both terms were mixed up or used alteratively, when the point of depart, the "scientific" analysis of visual experience, was more or less substituted by the technical aspect of using dots.
  • Keeping all this in mind I think the article needs to be extended, including the topics mentioned as well as others, probably.
  • Furthermore, I suggest to continue this discussion in the public space. --RPD 12:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Lodge article

I'm not sure what you would be looking for for dates and so forth for this article. It is meant to be a general article on what a Grand Lodge is, and as there are many of them that were incorporated over a very long time (and even today), it is difficult to give dates in a general sense. MSJapan 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selb

Hello! I changed the caption for Hutschenreuther to read "Lorenz Hutschenreuther Selb" for the marks on the back. I was interested because my mom said she visited a man named Osborne Olsen when she was 9 years old. I finally figured out who he was and how he was related to me after much research. To fill out his biography, I started the page on the ceramics he used. If you think the caption still needs to be changed, go ahead and change it. Do you have access to more marks for the article? I have beem going through my families collection to see what I can find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haystacks (Monet)

I am just starting a new page. You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century. You are welcome to make any revisions on my Haystacks (Monet) page. I have a long way to go. I was wondering if there is a category for Series Paintings. This is my second Series (Campbell's Soup Cans). I am also wondering if the term series is a serious enough art term to deserve mention on the Series dab page. I am an art hack who has never studied formally. I have never painted. I attend about 3-5 exhibits a year though.

[edit] I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

[edit] Borinage

Thank you for discovering the lacuna ... I looked back into the history and found that there was a paragraph on this, back in June, which I have now reinstated. I am not sure if I have reinstated the most recent version of the paragraph, and will continue to investigate the differences between older versions and the current version. Stumps 04:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire section on the Borinage was blanked on the 13 November 2006. The vandalism was not properly reverted. This was the only mistake in the reverting. I have reinstated the entire section as it was on 12 November 2006, just prior to the blanking. Once again, many thanks for seeing this!! Stumps 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Gogh vandalism

Yes, the level of vandalism (particularly since the school year resumed at the beginning of September) is very annoying, and vandalism is — I understand — one of the main reasons why good editors stop contributing to wikipedia, so it is a very important issue. User:Tyrenius proposed the same thing back in May this year, but it was decided at that time not to apply for protection, although the discussion was left open - that was actually how I became involved with the article! I decided to watch the edits more carefully, and started seeing all sorts of gaps and problems in the article. I am certainly annoyed by the high level of vandalism, but also accept that protection is contrary to some of the ideals of wikipedia ... if it gets to the point where the vandalism makes it almost imposible to work constructively on the article then I would unhesitatingly support a proposal for protection, but I feel things are not quite bad enough yet. Stumps 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Starry Night

Hi ... I see that someone unitalicied "above-mentioned" in the article The Starry Night and you reverted it. I wonder if it might not be better to indicate that it is a quotation from the translated letter by using quotation marks, otherwise we might face the same issue again, where less careful editors assume that it is a misatake, or part of the title of a work. What do you think? If you agree I could make the necessary edits. Stumps 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. I've been busy moving house (& changing continents), so I haven't had much time for wikipedia of late. Stumps 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CV

I noticed you blanked this. It is still available in the history. If you want, I can delete it for you, so it is only accessible to admins. Tyrenius 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius, thank you for your offer that I accept with pleasure. At present, I am forced to concentrate on real life, but from time to time I hope to be back. And if you should like to have my scolarly advice, please drop me a line. --RPD 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That should be done now. All relevant early pages deleted. Thanks for your kind offer of scholarly advice. You've given a lot to the encyclopedia and created some great articles. Tyrenius 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vincent van Gogh

FYI. Tyrenius 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/2E/p/User_talk%7ER.P.D._c8b3.html"