User talk:MarylandArtLover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Against bots

I am really tried of lazy people who are in love with "time-saving" techno-gimmicks. Using these toys makes a certain kind of person feel very smart and efficient, even though the gimmicks don't work and waste more time than they save. Case in point: bots. Recently I found that a bot had labeled links to marylandartsource as "spam". This is beyond ridiculous. And what a waste of time to have to go begging to have the site "whitelisted"! Please lord, deliver us from Wikipedians who prefer using their stupid "high-tech" gimmicks to actually reading! MdArtLover (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hello! Thanks for your message. Generally, you do have to use categories as you find them; however, the one you mentioned was up for renaming, since "realist painters" is more sensible and encyclopedic than "realism painters"; the article on Alton Tobey got picked up in the renaming process! There's a whole process at Wikipedia devoted to finding inappropriate or incorrectly-named categories, and considering whether they should be deleted or renamed. It's at WP:CFD. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Alton S Tobey Sailboats.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alton S Tobey Sailboats.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jane Frank Eulenspiegel Illustration.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jane Frank Eulenspiegel Illustration.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IP 172.129.254.23

Unfortunately there isn’t much we can do right now because the following requirements have not been met:

  • They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours), nor since the last warning test3 or test4.
  • The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently.

But if they vandalize two more times (within 24 hours) and given a test3 or test4 they can be reported to WP:AIV--1568 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jane Frank Plum Pt thumb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jane Frank Plum Pt thumb.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was a bit surprised

to see Hans Schuler show up on the Sculpture of the United States article, so i dug out my Art in Baltimore:Monuments and Memorials and looked him up. I think you'd have a much better argument for including him in the Public Monuments section if you were to include a photo of one of his pieces. Rusk makes Life of Man is but the Turning of a Leff for the Krug memorial in Loudon Park Cemetery sound very interesting, but anything would do. I am about the replace two of the other pictures in that section that are NOT public monuments with ones by the same artists that are. Let's keep moving this important (opinion) article forward. Carptrash 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to the library might or might not help find a photo to use. Anything published after 1923 is not allowed. I have a shot of the Oppenheim memorial by Schuler that was published in 1924. Oh well. I'm going to try and post a list of Schuler's cemetery memorials. It might be an interesting day to do a Pilgimage and photo them all. I consider days like that to be my Art form . . ... rather than viewing them as suffereing for it. But then, it's what i love to do. Most of the pictures in the Sculpture of the US article were taken in the Chicago Museum of Art by the fellow who started the article - which is okay but has led to a sort of sameness that I'd like to bust up a but. It makes it seem as if all American art is in museums - and that's not how i see it. We'll see where all this takes us. Carptrash 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Hans is coming along quite nicely. I emailed a photographer who had a nice shot of his Sidney Lanier monument, but won't hear from her, I imagine, until after the holidays. Life is good. Carptrash 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice find on the Krug monument. I have posted quite a few oictures on Find-a -Grave and think I'll email the person who posted Krug and see if we can use it. I am also interested in the Mausoleum at Loudon {not sure which one] because that was sculpture on the building by a fellow named Corrado Parducci that I'm very interested in. Do you mind checking it out if ou go there? Carptrash 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am interested

Vote early, vote often
Vote early, vote often

in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting everyone recent on my talk page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The hiker who found the scene in the picture was me. It was a long way from a road, all of it uphill, with no paths, so no one moved the dog (75 - 100 lbs) very far. Here is what was painted on the rocks - watching the scene, but NOT talking. (click on the image) Carptrash 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

Thanks for contributing to Campbell's Soup Cans. If you have any opinion about its viability as a WP:FA please state your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Campbell's_Soup_Cans. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life (magazine)

For the info you added on Alton S. Tobey to the Life (magazine) article -- you put this in the wrong spot. If he was born in 1914, he could not have worked on Life in the era that paragraph is talking about, which is the "old" Life pre-1936. Can you rework it to put it in the correct passage? You just have him lumped in with artists from 1920s. Thanks. --K72ndst 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Categories for Park School of Baltimore

Noted, however the article in question has been since edited as to not conform with what you are saying. And it is considered best practice to list articles in the most appropriate, and lowest level, sub-category as not to lead to redundant listings. "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory." See: Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodley

I've been meaning to tell you this for a couple of months, when I was in High School in 1962-1963 I'd hang out a lot at the Bodley gallery. David Mann was a very nice friend to us young art students. I can't remember the owners name, also very nice to me and my friends, an elegant woman as I remember. Modernist 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is very cool! You must be a person of very considerable artistic pedigree!
I've been trying to find out more about Mr. Mann, without much success (partly, I suppose, because David Mann seems to be a very common name). Maybe one of these days we could do a book. But about the woman: could it be Mrs. Raymond Braun (a.k.a. Georgie Duffee)? Take a look at this link, which I haven't incorporated because it seems a bit tenuous:
"...Thomas Chimes, Untitled, 1961, Oil on canvas, 10 ¼ x 10 5/8 inches, Formerly collection of Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Braun (a.k.a. Georgie Duffee, who ran the Bodley Gallery in New York), Sarasota, FL....." [1]
(By the way, I enjoy watching your ever-blossoming, excellent Wiki work.) MdArtLover 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another datum: Warholstars.com mentions "Georgie Duffee" as David Mann's "assistant": [2] MdArtLover 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Georgie Duffie sounds vaguely familiar, although David Mann was the director and the owner of the gallery was as I mentioned an elegant woman who as I remember was about David's age, maybe a little bit older. It's so long ago, I remember that he was always well dressed, and in retrospect looked a little bit like Bill Blass. He told us about Warhol, the shoe show, his illustration career, and he specifically explained Rauschenberg's combines to me, and Johns' stencil paintings, explaining to me the differences between them and Abstract Expressionism. In 1962 things were just beginning to happen in the New York art world. Warhol was at Stable Gallery, and Pop Art didn't exist as a public movement yet. David helped a good friend of mine get a job after he dropped out of school in '63. The gallery was showing Surrealism, abstraction and various interesting although fairly obscure art at the time. As a kid I wanted to show there. Thanks for the words about my editing, I am still learning. Modernist 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the Bodley Gallery, despite having been early in showing Warhol's work, took up something of a contrarian position with respect to the Pop art explosion. But it doesn't seem to matter so much now who was up to that ancient minute, does it? After all, J S Bach's late baroque style was derided as passé in his time. Does anyone now think the less of him for failing to catch the "new wave" of the mid 18th century? The Bodley is, somehow, a dear place to think about. Even the name: "Bodley" ("cuddly"? ...).MdArtLover 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Schools in the U.S.

Recently I tried in vain to preserve the categories "Private Schools in the United States" and "Private Schools in Maryland" for the Park School of Baltimore. An officious deletionist would allow no category but "Private schools in Baltimore County". I gave up. This deliberately obtuse person insisted that since there existed this narrow category of "Private schools in Baltimore County", it was wrong to list the school under "Private Schools in the United States" and "Private Schools in Maryland". I'm lucky there wasn't a category called "Private Schools in northern Baltimore County starting with the letter P and rhyming with ark."

Now, as an experiment, I have gone through the top level of Category:Private schools in the United States and removed every school that can be listed under "Private schools in [state name]". I'm just wondering if it will make everyone else as annoyed as I was - or am I the only one who minds this kind of thing? MdArtLover

[edit] Elizabeth Murray

No, sorry. I'm one of the people who tidies up the "Recent Deaths" page and I hate having to clean up poorly styled entires. Once per day I search Google News for obituaries so that I can put them up properly myself on the page to save myself and others the trouble of having to clean them up later. It just happened that her obituary was near the top (well, after Merv Griffin anyways), so I did my search, found that she had a Wikipedia article, and decided to post it. Sorry if that seems morbid. Canadian Paul 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the information out of respect for Elizabeth and her family, someone had said she divorced in 1973 and never remarried and actually that erroneous edit bothered me. Out of respect for her and her accomplishments I added those edits. Frankly I felt that the facts needed to be added. I think the article can be expanded, give it a try. Modernist 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Have at it. I deleted both edits. Modernist 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think it was necessary to go that far. But I guess deleting is easier than a summary/rewrite. I'll try to make time later to do it. Thanks! MdArtLover 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Murray (artist)

You were hasty. You wrote, "the askart website does not list where her work is held". That is incorrect. Please be more careful. If you go to http://www.askart.com/AskART/M/elizabeth_heaphy_murray/elizabeth_heaphy_murray.aspx?searchtype=SUMMARY&artist=33650, you will find that there is a link, plain as day, called "museums". Now, to help the unobservant, I could list that page as a separate link. Actually, I have done that for articles in the past, anticipating just this problem. And you know what happened? Another officious deletionist deleted the "redundant link". Maybe you should be more careful before you delete things, or even consider erring in future on the side of inclusion? MdArtLover 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No mistake. The page does not have a link to museums. (The word 'museums' appears at the top left, but it isn't a link - at least for me - perhaps it's available to subscribers?). The link to 'quick facts' lists The Stuart Collection and UBS-Paine Webber Collection.[3] --Ethicoaestheticist 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just checked the page again and now the museums link is there. Apologies.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject:Modernist art

I thought you might be interested in a WikiProject proposal I just created. I would like to start a project devoted to improving Wikipedia pages relating to modern art in various mediums. Many these articles are often simply too under staffed; a specific project focusing on this category of articles will go a long way towards bring them up to Wikipedia standard. I hope you can help! --S.dedalus 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is now called Experimental art. (To clarify that it focuses on all mediums.) --S.dedalus 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have a lot of non-Wiki creative work on my plate this fall, and so I won't be able to sign on to this project formally. However, I will put it on my watchlist and try to offer comments or to help tweak things occasionally. Thanks for the honor of being asked! MdArtLover 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! and good luck with your work. --S.dedalus 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives of American art

I noticed that you and I had a similar response to the deleting of the links from the Archives of American art, I restored them and there is some controversy. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion here: [4] or even more here: [5] Thanks, Modernist 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciated your input today, thank you very much. Modernist 21:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stuart Ingle

My source is that askart and other various sources of information show me that he does not use the methods involved with photorealism. His artwork is definitely photo-like and very detailed; however, your source does not state whether or not he uses a photograph to project his artwork onto his watercolor paper, or if he works from a photograph at his side. Mainly though, he is listed as Realist with photo-like or photo-realistic paintings. This alone does not make him a Photorealist. Zachiroth 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are presuming too much. I think the professionals at Askart.com know what photorealism is. And how on earth can you be sure he doesn't work from photographs? You need to give me an authority other than your own presumption, or I will keep adding him back to the list. I'm very patient. MdArtLover 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get a better source, until then I'll leave him up. Thank you. Zachiroth 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided for further evidence simply says that the painting (which the image of is not available) is inspired by a computer composite image (implying that it was not used in the actual painting process). It doesn't exactly mean Ingle's painting was painted from that computer composite. I have ordered Ingle's book and once it arrives we will have a definitive source to whether or not he uses photographs to paint his images. Zachiroth 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the digital image is the basis for the painting. You are torturing logic. MdArtLover 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I have received John Stuart Ingle's book, entitled The Eye and the Heart and it contains the following passages:

The paintings themselves are blocked out with a mechanical drawing pencil on an expansive professional drafting table. The largest of his paintings to date are about forty by sixty inches, the size of the largest available sheet of d'Arches 300-pound watercolor paper.

John Camp & Frank H. Goodyear, Jr., The Eye and the Heart: Watercolors of John Stuart Ingle. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. New York, New York. 1988. Page 29; paragraph 4.

I'm interested in photography, but my paintings don't have much to do with photorealism. The photorealists, as I understand them, are interested in reproducing the qualities of a photograph. I'm not content with the qualities of photographs.

John Camp & Frank H. Goodyear, Jr., The Eye and the Heart: Watercolors of John Stuart Ingle. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. New York, New York. 1988. Page 30; paragraph 1.

And the most important, I feel, statement to proving he is not a photorealist (Nor does he want to be known as one):

While not a photorealist, although he does use the airbrush techniques of some photorealists, his finished watercolors do evince the incredible technical virtuosity of photorealism.

John Camp & Frank H. Goodyear, Jr., The Eye and the Heart: Watercolors of John Stuart Ingle. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. New York, New York. 1988. Page 14; paragraph 3.

So hopefully this dissolves any dispute there might be over Ingle being a photorealist. He, himself, calls his work Realism and wishes to be known as a realist. It should also be noted that, yes, he is an amazing painter but he does not belong in the photorealist section of wikipedia. I will be removing him from the article. Thank you.

Zachiroth 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. What's needed is a "contemporary realism" article for people like him. The present "realism (visual art)" article doesn't really allow a place for contemporary realists who aren't photo-realists. MdArtLover 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Clarke

Could you please provide some specifics as to your reservations about the Martha Clarke article? MdArtLover (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

hi, sure. I'm a fan of Martha Clarke's work too, but the article is filled w/ too much effusive, non-encyclopedic language that could use some toning down. examples:
- "one of the most important modern choreographers in America". (as opposed to, simply, an American choreographer)
-"Born into an intensely musical family"
- "her approach is always original and daring."
- " her creative undertaking goes far beyond choreography to include and shape all aspects..."

that type of thing. check out Pina Bausch and David Gordon (dance) for articles that are a little more neutral in tone. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Court

Not all landmarks are buildings or structures. For example, Sugarloaf Mountain, in Rio de Janeiro, is a landmark. Therefore you were wrong to eliminate this category. MdArtLover (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings -- I have been to the Vernon Court & it is very nice. On this article, I eliminated the Category:Houses because the article already contained Category:Houses in Rhode Island, which is a subcat of Category:Houses. Thus, it is redundant to have it in the upper level category when it is covered by a lower level, more specific category. So I am unclear about your comment regarding Landmarks or buildings category -- these categories remain unchanged. What exactly do you disagree with? FieldMarine (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks & best wishes! FieldMarine (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Schuler Lanier1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Schuler Lanier1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sculer Riggs1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sculer Riggs1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now clarified the matter to the very best of my ability. Please have a look and tell me if there is still some problem. MdArtLover (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have fallen afoul of the Copyright Crusade

so you might not with to be seen with me in public. I did photoshop your picture and uploaded it as mine, for copyright reasons. If you prefer it, dump mine and reenter it as yours. it was wondeful to hear from you. My wife is going to be in Baltimore for a workshop and I am setting her up with a full agenda of Schuler, just in case she . . . .... gets bored or something. The Riggs photo is super. So is life, and I get remeinded of that every time I see a cemetery sculpture. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the copyright info is okay. Here is the problem. The Copyright Crusaders have discovered that the artist, or his heirs owns the rights to the work and to any images made of it. Dozens of my pictures have been removed, by them and sometimes by me beofre they get to it. So I'm on their radar screen and it might result in Lanier bitting the dust. Well he is already dead, but you know. So we'll keep alert to what happens next. In any case thanks for getting these shots and for posting them. it is one thing to read a description of a work, quite another to see a shot. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious that we're doing a favor for whoever created or owns these incredible cemetery artworks? They would prefer that these magnificent pieces remain unknown and unappreciated by a wider pubilic? MdArtLover (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well (opinion) - this is why Justice is mostly shown with a blindfold on. The Copyright Crusaders also mostly are blindfolded. Also there are a number of recent artists who are getting fussy about copyright issues because they are not happy with how folks are using pictures of their works and some like Cristo are just pricks. (another opinion) And so it goes. But stay on the edges and you'll be okay, but remember that you are known by the conpany that you keep. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Schuler Lanier1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Schuler Lanier1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed part of the comments on the external links with Michel Tapié

Because it is not an annotated bibliography, it's an external links section. Besides, the comments are unnecessary, long, in a foreign language in part (keep that for the French wiki article, don't assume those who read English wiki can read French) and POV ("prodigious", "distinguished", etc). And the interwiki to another wikipedia article in Japanese is also inappropriate there (again, per WP:EL, and the Gutai group wiki article is already linked in the See also section, those who want to read the Japanese wiki can reach it from there). If these comments somehow were really necessary, they should be part of the main article, not the external links section, and you can put the links as footnotes references to them.--Boffob (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? "Because it is not an annotated bibliography, it's an external links section"? I pointed out that it is perfectly analogous to an annotated bibliography. You say that it isn't an annotated bibliography. This is fatuous. My analogy stands, even though there is not a perfect identity. The functional justification for the annotations remains unaffected by your objections, which have nothing to do with honest considerations such as utility or legitimacy. MdArtLover (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You should read the Manual of style, the external links guidelines and citing guidelines. Really, if the comments are that important, incorporate them into the main article as quotes from the links (with the links put as cites using the ref tags). The relation between Michel Tapié and other painters should be in the main text, not as a long commentary in the external links section. Comments about accents or typos on a webpage are completely unnecessary, and foreign language text should be accompanied by a translation when it cannot be avoided.--Boffob (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time these days to spend on this. But your edits do not show respect for the actual goal of providing people with useful and relevant knowledge. For example, what was I supposed to do in this case: I discovered, in working on the Gutai article, that while there is no English Wikipedia article on the artist Sadamasa Motonaga, there is a French Wikipedia article on Motonaga. Don't tell me that that links to foreign-language Wikipedias belong under the "languages" column at lower left. That is only for links to foreign-language Wikipedia articles on the same subject as the article itself. Here, what I wanted and what was obviously useful was a link to the French Wikipedia article on this artist. A hell of a lot of English speakers do know at least a little French and can get some use out of such a link. Why should I have to forego providing the link? Because it will not help everyone? Not everyone knows a little French, so no one gets to benefit from the link? Your deletion of this, without in any way trying to preserve the access to information it provided, shows that you are not primarily interested in what's useful or what actually works, but only in exercising your petty power to interfere with the honest efforts of others, in the name of arbitrary formalist notions of "what's done" and "what's not done". MdArtLover (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Elaine Hamilton OnealPtg.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elaine Hamilton OnealPtg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial landscape art

Please have a look at my Talk Page for your reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)