User talk:TheArtistT2001

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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 21:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see we're interested in many of the same artists. I'm about 1/3 through reading Tompkins biography of Duchamp. So far, it's a wonderful read. --sparkit (talk) 05:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Kostelanetz

Hi. I noticed some of your contributions, so allow me to stress the importance of reading the guidelines which the welcome message above points to. Otherwise some of your contributions may end up deleted, and that would be a sad loss of your and others time, and to WP itself. Namely Richard Kostelanetz, is just a personal essay now. Take a look at almost anything at Category:Modern artists, or other biographical articles, to get a better idea.

Enjoy! Good edits.--Nabla 15:55, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

[edit] Duchamp, brides and whatnot

(Note: it's common to respond on both user's talk pages) Hi Sparkit,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty much *the* newbie here. (I've used wiki for years, but not until an item got posted on Dukes www.douglasadams.se/forum did i realise that we (the internet community) actually try to contribute.

Def a big Duchamp fan, also mainly Korean and art of India (as well as Native/Primitive art). Interesting to find that my odd interests (eg, Sonia Terk-Delaunay ?sp?) find a need out here. I had read (some of, well do more so) of the guide lines, esp the bit about tryng to make wiki more authoritative. (what-ever the Zarq that means -- although it *is* a growing prob, since a lot of times you get blogs and fan fic when you're looking for an EXACT quote or such).

Well, will try not to be too verbose (something that i'm well known for on the DNA forum (log name: Drongo the Magnificent). Again, glad to help out -- might as well put all of those hours studying art history to *some* use, right? ;)

Also: Concerning the Bride Stripped bare, this is almost always refered to as "The Large Glass" (even though it's popularly known as "The Bride Stripped Bare", and the fuller title. I guess the only way to fix this would be have an entry in the SEARCH index that would link you to the "Bride Stripped bare". The similar proglem occurs with the Mona Lisa with the moustache, since it's refered to as the LHOOQ as well. And of course "the fountain". I've actually seen art teachers refer to it by the title "The Urinal". Hmm, strange guy that Marcel.

My main point here (amongst this persiflage and rambling) is that someone who has *about* the right idea as to what a thing is called (eg, "cubie", "the dead christ", etc) should be at least guided to a page on the SEARCH thingie. hmm, i guess you'll say then: Hey Drongo, why don't YOU write that stuff? To which i would reply (while shufflin' my feet and looking down woe-fully) "uh, i don't know how to yet". -- Richard. Richard T 9:02, Jun 23, 2005 (CaDST)

Hey, Richard!
I've re-thought The Large Glass thing and rearranged the pages (made The Bride Stripped Bare... into a redirect page.) Duchamp's title is an integral part of the piece, so we must cover that. We could make a The Urinal redirect page, too. (I'm long ago out of college, so I don't know what the profs are up to these days. Same old no-good, I imagine. ;) )
One thing that helped me alot when I got started writing here at Wikipedia, was making myself a sandbox page (username/sandbox), where I can play with tags and write drafts.
--sparkit (talk) 16:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Sparkit!
I'm back briefly. Obv that i'm the ult newbee (but I will try hard; promise). I'm not sure how to respond, so i'm editing this page - v. odd (but delight-fully *open*) system ! Is there like a forum or such? If you can point me to the right page, I'll spend some time. (Been v. busy trying to get into the Masters Program out at UTD -- finally got in, now "all" i have to do is scrape up the cash. Anyway, all the v. best -- your friend in e-space, Richard (Just call me Frank). btw: i'm way like-ing this system (i've been writing sort of an off-the-cuff "PDE" (public domain encyclopedia -- you know us hippies: Power to the People!) -- "Frank".
Hi Richard Frank!
Congratulations on getting into the master's program!
I think most people respond with posts on both users' talk pages.
Q&A about wikipedia mostly takes place on the Wikipedia:Village pump pages. --sparkit (talk) July 4, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

[edit] AFD notice

If you're still around (you haven't returned since last July), I'd like to inform you of one little thing...

An editor has nominated the article Pop art type2 for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop art type2. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Pop art type2 during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. --Slgrandson 21:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[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 05:04, 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.