User talk:Sparkit/Archive 3

Archives
April 12, 2005 – January 4, 2006 January 2006 – March 2007 April 2007 – May 2008

Kinetic

I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkit^TALK 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping in Painting

Thanks for helping out with the categories in the Painting article. If you have any info or more details that might help me when I deal with these sections, I'd love to hear of them. Artypants 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Most of what I know about categories is described at Wikipedia:Categorization, but please let me know if you have specific questions. --sparkit^TALK 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

or you could ask me for it at www.talk.com

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Archive_3, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sargent

Thank you for the thank you, and good work on John Singer. He would profit from further expansion of content (I'd like to flesh it out more one day), yet given the outline, headings, image links, and cites, he might merit a 'B' rating now. What do you think? JNW 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS--I always enjoy the rotating images on your user page. JNW 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know if that Sargent works list is representative of his work, but it's a start. I'd like to include an image of one his landscapes, but I'm not sure which. Any suggestions? The article could use expansion for sure. Whether it is a "Class B", I don't know, as I've not studied the criteria and am not likely to. I'm more inclined to add to or copyedit articles than rate them. :)

I lifted that rotating image code from one of the project templates... just for fun. --sparkit^TALK 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that most of the paintings on the list are prominent works, and include a good sampling of noteworthy portraits. Carnation, Lily, etc, On His Holidays and The Chess Game offer a limited window into his subject pictures (I became familiar with The Chess Game, one of his prime Orientalist subjects, a few years ago, when it was still owned by the Harvard Club of NYC, and I was visiting while painting a portrait commission for the club). That said, I am not sure that the list should attempt to represent him fully, out of concern that the lists tend to take on lives of their own. But yes, it does make sense to include a pure landscape or two: You can't go wrong with most any of the late Venetian watercolors, nor the Venetian interiors of the 1880s, like The Sulphur Match and Venetian Interior (Carnegie Museum of Art); Home Fields (Detroit Institute of Arts) is a fine and well-known oil; Oyster Gatherers at Cancale (Corcoran Gallery of Art) is not my favorite, but a famous early landscape; also, there are some really fine paintings done at the Simplon Pass in the Italian Alps, the most popular of which feature women and men lounging and painting at leisure, but my favorites done there are oils of water spilling through the rocky landscape, wonderful planes seen in blinding sunlight. But these are just suggestions which should in no way limit your search. Have fun and good luck, JNW 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought about how lists tend to grow before I made the works into a list. Hopefully this one will remain a representative sampling. Who owns The Chess Game now? --sparkit^TALK 13:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see from my last note how a list can grow: you asked about landscapes, and I went off about other subjects as well...the result of enthusiasm. And yes, I think you have made it a most representative sample. Good work.

I believe The Chess Game was sold to a private party, for an undisclosed but vigorous price. The HCNY still owns a batch of Sargent portraits. JNW 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Plastic paint medium

I see that you edited a lot onto this page, but the page seems vanity, related to the artist Josignacio. I mostly bring this up because there was a blast of Josignacio links onto the Abstract Expestionist article this morning, as well as art other pages throughout WP. I think we may propose it for deletion, as it has no external sources. --Knulclunk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is definitely not established in the article. --sparkit^TALK 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Painting

What do you think about sub-dividing history of painting into 2 articles - history of western painting and history of eastern painting? Modernist 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Western painting surely had enough content to warrant an article of it's own. Perhaps Eastern painting, too. --sparkit^TALK 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Western painting

I created a new page Western painting, and I also included the sections on Africa, Islam and East Asia. Please let me know your thoughts about either leaving History of painting alone, or turning it into an article Eastern painting. Modernist 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good! My opinion is that the history of painting article would work best with brief overview sections of Western art, Eastern art, etc. with links to the more in-depth articles. ... or maybe the overviews could be in the painting article, ... ugh, I'm can't to focus on this right now. --sparkit^TALK 03:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Please weigh in on a building edit conflict at Western painting, thanks Modernist 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Marcelduchamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marcelduchamp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking on the onerous task of filling in the fair-use rationales for all those Western painting images.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My ummmmmm pleasure :), as a cut-and-paste goddess it's the least I can do. --sparkit^TALK 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks! --Knulclunk 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on Western painting. Modernist 10:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for writing most of the content! The "gallery problem" still mystifies me. --sparkit^TALK 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

a question

Sorry to trouble you again, I noticed today that User:Minderbinder reported Western painting and History painting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Cleaned_up_lists I'm not familiar with all this, I'm not sure what will happen, do you know this process? I hope that the very hard work that we've done isn't in vain Modernist 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of that. Best I can tell there's an effort to clean up nonfree image usage, but I've not come across a specific project page that details the process, if indeed there is a process. --sparkit^TALK 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ArtFact

A tag has been placed on ArtFact, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:ArtFact. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Kesac 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:AlbrechtDürer01.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:AlbrechtDürer01.jpg, by Strangerer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:AlbrechtDürer01.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:AlbrechtDürer01.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Artnet

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Artnet, by Acroterion (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Artnet is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Artnet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Artnet itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mondrian image

Hello, Sparkit. You uploaded (many moons ago) Image:MondriaanPiet.gif. I thought I'd alert you that the source you quoted for the image seems to have disappeared, so it's impossible to verify the copyright status of the image: images on Wikipedia must have a valid source, I believe. I put {{nsd}} on it for that reason. I came across the image on the Piet Mondrian article, and was put on alert because the non-free art license definitely doesn't allow for its use on articles about the image's subject, but only articles about the image itself or, perhaps, its author. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're SOL about that image then. The URL worked when I uploaded the file. The site has apparently changed as sites do, and I don't find it there now. --sparkit^TALK 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Matisse_-_Green_Line.jpeg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Matisse_-_Green_Line.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Long time

Hi Sparkit. Miss your contributions. Hope you are well. Best wishes, JNW 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I miss you too, I hope you are well, are you ok? Modernist 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You all are sweet! I'm fine. In June I moved from Seattle to Leavenworth, Washington to do design and layout at the weekly newspapers here. In Sept. and Oct. we do one special section after another which kept me extremely busy (see some of the covers on my blog, http://www.makinitupasigo.com/blog). I'm also living in a rural area without broadband (gasp), and around the end of Sept. my phone line went goofy and I can no longer connect to my dialup ISP, and I've not yet contacted Verizon to get that fixed. So, basically I'm more involved right now with print publishing than web publishing, and I just a few weeks ago got my studio area set up at home.--sparkit^TALK 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So glad to hear from you! Best of luck on your print endeavors, JNW 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you too, all the best, and looking forward to when you return. Modernist 03:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Transgressive artists

Hello, Sparkit - I thought you might be interested in this CFD, seeing as you are the creator of its parent cat, Category:Transgressive art and have contributed to the article, Transgressive art. Any insights or suggestions you may have to offer would be very welcome. Cgingold 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

smith

In the article Smith (metalwork), you wrote "The word smith is cognate with the somewhat archaic English (Germanic) word, "smite", meaning "to hit" or "to strike". Originally, smiths practiced their crafts by forming metal with hammer blows. In this sense, the English word predates the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain."

I don't see how this can be true. Didn't Germanic languages come to Britain only with the Anglo-Saxons? Was it not a Gaelic speaking place before that? If that's true, then the use of the Germanic word can't possibly predate the arrival of the Germanic peoples to Britain. I mean, there may have been a Germanic word in lower Saxony which predated the English use, but that's not an English word. English words can't predate the English language.

I'm going to delete the sentence, but if I'm misunderstanding, please do set me straight. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mondrian art picture

I wanted to make you aware of the discussion regarding an image you uploaded. The conversation is at Image talk:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Works by artist

Category:Works by artist, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. ... You created this category, and it has been used much more broadly than visual artists or even "the arts", primarily for lack of a good parent -- I'm proposing "Works by creator" to be a broader rename. Please drop by the CFD if you have thoughts or ideas about this category & the general category structure. Cheers, --Lquilter (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:De Morgan - Guilded Cage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:De Morgan - Guilded Cage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Sticker

Heya Sparky! Good to see you as well. I may have a question for you a little later! That's one sweet sticker! Thanks! ;-) Atuuschaaw (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here comes that question! ;-) Go to Mikael Santana's page and tell me what I need to change, correct, delete, provide! LOL He has the original articles from Memphis Commercial Appeal, Blues Reviews, etc. Just have to get them scanned or whatever it takes eh? I'm so glad you saw me on here! Thanks for the welcome Sister! ;-) Atuuschaaw (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia like to have materials that uses those sorts of sources as reference - just copy/pasting the material is a copyright violation. (Rules here are much stricter than WWR.) So, write something based on those materials using the materials as reference. We can't even quote Mikael unless it's something he said in something already published. Hmmmmm. But I bet we could quote his WWR page... LOL... I'll give the page a deeper looksee later. --sparkit^TALK 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WWR userbox "Wheathead" category

Hey Sparx --- the people you meet here.  :-) I added the WWR userbox but was wondering if it was possible to add another category something like Category:Wheathead that would allow us all to click and see who else is a WWR user? I don't know Wikipedia's geist over creating categories willy-nilly so I didn't just do it. Whatcha think? Jimkloss (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that. I dunno all the Wikipedian categorization rules. So, being bold I just did it and we'll see how it shakes out. Wikipedians interested in Whole Wheat Radio. All three of us are there. :) --sparkit^TALK 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Munch vampire.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Munch vampire.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cat ^chi? 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Acephale1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Acephale1.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlaueReiter.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BlaueReiter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)