User talk:JNW/Archive 2

Thanks!

Much appreciated. freshacconcispeaktome 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Grand manner

It was really very little - it's very kind of you to take the trouble to mention it. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope I am at the polishing stage of Raphael btw, so do make any changes that occur Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ribera

I thought so till I saw his only other edit! But maybe we have Dad now. Anyway Prado say it's Phil. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas

Hi JNW, I've put the above up for peer review here. Any though or comments from you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, I expect it got jealous of all the other paintings 'currently residing' in places! I'm done here for now.Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch - one of mine of course! The new "culmination of themes in V" bit is a bit thin on refs as I don't have a proper V book - I slightly regret not buying the 70% off NG exhibition catalogue earlier in the week - you don't happen to have anything to sprinkle a ref or 2 from do you? No doubt the lord will provide otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the dead author style - past tense is better. well done retrieving that ref. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi JNW, do you have more on the infra-red examinations, its sourced to López-Rey, a book I don't have. Did you see Awadewit's notes on PR. Thanks for all the edits bty, the article has really come in the last few days. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was very please with the work both you and Johnbod put in over the last few days; it was more than I could have hoped for. Ye fixed a fair few inaccuracies, and developed a number of threads I had neglected. As I'm so mired in Velázquez at the moment, and have all the sources to hand, I'm probably goning to do one more. Caught between The Rokeby Venus & Innocent X. Which would you think would be the more interesting? Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lingering bits of OR here and there. I see from talk, and the revision history, you have fought hard against these 'flights of fancy'; I suggest we cut them. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He, I'm sharpening my blades now. Tbh, I haven't gotten to grips with Foucault yet, he is obviously the major voice on the painting from the last 50 yrs, but his is not a language or way of thinking I paticularly have an interest in. I'm more visceral; but suppose he has to be tackled at some stage.

I thought this talk comment from you was very astute: "the mirror reflection of the king and queen implies space in front of the assemblage, on our plane, and the open doorway and courtier on the stairs implies space in the opposite direction", and I managed to find a similar observation a few days ago, complete with cites; but some fucker rv'd it. Odd, no? Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with venus; a pity in a way as I am a huge Bacon fan, but there is a great story behind the nude, and a vast amount of source material. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Portrait

Just a bit of digging in a few moments of idleness... I was interested to find out a bit more about your work, so I looked at the early versions of your user page. I found a video of Daniel Edwards on youtube and your picture is a sound representation of him. I wasn't familiar with his work previously. Tyrenius (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested. Is there a web site? Tyrenius (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

Oh yes, that's where I found the handy collection of Baldung's lovely farting witches, including a misattributed GB Palumba not otherwise on the net at all which supplied a gap. But erotica apart the site is not good. He implies we've done this before & maybe we have; I suppose "spam" might be unfair. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Promotion at Fine art

You might be interested to see the last few posts in this thread on my talk page. Regards, Xn4 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Holidays

• I hope you have a good break, and happy holidays. You are a tremendously valuable editor. Modernist (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to take some time away, if you can, and it's hard to paint, have a career, teach, have shows and continue writing sometimes. As I mentioned you are a very valuable editor. Thanks for your kind words and excellent work. Modernist (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greetings from the 'Gong!" (a miner's cottage c.1940, decorated for Christmas 2007)

‎

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May God bless and keep you! I hope that you will be back soon! From Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rokeby Venus

Hey JNW, work has started on the Venus; it would be great if you could help out after your well deserved break. Your high quality additions are always appreciated. I found a number of strong sources for Inoocent X, maybe a triptych, eh? Talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Las Meninas is way way better than anything I could achieve on my own. Thats why I asked for your input again, and why I was paniky when I thought you had left. Anyway, Onwards! I'm finding the sources for the venus are more about the context of nudes in general, and not much on the actual detail of the painting. Do you have any good books to recommend. Ceoil (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! "Just when I thought I got out, they pull me back in" Ceoil (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ. Years and years since I saw that film. Always had a thing for Shirley MacLaine, god bless her ldear self. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Doris Downes

OK, I've had a look. I should think there's enough in sources to establish notability, even if as someone who has played a key (and now publicly recognised) role in the life of Robert Hughes.

I missed the previous message you left with the web site link, but have now spotted it and checked it out. Good stuff. Any more info? Tyrenius (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Decent list of shows, collections and prizes, but a bit thin on secondary sources? Tyrenius (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few more things also actually! Maybe you could put a scan of the CSM on your site, preferably with permission from the journal and let me know, if so. Some medium market newspapers would be useful also. Tyrenius (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. My user name @gmail.com. Tyrenius (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Meninas

Ha - caught you! There is also discussion on the cutting-down at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Las Meninas - perhaps you could confirm my guesswork! Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL - I think I'll paint a red cross on a tee-shirt! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks. Worth a note maybe? Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fireworks

Australia is (don't know why!) a major pyrotechnic producer. Just before Christmas an arsonist set fire to one of the biggest factories, with the result that all the New Year's Eve display for Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane when off prematurely.... what a horrible (and dangerous) thing to do! Thank you for the Whistler. I have never succeeded in taking a good photos of fireworks. I really miss the days when you could buy double bungers and jumpimg jacks at the corner shop. I loved the bangs and the smell! Have a Happy New Year! Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Maids of Honour again

I've just had another go at the light/composition thing. As I see it, the other stuff about the panting is interesting, the identities and so on, and people do love to speculate about the reflection, but it is the composition that has caused the painting to be acclaimed as the greatest painting in the world, so that's what we need to emphasise. As one whose own compositional skills are right up there, can you take a look please? Amandajm (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dear! I didn't know! I'll try to be careful! From our spot on top of the hill we can see the fireworks display on New years eve, but we weren't at home this year, so, from my sister's house down in the valley I could only hear them. Oh well, the company was good, and so was the wine.

I have no doubt that I will get feedback.... and they are going to want me to cite things. ... it's all apparent from just looking... the painting is the document. ....Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Keep me posted. Tyrenius (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've declined! Your user stats user stats, in case you didn't know this tool. Probably a little weak on the *fD front... If you want, you can go to your preferences, and under "editing" click the bottom box, so you will get a reminder to leave edit summaries. However, it's not such a bad thing to enjoy editing without the trials and tribulations of being an admin. Tyrenius (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello JNW, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Tyrenius (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mystery reference

What topic did you contact me about? I've always tried to provide documentation... Dougie monty (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of documentation seems to be a long-standing issue. A review of your contributions, as well as much previous correspondence on your talk page, suggests as much. Thank you. JNW (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate being told which Wikipedia topic you are criticizing me about--unless it's simply "lack of documentation," as you claim. I gave the name of the newspaper which I said had a headline about Pat Nixon. Is that what you mean? If I've made a mistake I want to know what it is so I can correct it and not repeat it... Dougie monty (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well...If I understand aright (and I will follow the references you have given), it is or should be understood, that a contributor is to give sources--author, work, publication year, page, etc. as a matter of course. With the speicific items you mentioned I can only do this in reference to Pat Nixon; the souce I referred to was not Earle Temple's Humor in the Headlines but Presidential Anecdotes by Paul F. Boller, Jr. (1981), p. 331, which itself refers to William Safire's Before the Fall (1975), p. 530.

That said, I suppose there are others who have read archy and mehitabel and wondered why it never occurred to archy to jump onto a punctuation key; I noticed that in the Archie Comics Archie's mother was drawn as plump and gray- (not red-) haired in earlier comics but in fact has been shown younger--almost as young as Archie himself, it seems!--in more recent years. And I assume the hostility directed toward Charles de Gaulle was commemorated in more orthodox ways than being scratched onto a hand-dryer in a restroom! In short, what I was expressing may have been already self-evident...

In any case, I shall follow your advice. Dougie monty (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the edits you made directly after this statement, as after previous similar discussions with other editors, indicate that you have no intention of using cites. To use an encyclopedia as an indiscriminate catch-all for trivia is to...trivialize it. JNW (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

V

	The Velázquez Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	I Ceoil award this for past and future work on the great master. Its been an honour to work with you, sir. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JNW, I got a real buzz from working with you and Johnbod, and the energy around the Las Meninas page in the weeks just before and during the FAC was quite something to see, even if I had largely stepped back at that stage. I've been a bit lazy with Venus (moved country in the last two weeks), but got a copy of this during last week. So within fortnight I'll come a knocking. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

good night

Those painting of yours are pretty cool.

thats all from me for tonight

71.99.83.215 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Main page!!

Good news....if you consider 24 hrs fighting bored high school brats good news. Still, fame at last eh? Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Diego Velázquez - La Familia

I'd like to investigate a little further and ask your recommendations for where to look. These observations have probably been made before, but there doesn't seem to be any reference to them.

It seems to me that La Familia and Las Hilanderas are directly linked to each other, not only because they are among the artists last works, but because they are communicating information.

Sorry, must pause; will come back later to complete the thoughts. Thank you, Shir-El too 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Back again. Forgive me if I slip and slide, but it's not easy to pin down impressions.

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that La Familia is an unconventional work by the standards of the times; not a portrait of a person or event, but of an intimate environment, something done with commoners as the subjects, but not to royalty.

2) The focus of the picture is the Infanta - or is it? While she is 'posed in the center of the room, everyone except Maria Barbola, who seems to be holding a hair ornament, is engaged in action; even the King and Queen are busy viewing the scene, while the dog's ears suggest annoyed resignation at being teased.

3) Don José Nieto Velázquez, the artist's cousin, is seen through a doorway far to the back. But look at the symmetry: Velázquez is the court painter and a King's chamberlain, Don José is a Queen's chamberlain and head of the royal tapestry works! Velázquez is standing at an easel painting - Don José is holding the corner of a curtain - or is it a tapestry?

4) Look at the painting again: this is Velázquez' domain. Yes, the king has his own chair to sit in and watch Velázquez at work, but it is Velázquez' studio, overlooked by the artwork Velázquez curates and conserves. This is the summation of his lifetime's achievements, described by his own finest painting. This is his legacy.

5) With a clear, direct link established between Velázquez' cousin and the royal tapestry works, Las Hilanderas needs to be re-examined. I don't know anything about iconography, but the conventional interpretation is too shallow; I'd be more inclined to look for a reference to Titian's Sacred and Profane Love. Especially with the most beautiful woman in the picture shown only from the back. Was she the famous nude? Was this his way of flaunting her, yet protecting her identity? With the Inquisition always at his elbow, especially as a descendant of conversos, was he using a form of visual double-talk? And what is going on in the background, up the stairs?

Was the tapestry works a “sterile area” where a royal could select and discard a commoner bedmate for the night?

Sorry if I bored you, but La Familia worked it's magic on me too. Thank you for your attention, Shir-El too 00:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• A brief response, pleading my own lack of expertise on the subject; my contributions to Las Meninas were based not so much on personal observation as on published sources, primarily Lopez-Rey's catalog. Surely the work was unconventional, and its notability, of course, goes well beyond its iconoclasm. The subject of the painting's focal point(s), if I recall properly, is well covered in the article. It is not, to the best of my knowledge, definitely established that Jose Nieto was the artist's cousin--if so, then it would come from scholarship with which I am unfamiliar...not an impossibility. Your observations re: Las Hilenderas' meaning may have merit, but, as you know, would need reliable published scholarship to support its inclusion in an encyclopedia. With time and motivation I will peruse my shelves again. Any discernible lack of enthusiasm on my part is due to ailing health and multiple responsibilities, so that my desire for scholarly research on behalf of Wikipedia is currently close to nil. Lately I'm on vandal patrol only. Thanks for your thoughts, JNW (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

I am terribly sorry to have added to your load: I approached you because you were obviously far more knowledgeable than I am. I too have obligations at home, and snatch moments during 'night shifts' with my husband to enjoy WP. Above all, I wish you a speedy recovery. May your troubles be less, May your blessings be more, And may nothing but Happiness, Come through your door. Shir-El too 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize! It's just another cold (!). My companion looks after me, and I enjoy her attentions. The stress comes mostly from teaching, painting, preparing for exhibitions, and articles soon-to-be published, all good things. And thank you for the kind sentiment, which I wish for you in return. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Women artists

Hi my friend, I gave it a look. I have periodically edited over there, and I made a few nips, I agree that 21st century is still too early to call and Contemporary art seems more inclusive. I once had an interesting disagreement with a curator at an important NY museum about whether or not Albert Pinkham Ryder made any paintings in the 20th century. I said he did, (and he certainly finished a few in the years between 1900 and 1917), she said he didn't and she considered him to be a 19th century figure. Go figure - But I think the turn of the century is still turning. Thanks. - Modernist (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :)

I'm not sure if they were trying to help or vandalize, but either way thank you for fixing my page. Anynobody 05:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. More often than not a stranger's edit of a user page constitutes mischief. So it appeared in this case. Cheers, JNW (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Anytime. (These vandals...!) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from the Prof

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page :) - TheProf07 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, Prof. JNW (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

Any good sources to recommen on this? There is huge potential here for a great article, if we can keep the nuisance in pop culture stuff to a minimum. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Amanda seems to be the resident expert on this area. I might approach her after I've had a closer look at the sources I've found so far. Take care. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the trivia thing. There has been a war of attrition over on the Hieronymus Bosch page, frigging washing machine and video game users. Plucking, triming; but the onslaught never ends. There is always somebody who has just turned 13. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know about your revert. I've made some other changes and hope they're acceptable; you may have reasons for wanting to revert these as well (or you may ask me to revert them pending discussion). I've put a wikilink from the first sentence of Speculation about Mona Lisa to the main Mona Lisa article, and I've changed the section heading in Mona Lisa from "Speculation about subject" to "Speculation about the painting", to reflect the fact that the speculation article is not only speculating about who the subject of the painting is. I also added a sentence to more fully summarize the contents of the speculation article. At least that way, if another person like me comes along wanting to add information explaining the smile, they'll have a better chance of discovering that it's already been summarized in the speculation article. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind and courteous message. I'm guessing you want to change the tense of "is achieved"; I was unsure of that myself (or even whether a different word from "achieved" might be better, to leave open the possibility that the effect was an accident rather than the product of artistic genius.) Please feel free to make such adjustments to my edits. Note that I also made a further change, involving footnotes, to the speculation article. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your postscript. Not a problem: perhaps I gained some satisfaction from copying the footnotes myself. I encourage you to generally assume that each person, regardless of the perceived quality of their contributions, is operating from an equal level of good faith to that which you seem to ascribe to me. I usually work on more science-oriented articles; it's been a pleasure to wander briefly into the more tranquil world of paintings and to meet you. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RVV

That's what I call a quick one! [1] Ty 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Ty 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

No problem! My talk page is free if you need any more assistance. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you...

No problem! Sam42 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Venus

I'm going to push this and input from you would be great. In other news, Outriggr and me are working on the Friedrich article, and would appreciate your usual watchful eye. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your talent is in the minute detail, (in Outrigg's words you are 'the serious art guy') and with Friedrich many of the sources contradict each other so your help would be much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "art editors all-star team". I like that idea, that we could focus our efforts and work as a group. I'm off to ask Modernist for help with the Venus, meanwhile please add what you have to Friedrich. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll call it a hit team, so. The last V article showed each of our individual strenghts, and we should play to thoes. Help is always needed. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

V's bottom has been nomed. Help, please. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

JNW, am I allowed to have my name back on your user page? :-) I crosses fingers behind back promise I won't leave! –Outriggr § 08:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I like your painting selection for the wikipedia policies. That Goya will always be strange, seeming out of its time, from this amateur's perspective. –Outriggr § 01:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was transformed during the process, and my thanks to you. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dude

An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with Runningmike's vandalism

Thanks!! I was in the midst of reverting his damage but then realized it was going to take forever. You rock! Californiadude99 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. Probably a slow day in Santa Margarita. JNW (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

paths

You are very kind, JNW—this comes through in what you do here, and also in your paintings. :) Thanks for the barnstar. Such gestures make the place worthwhile. –Outriggr § 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

John Sloan

This turned into a bigger job than expected, as another editor's slightly-incorrect markups scattered throughout were responsible for 2/3 of the article not displaying, and I'm far from brilliant at recognizing/fixing that stuff. But I'm glad they expanded this article, and thank you for the note! Ewulp (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Goya

Would be delighted to help. I had a copy of Huges' bio until a few weeks back, but loaned it, and I cant remember to whom. Still, great potential here. I saw the painting a few yrs back (in the tate?), and it is stuck me as so physical, and raw. Did you msg Outriggr on this. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent choice bty. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to this. The most engoyable aspect of a project like this is reading the sources. What would you recommed? Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You should know by now that I carnt spell! I going to capital city tomorrow, and they have a fairly healthy art section, so I'll buy what I find. Here is nice music (its easy to tell the video was directed by a YBA) Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just realised I have the Clarke book! Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, that would make you about the same age as me so! Mona Lisa, and Seurat’s Bathers are on my radar; do you have interest. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can add, but I'll give it some work..thanks for asking...Modernist (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me in! I'll see what I can find at the library tomorrow. Ewulp (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Went away for 5 days, and was very impressed by the work since. Haven't added content yet (just fromatting stuff) but got a few books in town today, and hoping to get the Hughes book in Dublin tomorrow. I haven't read it in a few years (about 3), but I remember it is quite pacey and astute on this picture. I'm reading "Nothing if Not Critical" at the moment, and outside of David Sylvester, I guess Hughes would be a favourite critic, not least for his 1987 assination of Julian Schnabel, which I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to get this on main page for 03 May, we need to get our skates on. FAC will take at best two weeks, probably three. And we need at least a week for argue for it to be scheduled at WP:TFA/R. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I suspect my future involvement will taper off (promises, promises), due to extra-wiki concerns, which will include the usual painting, teaching, complaining, exhibiting, and now a regular column to write for a national publication. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it an art column, JNW? Just wondering what breadth and depth of art topics reach "national publications". –Outriggr § 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the email JNW. (Also taking the trouble to amend Ceoil's mention of me below.) –Outriggr § 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would get on and nominate it now. It is not quite polished to perfection, but that will give the reviewers bones to gnaw. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your column, hopefully it won't take you away from your real job.......here, with us, uh, did I really say that...oh man, anyway - much congrats. Modernist (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my voice to the corus of congratulations. From what I know of you, JNW, the position is well deserved and will be inciteful and, uh, can't think of another word - great. I'm with Modernist in - don't forget about us lowely wiki editors though!! Ceoil (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! I'm sure it will be a great success. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Maybe the mighty[-mouse (O.)] Outriggr will save the day. Maybe, maybe [not (O.)]. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Press the email button and send the link when it suits you [2] Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh - a subject for a Goya print indeed! Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well better that than [3]. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I'm pretty sure I taught that landscape painting workshop. JNW (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

JNW, I suggested to Johnbod that Saturn Devouring His Son might be the next project. Apart from its amazingness, we all have Goya books to hand and are thinking that way; I think it would be an easy catch. Good things come in pairs. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

I am not sure if Norman Rockwell is within your bailiwick, but I have recently created Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting) and Freedom from Want (painting). Feel free to come by and contribute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Monet

Yes, I think that was a good faith edit too, I just didn't think it was correct. It actually was counter to what is conveyed by the two gallery split between later life and the early career. The death of Camille clearly was a shocking demarkation point for him. And his life and work were never the same, as he rose to the heights of fame and fortune. I would be happy to see your input there..and thanks for your message and your work overall, truly invaluable. Modernist (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Thanks for bringing together The Third of May 1808‎. The article is very fine, and I look forward to the next project. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Spencer^T♦C 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

for the Third of May 1808, reaching FA and it's still April.....Modernist (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The pub

I'll be there...by the way who's your tailor?Modernist (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, [4]. JNW (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, & thanks to you for spotting the opportunity! I've been trying to think what other Napoleonic era painting anniversaries lie ahead, but nothing of the same quality. I think Coeil will have to fly in from Ireland too. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, probably I won't fly over for the occasion (I have work the next day), but a few pints sounds good JNW. But I have to warn you, as im Irish I'll probably start a fight, and trash the joint. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JNW, I would expect drinking buddies to rail-in in a fight and 'sort-out' my adversies unthinkly and regardless to logic or common sence; asking the when and why and whom questions only during the hair of the dog post analysis the following morning. Nevertherless, your Joni Mitchell link provoked serious admiration (what a great, great album) so I'll overlook this, this once. Re landscapes, ooh here is the place to be alright, the problem is the 363 days of poor light and rain we suffer a year; but still. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, no worries. Bty, never realised you where so dapper and dandy. Impressive, if slightly worring. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JNW, we'll raise a well-painted glass on the third-- Ewulp (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you are hard pressed for time these days, but feel to jump in on the The Garden of Earthly Delights at any time. There is a lot to say, keeping it to a reasonable size will be a challange (hopefully). Its only a sketch at present, but a watchful eye would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay

JNW, what do you make of this. It patently either OR, a school assignment, maybe even copy-vio; and though its terribly and informally written, it's salient and perceptive (more towards the end) nontheless. Worth working on? I moved it to the talk for now. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The way it switches from the lucid to the banal every so often makes me think its half essay / half copy vio. Still, its a nice summation, and a good basis for a future expansion. I added another img to the third bty; can you check if its needed, and also the Guernica caption could be fuller (I don't have any sources) if you have a spare moment. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 3

No worries, of course! a trivial mistake. I only mentioned it to be a joker. Nice job on spearheading the May 3 effort. –Outriggr § 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pontormo

Hi JNW, just a note to thank you for your help in suggesting the Pontormo source - if you can believe (Ha!), that's actually the very same book with the Vasari analysis that I was citing! I agree that it's really a wonderful study. See you around soon, I'm sure... Cheers, Isocephaly (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pub

It's up now! How exciting! –Outriggr § 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• A glass of red Spanish wine, to begin - (gulp), hmmm, not too bad...cheers! Modernist (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Na zdorovje, 03/05/08!

I have just opened a 2007 Red Nun. It cost almost €4, but what the hell, it's the third of may. Slainte. Ceoil (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank You

Hi there,

Not a problem!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please come see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29_part_2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already reported him.

The name alone stinks of 'Vandal-only' HalfShadow 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for watching out for my userpage :) Wjw0111 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your AIV report

As much as they might have deserved it, IPs are never blocked indefinitely unless they're open proxies. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's the user being copied? Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your AIV report. To echo the above, IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely. xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that vandalism you reported was completely unacceptable, but it wouldn't be fair to the next user of that IP for it to be indefinitely blocked. xenocidic (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Twinkie

I turned the two sockpuppet users in to WP:AIV and they were quickly blocked. Meanwhile, the Twinkie page is semi-protected. This is a true "Twinkie Defense". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incoming

Mail. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More mail Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Overdue sent. Ceoil (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my Talk page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Game4Fans

I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Game4Fans as {{db-spam}} because there is a fair amount of edit history to that talk page. The fact that it had recently been used for advertising does not mean that we should get rid of all the past comments on that page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem. I've been following that guy and I think a few sockpuppets around for a while now. And it also it draws fire away from you... GET DOWN MR. PRESIDENT!! :) Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of block notice

Thanks for you note. The current consensus is that editors (including IPs) may remove warnings and notices from their talk pages. It can be a bit of a pain, as it makes more work in determining what warnings they have previously received. However, removing the warnings and notices does at least provide definitive proof that they actually saw them and were on notice. So, if all the editor or IP does is remove the notices, then I don't suggest reverting or protecting the page. If they vandalize the warnings or add attack comments etc, then that's different.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear!

No gold watch I'm afraid, but all the best & thanks for all your contributions & the tireless night-watchman work on vandals. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are simply irreplaceable. The best, one of the most knowledgeable and certainly one of the nicest editors we have, - it's Friday the 13th, not a good day for decision making. Take a break, we'll miss you....Modernist (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you wonderful contributors. I don't know how long I will be able to stay in retirement, but the addiction to editing had become too strong, and I had long since stopped contributing to articles in favor of patrolling for vandalism. So a dramatic break needs to be attempted. Probably now my time is better spent focusing on writing for publication, not to mention painting and teaching. I hope you, and other contributors whose communications I have enjoyed, will feel free to keep in touch, and even correspond off-Wiki if you so desire. Very best wishes and cheers, JNW (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite understand! Thanks for all you've done. All the best with your endeavours, and pop in whenever you feel like it. Ty 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

You are most welcome!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for doing the same on mine. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And too the other pages they hit as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In mine too :) Caiaffa (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: help

 banhammer swung indiscriminately :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi JNW!

Glad you're around!

I'm having a great time with my art course, but it doesn't leave much time to write. The Biennale is on in Sydney, and I'm going up tomorrow with a party from the Institute.

Well, I'm having a bit of a blitz on Bouguereau. Now, there is an artist the true nature of whose work is often missed completely. His "little girl" paintings are every bit as erotic as Graham Ovenden's, but just not quite as obvious to the modern viewers who seem to miss the symbolism entirely. I've written some on the discussion page, but will delete it I suppose, as it can't go into the article unsourced. What I need is a good book on erotic symbolism in French painting. The picture of a little girl with a cowrie shell (probably his own daughter, since she isn't a peasant) is an absolute doozy. It's in the article. Well-meaning people go "Oh isn't that pretty! He painted anngels, cupids and lots of little girls! How nice!" Then they buy cards and calendars and put his pictures up on Christian and Spiritual websites. In my opinion, some French farmer would have done well to get at him with a pruning hook, and nail the trophy to wall of the barn with the rat tails and the rabbit skins.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is your column on the web, or on real paper? I'd love to read what you are writing. Your articles have great insight..... like your wonderful portraits. Amandajm (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, oh Boy!

I thought I'd got it to a state of equilibrium, and all of a sudden it's broken out again. Check out the Model (art) page, if you have time. I've just fiddled with the pics. This person is also making changes to Cellini, as well as Byron. Hope that your workshop went well! It has been unusually cold, but we had a glorious blue and gold day for our trip to Sydney, and our chug up the harbour on an old wooden ferry boat. Amandajm (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be busy over the next few days, but I will take a look. My broad response on the Leonardo is that some of the deleted stuff can stay, some can go, some would profit from more cites. Good work on the model article--much as I like pictures of pretty girls, the Eakins photo and the figure drawing carry more historical weight. JNW (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, BBHS. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

J&B Distilleries

Hey JNW. Regarding J&B Distilleries, you can add the url of the infringed page to the tag itself, like this {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.example .com}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fuhgett. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SPAM: Content fork about to be spooned

I've stated at LDV's personal life talk that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear content fork. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page.
brenneman 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Long overdue mail sent. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

) NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the hang of this!

I keep starting and stopping here. I think I just need to plug along, keep contributing where appropriate and listen to mentors like you. I guess I misread. I thought that part of the goal was attribution, and I was so excited to find a new site that no one had already created that I probably moved too fast. I'll work on it some more and keep reading. Thanks again! Joubertvravos (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my user page

Just thought I'd drop a like to say thank you for reverting the attacks by that pesky user who was vandalizing my page. Your vigilance was appreciated. :) Unforgiven24 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Byeitical (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tweety21

The IP was probably Tweety21 (talk · contribs), now blocked for a while. When reporting to AIV, try to use the correct format so the maintenance bot recognizes it and behaves appropriately: I think you gave it Too Much Information. Acroterion _(talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Antonymeola and AIV

Thanks for your response at AIV. After salting the bio and commenting at AIV I explained my actions to the editor above. When I read your reply at AIV I removed the report also. If you catch the editor trying to get the article recreated under a new name (like capitalising the M in meola) and thus disregarding my advice then take it straight to AIV (or me, if you notice me around) and this time there should be a block to emphasise the point. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nay problemo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

db-notability

You are tagging articles on albums and films which clearly fail to meet notability requirements, but not using a valid reason for deletion. Specifically, see WP:CSD#Non-criteria; unfortunately PROD or AfD are generally the only tools at our disposal for these. Ros0709 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did believe that these tags were within the guideline as suggested at WP:CSD#Non-criteria: Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Where no such significance has been asserted, it follows that the articles would be appropriate for speedy deletion consideration. JNW (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have to read that with the next point: "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion" - ie, the point you cited only applies to those articles in an A7 category, and recordings (albums and films) are not. For The Music In Me (Zachary Theriault EP) I reckon db-spam applies becuase it is self-promotion (and if the author keeps removing the CSD tags he'll be banned soon). Ros0709 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas. This contributor will refrain from placing speedy delete templates on descriptions of forthcoming albums by precocious youngsters. Thank you for taking notice of this, and for the follow-up. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

9/6/08

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not revert any talks on talk pages, as you did with Talk:Marc Chagall.

MHLU (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The content of that which was reverted [5] did not correspond with talk page guidelines, and was connected to vandalism of the article. Please use caution when giving warnings. JNW (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. MHLU (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. We are all trying to do good work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats so Raven

Hello, JNW ... we had an edit conflict on Thats so Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I replaced your {{Db-test}} with a REDIRECT to That's So Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which IMHO is a more appropriate response ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.98.105 (talk · contribs) _{20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}

Quite alright; thanks for the explanation. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush

Oh crud...I think this is a hoax. Not being a Rush fan myself, I only checked the Rush article and template to see if the album was listed. The user that created the article already edited both of those to reflect that it is an actual album. The article was getting barraged with vandalism when I was trying to do a fast check. Good catch and I apologize for not checking further. I went ahead and reverted back to your original version. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dogopoly

No problem. I wan't even sure if the thing was real. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And no doubt they will all need to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogopoly. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if I didn't want to AGF I would say that there is only one or two of them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What on a Sunday night before school. Oh yeah I did that. Ah a trip down memory lane. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Somers Town, London edits by IP 77.101.173.160

I just reversed 11 edits by this IP all biased, NPOV violation and unsourced. I noticed that you also commented on the IP's user page, and just wanted you to know that I reverted to the last clean edit I found, which was 11 edits.--«JavierMC»|Talk 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for helping keep my talk page nice and vandal-free. :D miquonranger03 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid?

The more I searched, the more non-notable the book seemed to be! It's at AFD here. Somno (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Masaccio

Thanks for that...for a minute there I was thinking maybe b-t monkey, was his nickname or something...you never know..Modernist (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Emil Steiner

What's going on here? The history is all edit warring and vandalism. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: warning

Hi. regarding your message to me, I suggest you talk to User:PhilKnight. Militant Khalistani trolls have been doing their business in the talk page for some time now, posting holocaust denial websites, anti-Hindu and Indophobic hate speech, and incitement to violence and genocide against Hindus. None of these are pertinent to the article and other users have removed troll posts from the article talk page before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goingoveredge (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have asked for administrative assistance here [6]. JNW (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello JNW its me the girl editing Ammons article, I am an ammons alumni and my aunt teaches there she and I both know what it is really like, it is the majority and it is a fact over opinion sir. Im sorry if you thought i was a vandal, but I just want parents to know what it is like, because in Miami if u said went to ammons they thought u were cool and smart, now they think your a loner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.4.235 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

can i leave the turkey bowl stuff its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.4.235 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: warning

Um -- How is it spamming to add a category to a page with citations? I was linking to wiki? You are being unfair. I wish you would take a breath and actually read the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.127.20 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not news, as you have been trying to include this link for some time, and are always reverted. It is clear that the article is not for promoting a specific musical act, which, as noted by a previous editor, does not have an article in Wikipedia. If you have not done so already, please read WP:N and WP:spam. JNW (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern tonalists and "en plein air" painters

Maybe a good approach would be to add a new section for "Later Tonalist Painters" or "Other More Recent Tonalist Painters" (ditto for Plein Air painters). I don't believe an artistic style ends with an era. There are rock music acts from the 60s, and rock music acts from this year. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I really have to knock off for the day, but I'll try a brief reply now: I agree re: the permanence of good painting, regardless of style, but not for the Tonalism article--its reach as a movement really is circumscribed by the dates of the introduction to the article. A think a 'later' section would look tacked on, and raise questions of promotional motives. There are many good and successful plein air painters today, but I think one would be compelled to stick with the most famous and successful ones, like Rackstraw Downes or Antonio Lopez Garcia-- they don't conform to the American template of rapid outdoor painting, but they are acknowledged modern masters who paint outside from life. That's what I mean by notability, artists with museum shows and major monographs. Finally, though I know something about this, mine ain't the final word, so it might be interesting to have a few other art contributors weigh in. Probably best for us to talk on the Tonalism discussion page. Thanks for dropping a line. JNW (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image captions

The image captions on your talk page are fantastic. You just made my evening. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

I DO NOT understand why you keep reverting my edits to the Dan Debicella article, and now you're threatening to ban me?? In case you didn't notice someone, as I already said, the ENTIRE ARTICLE was copied & pasted from the subject's own website. It was not neutral POV at all. And yet it keeps getting reverted back to that version. Please warn that person to stop censoring opposing views and remind them that vanity pages are against Wikipedia policy. I don't understand why I'm being made out to be the bad guy here for trying to balance a very biased article. 69.177.150.62 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to ban you, nor did I once revert your edits. I tried to communicate with you on the article talk page, and explained what I believe to be an even-handed rationale--it was clear that you and another contributor were only going to continue, and probably accelerate, the reversions of content. I left a '3 reversions' warning for you and the other editor, which was appropriate. I also left a note on the Administrators' incidents page [7] pertaining to the situation. There is no 'bad guy', but there are several contributors pushing, and each believes they are right. Without discussion, that seldom leads to a productive ending. I do not think the article has reached its eventual form, but that form will not be shaped by edit warring. JNW (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just saw the notice on AN/I, I am of a different opinion as to it being a simple edit war, and commented as such on the WP:ANI#Dan Debicella. Also cleaned up the article and added refs. Equendil Talk 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to consider archiving old stuff on your talk page, it's quite a long page :) Equendil Talk 08:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Equendil, for your research into this, which is greatly appreciated. The promotional content was not acceptable, but I was ambivalent about substituting it with content, even if well-sourced, that also has the potential to be seen as partisan. That's why I stated on the article's talk page that news sources would be preferable to assessments by action groups (even though they are organizations with which I may be sympathetic). The concern is that such information can be cherry-picked to suit any editor's agenda. And yes, I really do need to archive this page, or call in Maxwell Perkins. Now to return to wiki-break. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Swami Rama"

Hello JNW. I don't recall discussing anything with you yet, but I believe that you would be able to make a fair judgement on this. Venus Copernicus (talk · contribs) is, of course, quite involved in the situation and I'm sure that someone definitely has to tell him/her something. I've already tried, and to be quite honest, I haven't acquainted myself with the issue enough to respond to that last comment (page protection was my initial thought, but Venus Copernicus appears to have added unreferenced information himself, so I wouldn't assume that relying on him alone would be fair). ~ Troy (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(response) I guess cleaning up the article should be in order, once the edit war is over. Thanks for doing the right thing :) Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's back in business again. I issued a final warning, and have taken it to the Administrators' noticeboard [8]. JNW (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Should be sufficient enough, but I'll wait and see in the mean time. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: the unreferenced stuff I (regrettably) added was from HIS earlier edits that I reverted and he kept re-adding. My intention was to at least add SOME of the stuff in as NPOV way as possible (to be amicable and compromising), even though I agree it didn't belong at all. This was a temporary measure to stop him from turning the article into a personal essay. It didn't work; I'm glad someone gave him the appropriate warnings, as he wouldn't listen to a damn thing I said about objectivity and WP standards. THANK YOU for fixing the article and keeping on top of this, and I didn't expect anyone to take my word for it, just enforce some sanity. Which you did.

BTW, I'm tired of this article, which I almost randomly chose a while back to watch and learn cleaning up NPOV and stop regular blanking that I saw going on. If someone could take over watching it so I don't feel I have to anymore, that would be Wiki-riffic. Please let me know. Venus Copernicus (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think there will be more attention paid now. JNW (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked IP

It seems that Antandrus has already beaten me to protecting the talk page. If after his block he resumes vandalizing articles, he'll be thrown back into the slammer. bibliomaniac15 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip, you might want to archive your talk page for the benefit of people with chugging Internet. bibliomaniac15 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I don't know if you are keeping track but you broke 20k edits recently. That's a lotta good work...Modernist (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Per your reply to Modernist. If it's 20k of vandalism work you definitely deserve this! That's not all it is by any means, but I do keep on seeing JNW reverted edits by der der der... Ty 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I don't think you've got this one yet, but you deserve it! Ty 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Without your amazing work, where would the rest of us be? I'd probably be in whole pack of trouble.....Modernist (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of reverts I don't have to make! Ty 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Any little bit to help my Wiki friends, and maintain the often hard-fought standards for content in general. JNW (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For removing the vandalism that IP user added to my talk page. Seems like he is taking a liking to you now, so allow me to return the favor :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC) A bit unrelated, but might it be time to Archive your talk page? it is rather large.

For returning the favor. Yes, my talk page is in dire need of a good archiving. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for following up on the goings-on at William Bruce Agency and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Your efforts are much appreciated. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help, and glad to keep things clean :). Not sure if you already saw it, but you might also be interested in the WP:SSP case regarding the creator og William Bruce Agency. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that I have anything to add to the sockpuppet discussion, other than to agree. Your observations cover the territory. I don't think the contributor means harm, just trying to spam a bit, and is probably not very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. But the article, and the attempts to insert the agency into other articles, don't seem to pass the smell test. JNW (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Not doubting you can't do so yourself, but if you need a hand with archiving it, ill be glad to offer a hand in case you need it Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to archive the whole damn thing. You're welcome to go ahead and do it for me, if you have the time and inclination. Otherwise, I'll get around to it by the next decade. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, i added the first 100 threads to archive 1 and then another 80 to archive two. The archive boxes are on top of your page, in case you missed them. Og, i also set up automati archiving. MiszaBot will automatically archive threads older then 7 days to your archives, unless there are less then 10 discussions on the page. I set the talk archive size limit to 100k, which is between 80-100 threads. After that, a new archive will be made automatically (All you need to do is update the archivebox template every now and then in case a new archive has been made). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just returned from dinner to find my talk page all neatly archived--I would not have known where to begin. So now I'll raise a toast to you for your good work. JNW (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are more then welcome, and thank you for the toast! An image sure livens up my user page quite a bit. But i guess i will go do what my status template would say i am doing now, and that is getting some sleep. Its rather late around here :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Some friends of mine guessed my password and have been doing such things as the Xbox 360 talk page. Forgive them they are just vandals. Another admin blocked there IP adresses and accounts. could you give me a new password?

I think you can change your own password by clicking on the 'my preferences' link at the top of the page, then scroll down to the 'change password' section. JNW (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right it is changed and they can't get on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyname (talk • contribs) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

a block in time

to say this was a pleasure would be a vast understatement. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 13:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin

you put a note on talk page year ago indicating it was higher than stub. it is start or C, i reassessed as C class - as always try to be generous and it has relevant pictures and inlines. Tom B (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Much appreciated ;) _TalkIslander 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. JNW (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks there. why some users will want to bring personal fights to wikipedia beats me.--Danmel73 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Klimt

This could be brought to GA with some MOS changes (headings, ampersands) and the addition of inline sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will take a look. JNW (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. I would like to nominate this for GA after this is done. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

admin?

I know you have declined this sort of thing before but how would you like to get nominated for adminship? You would make a great admin. The process is not that much work and once you get the bit the only duties you have to do are those that you chose to take on. (I also do see that your userpage says your on a wiki-break but I chose to make this offer anyways as you do seem to be active regardless). Icewedge (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You flatter me greatly. I need to consider this, and respond with a thoughtfulness befitting the question. Your good work here is noticed, and the request is hugely appreciated. Thank you, JNW (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a fuller response: My gracious thanks, but I will decline again. I do prefer the latitude of 'freelancing', and working as conscientiously as possible in concert with other constructive contributors, including the many fine scholars and administrators I have had the pleasure of communicating with. On a briefly pessimistic note, much as I enjoy writing and editing, and take some kind of strange solace in reverting flotsam, one must conclude that any scholarly project that spends so much of its time and energy monitoring misbehavior, provocation, self-promotion, racism, and garden-variety vandalism, is flawed at the structural level. It needs more than the good administrators it already has can realistically provide--if it is to attain a consistent level of quality, it needs new and more stringent parameters. JNW (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am disappointed, but, eloquently said! Hope to see you around, and, keep up the good work, Icewedge (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Jessop

I declined your AIV report on User:Stanley Jessop because it was not blatant vandalism. Do you have specific evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of Swamilive? I don't see a similarity between their edits. I've tagged his userpage to note that you suspect sockpuppetry, but if you don't provide clear evidence (or request a checkuser) then repeatedly undoing his edits would still constitute an edit war. On the other hand, if you can show me the details behind your suspicions, I may be willing to block him. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I did block him for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Again, if you can show me evidence of sockpuppetry I'd be willing to extend it to indefinite. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Please note that the disputed edits are of unsourced material, and are repetitions of those made by Swamilive, a blocked contributor who continues to insert the same content under many different guises. For some background into recent history, please visit Barneca's user talk [9], and see one example of like edit [10]. I have little interest in making a case for anyone's being blocked, but I also don't wish for my actions to be misconstrued as edit warring. Again, thank you both for your observations. JNW (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And do check the Hudson Bay page again. JNW (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. I've indef blocked both users and semi-protected the article. Feel free to revert on sight. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't Add content without Citing?

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JNW (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't know exactly how to cite anything in the article I'm trying to post. Its just a story that a lot of the campus refers to as the "Legend of the Bell Tower". So why cite it? And if I have to, what do I cite exactly? I'm not trying to be a douche, so can you help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieRepellent (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an encyclopedia, so stories, ephemera, and local lore don't stick unless they've been chronicled by reliable sources, either in print or online. Read the links in the warnings I sent you re: reliable sources and cites; Youtube isn't reliable, but coverage in major newspapers or credible magazines may be. JNW (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok so if I have a newspaper article about it, how do I exactly cite it. I mean, after I finish typing up the article what do I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieRepellent (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used newspapers as source material for a long time (usually books), but if you're citing a reliable publication, there should be a detailed guide at WP:CITE. JNW (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Western painting

Hi JNW, any comments that you can make here: [[11]] and/or here: [12] would be greatly appreciated by me. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Modernist. I've replied at the Visual Arts Project page. JNW (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, the problem actually is the troll-like behavior of this user - Random method, currently dogging the article and a few other Visual arts articles..he placed the second Hudson River School link at the end section of the article and I'm getting tired of deleting it. Modernist (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I had not looked at the history of the article for the preceding few days. There does appear to be an issue re: unilateral revisions, in this case to an article that has been painstakingly developed, in concert, by several art contributors. Such changes really need to be discussed first, otherwise they quickly lead to conflict, and my experience is that such edits rarely stick in the long run...JNW (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that there has been discussion on the article talk page, which just underscores the importance of editing via consensus rather than by declaration. JNW (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Star

Much appreciated. I've not seen that one before! Ty 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: New Look (music duo)

May well be an A7 candidate, but it was not an A3. Hence the tag was incorrect and removed. Feel free to nominate again under A7, though. Best, Garden. 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, JNW (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich

We're at the final push stage now, so if you could help out, give your openion and participate, well that would be great. Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil. I would love to, but from the looks of things, I don't possess the ammunition that you and others do in terms of bibliographic sources. However, if I can contribute anything of value, I will. JNW (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries JNW. You might keep an eye on things, and if anything strikes you...Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Ah, another user who isn't actually here ;). I've semi-protected Dan Debicella for three days which will hopefully get some discussion going on the talk page. I'm going to try and keep an eye on things. You'd have thought with the election being over this stuff would die down. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your input is welcome. From what I've read on the article talk page, you have helped already re: a call for reliable news sources, etc. , a point I was trying to get at on the discussion page, without much success, back in September. Thank you, JNW (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Taking pieces out of several copyrighted texts and adding them together is just as much a copyright violation as a massive cut-and-paste from a single source. Wikipedia must be aggressive about respecting copyright, due to our own GFDL licensing system. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looked like a copyright violation to me, but I wanted to be certain. JNW (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your work fixing up Todmorden High School. I saw it and was trying to clean it up, but you beat me to it! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, cookies! My pleasure; not much of a clean-up, and most of what was there was good-faith. Thanks. I'll have them after dinner. JNW (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oleanna (play)

The extensive revisions are quite out of order. I've watchlisted. I suggest you post on the article talk page to state the problems with the revisions. Please supply diffs with any future similar posts to me. Ty 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Tyrenius. I don't think the edits there are intended to be vandalism, but they don't appear to help the article-- I also don't want to edit war over them. JNW (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I entered additional information to truthfulpolitics.com for you to review. I thought the website notable. I'm new, maybe I put it in the wrong place, but do check it out. Thanks.

Gulnayak (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not see the additional references prior to its deletion. However, I thought the article you created on the Armey Curve might have merit. I would encourage you to read up on the proper way to format sources at WP:sources and especially WP:references. It's a good idea to begin an article with the reference section. Properly sourced, it will have a much better chance of being accepted. Also, use the 'show preview' button as often as you need to, until you think it's ready to be saved. JNW (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dom Martin

Since the article claims his work is on permanent display, it makes a claim of notability despite the fact reliable references are missing at the moment. That means it's not suitable for speedy deletion. Please send it to an appropriate project for cleanup or list on AFD instead. (spamming can be handled separately, and even people who spam can actually be notable, even if they're bad at providing sources - most newbies are. Spamming or COI problems should not preclude a subject from inclusion) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are right re: the claim of notability, but finally it was a claim unsubstantiated. I could find nothing to verify his significance as an artist. The only properly referenced information was that pertaining to his role in restoring the church thirty years ago. I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator. JNW (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PatriciaMaier2 Patriciamaier2 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To: JNW and Mgm

You both mentioned on the talk page that reliable references were needed regarding the “notability” of Dom Martin. Below are three references regarding Dom Martin and the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica (a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India):

http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more

http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm

The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states:

“Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .” The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.

The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”

These references, spanning more than a quarter of a century, should be sufficient to establish “notability” as well as verifiability. I would like to mention that I personally first visited the art gallery at the Bom Jesus Basilica in 1980 and was most impressed with the volume and scope of the paintings there, as well as to find such intense surrealism at that time in a country like India. I was further amazed to find that it was all the work of one young artist, Dom Martin.

Meantime, it is truly dismaying to find that the article has been deleted even though I had inserted a “hang-on” tab. I trust that the above references will provide the administrators with the necessary information to be able to repost the article as a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to contact me. I think Rklawton's decision to delete the article, as well as his message here [13] are justified. I do not think these links support notability at all--none of them offer credible scholarship, or failing that, even reliable media coverage attesting to their significance as works of art, or to Mr. Martin's significance as an artist. Two of the links you provided lead straight to the artist's web site, which might or might not constitute a reliable source, but are blocked from my view anyway as "attack sites". I welcome other editors, particularly those who regularly contribute in the visual arts, to peruse them and offer their consideration. Thanks again, JNW (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am surprised you are not able to access the artist’s website, as I haven’t had any trouble going to that link (with the exception of through Google). Hopefully, that will get cleared up, and the site more easily accessible so that the administrators will be able to take into consideration the depth and scope of Dom Martin’s art and other achievements.Your point about media coverage is well taken, and I must admit I haven’t been able to find much in terms of current media coverage about the artworks. But then I think it should be realized that these artworks in the Basilica Art Gallery are quite old and more significant (notable, if you will) from a historical perspective than from the perspective of modern day reviews or media coverage, which they have outlived.

Referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people), Wikipedia lists “Additional Criteria” for notability. Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]

And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”

As the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.

Wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving.

Patriciamaier2 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Patricia. Again, I don't think objective published sources have been presented to support notability. Please understand also that my part in the recent process was that of proposing the article for deletion--finally, it is an administrator who makes the decision based on what he or she reads. In other words, I think little is to be gained by further discussion with me. But thank you for your thoughts, and a very happy holiday to you, as well. JNW (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [14] that Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”

I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!

In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article.

Patriciamaier2 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I request that a conversation not continue on my talk page, it most surely will anyway. It would probably be best not to invoke 'justice', as it implies two things: that Wikipedia is a tribunal, and that you have been wronged by it. One thinks it's a term more properly suited to weightier issues of crime and punishment. By all means make use of the deletion review process. The impression that the article was a vanity enterprise was understandable. The day the biography was being created, an eponymous contributor was inserting drawings by Mr. Martin into several articles, which gave the impression, at the very least, of an orchestrated promotional effort. Thank you for the update--your point of view is understood. No need to reply here. JNW (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)