Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:35, 30 April 2015

Nollaig

	Nollaig shona duit
	Happy christmas and peaceful new retirment. Thanks for all your contribuitions, instruction and having being a valuable and valued part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, for your kind words and contributions, and very best wishes for the new year. JNW (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holiday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXW0Se4HMs...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mod. I just knew it would be a Dylan video. Hope you're having a wonderful holiday. JNW (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Skater

I hope you're enjoying retirement. I just dropped by to point out that The Skater is today's Featured Picture. This wouldn't've been possible if you hadn't written the great article. It should get lots of hits today. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the note, Mandarax! It was a written in response to a request from Outrigger. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A rhetorical question for erstwhile colleagues in the fine arts

Why would I, or anyone else, want to 'come back' to an editor who corresponds in this fashion ? User:Modernist, User:Johnbod, et al, feel free to have a look at the talk and the article. Much ado about nothing, I know, but I've been accused of hoaxing. I'm off to the liquor cabinet, where there's still a copious amount of Maker's Mark. JNW (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All retracted. Seems to be Dutch, & a mixture of Calvinist bluntness and a command of English tone that isn't quite as perfect as believed can produce odd results (except for Drmies of course). Hope you're well, all the best, Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the strangest characters appear; and just when we were out the door something pulls us back in...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed block notice

Hi, JNV. I've reverted you at User talk:OhTeaYAssss2015, because the user gets to remove my block notice if they want. (Just not declined unblock requests.) I've blocked 86.14.187.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too, btw, but only for 31 hours, as it's unfortunately dynamic. :-( Thanks for your report, and I'll try to keep an eye on the page. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC).

• Much appreciated, Bishonen. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested.

JNW you are the ideal individual to examine and comment on some questions I have presented on the Talk Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/Abstract_expressionism I do respect you for your previous comments, and I only wish to be positive and not combative. But I do believe there are some serious problems with a list of 100 Artists, introducing them as all being Major Abstract Expressionist Artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism, when someone like Alexander Calder was included when he actually belonged to the “Kinetic Art Movement.” Actually only a few on the list “defined AAE,” most enjoyed being part of the movement, but did not define it, only a few defined it. (I will accept some who might have “helped define” it, but that is playing a minor role.) Please where am I out of touch? Sirswindon (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• With the exception of an occasional lapse--one of which was the recent argument you initiated and subsequently deleted at Abstract Expressionism , which was not an acceptable action, as this was an article talk page, and I did not consent to have my remarks removed--I prefer not to engage as a registered account. Recently you targeted Mark Tobey, and it requires little digging to find him designated as important to and an influence upon the AE movement (here, for example ). You may be embarking on the current mission with good intents, but it sure looks to this experienced editor like fallout from the Rinaldo Paluzzi business. Because of that, I think it'll be difficult for you to find consensus among other editors in the visual arts, who may also find these lines unnecessarily argumentative and time consuming. Sorry, but I'm out. Modernist, by the way, knows the subject forward and backward. Best of luck, JNW (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help explain why others do not have published sources?

JNW, I did not again apply the AE designation, I added that the professor wrote: “Although Paluzzi was not part of the movement, his paintings from the late 1950s were connected with AE.” This is what the Associate Dean of Fine Art reported. Would you accept: in lieu of “Connected” if it were written “in the same vein of the AE Artists”? Now I will pose a challenge to you. Please go to the web pages of the following artists who are listed as Abstract Expressionists and provide me with ONE reference on their page (or anywhere else) which, as you wrote: “Supply a published source” for this designation. I will only list those in the “A’s” and “B’s” but I could continue to list many, many more. Albert Alcalay, Charles Alston, Alice Baber, William Baziotes, Norman Bluhm, Fritz Bultman, and Jack Bush. On Louise Bourgeois page there is no mention of her being AE but in the AE Article she is in the "Major" list! I have read much about the AE movement, and what I found is that only a few defined the “movement” --- many joined the style of those that defined it and are listed as "Major" AE, but where are the published sources? (I am not trying to start an argument, I am truly attempting to ask reasonable questions.) Thank you for considering what I have posed. Sirswindon (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• You've provided no published sources to support this designation re: Paluzzi, and are apparently continuing to use hearsay evidence; even if you are being truthful, it doesn't matter what an associate dean said to you. As for the painters and sculptors you continue to mention, every one of the above has been commonly referred to as an Abstract Expressionist by multiple reliable sources--it doesn't take a lot of research via Google to confirm this. If your intention is constructive you would find said references and add them. This has been going on for several weeks now, and it is, as I've characterized before, a waste of time. If you post to my talk page again, or continue in this disruptive fashion on any page, I'll refer your actions for administrative consideration. Thank you, JNW (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)