User talk:Uyvsdi: Difference between revisions

Archives

Link

On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ribbon work, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!!! - PKM (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alejandro Mario Yllanes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• California Indian pottery
• Haakú Museum - Acoma
• contemporary article

Hi - I wanted to ask a question above the above article. Someone posted on the Help Desk that the county stated in the article was Sonoma County when Sherwood Valley is located in Mendocino County, California. When I went to look at the article, I found the link points to Mendocino, but is piped to say Sonoma County. I have zero very little knowledge of the subject area, but I guessed that this might be for historical reasons, as the Mendocino county article says it used to be under the administration of Sonomo county? I was wondering if it would be useful to add something to this effect, but I'm not too confident my guess is correct! --Kateshortforbob 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for pointing that out. You are absolutely correct. The tribe is currently located in Mendocino County, and ironically the link even pointed there but said "Sonoma". I just corrected the link. Cheers! -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Awesome - thanks for taking a look at it! --Kateshortforbob 10:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma#Name of the tribe. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. B. Milam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uyvsdi yes this is not always easy Native communities are small but we do have note worthy people in our community. How do you upload images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otonyona (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comments. I will probably pick up more books on Pacific Northwest art in the future and contribute the information there into the appropriate articles. Cheers. ~ AMorozov (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Haldane, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raise a drink in your general direction. Oh, and compliments on the awesome work you're doing on that article, by the way - wish I could get it together to be of assistance. Vizjim (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and it looks like you got in before me. I reverted your original revision to get rid of the disparaging comments but was coming over to get your help making sure the correct stuff got in. Was about to go looking for the pre vandalism copy when I saw you had already finished it :) Jamesofur (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked to see what the previous edit involved before I reverted – yikes! Glad you caught it.-Uyvsdi (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

awesome on Tahlequah, Oklahoma and Cherokee spelling. I tried my best, but don't know the language at all. Two requests...I've added a few articles to Needs Cherokee script... maybe you can do something there as well. Second question of personal interest: What's the first word on this picture? (it's what I used)

Seb az86556 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those templates are standard, I didn't make them...I guess it's meant to ask for simply "Cherokee", but I could raise that somewhere... What should it say? Seb az86556 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed it... does [this] make more sense? Seb az86556 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I never answered your question. ᏓᎵᏯ is an usual spelling of "Tahlequah". ᏓᎵᏆ or ᏔᎵᏆ would be more commonly used. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

On September 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nadaco, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Uyvsdi. Please be encouraged to self-nominate your next good wikicontribution for DYK. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you've popped up on my watchlist! I'd seen that page nominated for merging with Taíno and and thought of doing something about it, but what with school and all I have so little time. Anyhow, nice work and glad to see you're still around. I'll look around on Flickr for a free image of a Zemi... Lithoderm 05:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No credit necessary for the drawing. You can remove my username. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lithoderm 07:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. Eventually I will get back to adding more media to Native American art; writing brief overviews of wide-ranging topics is challenging though. Hope your semester is going well! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

This set has a ton of Taino artifacts if you browse through it. This one is particularly nice, and I've found this user willing in the past to change the licenses when need be (for Transformation mask). This is the best shot of a three-pointer I could find, but it's still an odd angle. See what you think, and I'll contact the user of whichever one we agree would be best. Cheers, Lithoderm 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that research! The second one is fantastic. I have information about it in the book Taíno. If you could get permission to use the photo, that would be awesome! Best, Uyvsdi (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

BTW I have tons of museum pics of Native American art (most North American but some South America) from this summer that I'll eventually add to commons, so let me know if there's anything in particular you need down the road. Uyvsdi (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

That would be great. I've messaged the Flickr user. Lithoderm 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zemi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uyvsdi! Thanks for reverting the vandalism done by 75.57.173.150 at Spiro Mounds. However, his/her last warning, just a few minutes before, was a Level 3 warning, {{Uw-vandalism3}}. Thus, you should have applied a Level 4 warning, {{Uw-vandalism4}}. By not applying the correct level, you permit a vandalizing editor four more malicious edits before any recent changes patrollers, like yourself, can file a report at WP:AIV. Would you please consider deleting your Level 1 warning and replacing it with {{Uw-vandalism4}}? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I found enough of his/her other vandalizing edits to make up the difference. But, just remember in future to escalate up one warning Level from the previous warning if the previous warning is recent. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the info about protocol. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Vandalism at Spiro Mounds? Who ever heard of such a thing? Talk about depressingly familiar... --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem here.... what ever you think is best...Great job on Native American art!!

		The Society Barnstar
		Awarded to Uyvsdi for extensive contributions to Native American art related articles Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear; what I was trying to say is that if this is notable, then we need to stop piping it to the college and create an article about the style itself instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Inali)[reply]

Now that's what I'm talking about! Excellent work! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henrik Lund, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipage yet, but a fine PD photo of one of his sculptures is available at http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Tours/Garden_Exhibit6/hoover.html

--along with some others from a White House exhibit in the Clinton years. I recently posted that Willard Stone sculpture to his page. Stone was one of my Mom's favorites -- we always enjoyed seeing the Stone collection at the Gilcrease, and elsewhere around OK. Unfortunately, I didn't inherit her one Stone original.

Actually, I'm not sure what the copyright status would be of a US govt photo of a sculpture by a living artist -- deceased would be OK, I think. Do you know those rules?

Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I see he was on your to-do list too. A long-time favorite of mine & my family -- I was inspired by seeing his student work at the very fine current Wheelwright show, which you should try to get to -- runs well into 2010, ims. Catalog is a must-buy if you like the Dorothy Dunn studio style.

Anyway, if you would like to add the bells & whistles, go for it -- I'm very rusty on infoboxes and project banners, but I think I got the basics. Interesting that he had a silkscreen print business with Gerald Nailor, Sr.. A pleasant surprise that he's still working, or was recently anyway. At 95, he should be able to take a break...

Sad news re Michael Kabotie. I had a nice visit with him last year, after he gave a talk to the NAU group in Sedona. A nice man and a very talented artist. Makes you think. I didn't get a flu shot before they ran out, either... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not breached any rules of etiquette in contacting you through your talk page. That is what it is for. As far as assuming good faith, we already know, both you and I, your mean and vindictive spirit. It has been shown in the past on plenty of other pages. Shall we reiterate on other pages for others to see and how you have screwed up pages because of your emotive faults? It seems odd that most of the artists you removed were the same ones on my website. What kind of person would do that? What kind of vengeful person would do that to colleagues, past or present, for the sake of vindictiveness? You have no credibility with me because you have shown that in your edits your heart rules your head. And art didn't begin in 1999. As far as the difference between performing arts and visual arts, it makes absolutely no sense at all to that distinction on that page. It's idiotic. I know full well the difference but it is a moot point on that page and really has nothing to do with the criteria and the task at hand, something you obviously lost grasp of by eliminating the Lester citations and replacing them with, of all the stupid things, askart, which really gives no pertinent info on the artists.

What am I doing at Wiki? None of your damn business. Who are you? If you're so curious check out my contributions. I still write and edit and keep a lot of articles in line that you would know nothing about. Who the hell are you to ask me what I'm doing at Wiki? The question is not yours to ask. Continue to screw up the page at Native American artists and I'll show you what I'm doing here.

I don't breach rules of etiquette and you are about nothing but appearance and facade. Amerindianarts (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It is not "if" I am an expert in American Indian Art. It "is"Amerindianarts (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references to some of the artists you had deleted. Maybe you should read Brody. If you had read it already then there would be no reason for you to delete the names you did. Have you read it? If not then it will enlighten you to some influences you may have missed. You commented on my talk page something to the effect that the Native art didn't end 1980. That's right, it didn't. But I have never deleted any artists from the page that were cited, old or new. Only you have done that. There is no question that you have a lot of knowledge about Native art, but that makes some of your edits even more suspect. Something is not right and is clouding your judgment. Proper etiquette does not prevent me from calling you on that point. You have the knowledge and you should know better. Amerindianarts (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so fabulous that I'm going to leave it on. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Good deal. I think you're taking a big step forward. I'm sure the point of etiquette is not the reason for your concession, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. While we're making concessions, go ahead and do what you will with the list. You can proceed unimpeded and either progress from this point, or hack it up. It is not that important to me and I certainly don't do it to promote my website. There are a lot of things that I could try to do to do that, but I don't. That's not the aim here. I just ask that you be fair to the artists and view the contents objectively. Many of the artists you removed deserve to be there, and there are some others you left that don't. I'm tired of watching it and I don't have the time to do any bios. Maybe Tilman can. Don't let your vindictiveness dictate the content of that list.Amerindianarts (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding, right? Neither I nor anyone else removed Lester citations from redlinked artists. There's no vindictiveness, so you can dial that down and dial down the personal attacks, which I've gotten from you repeatedly. I don't know who you represent but I doubt very much you represent my cousin, or Brent Greenwood, or Matthew Bearden - They are all brilliant painters and wonderful people, but I removed them because I know they are still developing their careers. And I'm sure they could care less whether they are mentioned on wikipedia or not. If anyone else wants to write an article about them or any other artists, that's the beauty of the system. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

No. They attacks aren't personal. They are about your editing. The problem is that you have from the beginning taken them personally, and have reacted accordingly. I just viewed the history for that list and an entry where you removed 73 artists. Yes, 73. Many of them influential, widely collected, educators, etc. Now, how is it supposed to appear when someone with your expertise on the subject removes that many names, many of which are deserving to be on the list? The attacks aren't personal. You just take them personally and react. And someone did remove the Lester's citations because I had to replace them and they certainly were there before. Amerindianarts (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]