User talk:Research Method

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Please study WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL to use language suitable for wikipedia. Ty 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please study the reference guide above to format references correctly. It helps when books are cited to provide full information regarding page number(s), publisher, date, ISBN. Ty 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Long overdue article...keep working on it..Bruce Nauman, Keith Sonnier, Chryssa, Stephen Antonakos to name a few more who used Neon light...Modernist (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You've done some good work and I hope you will continue. This is just a word of advice to be a bit more cautious and heed the feedback from experienced editors, some of whom have been here for years with tens of thousands of edits and gained considerable respect from other editors, working to the highest level with featured articles. By all means raise points, but remember we work according to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as interpreted by WP:CONSENSUS. You will note at Talk:Western_painting#Hudson_River_School_2 that you are clearly wrong over this point. The statement that you have never heard of the Hudson River School shows your lack of knowledge in this respect, not the lack of prominence of the school. The polemical statement on your user page, "Seeking to remove united states art from western painting", is likely to neither win you friends nor gain you esteem as a neutral editor, but land you in the camp of a POV-warrior, which is not a good thing. Seek to collaborate, and you will find a welcome response, which will quickly help you to improve your editing skills, which are already developing well. You might like to have a look at Las Meninas, a featured article, to see the best model and what other editors have achieved. Ty 11:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If I see that a movement I have never heard of is accorded similar status to Impressionism, in an unreferenced statement, surely the correct thing to do is remove it.

If I remove it because I haven't heard of it, how does that differ from someone putting it there because he has, with a misleading reference attached?

Research Method (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The most helpful and useful thing for wiki is to do some research. There is an article Hudson River School. A google search quickly throws up suitable references. The first one states: "Hudson River School as both an outgrowth of the pastoral genre in Western art and as a unique genre for which a system of iconography has been developed that is singular to the American tradition." That kind of information is useful material to include. The reference given in the article is not misleading: it indicates that the school is part of Western art, but has been marginalised. "A movement I have never heard of" is not a good reason! Find out about it and then speak authoritatively on its relative importance. Also note WP:BRD, particularly D following B and R. Never keep on reverting, or WP:3RR will kick in. Oh, and if you do go posting extreme statements on your user page (or anywhere else for that matter) it will undermine your credibility. Ty 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a description of the Hudson Bay School as important to western art anywhere in that text. Rather it argues for the non-western status of the painting, which is why I quoted from it on the talk page of western painting. Please provide a quote that supports your point. Research Method (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please use colons to indent your text per Wikipedia:TP#Indentation. Ty 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Er? I've just supplied a quote: ""Hudson River School as both an outgrowth of the pastoral genre in Western art". Ty 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"out·growth (outgrth) n.

1. The act or process of growing out. 2. A product of growing out; a projecting part or offshoot: an outgrowth of new shoots on a branch. 3. A result or consequence: Inflation is an outgrowth of war. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Outgrowth is the opposite of important in Art History. It means growth away from, rather than within.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Outgrowth is the opposite of important? That's not at all logical. You can have a very important outgrowth. You can't grow out from something unless you are within something to start with. Maybe stop playing word games. Ty 02:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your quote does not support your assertion that the article supports your claim that the Hudson Bay School is IMPORTANT in the history of Western Painting.Research Method (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My claim is not about the relative importance of the School in Western painting, merely that it is part of Western painting. I understood that you thought it didn't belong in that tradition, as you said it should be placed in a separate section on America. Ty 12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. removal of duplication, the purpose of the lead section (i.e. first section without a heading) is covered in WP:LEAD. It is not an introduction, but a mini-article in its own right, a summary of the main article and should contain all the main points. This becomes more crucial with a very long article, and I agree it can read oddly in a short article when something appears to be immediately duplicated. Ty 11:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also please indent posts logically using colons to do so. 1 colon for indent 1 space, 2 colons to indent 2 spaces etc. Ty 01:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Modernist (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are on the edge...Modernist (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Western painting reverts - What have I reverted?Research Method (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a warning - read the guidelines; it's a reminder actually meant to help you...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to tell me which page I have made 3 reversions on in the last 24 hours. That would help me. Every time you have reversed my edits I have obtained a consensus rather than reverting you.Research Method (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? What are you talking about? You have no consensus...Modernist (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your comments. A consensus was reached on the talk page for western painting today to revert your edit giving Hudson Bay School undue prominence. Since you withdrew your description of me there as a troll, I thought you had agreed. Art for arts sake?Research Method (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I called you a troll because I thought you were a troll, but actually Tyrenius retracted it..Modernist (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Research Method,

I reverted my reversion on your edit for the article. I was trying to revert another article through Huggle, but I accidently reverted your edits. Sorry again. Here, I reverted it back to what you originally wrote. Maxis ftw (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You've given 3 references:

^ Angell, p. 38.

^ Livingstone, p. 32.

^ Lippard, p. 158.

There is no information about what these names refer to. There is no mention of them in the References section or in the existing Notes. You might like to add the relevant information with URL, publisher, title of article/book, ISBN or whatever is needed. There is a reference guide higher up on this page. It would add to your worth as an editor to read it, and to put it into practice. It contains information about formatting references properly. Ty 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Angell was already there. Have added the others. Copied the text, and references from Campbell's Soup article - you might want to check that out!Research Method (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

5th user box: User:Tyrenius#On_Encyclopedia. If you copy text from another article you must say so in the edit summary at least or you violate GFDL. It is no good having a reference that relies on a different article to be understood. All the relevant information must be on the same page. Ty 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. Research Method (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why you removed two redlinks from Damien Hirst. Redlinks are valid where an article could be justified about the subject, which I think applies in this case. It is one of the key factors for generating new articles. I suggest replacing them in these two cases. Ty 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The anti-Americanism article has a long history of Colin4C and Marskel bullying everybody who thinks it isn't neutral. Don't let them bully you. The article is culturally biased and should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nincomp (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. An Oak Tree: you have inserted information into a referenced section, which is not in the reference. Your insertion gives the impression that it has been referenced, and this is quite misleading. This is sensitive personal information and must adhere to WP:BLP, namely solid sourcing. Ty 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The ref you provided doesn't say he was "brought up" a Catholic. It says he had a "Catholic background", which could mean something different. Accuracy to sources is important. Also you have not formatted the ref properly. I have done so. As you are posting a cleanup tag, you might learn how to not create a mess that needs cleaning up. Wikilinks have two brackets. External links have one bracket. There is a ref guide on this page, which shows how refs should be formatted with proper information. It is easy enough to do, and you can't expect other editors to go round tidying up after you forever. Ty 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

He was an altar boy, according to that source.Research Method (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not on the page you linked to. You have put that info in and still kept the wrong page URL. I've corrected this. Ty 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you before to indent talk properly per WP:TPG#LAYOUT. Please do so to help other editors to follow the sequence. Ty 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus Wikipedia:TPG#Others.27_comments. Ty 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also there's not much point replying to a post that's two years old. Ty 04:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have formatted the reference you inserted. Please note that information such as author, article title, journal name and date, and retrieval date should be included. There is a guide higher on this page. If you need any help, let me know. Ty 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done on spotting the deadlink and substituting. You can find how to format the reference properly at Wikipedia:REFB#Information_to_include. Ty 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have nominated An Oak Tree for a Good Article review, but there is no corresponding entry at the nominations page. However, GimmeBot did remove An Oak Tree from the list of GAs this morning. The article should be listed here to be reviewed. As a pointer, the article's instability would tend to prevent it from passing criterion 5 of the Good Article criteria. Hope this helps - weebiloobil (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Research Method (great user name by the way!), sorry to bother you. I thought I would point out a couple of things. First of all, if you want to improve an article, it's better to make constructive suggestions at the article's talk page; criticisms are welcome, but actual positive suggestions are even better received by the team of editors who have written the page, as imperfect as it may seem to you. Sticking tags on without making suggestions is not very productive. Try not to personalize disputes; remember that others are likely here as you are, to improve the project we are working on. Accusing those you disagree with of vandalism will not gain you traction in disputes. Vandalism is when a high school student inserts "penis" into an article. Use the principles of WP:DR to productively resolve any disputes you may have with others here if you must; but often just walking away is even more effective. If you look around there are always other things that need improved. Anyway, let me know if I can be any help to you. --John (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to support you in fixing the art page. Best way to fix it I think is a revert to start, followed by a carefully condensed article with a LOT of links to individual articles for each style and not much time spent on each style... when the style started, where, who started it next style. Sound good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.239.203 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I got locked out of this account, and have created this new one.Reasearch Method II (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)