User talk:OhioOakTree
OhioOakTree, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi OhioOakTree! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, OhioOakTree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SkyWarrior 03:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
DS notification
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.~ Rob13Talk 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Graphics Lab
[edit]Your request has been completed. If satisfied please place a resolve tag on your request entry here, so we may close it. - FOX 52 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- FOX 52: Looks good, I'm still drafting the text to add it to the article. I plan to use it within a few days. Thanks!-- OhioOakTree (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing !
[edit]Thanks for noticing the new article I created on the book The Case for Impeachment ! What do you think of the article ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Sagecandor, It looks quite good (with comprehensive page markup for the article and talk page), especially for an article released on its first day. I'll read it carefully soon, and let you know (or edit it), if I have any comments. Good work!—OhioOakTree (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You do not have consensus, so do not restore the text. You are one revert away from WP:3R. Please read WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:NOT. freshacconci (✉) 02:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Land art. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Per this edit. freshacconci (✉) 02:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- freshacconci, at the end of the article as you suggested is fine with me. Please note that there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that says anything needs to be brief, as long as it is notable, and properly referenced—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- OhioOakTree—even "at the end of the article" you are not at liberty to insert misinformation. This edit is as good as un-sourced. Though you have supposedly provided three sources, none of them support your contention that Nazca Lines or other aspects of Nazca culture bear any relation whatsoever to the Art movement called Land art. You are inserting misinformation into the Land art article. Just because you are of the opinion that something (a work of art) is related to something else (another work of art) is no reason that this article has to be burdened with your opinions. I oppose the foisting of such gibberish on this article and consequently the burden is on you to show that there are sources supporting your contention. I am trying to explain to you what the problem is with your edit. At our article art movement we read: "[a]n art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal..." We know, because it is only common sense, that another culture two-thousand years ago was not animated by the same "philosophy or goal" as the artwork produced in the 1960s. When the milieu varies it is expected that the motivations for art would vary too. The Land art article is about 1960s art. You are just adding your philosophy which may be wrong. I think it is wrong. That is why I am asking you provide sources to support your contention. And please use the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop—Feel free to leave your comments on this topic at the Talk page of Land art, so they are all in one place, rather than creating fragmented discussions. Thanks.—OhioOakTree (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- OhioOakTree—what you don't seem to understand is that the Nazca Lines or other aspects of Nazca culture are peripheral to this article. I am saying this to you on your Talk page because I am genuinely trying to communicate with you as a fellow editor here at this project. The article presently includes information of the sort that you argue for. It reads: "The Earth art of the 1960s were sometimes reminiscent the much older land works, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds, the Nazca Lines in Peru, Carnac stones and Native American burial grounds, and often evoked the spirituality of such archeological sites." The point about that is that the article would be acceptable without that. I am talking to you here because I am trying to impress upon you that this is an article about an art movement. The core purpose of this article is to explicate that art movement to the reader. The art movement only begins in the 1960s. This article is about an art movement that did not exist before the 1960s. That art movement has a host of concerns and it is those concerns that should occupy the bulk of this article. A good article on the art movement called land art would devote most of its wording and imagery to the purpose of conveying to the reader the details most pertinent to those works of art and those artists that comprise this particular enterprise. A good article would not waste inordinate space documenting things that are not even part of the subject matter of the article. I am aware that in rare instances sources that actually concern themselves with this art movement and these works of art also make passing reference to Nazca Lines therefore I think that it is justified to make passing reference to Nazca Lines in our article. My my final point, as I am getting repetitive—sorry about that—is that the article would be fine without this sort of reference, and many good quality sources omit any such mention. I hope you will accept this communication in the good spirit in which it is intended. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, If you have important opinions about any specific article, then please use that article's Talk page. If I do any work on a specific article, then I will check the Talk page there, where the discussion can be seen by all editors interested in the article. Thanks—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- OhioOakTree—you are referring to my "important opinions". All sources deriving from the field of contemporary art define the art movement known as land art as beginning in the 1960s. That is not my "opinion". Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, If you have important opinions about any specific article, then please use that article's Talk page. If I do any work on a specific article, then I will check the Talk page there, where the discussion can be seen by all editors interested in the article. Thanks—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- OhioOakTree—what you don't seem to understand is that the Nazca Lines or other aspects of Nazca culture are peripheral to this article. I am saying this to you on your Talk page because I am genuinely trying to communicate with you as a fellow editor here at this project. The article presently includes information of the sort that you argue for. It reads: "The Earth art of the 1960s were sometimes reminiscent the much older land works, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds, the Nazca Lines in Peru, Carnac stones and Native American burial grounds, and often evoked the spirituality of such archeological sites." The point about that is that the article would be acceptable without that. I am talking to you here because I am trying to impress upon you that this is an article about an art movement. The core purpose of this article is to explicate that art movement to the reader. The art movement only begins in the 1960s. This article is about an art movement that did not exist before the 1960s. That art movement has a host of concerns and it is those concerns that should occupy the bulk of this article. A good article on the art movement called land art would devote most of its wording and imagery to the purpose of conveying to the reader the details most pertinent to those works of art and those artists that comprise this particular enterprise. A good article would not waste inordinate space documenting things that are not even part of the subject matter of the article. I am aware that in rare instances sources that actually concern themselves with this art movement and these works of art also make passing reference to Nazca Lines therefore I think that it is justified to make passing reference to Nazca Lines in our article. My my final point, as I am getting repetitive—sorry about that—is that the article would be fine without this sort of reference, and many good quality sources omit any such mention. I hope you will accept this communication in the good spirit in which it is intended. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop—Feel free to leave your comments on this topic at the Talk page of Land art, so they are all in one place, rather than creating fragmented discussions. Thanks.—OhioOakTree (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- OhioOakTree—even "at the end of the article" you are not at liberty to insert misinformation. This edit is as good as un-sourced. Though you have supposedly provided three sources, none of them support your contention that Nazca Lines or other aspects of Nazca culture bear any relation whatsoever to the Art movement called Land art. You are inserting misinformation into the Land art article. Just because you are of the opinion that something (a work of art) is related to something else (another work of art) is no reason that this article has to be burdened with your opinions. I oppose the foisting of such gibberish on this article and consequently the burden is on you to show that there are sources supporting your contention. I am trying to explain to you what the problem is with your edit. At our article art movement we read: "[a]n art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal..." We know, because it is only common sense, that another culture two-thousand years ago was not animated by the same "philosophy or goal" as the artwork produced in the 1960s. When the milieu varies it is expected that the motivations for art would vary too. The Land art article is about 1960s art. You are just adding your philosophy which may be wrong. I think it is wrong. That is why I am asking you provide sources to support your contention. And please use the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- freshacconci, at the end of the article as you suggested is fine with me. Please note that there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that says anything needs to be brief, as long as it is notable, and properly referenced—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
[edit]Read:WP:Sockpuppet, Read: WP:CONSENSUS...Modernist (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Modernist, not interested in Sockpuppet. I'm aware of consensus. Thanks for the links.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- freshacconci, Thanks for informing me.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
As an update, I find a source supportive of the notion of the work of Michael Grab falling within the area of Land art. I read at this source that the the writer of that article, named Pauli Ochi, states "Michael Grab creates his own version of land art by balancing rocks in seemingly impossible ways." I'm not sure if this is sufficient support for an assertion to that effect in article space but I am tempted to add that to the Michael Grab article. I am much more cautious about the possibility of adding that to the Land art article. I wanted to bring that to your attention as your previous arguments and efforts are somewhat vindicated, in my opinion, by this recent discovery, by me at least. Thank you for bringing this to my attention a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't see sourcing for it until today. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Bus stop for showing me this source. Also, your work with the article Michael Grab looks good, and your comments for the deletion discussion are also very helpful. If I have time, I might do some editing of more art-related articles, and it's a pleasure to work with you and other editors, including when viewpoints don't always align exactly.—OhioOakTree (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
[edit]Re [1], I draw your attention to the talk page, wherein it is written Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks William M. Connolley, I don't plan to make a big deal about this one sentence in the article. It's a valid statement and has a good reference. I don't understand your reason for it to be removed. You mentioned "he did, but TBH that's bollox; see Mann's comments for example." What is "bollox" and what is Mann's comment that you are referring to?—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, OhioOakTree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)