[1] Because the early '90s were just so cool. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's all I have to say. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Never heard of them....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things get more interesting when you know that this was the act that preceded it. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis wasn't a big hit here but its predecessor certainly was...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never bothered with XTC (the band at least I mean) but "All Lined Up" is just....amazing. Wow is all. Tks Cas and Dodds for sparking a new infatuation. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley and Cas... Didn't know; never did homework on these guys, and don't remember how I came across them, though I remember the time period very clearly. Thanks for the background. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liz; This Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got distracted by the amphitheatre, honestly, and the man's wonderful nose. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hollis' "wonderful nose"? The man sure can sing, but good grief, you need help ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have esoteric tastes when it comes to noses. Sue me. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O! O! Legal treat!...mother fucker got you now....will nobody block this turbalant bitch for me....Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bang, shoots you per edit summary. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Takes it in the chest, staggers into ther kitchen, sits on chair>. You shot me...it really hurts why the hell, god, what..why....b b bbitch. I think I'm a gonner, <cough> but, ah can you at least put up a "retired" (by you, har) tag on my talk after...I...go. Also please donate one million of my dollars to Rig....uugggg (dies) . 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sprinkles some dirt after a life of hard work Kafka Liz (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the last straw <coughes blood>. As if shooting me dead wasnt bad enough, you go and call me paddy. Now look here.... Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll what? [2] Kafka Liz (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(gurling on blood) F F F FUCKING AN/I YOUR A....ug. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already sprinkled whiskey here once; do I need to do it again? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(late to the party...again) wow, can't believe KL and the paddy never came across Shriekback....funny...trying to think of some music which carries a local pub flavour like the Pogues do...best I can come up with are....this and this which was very popular when I was in high school. Hunters and COllectors first song was very wierd though, and not a typical pub song....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of the above, I was musing on the most impressive songs we'd heard that failed to cross international borders ...but shriekback were UK and not Aussie. Another cool song which got alot of airplay here in 1983 was this, which sounds better now than when I remember. I played Nemesis and Lined Up for my kids and they were a tad nonplussed...back to the drawing board I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do they listen to? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songs that all three like are rare...but include this, this and this - usually one or two will like something and the other(s) hate it....oh, the theme from psych is popular.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of those three links is not like the other... WesleyDodds (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liz love the links but is so, so tired lately... will be back when I can Kafka Liz (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley...did you mean 'cos I got a poxy TOTP "live" Blue Monday....yeah I meant to get original one but was rushed for time and I figured you'd get which I meant....I think....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging words. Polish away!
Somewhere, someone speculates that the model for St. John in this and the Escorial Crucifixion was van der Weyden's son, the Carthusian monk. In de Vos, I found confirmation that van der Weyden donated the Escorial. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do what you think is best. It's a far better article because of your contributions. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the Escorial Crucifixion is deserving of its own article. But I don't know enough about it to responsibly write one. I hope our work on the Philadelphia diptych will assist anyone who does. I like your recent tweaks. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your 19th-century drawing is based on this portrait, which is a ca. 1500 copy of a lost original dated to ca. 1430. There isn't uniform agreement on terminology for parts of women's headdresses of this period. The "bent" padded (or wicker-work) ring is a burlet, and I'd call the draped part simply a veil. - PKM (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some light relief from London where our Olympic festival of self-congratulation is presided over by mayor Boris, philosopher-king and scholar of the classical world [3] Mick gold (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boris now flexing his jaw muscles & taking a bite out of Cameron's calf [4], promoting his environmentally disastrous plan for a new airport in Thames delta, to be named "Boris Island". Sounds like a horror flick. If Cameron fails to win overall majority in 2015, watch out. Mick gold (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I really appreciate it. =)

It was actually nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be. In fact, the overall experience was, dare I say, pleasant? In any case, I'm glad I took a chance and went for it. Wikipedia does need more admins and I'm still willing to offer myself up for the role once the community deems me ready for it. Until then, I'm going to explore my newfound passion for article writing. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeezuz fucking christ. That is stunning.TCO (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, aint it? I'm as bad as anyone, off with my ridicilous tiny 3 views a month articles; would like to get involved, but very few painters or pics in the list of options. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? I reckon mine are more esotericker than yours (well about 95% of them anyway) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah your the king of esoterism. All hail king cas. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the action and the summary associated with this edit were unacceptable. Don't repeat such an edit.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad boys get spanked

Hi, this will probably come out wrong so I guess I'll have to apologize in advance but just want to say that when I entered the core contest I knew there was a good chance I'd not be able to finish because of RL issues. That's why I was editing like a demon, to try to add as much content as I could, while I could. When I decide that I need to bail from something, (and honestly in 3 years it's only happened 3 times), or that I really need a break, there's always a good reason that usually has very little to do with the crap that goes on here. Edit summaries such as "silliness", or whatever, in my view, add to the perception of the diva-like behavior that I've been accused of and which quite frankly hurts. Thanks for the edits anyway (though some were to uncited sections I'd intended to delete). I'll try to finish it because you and Malleus seem to want me to, but I'll be working offline. Best, Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair enough, and the edit summary was unfair I apologise for that. Im very impressed with the article, nd though is in an area I know little about, it was very interesting reading through it. Its well written, I was only slightly tweaking, and did you see MF is interested also and has offered to help, some very good edits from him yesterday. Again, apologies for the edit summary. Ceoil (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, thinking of throwing my hat in as well..van eyck would be tough bio improve, but very worth while. A larger project might be nice for a while. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tier 3 list is here, tier 4 here. Something like Gothic Art might be a good idea. I've found it's easier to do these on a page I've never touched because it really requires an ambush in a sense, and for me working from a blank slate works better. But that's just my experience. Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thinker: 33,000 hits per month and only 5 endnotes.

Water Lilies: 29,000 hits per month and very short text.

Realism (arts): 29,000 hits per month, only 10 endnotes and 604 words of readable prose. Note: this is a big topic, a school of art.

Relativity (M. C. Escher): 6,000 hits per month and a single, not inline reference.

Commercial art: 4,000 hits per month, no references, tags at the top and only 145 words. And no image! (Applied art is in as bad a shape, so this is not some name split thingie). We are talking about an entire field, an entire profession.

TCO (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Don't let "House" Fatuorum rain on the hit counts.  ;-)

Note that History of Art has sold 2 million copies*, yet is a redlink (effectively, actually it is a redirect to the well...history of art.) There is a stub on Janson, though.

*Cha-ching!

TCO (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Har ;) Water Lilies is the most attractive there; and Johnbod has already decided to take on realism. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've not started, & have pretty much decided to take a shot at something else. Too much needed on French novels I've never read! Baroque painting gets 100K hits a year, and is 4 paras, a list & a galley. You're welcome to that - big topic though. Does Indian art appeal? Perhaps not. The "tier 4 Vital Articles" list is .... well, don't get me started... but easily relatively improvable entries on a quick look include: The Death of Socrates (David - 4K pcm), The Blue Boy (Gainsborough, 6K pcm), or for one or more heros, African art (34 kbytes, 11 refs...), though I think as much would need cutting as adding... My topic is currently a redirect ..... Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will be intersting to see the progres on whatver you have decided on. I am kind of half considering working for a bit on your Gothic art article, a lot of the sources I have at least touch on it, and it would be a nice change by now. David? Eh, no. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that stub on Janson is one of mine, babe... Riggr Mortis (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No babes in his book though. TCO (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - its all yours already and it needs help, and polish, and it's an important add to Goya. In my opinion Johnbod - Realism (arts) would be a major can of worms; worthwhile but really needs a major overhaul...Modernist (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque painting looks like a great choice for Johnbod - in my opinion...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that dare. I've not done more than tidy things up a bit. There's a fair chance the when I get into it I'll find some problem with the refs; it's common. Not saying anything will be your fault, either. A lot of my criticism is of the poor referencing mechanism themselves, as they lead people down the wrong path. No fair reverting when I'm done, though. And you might learn to like it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is not an area I'm strong in, hence my asking for help. By the way, your edit summary [5] almost resulted in a mild stroke. I was reaching for my shooter and heading for your talk; we would both have had the most fantastically colourful blocks logs at the end of it though. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street-Legal Sockpuppet
 Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet
02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking {{sfn}}. It automates the footnote collating, and will flush out any missing sources or typos in namos. I've no idea how many times I've been blocked. I do recall one time when more than one percent of the planet's population was range blocked to stop me making useful edits. Silly wiki. See also {{infobox diptych}}.

Hi Ceoil, thanks for reviewing the images for the Olmec colossal heads FAC, and for going over the lead. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have reincluded my reference to HA Schult in the Friedrich article, may I ask you to have a further look at Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. My very short note on the influence of Friedrich's painting on the early work of HA Schult has now been removed from the Friedrich article. I do not understand why, as Schult is an internationally recognized German artist who has clearly been influenced by Friedrich. See, for instance, these works by Schult: [6] [7] [8]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]