User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Oct 2007

Samson and Delilah
Samson and Delilah
Artist	Peter Paul Rubens
Year	1609-1610
Type	Oil on canvas
Location	National Gallery (London)

The Ambassadors
The Ambassadors
Artist	Hans Holbein the Younger
Year	1533
Type	Oil on oak
Location	National Gallery, London

Hullo

Isn't it fun! Yes, I'll bring back Ophelia when the badinage is lost and won! Our 'learned' friend didn't spend must time on you, he could've, at the very least least, questioned your attending public school! --Counter-revolutionary 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A chance to speak out

...about one of the ongoing problems here: Wikipedia:Removal of adminship. Thought you'd like to know. Anynobody 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Interesting (but you really shouldn't have posted it here - all the other angry inadequates will see it!). I've come across two 'Mr. Furious' Admins (Guy and MrDarcy), both of whom have subsequently left Wikipedia, so I suspect that the problem is largely self-correcting. As used to be said during the war of officious bureaucrats, they were 'promoted beyond their capabilities': going around being rude and doling out blocks doesn't win many friends and ultimately must become rather sterile and unrewarding. Much 'Admin abuse', I think, is prob'ly down to making instant judgments and not giving an editor an opportunity to explain/ apologise for/ correct his behaviour: blocks just piss people off and, I suspect, serve to encourage more anti-social behaviour: gaming the system, needling the other party (especially if the block arose out of a complaint to an Admin), and concentrating on petty politics rather than contributing. That said, some editors obviously don't get the message. In an ideal world, being an Admin would be a source of some pride and respect; here it's just a license to be abused by a bunch of teenage POV-pushers.

		The Truth © ™
		The Truth © ™, including all likenesses, derivations, and appurtenances thereto, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Major Bonkers.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. I like it. David Lauder 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Having read the proposal and the discussion, I can't really see what it adds. You're still going to have accusations of bias from offended editors. Before Guy blanked his pages, there were plenty of messages of support for him, so I suspect that if this proposal comes to pass it would just be another opportunity for conflict. We'd simply end up with two huge lists; one of people saying 'A is an arsehole' and another 'A is wonderful'. The proposal as it stands also militates against Admins getting involved in complicated or long-running disputes - precisely where help is most needed - because they're going to end up with someone taking against them and trying to get them de-systoped ^{[what an ugly word!]}.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time one of these fellows announces (often for the umpteen time - bit like stage stars who never really retire) they're leaving, especially if they're obviously sulking, a small army of folk turn up with commiserations and "please don't go". I hope that when I decide to depart (or am kicked out on some bogus pretext) I will be spared the gush. Regards, David Lauder 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O, I think when you and I go, David, there'll be dancing in the streets and a special edition of An Phoblacht to celebrate. In the (roughly) 18 months that I've been contributing here, I've been the subject of 3 attack sites (two courtesy of One Night In Hackney and one from Giano), to say nothing of the 'no holds barred' free for all that is the Arb Com. (Of course you and the rest of 'the tories' - I wonder if the coiner of that term is aware of its etymology? - are in exactly the same position, and poor old Astrotrain has an additional RfC). Frankly, I'm astonished that Wikipedia allows attack sites - they breach at least two alleged founding principles of Wikipedia, AGF (and, in every case that I've seen, NPA as well), and (because they are inevitably posted in User space) the principle of 'a free encyclopaedia anyone can edit' (in other words, there's no way a victim can legitimately respond). Mind you, I have to acknowledge the effectiveness of posting 'evidence' for an ArbCom in User space, where it can't be challenged; it certainly seems to have been swallowed without question!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first at last .org - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marouflage

The definition I have is:

Mayer, Ralph. The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques Faber and Faber; 5th edition, 1991, revised and expanded by Steven Sheehan. P.645 ISBN 0-571-14331-8

"Process of affixing canvas to a wall by means of a cement, traditionally white lead ground in oil. Term not in common use in America."

However, you will find results you want with a Google search, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I see that I started ArtWatch International. It would be good to see it expanded.

Tyrenius 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite interested in art. A friend has recently had some rather large paintings restored and revarnished by 'experts'. I dread to consult Artwatch on them! I have recently started articles on a few painters/artists (this description is something I feel needs reassessment on WP. A painter could be anything.) Regards, David Lauder 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the subjects that really gets my goat. This, first, picture was recently 'restored', which necessitated a complete removal of all varnishes, glazes, and previous restorations, before the picture was repainted by the restorer. Most people will recognise the picture and artist, but what of the restorer who has promoted his talents as comparable to those of Holbein?

He's actually Martin Wyld, chief restorer at the NG. If you look at the DVD that accompanied the 'conservation', you can see that he repainted the carpet, that is used as a tablecloth, with a completely different pattern. Why did he do this? He also used a computer to manipulate digitally a photograph of a skull, which was then repainted into the picture. Not, I dare say, how Holbein managed it originally. But that, actually, is the answer: 'restoration' and 'conservation' should be done on computer images, leaving the original work well alone. This 'restored' picture is a sad wreck of its former self; apart from anything else, Wyld has got the cast shadows completely wrong - there seem to be multiple, independent light sources, casting different strength shadows (some of them are strong and some are diffuse). The result is that the picture has lost its sense of depth and the sense that you could walk into it, it's now flat, with the sense that the two figures are simply cardboard cut-outs (which also illustrates how Holbein, but not Wyld, damped-down the background with glazes and varnish in order to lead the eye naturally to the two figures: remove the glazes and you get a strident picture which does not cohere).

Any conservation work on a picture is essentially destructive. It should only be done as a last resort and not simply to buff-up Old Masters to make them look pretty for the Japanese tourists. Why do we let someone, who isn't a competent artist in his own right, muck around with the nation's patrimony? Someone who doesn't even have a pitch on the railings is repainting Titian!

Mind you, there are also people who think that this second picture is actually an original! Only if you haven't got eyes. If you look at the old crone on the left, her neck is extending from the middle of her chest. Rubens was too good an artist to make elementary mistakes like this. (And the 'real' version of the Madonna of the Rocks is in the Louvre, whilst I'm on the subject - the NG's got the copy!)--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to a comprehensive survey of this important subject. However, don't forget WP:NPOV etc in your enthusiasm! Tyrenius 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]