And let me be clear: he is not deleting articles. There are no violations of policy or guidelines on Modernist 's part. He is editing well-within his rights., please stop harassing other editors. Freshacconci talk 16:55, (UTC) From : dear Freshacconci, the base of my argument above has been corrected, so you may want to modify yours too. My point has been the same that the editors shall not blank (delete) others' work (like mine) with " no valid reason(s) given as it is clearly prohibited by wp:vandalismTypes of vandalism " Blanking " especially in regard to references. In general, it seems that wikipedia protects its expansion by making Blanking (and Deleting at all) difficult through prohibiting it with "no valid reason(s) given", while not having such a requirement, when Adding to wikipedia. So, the issue of violations of that rule seems to be threatening expansion for wikipedia.
Frida, a biography of, frida kahlo summary study guide
Ariel gold 09:35, (UTC) I put them there reluctantly and always wishing too that those sources were better, but - apparently - it is a lot easier said than done. The desire to have "reliable, third-party sources" is a guideline, not a policy, and, as such, it is deemed as advisable, and not as "should be" (required).- 05:42, (UTC) Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)? From : dear Modernist, your three (3) instances of removing references justified as unnecessary and redundant, but without saying why and to whom seemed to violate the wp:vandalismTypes of vandalism " Blanking " in the part described there as Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted. On what ground you deprived readers additional sources, please? Those instances were:. 6 " 18:11, 26 September 2007 Modernist (removing all redundant and unnecessary Olga's gallery references from lead - see external links) ", which was blanking of references without required fetal saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the " Blanking. 8 " 18:29, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Later work abroad - removed unnecessary and redundant artchive reference - see external links) ", which was blanking of reference without required saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the " Blanking. 9 " 18:32, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Career in Mexico - removed redundant unnecessary artchive reference see external links) ", which was blanking of reference without saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the " Blanking " rule. Would the sysops be so kind and take appropriate steps (like issuing a warning against Modernist ) to protect other editors from repeating undue blankings by modernist, please? 20:18, (UTC) Seraphim Whipp says it best here. There is a difference between deletions and editing: Modernist is not an administrator and therefore does not have the actual tools to delete an article.
T.w., how such protection works against vandalism, which acts seem to be singular and unrelated to each other, so one occurrence does not allow to predict the next one? In other words, if acts of vandalism are random and unpredictable, how the length of duration of protection against random occurrences can be calculated? Wouldn't be better just to block the vandals instead of disallowing editing for all anons, please? 10:14, (UTC) While addressing some of the issues above (which I have changed to reflect the proper Manual of Style, other issues caught my eye. This article uses non-reliable sources, such as geocities, and. Neither of these resume are reliable, third-party sources, and should be moved into the external links section, with proper sources found to replace them. M is nothing more than a collection of information obtained elsewhere, and that page actually is a copy of this article, so it is not at all a reliable source. Geocities is not a respected fact-checking news service, but a personal webspace host, and thus, not a reliable source. The same goes for the Fred Buch reference, it too should be moved to the external links section, as it is a personal website.
08:36, (UTC) Errors like this are not considered vandalism. Please review word what vandalism is on wikipedia, including what vandalism is not. Unintentional incorrect information, bad grammar, poor spelling, manual of style errors, and other common mistakes are not the same as vandalism. Additionally, editors should assume good faith with regards to edits that are not obvious, intentional, malicious destruction. Instead, just fix the errors, explaining in the edit summary why you're making those specific changes. In edit summary box, type "fixing typographical errors, adding closing parentheses, adding info that multiple founders of mmr." etc Cheers, Ariel gold 09:23, (UTC) overprotected? Edit Ariel, i cannot fix the article, because it has been protected for 9 days - effectively against. Myself - as a result of someone's vandalism.
Damaging and blanking edits by others, as described below. Sincerely, - 22:22, 14 november 2007 (UTC) Vandalism? Edit On 29 September 2007 at 01:32, modernist changed without valid reason(s) given the diego rivera opening sentence ( 3 ) - damaging it - from : diego rivera (.) was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by cézanne - and also a communist born. ( 4 ) to two sentences still opening the article (which is now protected diego rivera (. Was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by cézanne - and also a communist. Born in guanajuato city - and whose large wall works in fresco co-established the mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, and Siqueiros. ( 5 ) The errors include : missing parenthesis, incorrect division into two (2) sentences, completely wrong structure of the second sentence, factual error that the mexican Mural Renaissance was established by works of only 3 mentioned painters (there were more of them). Can such damage to article be considered as vandalism, please?
After you, by jojo moyes - book review: What louisa did next
Simple and direct is better. Just an opinion, of course. Freshacconci talk 15:34, (UTC) Modernist clearly questioned the usage of the expression á la with people by expressing it as never heard next to "Gauguin" or "Rousseau" in the question (first sentence) above. In the second sentence modernist offers a substitute, which is more formal, not because á la is not formal enough, but because - as Modernist said - " i've heard. But a la gauguin or a la henri rousseau?
" meaning that Modernist never " heard. A la gauguin or a la henri rousseau? which discredits your above statement that " the meaning, which I'm sure he knows. No, modernist did not know the usage of á la, bold and had not even bothered to look into a dictionary before starting this wasteful "discussion" as a continuation from Talk:Frida kahloCultural trivia! The main writing problem is not that Modernist makes such mistakes (everybody does, but maybe not such but that Modernist acts based on such mistakes,.
Clio the muse 02:34, (UTC) Two sources ( 1 and 2 ) provide different dates for diego rivera's death. Can anyone provide some insight? — the Storm Surfer 10:52, (UTC) a la gauguin edit Is that a dish? I've heard of a la king, and a la carte but a la gauguin or a la henri rousseau? Perhaps you mean that diego rivera was influenced by the paintings of paul gauguin and Henri rousseau.
Modernist 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Deletion, because of " i've never heard of it is in violation of WP:idontknowit of wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions! 15:09, (UTC) The collins cobuild dictionary of English Language provides for the "á la" entry: á la - if you do something á la a particular person, you do it in the same style or in the same way that they would. G.:.a crisp, tailored dress á la audrey hepburn. 05:00, (UTC) Well, of course, wp:idontknowit is not an official policy: "this is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." It is also not an issue of deletion; WP:idontknowit refers to whole articles, not edits. But that's neither here nor there. I believe modernist was questioning the appropriateness of the phrase, not the meaning, which I'm sure he knows. I won't speak for Modernist, but " á la " is perhaps a little too flowery for an encyclopedia.
Lean, six, sigma - yellow Belt Online Training course
Trotsky edit first Frida had a brief affair with Trotsky in the summer of 1937, not long after he came to mexico, but this was most assuredly not the reason for his break with rivera. This did not come until the winter of 1938-39, while Frida was absent at an exhibition of her work in New York and then Paris. The breach, according to hayden Herrera, the author of Frida, was caused by a combination of personal and political differences. Rivera had an expansive personality, one that did not harmonise well with that of the didactic and humourless Trotsky. More and more the two men came into open disagreement, over the nature of the soviet state, over trade union work, and over rivera's support for Francisco mujica's bid for the mexican presidency. But these disagreements in point of detail came down to one big thing: riviera was simply not the kind of man who could fit easily within the narrow political and personal discipline demanded by people like trotsky. He was, as he told the old Bolshevik, 'a bit of an anarchist which is as good an assessment of his politics-and his personality-as any. In Paris Frida reported the breach in a letter to a friend "Diego has now fought with the fourth International and told piochitas Trotsky to go to hell in a very serious manner." And as far as she was concerned he was completely right.
Linas 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC) The section on Cubism would benefit from an inclusion of information from :Ramon eating favela's diego rivera: The cubist years Phoenix Art Museum, 1984. Npsanchez ( talk ) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) 1st marriage? Edit the article says that his first marriage was to guadalupe marín yet when you click on the link and read the guadalupe marín article it says she was his second wife. Guadalupe being his second wife is consistent with what i've always believed but in either case, there's an inconsistency to be cleared. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ( talk ) 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC). What happened to them? 05:01, (UTC) rivera.
edit bonus army how could there not be a threat of revolution? Umm personally i think its really weird that she got back with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 18:31, (UTC) rivera allegedly. Trotsky edit "it is proven have been highly unlikely" In case any rivera or Trotsky experts are reading, i'd like to draw your attention to this ridiculous phrase. I hope someone can fix it to reflect the amount of information that is available. 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Is the statement regarding rivera's decendent in Austraila true or is it an example of using the wikipedia for malace? Edit diego rivera is not cubism. He is Socialist realism. Perhaps you should take a look at some of his paintings posted here.
Wikiproject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the parts coverage of visual arts on wikipedia. Contents, marriage to Frida kahlo edit, this can't be right: "They married for the first time in 1929, when he was 42 years old and she was 22; but owing to his infidelity and violent temper they divorced in 1928 " Actually, she was. They divorced, but because of his incessant infidelity, but because of his affair with her sister. They remarried a year later. Actually, it is right. Frida was born in 1907, making her 22 in 1929. Because of her passion for the mexican revolution, she attempted to change her date of birth from 1907 to 1910 to coincide with the revolution.
Biology help, homework, order Essay online in Texas
This article is list of interest to the following. Wikiprojects : This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. B, this article has been rated. B-class on the project's quality scale. High, this article has been rated. High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope.