User talk:Rwarsager

Thank you very much to WomensArtistsUpdates for posting and editing the Hyman J. Warsager entry. I am a beginner at editing on Wikipedia, and I apologize for not documenting the change of place of death from NY to England. The Smithsonian location is actually incorrect. Warsager and his wife had moved to England in 1973 and he died there on November 27, 1974 in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire. I attended the funeral there.I will try to find documentation of that in the boxes of his papers that I have in my possession. I do apologize for getting ahead of myself and changing that without supplying documentation. That will not happen again. He was my father and I was hoping to add some further details from my documents in the future to his entry, and I hope that is permissible under Wikipedia rules, which I will re-read as well as the editing guidelines. Thank you again, and apologies for getting ahead of myself. Rwarsager (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I am seeking an experienced editor to whom I can ask some questions about what content and sources I can or cannot add, and edits I'm permitted to make to the entry about my father, "Hyman J. Warsager". There are several books on art history which mention him and I would like to add a few paragraphs of content from these with appropriate citation. Thank you very much. Rwarsager (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can make these edits and

neutral point of view, it should be fine. Just make sure to disclose the COI. ~XyNq^t_c 18:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your help! Rwarsager (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I am trying to add Hyman J. Warsager, my late father, to the entry on the National Serigraph Society as a co-founder, based upon an acknowledged co-founder's comment (Anthony Velonis) in Velonis Smithsonian interview. Here is the link- https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-anthony-velonis-12258. Is this sufficient as a basis for this addition? As an inexperienced Wikipedia user, I mistakenly made this change previously without the source and it was deleted, understandably. But I hope this source is satisfactory. Velonis and Warsager worked together on various initiatives for many years, in civilian life and in the Army Air Force. They worked together on the same team in the WPA in the graphic arts division. Thank you for your assistance. Rwarsager (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Sourcing for the location of death of a subject, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: I have added several paragraphs to the article on artist "Hyman J. Warsager" (1909-1974). Mr. Warsager was my father, so in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines I have endeavored to write in a neutral voice, citing relevant books and in one case a journal article, and using direct quotations in each case, to document the added statements. I have also specifically included other artists whenever relevant. I welcome any guidance from experienced Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Rwarsager (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, Looking at your most recent edits, I'd like to gently remind you that you cannot present original research into Wikipedia articles. If you are researching works and receiving emails from the Norton Simon Museum, you are performing original research. It looks to me like you are being scrupulous in maintaining neutral point of view and avoiding COI, but if you start presenting e-mails as citations you are going to wander into original research. One other gentle reminder, copyright laws apply to works of art regardless of who owns them,so for example, if a professional photographer took a photo of your father, that image is copyrighted by the photographer until 70 years after the photographer's death. If it is unknown when the photographer died, I believe the image is assumed to be copyrighted until 120 years after the subject's death. You might want to read up on Fair use

I was able to upload your father's WPA work, because they were created for the US Government and therefore are free to use. His non-WPA work is still under copyright regardless of who physically owns it. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much for the information above. I understand your points totally. I added the Norton Museum of Art to the museum list thinking that the email from the curator would suffice, but now that you point that out about original research I realize it is not enough. I knew about that regulation in general but I didn't realize that the email would fall under that principle. So I appreciate your posting on that. Unlike with the other museums, for some reason the artist's name does not come up on with a search on the Norton Museum site. I will contact the curator and ask her to rectify that. Once the prints are searchable on the Norton site I could add them, if that would be sufficient documentation. Regarding the copyright laws for the photos, I realize now what a good point you make, that the laws extend for such a long period of time. I have had that photo among my father's papers since he passed away in 1974 and I didn't realize about the copyright.And it does appear to have been taken by a professional. I have others that are family photos so I will make that change. I will delete the photograph. Looking forward, I have been reading a variety of art history books and journals in order to add relevant information to the article, and I will be very careful about any images (and I will read up on Fair use) that I post and about avoiding anything that has not been published in an acceptable source. This is an interesting learning process. Thank you again! Rwarsager (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! I am so glad you did not take offense at my suggestions. I am making them in order to keep the article solid. The photo of Warsager actually creating a silk screen is wonderful, and it would be great if you uploaded it under "fair use". Rational "Best, youngest image of the artist creating a serigraph".

I think the elevation of serigraphy after the "rediscovery" by WPA artists is a fascinating subject. It seems to be uniquely American, with the artists interested in bringing art to the people.

With regard to documenting art in collections, I have discovered while working on articles on artists that works listed in CVs etc cannot always be documented. Either the museum hasn't digitized their database, or perhaps they sold the work. A lot of art is being deaccessioned as museums are striving to create a more diverse collection. My advice is to keep the list of "works in the collection of" to those that can be cited to the collection's website. There is a very long list for Warsager, so he definitely falls under the category of notable artist and Norton Simon omitted from the list (for now) in no way diminishes his rep . Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.  — Apologies for the length of this post!  Yes, I absolutely welcome your guidance. And thank you very much for your kind words about my father.  Your advice on editing is a great help to me in navigating the landscape of Wikipedia, which is still quite new to me. I will certainly take your advice on the list of works in museum collections. And I agree with and appreciate your thoughts on the elevation of serigraphy; they were passionately interested in making art that would be available to many more people that had traditionally been the case with fine art.   

I’m grateful for you taking the time to advise me and to thus to improve the article as well as my editing capabilities. I’ve enjoyed Wikipedia as a reader for years without realizing how rich and complex the writing and editing process is, and the attention to detail with which so many editors work.  In some of my initial edits, I was justifiably corrected by an editor.  For example, when I edited my father’s location of death from NYC to England (I knew firsthand that England was the location) I did not provide a source initially. The editor who corrected me was totally right, based on available information. The Smithsonian had long ago listed the location incorrectly (apparently based on a Social Security database error) and that percolated through to various other sites. But the Smithsonian recently corrected the location after I provided them with documentation.

I’m preparing to add some content to the article about the artists, both African-American and white, including my father, who contributed some compelling anti-racism and anti-fascism illustrations to the political magazines in the 1930’s. Helen Langa, an art historian, has written about this in books and a journal article. This content will probably be 3-4 paragraphs with multiple sources. And I have some other sourced material to add going forward on other aspects. This process is exhilarating and I'm grateful to Wikipedia for the open-ended nature of it's content.

If I may add a personal note: A few years ago I visited the Drawing and Print Room at the Metropolitan Museum to view my father’s work with my daughter when a friendly and helpful assistant curator there, who is writing her dissertation on several WPA printmakers, suggested I try to write a Wikipedia article on my father.  Then the pandemic hit and chaos and stress and then brain fog so familiar to so many people. I slowly began my reading process, drawing upon the several boxes of papers my father left behind and the many books I acquired on the history of printmaking.  Eventually, I slowly began some minor additions, where appropriate, to Wikipedia articles about topics connected with my father. After a few months of making some small edits, a Wikipedia article on my father appeared, written by someone associated with WomenArtistUpdates, for which I am very grateful. I was excited to see the article. I had been feeling a bit anxious about submitting my own article, unsure as I was about how to do it correctly, so I was greatly relieved when someone wrote one. And now that I’m trying to add content in appropriate places on Wikipedia I warmly welcome any guidance from you and other editors, and I will review the written guidelines on Wikipedia again as well. Thank you and all the best! Rwarsager (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just a quick follow up - I re-uploaded the photograph and I hope I did it correctly. I filled out the form with the Fair Use Rationale suggested and stated it also in describing the change I made before publishing. I'm not certain I submitted the form correctly as I cannot find it now. If not I will try again. Thank you. Rwarsager (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, I went in and requested a "speedy delete" of the image on the commons, and also reduced the size of the image on English Wikipedia to comply with the "fair use" rule. You'll probably get a couple of pings about it, but I am pretty sure all is well, I just finished the final steps is getting it right.

If I may add a personal note, I was the person who did all three things mentioned above. I reverted your edits to National Serigraph Society back in June. I wrote that article and monitor edits on that page. I was unaware of the 1944 show in Dallas, so I used that citation to add to the list of artists associated with the Society. I then wrote article on all the notable artists from that batch, Hyman J. Warsager being one of them. I am the same grumpy person who requested citation of place of death and shook a finger at you for the Norton Simon e-mail :)

I created the article on the National Serigraph Society because it was a rich source of names of women artists. I think my favorite one is/was Gladys M. Lux. As you can read in her biography, her WPA commission was revoked so that "an artist with greater need" (a man) could get the money. Interesting too, she was a collector as well as producer of affordable prints.

It would be great to find some secondary source material on the 1940 MoMA show "Color Prints Under $10". It looks like Warsager was included in that show and I'll update the article to reflect that.

Again, if you get a bunch of alarming notices from Wiki commons and Wikipedia, don't be alarmed. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I really want to thank you for your note above. I'm intimidated by some of the complexities (to my old brain) of the editing process, as I've mentioned. I tried with the photo but perhaps next time, since I can learn from this. You do not strike me as grumpy, : ) just precise and serious about accuracy.

And thanks very much indeed for helping with uploading the photograph properly!

I'm so pleased you wrote the National Serigraphy Society article. That was an effective group during their tenure. And it's great you wrote about the artists in that batch.

Regarding woman artists, I agree with you about the bias even in the WPA. I was disappointed as I came to learn about that. I love reading about the women artists of that time. Riva Helfond, a wonderful artist, was a friend of my father and use to visit us at our home in NJ. Helen Langa wrote about the problems several women artists had getting access when they went to the coal mining areas of Pennsylvania to learn about the miners and produce artwork with them as subjects.

I just read the article on Gladys M. Lux. Yes indeed, a very interesting artist. I'm going to look at her site to learn more.

One of the most exciting finds, for me personally, in my father's papers was the handwritten note from Louise Bourgeois, written in 1939. I had just been reading about her, by coincidence, when I came across the note and realized what it was. I donated it to the Easton Foundation in NYC, where the Bourgeois archives are held. She was a complex and fascinating artist, still producing significant art when she died at 98 years of age.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your guidance and help. Many thanks.

Best regards,

Randy Warsager Rwarsager (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This might interest you regarding women artists in the WPA. I came it across from a few years ago: https://harn.ufl.edu/wpa regarding an event held at the Harn Museum of Art at the University of Florida.

Coffee with the Curators | Spotlight on Women Artists of the WPA

Dulce Román, Chief Curator and Curator of Modern Art

September 4, 2020 Rwarsager (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article! I am assumiong you posted this for me. Very interesting and I love the Rosa Rush image. BTW, I don't see things on your talk page (this page) unless I happen to visit it. You will always get a notification if someone adds to your talk page. The way you "ping" someone is to add their name in this format {{u|WomenArtistUpdates}} to the page you are call their attention to, alternatively you can post comments on their talk page, which in my case is User talk:WomenArtistUpdates. Thanks again for the very interesting article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing the loop. I uploaded quite a few WPA images to the commons for Rosa Rush, Blanche Grambs, and Ann Nooney. Thanks again for the link. BEst, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're very welcome. All the best. Warsager Rwarsager (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was here to tell you that I fixed the links to the Krannert Art Museum and the Weisman Art Museum. Both museums have articles on Wikipedia, but you had coded incorrectly and they were showing up as red links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|WomenArtistUpdates}} Hi. I hope I did this right and you'll get pinged. I did try going to your talk page but could not see how to post on there. I really apologize for my lack of understanding on this site. It's frustrating but my brain fog seems to get me confused a lot. I do not wish to be a pain on here, honestly!

I'm happy to hear you like the article I posted!

Regarding adding a citation for a website, I thought I had gotten the hang of it but I got confused with the museums I added over the last few days.  On the template there is this field:

Title

The title of the source page on the website; will display with quotation marks added. Usually found at the top of your web browser. Not the name of the website.

Field is required.

Previously I had not been using that field, I think. Recently I realized that it’s referring to the title showing in the browser window, which is quite different sometimes from the full URL.  o I started putting that in there like I thought I was supposed to, for example: collection.kam.illinois.edu.  And then I put the actual name of the website, like Krannert Museum of Art, in the field further down.  But when I viewed the new citations on my iPhone, I could see error messages, whereas on my desktop Mac I could not see them. It looked ok on the Mac. On the phone this appeared: {{cite web}}:, then CS1 maint:url-status (link). In fact it is still visible on my phone for Krannert, and Illinois State Museum but NOT for Weisman Art Museum. These are also on the citation for Blanton and Univ of Michigan and Univ of Arizona.  I will go study the citation guidelines to see if I can figure it out.

In any event, thank you again for all your help. In a few days I'll add a carefully sourced section on the anti-lynching and anti-fascism illustrations he did. I see that there is a good article on Wikipedia called: 1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions. There were two exhibitions and my father was in the second one, organized mainly by the Artists Union. BTW, the late art historian and artist Gerald Monroe wrote his PhD dissertation on the Artists Union of New York. I met with him once long ago and I received today from his long-time partner his unpublished (I realize that's not a viable source) memoir which could be interesting.

Regarding the red highlighted museum names, I don't know how that happened because typically I highlight a museum name and then select the icon at the top of the page while in editing status so I can see if there is a wikipedia article on the museum. With the big museums there has been one so it highlighted properly. With the two in question the screen that popped up indicated there is no article in Wikipedia so they highlighted as red, indicating not in Wikipedia. I need to do some more studying on the process. I know I'm slow to get this so I apologize again.

Thank you and best regards. Rwarsager (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ping did not work. We are working with different "editors" (the interface used to edit Wikipedia). You are using the

Wikipedia:Source Editor, which is a hypertext language. I was giving you coding to ping me using the Source Editor code, which won't work. Hmmmm, I can give you no advice on working with visual editor. On top of that, Wikipedia shows up on the front end as wikipedia mobile on a phone, versus the desktop version, which will show up on your Mac. The two versions are not entirely compatible. I am sorry I can't help you out with your questions. I don't know the language you are using to edit. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thanks very much for your reply. I'm so basic a user that I'm just in the plain language editing mode, but sometimes even this gets me confused. Thank you anyway! I will try to keep it simple.

Well I continue my preliminary research. I am finding that the term "American Print Renaissance" most likely refers to the period of 1960 through 1990 when major American artists started working with print shops to create art prints. The artists worked with the master printers in a collaborative way to create the editions. (BTW Warhol's name comes up frequently, so my theory of him being an outlier is misguided.) Very interesting topic, but not our guys. I am interested in the phases that led up to the Renaissance. That time when printmaking parted ways with illustration and reproduction (replaced by photography) and became its own means of expression in America. I am taking a breath and figuring out my next steps. Hope all is well with you. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting.

I'm learning that Warhol was more interesting than I had realized. I'm reading Arthur Danto's book on Warhol and he's a big admirer. I'm trying to follow up on that thread I had mentioned: WPA serigraphy experimentation>>Warhol visiting Max Arthur Cohn printshop>>>Warhol's 1962 rise using newly learned techniques.

Your thesis is really interesting and I will share anything I can learn. I've been preoccupied but I plan to dive further into the stack of books on printmaking that is staring at me.

I tried to get an appointment this month at the Philadelphia Museum of Art archives to explore their papers on the National Serigraph Society and other topics but I could not get one and I plan to go in there in January. The papers on the NSS could be interesting and I will definitely share what I find out there.

All the best to you for the holidays!

rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, Well I have hit a wall (for now). I am struggling to figure out how to "timeline" the print bandwagon of the 1980 (editions of 5,000) and the cratering of the print market in 1990s. I think once those items/events are somehow incorporated into the timeline we can move our article to main space and we can continue editing from there. Any ideas or sources?

Meanwhile, My inter library loan books are due at the library and I want to take a break from the topic to create a list of Book Artists (like Julie Chen) for the March Art + Feminism editathon. Lots of thoughts running around, but I am gonna work on this other project for a bit. Just a heads up and a thank you for all the work you are doing. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WomenArtistUpdates. You're very welcome. I understand and I will try to find some specific events to add to the timeline on those topics. I will explore all the sources I have.

All the best with your Book Artists work. Just FYI reading your note I recalled that WPA artist and pioneer Elizabeth Olds did children's books in addition to her prints. I'm just not sure if this is relevant to your Book Artist list, but just in case this is from the Wiki article on her:

Olds wrote and illustrated six children's

Houghton Mifflin in 1951, was a runner-up for the annual American Library Association Caldecott Medal

, which recognizes "the most distinguished American picture book for children."

• The Big Fire (
  LCCN 45-9049
• Riding the Rails (HM, 1948),
  LCCN 48-8418
• Feather Mountain (HM, 1951),
  LCCN 51-11769
• Deep Treasure: the story of oil (HM, 1958),
  LCCN 57-9016
• Plop plop Ploppie (
  LCCN 62-9647
• Little Una (Scribner's, 1963),
  LCCN 63-9460

Best regards,

Rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to the Timeline of 20th century printmaking in America.

Rwarsager, I have moved the page into the main space. I look forward to continued collaboration on this page and topic! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed.

Great to see the timeline in the main space. I too look forward to further collaboration on this! All the best.

Rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, I recall you and I had a brief exchange about artist colonies. Just a note to let you know that the Smithsonian Associates are presenting a lecture on Byrdcliffe: An American Arts and Crafts Colony. It is an online event. I haven't heard this particular teacher before, but SA usually does a good job. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I remember that exchange. I was just reading about some French art colonies in a book called "A Chronology of Art" by Iain Zaczek.

Thank you for letting me know about the online event. I've just signed up for their alerts.

I hope all's well with you.

All the best,

Rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links you left me over on the Print timeline. The Axios article brings a perspective we don't see here in the talk pages. A business magazine trying to explain the importance of being on Wikipedia, but trying to lay out the rules of the road. I particularly like the quote "Wikipedia has its own rules and customs. If you're a foreigner walking into Wikipedia making demands, you can resemble the stereotypical American who walks into the place and demands a beer without first taking off your shoes and bowing to the elders."

The Art for the Millions: American Culture and Politics in the 1930s show at the Met looks like it will be right up your alley. Unfortunately, the snippet in the newsletter doesn't give any clues about the size of the show. I will be depending on you to do the requisite reconnaissance. Since it is the department of drawing and prints I am assuming that will be the main focus.

I have been working my way through the list of Abstract Expressionists you sent me the ling to back in March. Most did have articles, but many needed an image and some copy editing. I am having fun looking at their work. I ran across a review of the show (I think in Art Forum) which voiced complaints about how the show was hung; way too crowded and not enough thought about placement, leading to Abstract overload.

Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R! 1. I guess you have read that the Andy Warhol Foundation lost it's case at the supreme court for the image of Prince. Will this be the thin end of the wedge regarding artistic appropriation? Is Roy Lichtenstein next? 2. Finally wrote the short article for Isadore Possoff. best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, it's very interesting. Elena Kagan's comment in the dissent: "It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer." A powerful comment. I'm a bit mixed about it because I sometimes feel that Warhol took liberties with other artists' work when he silkscreened their images onto canvas and sold them, but I need to read more about the decision and the case. It's definitely worth some time to get into it further for me, so thank you for mentioning it.

I like your article on Possoff! There was a WPA artist, Eugene Morley, whom I may have mentioned, who was on the silk screen team with my father and Velonis and who they said in their Smithsonian interviews was perhaps the most talented of the group. Morley died relatively young. His work is in various major museums. I've been meaning to take a crack at composing a short article on him for Wikipedia. I may ask you for some advice on that at a future time, if you don't mind.

Thanks again. All the best.

Rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, Things are fine here. You can send me the pdf via e-mail. Look on my user page. There, in the right hand menu is the option to "email this user". The option may only exist if you have set to YOUR account to have an email address connected to it. See Wikipedia:Emailing users. In the 5 years I have had an email account linked I have NEVER received spam or abuse via the Wikipedia interface. I'd like to see the scanned article if you have the patience to set up the e-mail feature:) Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on that tomorrow. Sounds good.

I've been thinking a bit further about something we touched on a while back: the idea of having a short paragraph kind of introducing each decade, just a few sentences characterizing the tone or sense of the decade with regard to printmaking, if this idea is workable in a timeline format. Then while I was finishing up reading the book on collaborative prints and presses in American printmaking I was thinking, if this is not too far out, we might consider including a short comment at the end of the timeline that summarizes, perhaps in a few bullet points, state of printmaking at the end of the century, and then the evolution of printmaking in the first (almost) quarter of the 21st century, it's current "status", just to bring it up to date, so to speak. I welcome your thoughts. I don't know if it's appropriate in the timeline format. Thinking out loud. And I want to thank you again for the timeline idea and your launching and work on it. I am finding it very educational to work on this, although I have not been able to spend large chunks of time up until now. And the final (or almost final) version will be a really great information tool.

Thank you. Rwarsager (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwarsager, I've sent you an e-mail and I think you can attach the PDF to that.

Regarding the timeline, a couple of things I am thinking out loud about:

• The timeline will be edited as long as information become available. Don't even think of it as ever being finished :)
• I like your idea of summarizing the 20th century history, but as I think about it, the overview (based on the cited material) should be placed in the lede. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.
• I am exploring List of timelines to get ideas of how others handle information.
• Rather than tack on the 21st century at the end of the 20th century, start a Timeline of 21st century printmaking in America page. As you say, we are 1/4 of the way through the century. My feeling is that we have started the century out with a new appreciation of the handmade. Most artists and collectors are aware of what can be accomplished with AI and digital printers and there is a conscious rejection of that road. I seem to be running into that mindset IRL as well as reading about the flourishing of workshops for artists, crafters, and creatives. And interestingly, the movement is successful when incorporating 21st century tech. Online classes! A 3d print of a printing press (I own one of those).

I am so glad you continue to enjoy researching. I do too. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WAU. Thanks for your reply. I totally agree about the timeline never being finished. New information will come to light and we and others will plum our resources for interesting events to add.

-Good idea to look at the other timelines for ideas. I will do that also. I need some perspective on how much information is too much for an event. I recognize that some of mine are perhaps a bit too lengthy. Many of the events are so darn interesting it's hard to hold back some content. I love giving color to some of the events.

-Also good idea to just go ahead and think about the timeline for the 21st century. I plan to ask some active printmakers what they think are the key events in the field of printmaking of the last several decades. I hope to get some ideas from them. I will ping you with any particularly interesting thoughts they might have.

-I love hearing about the 'conscious rejection' you mentioned regarding AI and digital printing. And the flourishing of workshops is great.

Thanks and all the best.

Rwarsager (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. While I do have permission via email to upload the file to Wikipedia I do not have a separate formal authorization. The creator of the file, Tom Felt at the Museum of American Glass in West Virginia, gave the presentation on Zoom on August 21. He sent me a final copy and gave me his permission to upload it. But I realize that is not sufficient. I was hoping to add it to an article about one of the artists involved in creating the glassware items in the museum but I will try to remove the article until I can get proper permission. Thank you again. Rwarsager (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Just wanted to follow up with you. The fellow at the Museum of American Glass in West Virginia added this to the presentation I mentioned: Copyright 2023 West Virginia Museum of American Glass, Ltd. Licensed for reuse on Wikipedia by Randy Warsager. I am reading the guidelines and I hope to be able to add the presentation with adequate documentation.

Best regards,

Rwarsager Rwarsager (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not very strong in this part of the Wikipedia rules, but, most likely, such permission will not be enough.

On the one hand, there is a special item for deleting files "use only for Wikipedia" -

F3

. (I include this paragraph CSD because I cannot find this information in other rules at the moment.)

On the other hand, permission given through third parties or in a way such as changing text in a presentation is invalid. You will need to contact the

VRT

team via email [email protected].

For more accurate information on this issue, you can consult both at the above address and on a

special forum. — Ирука¹³ 11:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks very much again. I appreciate your guidance.

Best regards. 2601:45:4004:8BD0:C5F9:EFA2:AB50:6B2F (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]