Talk:Graffiti/Archive 1

message: I don't usually make comments or edits to pages, so feel free to ignore if I'm wrong or if this doesn't matter.  This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense (I think): ""Graffiti" is the plural of "graffito", which singular form has become relatively little-known in English."   Could someone please change "which singular form has become relatively little-known" to something more suitable?  Possibly: "though the singular form is relatively little-known"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.35.175 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: something small

message: I don't understand why someone called an Englishman an "idiot" for spelling "colour" instead of the American "color" (see edit log for the article)  Generally, which is accepted better on Wikipedia, American English or British English?  Is there a general rule, please???
:see WP:ENGVAR "For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more “correct” than any other." Basically, either American or British English is fine, but it needs to be consistent within the article, and shouldn't be changed from one to the other.  If an article is created with British English spelling, it should be retained throughout it's lifespan.  There's also a tendency to keep it American or British depending on the content; as Graffiti sort of originates in NY (depending how you look at it), this article probably should be in American spelling. --duncan 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English or American Spelling

message: An anonymous contributor wrote while redirecting Graffito to Graffiti: Because of the "singular" convention, why is "graffiti" not here?)
:Answer: because the English word "graffiti" is a mass noun, not a plural. --Brion
----
correct!!! well done
:The English word "graffiti" is a mass noun, but the article seems to imply that it is a plural, and one of the pictures is labled as being a photograph of a "graffito". Vsst 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graffito

message: The Vandals are famous for their graffiti (giving us the word vandalism).
AFAIK, the Vandals were famous (rightly?) for destroying, raping and plundering. I didn't know about their graffiti. I'd remove the above phrase. -- Error 02:11, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: removed it. High on a tree 02:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: To better cover the topic "graffiti", needs more info on graffiti as a nuisance in addition to graffiti as art & lifestyle. I agree about merging a lot of this into graffiti art and adding more about how much money and effort (including volunteer hours) are spent trying to reduce or remove graffiti.
 Elf 21:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing a lot of info

message: This is truly a fat topic. I'ld like to throw in my $0.02 worth by suggesting a couple of major divisions, perhaps treated in related articles:
artistic graffiti: from the sublime to the ridiculous - A treatment of graffiti in terms of self-expression  and its elevation to a legitimate art form.
This article (currently graffiti art) can present graffiti artists that have gained right of passage in Fine art circles and/or those who have made a noble effort.
tactical graffiti: an in depth study of the motives, intensities and circumstances of graffiti artists with a mission.
This new article might contain somewhat classified areas of political and racial strife in the context of:
*A. Low tact (gangs, race, gender, orientation and other potentially nasty stuff)
*B. High tact (anti-propoganda, civil disobedience, calls to action, etc - graffiti with a bit more purpose and constraint)
*C. Moderate tact? Other aspects of tactical graffiti or that used simply to provoke thought (this may have strong ties with graffiti art).
Creating such major divisions might help the reader to pursue his or her interest more readily.  Eh? Quinobi 15:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Artistic vs. Tactical graffiti

message: This image was replaced in an edit entitled "correct spelling". Perhaps it should be put back into the article, but I'm not sure where. Tim Ivorson 10:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look a little strange. I hadn't noticed that that lead image was so new when I added an image yesterday. I've sent a note for User:Hbomb to add source info add copyright tags for the image, but it could be appropriate to revert. It seems a little odd that so few of the graffiti examples here show text or tags. -- Solipsist 10:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This article may not be perfect but the clean up tag is a bit unfair (or so it seems to me) so I,ve removed it--JK the unwise 19:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Not perfect, but the last few days have seen some substantial improvement.  Are there specific additions or edits that someone's wanting to see at this point? GTBacchus 20:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up? 

message: *Excellent - a much better lead image. -- Solipsist 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More pictures

message: Where is this? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Alterego☺ 05:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to point out the fact that you just passed the three reverts per day rule. --Alterego☺ 05:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  look again. I was in the process of editing page when you went looking. Alkivar 05:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alkivar, I am awaiting your reply. Although the arbitration was rightfully shot down, this issue is not over. --Alterego☺ 00:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have your picture... you are now officially charged with dealing with all FAC complaints regarding it. I wash my hands of the entire problem. And your point that other articles have wide images is immaterial as NONE of the pages at Wikipedia:Featured articles do. Remember the point to this is to pass FAC. Your image pushes strongly against that possibility. Alkivar 05:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey man, I shun responsibility just as well as the next man, but you can't deny the fact that we are all charged with dealing with FAC complaints.  I've had pictures and articles both shot down in the past. It's just a reason to spend a bit of my idle time over the next couple of months cleaning an article up. Some articles get shot down 5-6 times before going up. --Alterego☺ 05:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv - User Alterego submitted for arbitration due to repeated ad hominem attacks. 

message: Self-nom. I've spent quite a bit of time rearranging content and editing this. Might be considered a bit heavy on the images, however as Graffiti is a visual art I think this is appropriate. I'm hoping this is ready for FAC status, I think it is. Share your opinions folks. Alkivar 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has come a long way, and I think it should be featured soon.  I'm still looking a little bit sideways at the ==20th Century== section... it hasn't really got a flow...  gangs, then WWII, then DC, then London, then Scandanavia... it's all good information, but randomly assembled.  However, the bulk of the article is quite good, and it's very thorough by now.  I think the plentiful graphics are appropriate. GTBacchus 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reordered the 20th Century subsection, is this better? Alkivar 10:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, although the computer I'm using now suppresses half of the first paragraph in that section, for some reason.  When I click "edit" I can see it's all still there... GTBacchus 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try purging your cache? I've had this problem with pages on Wiki before. Alkivar 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back on a normal machine now.  Never did figure out what was wrong with that old Mac. GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It most certainly does mention the negative side, theres an entire section on its legality/illegality. It mentions UK campaigns to wipe out graf completely. All throught the article it mentions illegal graffiti. I dont think we can stress the point too much more without beating people over the head. On your other points, I was unaware of the formatting hell, I dont browse at 800x600 (and havent since 1998). I'll see what I can do about that. Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since reduced the lead in image size, it appears on MY computer at least to stop the overlap. Is this good enough for you? I have also added a paragraph regarding Giuliani's crackdown of the mid 1990s. Alkivar 18:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also beefed up the lead in a bit, is this better? Any suggestions on how I can improve it more to change your objection? Alkivar 06:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Lastest featured article (Restoration comedy) has loads of red links thus I retract my statment as irelivent--JK the unwise 13:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You have got to be kidding me, your going to object to the entire content based on 1 image? First it is not really a self reference since it does not refer to "the website" nor to anything except as a caption for the word "Wikipedia" which is contained therein. Granted this is semantics but in this case this is pretty tame.  I think this easily falls under "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." except that we're not discussing it merely referring. Second I should point out that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not a set-in-stone policy, it is merely a suggestion like the one here: Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers which I am following. Alkivar 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I noticed that you have, in general, been very mean to those responding on this page. --Alterego☺ 04:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Image has been removed. Does this end your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've done something on the section/sub-section front.  Better now? GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Image has been removed. Does this end your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous FAC nomination discussion

message: When I tryied to follow this link: A tree graffiti in a park in Zurich, Switzerland, photographed on Street Parade 2002 I got this message
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /31/2/31/50/236223150FIRLAN_ph.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.50 Server at image30.webshots.com Port 80
--JK the unwise 16:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From "Tree Graffiti" article

message: From reading their articles, I am unable to ascertain if the layer that must not be ring-cut is phloem, xylem or vascular cambium.
Someone who remembers their biology, please change this and the relevant article.
--Error 01:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tree layers

message: :Yes--JK the unwise 10:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put an X through the tags of those we've killed for vandalizing our turf. Blair P. Houghton 21:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Would it be wrong to vandalize the graffiti page?

message: From the article:
"The difference between tagging and graffiti is to be discussed and is arguable, but some say it's a clear one: tagging is gang-motivated and/or meant as vandalism (illegal) or to be too vulgar/controversial for public, with graffiti being the more artistic meant kind, politically meant or not."
Believe it or not that is one sentence.  I can't discern a focus of that but it really turned me off of the article.19:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad opening.... 

message: There are occaisional debates over whether items featured on the front page should be temporarily protected or not. With Graffiti being the front page featured article yesterday, it or course attracted a flood of edits and a fair bit of vandalism. Overall, has the article improved or deteriorated as a result? -- Solipsist 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, I'd say deteriorated. I'd like to make a revert back to before its mainpage listing (but a 2-3 day revert is not really fair).  ALKIVAR™ 13:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page traffic 

message: I would ask any Graff people to look at the top pic of the artist on the link i will provide and tell me if you see a connection with graffiti art? http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Bios/Bomberg.htm
:Although he chose to use bright colors and a blockish modern style, that doesnt seem graffiti related to me. People like Jackson Pollock have much more in common with graf in my opinion.  ALKIVAR™   04:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Loads to think

message: I suppose there's a certain irony in that the graffiti page would spawn dozens upon dozens of weblinks and red links to obscure graffiti daubers and their fans. I'm inclined to cut&paste any remaining red links to talk, and pare down the external links soon -- thoughts? jdb ❋ (talk) 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not touch the Famous artists section, these are probably the only graffiti artists worthy of their own pages on WP notability wise. As for the external links, yeah we're turning into a link directory, so that can probably be pruned down. I'll go through and prune it a bit this week.  ALKIVAR™ 22:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I daresay that you're going to have to do more than bluster to convince me of their notability. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are universally declared "hall of famers" by the award winning documentary Style Wars the definative movie on Graffiti. Pick up any book on graffiti, look for a hall of fame, you'll find them there. Nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 01:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Thanks. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: A good portion of links in the famous artist section link to something totally unrelated. Not sure about the proper way to fix this though. Maybe add (graffitti artist) to their links? And artists with an "aka" should not have two links. For example, "Giant aka Mike Giant" should probably be "Giant aka Mike Giant". Paul Slocum 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkarrahea 

message: nice little photo contribution of the berzerker character.Being from montreal I've noticed his work before.Big ups for the fliks!
P.S. I don't see why the artists list is seperating "aerosol artists" and "subway artists",
Both lists contain names of oldschool "subway aerosol artists".With the exeption of Cap, who was just a bomber(read vandal),and never did any artistic graffiti(although he is an important mention, being a prolific and influential vandal.)Ostione
:Its based upon their preferred target... the "subway artists" almost exclusively hit trains. The others did occaisionally do trains but mostly did walls/buildings/bridges etc...  ALKIVAR™ 18:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: little comments

message: A common feature I've observed in modern graffiti is the often unreadable, highly stylized font being used. Can anybody explain the origins and significance of this font, and why it's so prevalent compared to regular handwriting? Does it even mean anything? Here's an example. Tronno 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graffiti font 

message: This review led to consensus that this article does not currently meet standards, that a revert to a prior version would not meet standards, and that the issues involved can not be easily fixed.  It has been listed on WP:FARC.
Promoted February 4, 2005.  Photo in lead makes for very awkward formatting on my machine.  The "References and additional resources" sections are way too big and unspecific.  I'm not sure about focus -- this article is about ancient Roman graffiti, modern hip hop graffiti and things American cities have done to combat graffiti, which sounds like it is missing a lot.  But then, it doesn't seem like the originally promoted version was any better in that regard, and I do think (references and additional resources beside), the changes have been overall positive. Tuf-Kat 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FA review of November 2005

message: This article is great, but it definitely needs a section on its relevance and importance in hip-hop; which is arguably the reason that it has gained such prominence in modern times.--Urthogie 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I would love to see more information on its connection and history within hip hop culture. Currently, "hip hop" is only mentioned at the bottom of the article in the section References and additional resources. Wintran 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs hip hop section 

message: "Chaka" (Daniel Ramos born somewhere in early 70s) is the most famous graffiti artist in Los Angeles until he got arrested somewhere in the early 90s and they erased all his tags. He accomplished 10,000 tags from San Diego to San Francisco. He is a legend only to those who were old enough to remember the early 90s streets, signs, and freeways of Los Angeles.  r430nb
:I may be able to get some documents from court cases on this subject as a member of my family worked on the prosecution side for a while in the 1980s. Slambo (Speak) 15:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't Chaka here?

message: -The section "The Rules Of Graffiti" could use a citation... unless these rules are simply the contributor's own. (This is my suspicion, unless anyone else has heard of these "rules".)  See Wikipedia:Verifiability.  (I also cannot resist commenting on the misspelling of "orthographic rules", the irony is delicious.)
-"Computer generated "tags" of usernames are now increasingly popular on forums, one notable site being Gaia Online." ...is this pertinent to an article on graffiti?  Graffiti's stylized letterforms can be found innumerable places, online and off (most notably in advertising), and I don't think one web forum's avatar trend is relevant to the article.
- "Famous Artists" should be a linked-to category, not a sprawling list of links at the end of the article.
- The computer-generated "No Guts No Fame" image, besides being used in five (!) wikipedia pages, is more of a homage to graffiti than an example of it (see first line in article for a definition of "graffiti" - "Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces").  The image's wordy caption also tries to cover too much -- maybe this could be the start of a separate article on computer-generated "graffiti"?
- I also have many graffiti pictures; what guidelines are we using to select pictures for the article?  We should have some -- any wiki-saavy graf writer is going to think his/her own work belongs here.  That's the nature of the beast :)
Discuss?
24.21.187.9 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Improvements 

message: seeing as though borf is one of the most well known graffiti artists of the current time next to banksy, i would say that he deserves a place in this article. correct me if im wrong, cheers --zachjones4 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding borf 

message: think we shuld add a section on the prominent graffiti art websites such as the wooster collective and stencil revolution? cheers, --zachjones4 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  graffiti websites 

message: I am tempted to list this at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates for the following reasons:
*References are inadequate. The supposed "References and additional sources" are comprised of film documentaries and general websites, most of which simply show images of graffiti. There do not seem to be any print or scholarly sources used, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty on this subject. Additionally, inline citations aren't used, so it would be difficult to verify anything that is said.
*The article's coverage of the subject seems incomplete. Sociological, psychological, and aesthetic/critical interpretations are absent, and I'm pretty sure significant academic research has been devoted to this subject. Graffiti seems more complex than just a history and legal section...
*...and terminology and famous artists sections, which I think should be moved to seperate articles, then linked via see also. These sections are by nature endlessly expandable and encumber the main article with what can be considered trivial information.
*As a consequence of lack of adequate sources and inline citations, the text is littered with generalizations, weasel words, and what may be considered non-NPOV statements. Good example:
"Most of those who practice graffiti art wish to distance themselves from gang graffiti. Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Graffiti artists strive to improve their art, which constantly changes and progresses. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, functions to mark territorial boundaries, and therefore does not transcend a gang's neighborhood; in the eyes of lovers of graffiti-art, it does not presuppose artistic intent."
*In general, the language needs a thorough copyedit. —jiy (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deficiencies 

message: The tag says: Graffiti is a selected article on the Indian Portal, which means that it is a high quality India-related article. I wonder...How is this article India related?? If no legitimate answers are given then I may put this article up as a Selected Article Removal Candidate. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to be putting it up for SARC now. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected Article on the [[Portal:India|India Portal]]

message: The text should also be converted to the <ref> system (see WP:FOOTNOTEs) and the external link references need to be organized according to  Chubdub 13:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: Interesting as the "graffiti terminology" section may be, it's probably too long of a derail to stay where it is.  Maybe move this section to its own article, like those in the Lists of Slang category. churl 06:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —jiy (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti Terminology 

message: A large portion of the Modern graffiti section seems to be a copyvio, with no wikilinks, and a large amount of text inserted by one anon user. I am going to revert this addition to last edit by Srikeit, but I made this just in case of any disputes. --FlyingPenguins 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: People, please. Shepard Fairey is NOT a graffiti artist. He is a sticker bomber & wheatpaster. He has NEVER used spray paint as the main medium of his so-called phenomenology acts. Stop adding him to the WIKIPEDIA LIST of GRAFFITI artists. It is an insult to anyone on that list who has ever risked their life or freedom in the name of GRAFFITI. "Wildstyles", anyone ?
Instead of continuously overlooking the facts, one of you should research the company FUCT™ & its creator Erik Brunetti. If anyone on this website wants to uncover the "truth", it will be well worth your time. I would even say that it would be a great contribution to the world of information. For starters, you can log on to this website: []. Good luck.
-Brighton58Brighton58 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the TRUTH about OBEY & Shepard Fairey 

message: I am not an expert on graffiti but I am a fan and stumbled across this article and the quality standards tag. I did a considerable ammount of work, removing redundant parts etc to clean up that middle section that was in need of help. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Currently the "Famous Artists" section is not included, I did not remove it, though possibly did by accident. It is however complicated to compile a list without a means of verification such as a news paper article perhaps? I think if you guys come up with a standard that can be verified it will help determine who belongs and who doesn't. Once again I did the edits hoping to restore the design aspect to this page and hopefully did not remove anything important. Please read the whoel thing as many sections have been moved, and some removed for redundancy. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting, Rewording etc. 

message: So far I have just edited the work that was already here, but I am interested in adding a paragraph on Basquiat during the appropriate period of his graffiti work, and compare that work to De La Vega in more recent years. I do not however want to step on any toes depending on what other editors actually feel "graffiti" is. I do think it would do good to expand the idea and possibly give readers a greater understanding on some artists that have a foundation in graffiti. If I don't see any opposition I will work on a paragraph soon. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Input Required

message: It was me who removed the picture of Nazi cemetry so I think I need to justify my actions (some say I shouldn't have removed it).
The pic had to be removed because:
-someone who wants to find out what graffiti gets the wrong visual definition
-the contemporary definition of graffiti has very little to do with political radicalism
-vandalising cemeteries is not graffiti related
-nazi symbols are DEFINITELY NOT graffiti related
It's like talking about STDs in an article about PLAYBOY!
I've been a graffiti writer for over 13 years now and I must say the article is unfortunately not very good (I will gradually try to clean it up and update it). Ask 10 random people what graffiti is - the answer you will get will be "colorful paintings on walls" and this is the exact definition of this term. Of course vandalism and radicalism should be mentioned (but not with sentences such as "some would classify it as a form of terrorism" - this sentence also needs to be deleted) but showing a picture of desecrated cemetery is too much, not to mention associating 'graffiti' with nazi symbols. Look at the pictures I've just added - this is what graffiti is - how does it correlate with symbols of a regime which killed millions? Imagine a person who wants to learn the ideas behind graffiti and wants to look it up in wikipedia. They see nazi symbols and get the wrong visual impression, I think you should also consider the correct impression that an article creates. Hope you understand my point. Thanks.
:You recently removed an image that was directly related to the content which it was located by. Which was the image of the graves with nazi symbols on them. I ask you put it back, considering your edit summary said it was not related, as I pointed out though the text it was next to shows exactly why it is. I know for some people the mere sight of Nazi symbols is disheartening, however its related to the article and I believe relevant to show hateful graffiti. If your objection is just that it portrays a negative  view of graffiti itself, please take in mind we have to show both sides, the negative things graffiti creates as well as the amazing murals. I hope to get a response soon from you and hopefulyl we can work to a middleground if you do not agree with me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti and nazi pictures 

message: Thought this pic might be useful for this or another article. Cheers, --Alterego 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin wall 

message: A long time ago I placed an introductory picture of various European graffitis at the beginning of the article. I thought it is a good idea to make the article look more professional and visually appealing and let others get the right idea of graffiti when they look it up. I placed it next to the contents table so it wouldn't take too much space in the article and so it would look ok both in 800x600 and 1024x800.
Couple of days ago a user named zero0faults made the pic smaller and moved it to the styles section. I didn't agree with that and moved it back where it was. Because I already had a discussion with this user (see the above posts) I went to his profile and checked his contributions and it looks like I'm not the only who has problems with his actions (he describes it in his profile as if he was proud of it). This is also the same user who thinks swastika is a good example of political graffiti and that graffiti can be a form of terrorism(!). I strongly disagree with all his actions so I want to ask you to post your opinion here (NOT YOU zero0faults!).
Should the graffiti stylaz.jpg picture stay as a graphical introduction?
Thank you & respect. - User:Nrgiza
:No it breaks formatting in 1280x1024, which emans there is no way it fits in any lower resolution. Furthermore the section styles lacks a picture and that picture is perfect for the section as it displays various pictures. As for your ignorant comment about me being proud of moving your picture, if you took a look at the history of this article, it got a major cleanup thanks to me, a cleanup that didnt involve your picture btw. Furthermore why dont you attempt to read the article instead of making outlandish comments like "swastika is a good example of political graffiti and that graffiti can be a form of terrorism" Yes graffitti can be used to terrorize a populace when the graffitii being placed is of a swstika. The article says it if you cared to read it instead of worrying solely about the prominence of a picture you uploaded. I never said it was a good example of political graffiti. And to close, you cannot tell me I cannot defend my point, you do not own the article (see WP:OWN) --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care if the style photo is included or not, and Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that a photo can only be used once.  So Nrgiza, you would do well to put it up on the styles page.  But Nrgiza, ZeroFaults put a lot of time into this page and I completely understand his desire to try and protect it as much as possible.  But to both of you:  I think that most editors are growing weary of this pissing contest over the image--so come up with a compromise.  I note that in neither FireFox (@home) nor Explorer (@work) does the image disrupt the formatting, as much as just closes a big hole. Otherwise, it doesn't make much difference--I just think you guys should be adult and stop wrestling and figure a way to resolve this dispute.  You both are doing great work!  --DavidShankBone 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your ignorant comments astound me, I did not write anything for the article, therefore I couldnt have made it worse, I did not contribute any of its content, mearly cleaned up the mess that was already here. Before you start editing articles you should read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as you seem to have little concept of civility. You say you want to contribute, but your contributions only revolve aroudn the placement of a picture you uploaded and your want for it to be at the very header of the article. Maybe you should contribute by looking up some sources so this article can one day meet featured status instead of failing on the basis of WP:OR all the time. I do not know what your terrorism and George Bush rant was about ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And your idea that the term Graffiti did not stem from ancient romans language means we have to ignore historians and take up your perception ... I think i will stick to historians for some reason. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to contribute perhaps reading it first would help, the first paragraph says Graffiti in relation to its modern usage now had its prominent years of 1966 – 1989, so who is saying it started in '71? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory picture removal 

message: I just came back from an exhibit at Brooklyn Museum that featured Graffitti as an art form. I will post some information about writers and styles as viewed from the museums perspective and non-writers point of view. give me 3 days to make sense of my notes etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The world seems to disagree with you, as I said this suppose to cover Graffiti as a whole, not your limited understanding of it. I have already added the relevant information to other articles. Second of all I do not write so I wouldnt be a toy, perhaps you should look up the term and cease your personal attacks. If I am to take you correctly it means you feel Neckface, Basquiat, Cope2, A-One, Bear167 and Fab Five Freddy are all not graffiti artists? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Artists and Styles

message: Not sure of the value of this section.  The image is basically a venn diagram that doesn't really tell us very much about graffiti.  The text seems to be lifted from the essay that it references.  It appears to have been badly translated into English, and seems to be mostly original research.  I vote to strike it from the article completely. --duncan 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did nto want to remove it because I have been accused of vile things, however I do agree it seems it may be a copyvio issue and while I think certain information may be useful merged into other sections, I do not think it should get its own slapped in, the author may have had good intentions but they should have explored the article and inserted text where appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you considered summarizing the text and attempting to find where its portions best fit into the current article instead of inserting the entire text right into the article? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "in europe as already been published by important newspapers and art reviews" - really?  which ones? --duncan 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be that we should come up with a new section, to follow on from Clean Trains Movement, that talks about post-graffiti/street art/whatever.  But after trying to edit Minelli's text yesterday, I find it to be almost worthless as it currently is, partly due to losing a lot in translation ("this pictorial discipline has enriched of meant traditional Graffiti connoting them and enhance them to great public" anyone?), but also because it isn't actually that interesting and states the obvious for the most part.  Despite the author's unsourced claims for its importance. So maybe taking ideas from the text, but doing a complete rewrite, cutting it right down to something more succinct, and putting it in an appropriate section. --duncan 08:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti Cultures: a Sociologic approach to Graffiti 

message: Haukurth commented out the Cope2 'Time magazine' image, with comment 'this is not a free image, it is a derivative work and should be deleted from the commons. In my opinion we shouldn't use it here either'.  After reading up on what the Commons has to say , it seems that pretty much every photo on this page, with the exceptions of the ancient graffiti, is a 'derivative work' and should be removed.  Personally I'm all against that; is there any way around this other than claiming fair use? --duncan 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your analysis, I've been going through the images and adding notes that they are derivative works. Going forward we should contact graffiti artists and ask them to licence their works under a free licence. Unfortunately they are often anonymous. Haukur 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we got some graffiti artists to submit their own photos of their work, it would be ok?  Or is it possible for them to give the ok to our photos of their work?  I might be able to arrange something if so.--duncan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An independant artist taking a picture of a publically displayed piece of art should not fall under this. Can someone please post this definition so i can read up on it or a link. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Commons page on derivative works:  This would fall under "artworks in public spaces" but I don't think that really helps. Or if artworks in public places really are automatically in the public domain then we need a new page on that. Haukur 12:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading this I have to say that the graffiti pictures done illegally are not protected, however the Times image was correctly removed. There was a previous image that can be put back however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... What makes you think illegal graffiti art isn't protected by copyright? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see your source. In any case it often isn't clear whether a given graffiti work of art was done illegally or not. Haukur 17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because its not considered art work its considered vandalism, its also 2D not 3D, and its artist cannot be determined, so no real copyright protection can be established. If it was considered art, then the artist can sue anyone removing it as destruction of their work, their work cannot be protected if its on the property of another person. Also there is a clause about permanantly public displayed 2D art, which that would fall under as they cannot possibly remove it from its location. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be both art and vandalism.  I've heard this argument before, that somehow being illegal means it has no copyright, and that's completely false under copyright legislation. the 2D/3D thing is irrelevant.  The artist often can be determined. And illegal graffiti is definitely removable from it's location; who says it has to be removed by the artist? As it stands, illegal graffiti is usually less-permanent than illegal graffiti. --duncan 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more in line with what I thought. I think we have to be conservative and assume all graffiti art is copyrighted unless we have a very good reason to think that a particular work is not. Haukur 09:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The government does not recognize it as art or the property orf the creator if its vandalism, hence why the owner cannot remove it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2D/3D thing is not irrelevant if you read the page on derivative works, there is a dif in which photography of a medium becomes exploitable by its creator. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further the artists cannot be identified, nor do they want to be most often. Do you really think a graffiti artist commiting vandalism has a right to have their art protected. I am all for calling ti a art form, but to think the government see's tagging on walls the same way is beyond silly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Artwork doesn't magically enter the public domain if you use it to vandalize something. If I vandalize a wall by drawing a Pikachu on it and then someone comes along and photographs it, the photograph is not in the public domain. If I vandalize a wall with my own original art then I still hold the copyright to that art. It's even possible that I have, at an earlier date, published the piece of art in another more legitimate forum. There is nothing in the laws which allows us to assume that graffiti art is in the public domain. I'm sure you can get away with using such images in most cases but that doesn't mean they are free. Haukur 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further the idea that it may be contained elsewhere doesnt change the fact that the picture is of a publically displayed permantly that is, piece of art. Further, any piece of work can be somewhere else in a private collection hidden, if that is proven to be the case then the images can be removed. Until I see different by arbcom, I will assume I am right. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not art, its vandalism, ask the people on derivitive page, they will tell you. You keep calling it art, its not art its vandalism to the government, its why there are no protections on it, lol. Can you see a tagger suing a store owner for destruction of his art? Also its 2D and permanantly installed art work, so it can be photographed, read the page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the page. You are misunderstanding the point about 2D/3D. You're also misunderstanding the nature of copyright - it can be perfectly legal to destroy a copyrighted work of art, it happens all the time. I go to a professional photographer and she takes my picture. She gives me a copy but retains the copyright. I go home, decide I don't like it and throw it away. Haukur 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Graffiti is anything but permanently installed.  At best most graffiti, assuming it's not buffed off or painted over, will last roughly about 5 years before it starts to fade due to weathering. --duncan 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats like arguing for earthquakes removing permanant installed massive structural art. Also fading doesnt remove the copyright, the work itself will last longer then 5 years, there is graf in new york city from the 80's, so I am not sure if you are arguing it will fade some, or that it will be gone all together, the latter being false in the 5 year period you propose. We could argue nothing is permanant, but we know that was not the point of the statement.  --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats destroying the copy that she legally has the right to distribute, not the original. Destroy her pictures that she does not have copies of and see what happens.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine too, as far as I'm aware, as long as I've been given the pictures. In any case there just isn't anything in the law or Wikipedia policies saying: "If I can legally destroy it then it's in the public domain". Haukur 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have to jump through hoops like that to prove that something is copyrighted. We assume it's copyrighted unless the image description page lays out clearly why it's not. I'm fine with a different forum for the discussion, what would you suggest? Haukur 12:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says so? I suggest you bring it up on the wikipedia commons direvative works page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion, see you there. Haukur 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not plan to participate. have fun however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cope2 image / 'Derivate Works' 

message: I thought it was really interesting. Family Guy Guy 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Surrender Hope, Dorothy graffiti outside the mormon temple? 

message: Hi all,
In the past three days, I've rewritten this article, added refs, and converted old refs to footnotes in an effort to bring this article back up to featured article status. If you can lend a hand, please do, and if you have any criticism, please voice it!
Thanks for your help,
Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to regain featured article status 

message: Like all articles, the navigation template should be placed at the bottom of the page (and probably changed into a horizontal format). A suitable lead image illustrating graffiti should be in the top right corner - the . -- Solipsist 08:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template 

message: On the list of street artists, the André (France) - Graffiti - Monsieur A. link goes to the André (Singer) article.  I don't know where it should go, but I think this needs a quick fix.  Thanks, 74.137.72.148 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks.--duncan 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue in internally linking pages in Wikipedia 

message: Can somebody who knows more about it than me have a look at the nose art page & see if there's a way to mention it here?  Trekphiler 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation graffiti