User talk:Corinne/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Suggestion

@Gandydancer: I've just created my Archive 9. My reply to your last comment is there, at the end. May I suggest that you create an archive? It takes quite a while to get to the bottom of your talk page. Let me know if you need help or a reminder on how to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I know it needs to be done again. I have just been so busy in real life that I keep putting it off. I'll try to get to it soon. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It only takes a minute:

1) Open up two windows.

2) On one, type in "User talk:Gandydancer/Archive 2 (or whatever number you're up to)" in the Search bar. Click on the red link to create the page. The Edit Window will be blank. Just leave it there.

3) On the other window, go to your talk page. Click "Edit". In the Edit window, highlight (left-click and drag mouse) everything except for anything at the top that you want to leave on your talk page such as the archive search template (see my talk page in edit mode to see that template).

4) Right-click on the highlighted area. Left-click (select) "Cut". Click "Save" at the bottom of the page.

5) Go to the other window where you have created your new archive. Left-click on that space. Then right-click and select "Paste".

6) Click "Save" at the bottom to save this change. That's all.

Regarding your writing, I hadn't noticed anything in particular. Your writing is fine. Anyway, people are usually not as careful when writing comments on talk pages as they are in articles. I really enjoy editing. I don't usually write much myself; I can when I need to, but for some reason I really enjoy improving other people's writing. I don't have much expertise in any field, just a great interest in a lot of subjects. I'm just so glad to have something to offer here on Wikipedia, and I'm glad to be able to contribute my skills. Your appreciation is much appreciated. CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know my writing is "fine", but I'm not gifted like you are. Good writing is an art and there is nothing that I enjoy more than to see a good copy editor improve writing (especially mine!). You enjoy it because you are in your bliss when you are doing it. Gandydancer (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you??? You are still needed and I greatly miss your expert help at the Ebola article. Maybe I'm a little nuts, but it was always such a joy to look at the article most mornings and see that you had made a string of edits. All of my time has been taken up by the article and I haven't had a chance to look at the Campbell page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Hi, Gandydancer! Thank you so much. It's nice to be appreciated and be missed. You might already have seen my explanation lower down on this page that my previous computer stopped working. I had to wait a few weeks before getting a new one. I really missed editing and chatting on WP. I have about a zillion edits to glance at in my watch list. After I get through those, I'll get to the Ebola article (or any other article you'd like me to look at). CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Supply some decoration... Congrats, experienced and trusted editor!!!Hafspajen (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the cup of tea, for the beautiful painting, and for the congratulations! How did you even know about the two new "rights"? You saw them before I did since they were on my Archive 9 page which I created earlier today. I wonder, was the notice there even before I created the archive and I didn't notice? Shall I put some kind of notice or template on my user page for those? CorinneSD (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Because I was watching your page. And it came up - change of user rights... Nice, what ?? Hafspajen (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

	A Cup of Tea
	A cup of tea for you on the great occasion. Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

PS; ballons, , This one works, Crisco 1492, the link that was dead. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've got that image on my computer... just wondering roughly what year it was painted/exhibited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the Henri-Edmond Cross, The Evening Air painting. Didn't you see it? Does it look all right? CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like you got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen:I did what you told me to do, and it doesn't look right. CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So, that's it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Hafs, I did what you told me to do. You said "Do it right now" and gave me a link. Now please look at what it looks like. It's at WP:Featured picture candidates, pretty far down on the page, but not all the way down. It's right after "Assignat". It came out as a red link! CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

what a mess. Crisco 1492, help- Hafspajen (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in. the other hasto be removed. Hafspajen (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Jee, my, you keept me awake an hour more I really wanted to be awake, but it was worth it. A great succes! Told you it is going to be fine.

{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ The Evening Air, by Henri-Edmond Cross}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Evening Air, by Henri-Edmond Cross}} red link - now what is the darn difference between them? Is it the space between the slash and the text? Sorry to mess up my instructions. Hafspajen (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it got worked out. The last time I looked, earlier today, there were several "Support's". By the way, "darm" is not a word, so you didn't need to cross it out. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK, copy-woman. Darn .Hafspajen (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Darn" is not such a bad word; you don't need to cross it out. It is a substitute for another word. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. Now you just go on and slowly nominate all the other ones too... Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I will. Just give me time. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Hafspajen (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your immaculate copy-editing. Rothorpe (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Claude Monet

C- give us bread

@Hafspajen: I saw your suggestion to nomination more of the paintings that you placed on my talk page in Archive 9, and I decided first to read the article on Claude Monet so that I would be more knowledgeable. I made a few minor copy-edits. I've also asked Rothorpe for his feedback on several minor issues of wording (you're welcome to read and weigh in there, at User talk:Rothorpe#Claude Monet).

I wanted to ask you about something in the article:

I noticed in the section Claude Monet#Fame that the painting Le bassin aux nymphéas, while spelled that way, is also spelled Le bassin aux nymphease two or three times after that. Before assuming that those were typographical errors and changing them to match the link, I thought I'd ask you just in case the title of the painting is really shown differently in different sources. What do you think?

Also, in the section Claude Monet#Death of Camille, the placement of the two paintings, one at the left and the other at the right, squeezes all the text into the space between (I have my screen magnified to 125%). I don't mind that, but it causes the block quote not to be indented more than the other paragraphs. I don't know if there is a way to indent it (aren't block quotes supposed to be indented just a bit more than surrounding paragraphs?). Just a thought. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems the only way to fix that requires putting the self-portrait into another section. Rothorpe (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

GGR, what the ... is the ping not working for, just saw this because left you a question about an edit. Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Le Bassin Aux Nymphéas it should be. Le bassin aux nymphease - is if I may use a classic on the subject - is not a word. Not in French, nor English. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please check copy-ed on Padovanino? I was not very good from the beggining, and I probably made it only worse. Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Re non-working ping, it may be because my computer is not working very well. I will look at Padovanino today. CorinneSD (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Haloo?? Corinne? Have you forgot us? Hafspajen (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like her computer has failed. May she return with a new one soon! Rothorpe (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dark rainy days....

Ach, ach - oh, dear, oh dear.Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Corinne?? Are you there? Hafspajen (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yououhoo, Corinne, say something. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling Dr. Corinne, Calling Dr. Corinne - You are needed at the West Africa Ebola article STAT!. (Hope you're OK!) Gandydancer (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: I just tried to make a minor edit to the article but was unable to do so. When I clicked in the edit window, my cursor would not stay at any place; nothing happened. I also noticed that the semi-protected notice (with the same date) appears twice at the top. I went to another article to see if I could make edits, and had no problem making an edit. I wonder if something is wrong with the Ebola page. I was going to read through the article slowly to see if there were any improvements I could make, but I can't do that the way it is now. Can you look into this for me? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So good to have you back! AFAIK, there are no changes at the article and you should be able to edit as before. Do you use "regular" or "edit beta"? Sometimes I have trouble with beta. BTW, I remember that I once suggested that you should add copy to the article, which would be great, however on the other hand with further thought I decided that one reason that your ce edits are so well-accepted is that since you only improve the language, and your user page clearly shows that you are good at it, you are not seen as having a POV to any information that editors have presented. Or maybe that's just my imagination... :) Well, I can hardly wait to see your name on the changes page. Of course Art has been doing a great job, but he seldom actually changes wording, as you do. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

HELLO! I just got a new computer this afternoon. It's a little late in the evening, but I had to get back onto WP. I really missed editing and chatting with you all. It was so nice to read your messages (above). I'll get to work on the various articles tomorrow. I hope you are all well. CorinneSD (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Great to have you back! Rothorpe (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Praise the Lord!! Hafspajen (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I have to look at a zillion edits on my watch list. I don't think I'll actually look at every one. CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Work on... Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed a picture "Rainy Days" before I had a chance to study it. What made you think I didn't like the image? Now I can't see it anywhere. Can you put it back? CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looked like you tried to slaughter it (removing the last ]] and placing it below, so the image broke) - it happeded like three times, so I thought you didn't like it. Hafspajen (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. I don't even remember touching it. I only started editing last night, and didn't do anything around that image. Can you put the image back? CorinneSD (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Oh, now I see it. It's up a bit, above. I really like it. I have always loved rain and rainy days, and I like the colors. It looks like a photo. Is it a photo or a painting? (If you're puzzled, I need new glasses.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And

What do you think about this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: (Did the ping work?) Well, I looked at that photo, and I think it illustrates a function more than it illustrates a rose garden. Only a few roses are visible in the foreground. I wouldn't mind a photo that illustrated a function held in a rose garden, but I think it would have to be one that showed more of the rose garden than this one does. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Evening Air, by Henri-Edmond Cross

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Henri-Edmond Cross - The Evening Air - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulation, remember too keep up the good work .. want to notice more of this...Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. I couldn't have done it without your help. CorinneSD (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, you found that . Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Long..

Long time, how are you? Wanted to say thanks for grammar tips! Hope you are well. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's good to hear from you. I'm fine. Thanks for asking. My last computer stopped working and I had to wait for a while to get a new one. I just got one and am looking forward to getting back to work on WP. I didn't see YOU for a while; you don't seem to be editing as much as you used to, or maybe I'm just not seeing your edits. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Took break, edited some times every week for a few months. Although I am pretty active since the last weeks of August this year. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! Let me know if you need my help with proofreading, wording a sentence, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A question

I'm returning to editing after a break of almost a month because my previous computer stopped working. I just got a new computer yesterday and am glad to be back on WP. I have a question for you:

I see on my watch list that the date and time do not appear after each edit as they used to. How can I get that information to display? CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I realized that the date and time of each edit appears in the revision history for an article, but not on the watch list. So many weeks had passed since I last edited that I had forgotten that. So you can ignore this question. But I don't understand why "Next/Previous 50/100/50" (or something like that) does not appear at the top and bottom of my watch list. I know that used to be there. CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, after I log in, the page that appears is the article on Wikipedia. How do I get it so that the Wikipedia main page (with the featured article) appears upon logging in? CorinneSD (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I won't change the template because someone with more expertise may appear, but I'll have a try at helping out here. I suspect the second thing - what page appears after you log in - is determined by your browser; you may now be using a browser version that takes you back to the last page you were looking at. I see some people have one or more chunks of the Main Page transcluded on their user pages; that might give you a handy way to look at it; or just get in the habit of immediately clicking on the globe after starting a session. As for the watchlist, there is an area to change watchlist preferences at the top, and/or under the main preferences tab, there are an "appearance" area and an "editing" area; between teh 3 of those you may find what you're looking for. Myself, I don't recall ever seeing a "Next/Previous 50/100/500" on my watchlist, only on my (and everyone else's) contributions, and I'm seeing the time for each edit under a bolded date header - if you aren't, rummage in the settings. Hope those thoughts help a little bit! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I am using Internet Explorer now, just because my new computer was set up that way. Before, I was using Google Chrome. Maybe that's the difference. I'll look in Settings and Editing. Maybe you're right about the Next/Previous 50/100/500 not ever being in watch lists, only contributions. Thanks again for your suggestions. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Corinne. Your Watchlist is organized by the number of hours or days you ask it to show (I also know of no "Next/Previous 50/100/500" ever displaying as to watchlists). Do you see "Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 | 30 days"? If you click on 30 days and there's 1,000 changes over the last 30 days to show you (based on what pages are included in your watchlist) it will show all 1,000 changes, but you need to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and set your limits and default behavior. By the way, there is a nifty tool I use for additional watchlist functionality that you might like. See user:js/watchlist. As to the main page not automatically appearing, I also think it's a likely a browser issue. You might try checking your browser's bookmarks/favorites to see if the article you're being sent to is bookmarked (I have many times bookmarked pages by some key combination without intending to). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the previous comments. The date and time for an edit do appear on the watchlist, which is sorted chronologically, with the date as pseudo-section headings and the time immediately after the page title. Regarding the page that appears after you log in, I assume you have the login page itself bookmarked. Check the URL of the login page: There may be a "&returnto=Wikipedia" parameter at the end. Changing that into ""&returnto=Main_Page" or removing it altogether should let you return to the main page. Huon (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Philipp Bauknecht

@Hafspajen: Oh, Hafffsspajen....! I have a job for you. Did you see the image I put at the top of this page? There's no article on Philipp Bauknecht! Do you feel like writing one? I know you do. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Hafs, why are the two initial square brackets for the Milan Cathedral image now on a separate line? Now the image is not there as it was before. I didn't touch it.CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't either - and same thing is happenig all the time, with the other pictures. I thought it was you, that you didn't liked them. Very weird. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. I did not even go near the image files. I see that the initial square brackets for the Henri-Edmond Cross image just above and the Milan Cathedral image had had a space added after them which put the image title on a separate line, making the images disappear. I just fixed both. CorinneSD (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. What does "Abend im Gebirge" mean? Something-in-the-Mountains? CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) OH, Oh, oh, ^oh I do, as soon as I am done with User:Hafspajen/Jardin Jungle Karlostachys; (Sminthopsis84 idea... he needs more Wikilove by the way) - and - User:Sca/sandbox and George Hamilton (South Australian police), and nominate Auguste Bonheur - also new. Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ‎

Not Haf, but it means "Evening in the mountains". de:Philipp Bauknecht looks reasonable, has a Der Spiegel article listed at the end. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to add that to the caption at the top of this page. I think Hafs will write the article. It's interesting that "Philipp" has one "l" and two "p's" in German, but only one "p" in English: Philip and sometimes two "l's": Phillip. CorinneSD (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If Yngvadottir wants to, she can make it much better than I would... I imagine, I can help to with images. Hafspajen (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Placing images on user page

Macke

@Hafspajen: I took the two images of globes for reviewer and rollbacker off my talk page. I wanted to put them on my user page. I put them there, and made them small, but I'd like to place them either above or just below my user box, or even all the way at the top, on the same line as my user name, but at the far right. How can I do one of those? CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Image misteries. See I put back image here like the third time. I will try to fix you images. Hope they don't start jumping around. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)]

I didn't notice that image. Did you see my note in the section just above? CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't get it why they suddenly are on a different line, at the Monet section, it happened three times with the Give us bread, two times with Rainy days and then the Milano picture, too. Weird. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

HA, just look at the rainy days now!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

HA; now is Elisabet of Thuringen - give us bread that is broken ... What's this???? Just fixed that - here, just a while ago.Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help with image file problem

I just started using a new computer yesterday. Since then I've seen a few issues that I didn't have with my previous computer. See the section just above this for an exchange regarding one of the issues, that the initial pair of square brackets on images are separating from the actual name of the image file, even if I haven't gone near them (so the image disappears). I also notice this happens when I am in edit mode, even on my own user page. I click to insert a space after an image file, and, bingo, that image file ends up on a different line from the pair of initial square brackets (and they become highlighted in green rather than light salmon), and I can't bring them back together. I have to cancel what I was doing, get out of edit mode, and go back in in order to fix that. This never happened before.

The second issue is that when I go to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article, my edits take a very long time, even inserting a comma. It's like it's all in very slow motion. I can edit other articles with no problem. What's going on? On my previous computer I used Google Chrome. The new computer had Internet Explorer installed, so I used that. I thought that might be the problem, so I installed Google Chrome, but the problem with the image files is still happening. (Haven't gone to the Ebola article yet.) Any help would be appreciated. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I just went to the Ebola article. I tried to make a minor edit, but nothing happened when I put my cursor at a place and clicked or typed. Am I somehow being blocked from editing because of the semi-protected page status, and my status as an Autoconfirmed user is not being recognized? Can this be fixed? As you can see from Gandydancer's comments, above, my input into that article has been requested and appreciated. CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from Gandydancer's comments, above (in the middle of the Claude Monet section), my input into that article has been requested and appreciated.) Also, at the beginning of that section, you'll see an example of the problem with the brackets on an image file. CorinneSD (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The "highlighted in green rather than light salmon" sounds as if you're using the Syntax highlighter, which explicitly says it's too buggy under IE to work, or some other gadget. My suggestion would be to check the gadgets, deactivate any that might be impacting the edit mode, and see if the error persists. If it does, screenshots may help in the diagnosis. For comparison, the standard edit window looks like this, and I can't imagine merely clicking there will insert line breaks, not even on IE.

The ebola article is large, at over 180k of wiki code. If for whatever reason your upload connection is slow, saving that page may show more of an effect than a smaller page. It's not unreasonably slow for me, not more so than I'd expect for a page of that size. Or it may just be the syntax highlighter again, which apparently may have problems with large pages. Huon (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, User:Huon. I have WikEd enabled, as I had before, but I've never had Syntax highlighter enabled. WikEd does highlight text gray, image files green, notes to editors light salmon, etc., but I've never had a problem with it. Regarding the Ebola article, it's not the saving that is slow, although the one time I was able to make an edit a few hours ago that was a little slow, I cannot even make edits. Nothing happens when I place my cursor and click or type. CorinneSD (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I may be way off with this guess - I am not a techie at all - and I've been noticing some slowness on Wikipedia recently, and not just on large pages. However, for what it's worth, the "nothing happens when I place the cursor and click or type" sounds familiar. I sometimes get that when my computer is busy - and as a non-techie I have no idea how to find out it's busy, or with what. Sometimes it's been some software update being loaded, sometimes it's been Adobe posting an interaction box telling me some update has been loaded (for some reason their interaction boxes are always invisible until I shut down the computer, yet they demand I click on them), sometimes a link someone has given me is playing a video and sucking up processing power. But what I've found works is to go for a moment to another tab, or better yet another program (like my e-mail inbox) and then come back - when I return, Firefox will recognise my inputs again. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your ideas and suggestions, from one non-techie to another. I will follow your suggestion. I was thinking that maybe I should disable WikEd for a while just to see if it works better without WikEd. I was also thinking that maybe I have too many pages on my watch list (almost 500450) and that maybe I should take some off the list. CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

According to its description, "wikEd works under all web browsers except Internet Explorer." Huon (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. A few hours ago I changed to Google Chrome and am having no problems. I had forgotten about that. Thanks for pointing it out. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Christen Dalsgaard

A van Gogh for you

@Hafspajen: I'm in the process of removing some articles from my watch list. I was thinking that perhaps the problems I've been experiencing are because I have too many pages on my watch list. I came across an edit to Christen Dalsgaard. I don't remember what the edit was, but I saw a note to editors in the "Works" section at Christen Dalsgaard#Works saying "specify" after "National Museum of Art". I thought perhaps you could clear that up. CorinneSD (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC) OK, specify. Hafspajen (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you-u-u for the beautiful picture. I really like that one and I hadn't seen it in a while. CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being back. Hafspajen (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: I see you've been doing some work on the article on Christen Dalsgaard. The images are wonderful. I just wonder whether "View at Sorø Akademi interior, 1871" is a tiny bit smaller than the other photos. If not, it just looks that way. If it were a bit larger, the caption would fit all on one line. CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC) That is not the title either, it is called "corridor of Sorø Akademi, 1871" - but I am not sure of the spelling of the corridor... Hafspajen (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Corridor" is correct English spelling. It means a long, narrow hall. Most of the time we just use the word "hall", but "corridor" is fine. I would say "A corridor at Soro Akademi", or maybe "A corridor in Soro Akademi". CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, fix caption. Could you please check Amedeo Modigliani#Jeanne Hébuterne - just added a lot of text, not sure is correct English, please? Hafspajen (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Also I think some of it is in there twice. Hafspajen (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Padovanino

@Hafspajen: I finally got to the Padovanino article. I made a few copy-edits to improve clarity. I have two questions. They are regarding two sentences in this passage:

By the year 1614 he had moved to Venice. He is known to have traveled to Rome twice (in the mid-1610s and in 1625), where he was much employed in producing copies of major paintings by major Renaissance artists of the prior generation. In 1619 he worked on the mosaics of the Basilica of San Marcos. In the following years he worked on decorating the interior of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore. In 1625 he made another trip to Rome.

1) My first question is about the first sentence: "By the year 1614 he had moved to Venice." As you'll see in the Revision History, I changed "moved" to "had moved". The past perfect tense of "had moved" is needed after "By..." (because "by" means at that time -- or in that year -- or before"). However, if you can determine that Padovanino had moved to Venice in 1614, then we can change it to, "In the year 1614 he moved to Venice," or "He moved to Venice in [the year] 1614," which is a little more direct and concise than "By...".

I changed "by 1614" to "in 1614", based on the information in the passage from the Spanish WP below, but I don't know how to put the reference.

2) My second question is regarding the last sentence in the passage: "In 1625 he made another trip to Rome." In this one, you'll see that I changed "By 1625" to "In 1625". I kind of took a chance there. If it really is not certain that he made "another trip to Rome" in 1625, then this has to be changed back to "By 1625" (and the verb would have to be changed to "had made"). It just seemed a bit heavy (and vague) to have "By 1625" (because that means he had made another trip to Rome either in 1625 or before that). But you ought to check this. If he did indeed make a trip to Rome in 1625, then the sentence can remain as it is.

Upon reading the paragraph again, I see that the dates of his two trips to Rome were already given (in parentheses), so "in 1625" is correct.

Any other articles you want me to look at? CorinneSD (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• By 1614 he moved to Venice. He is known to have twice visited Rome - in the middle of the 1610's and 1625's., where copying paintings of the Renaissance - Michelangelo, Annibale Carracci and others. -Is that an ansver? Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• He was the son of the painter and architect Dario Varotari and Samaritan, daughter of Giovan Battista Ponchino . His first training is unknown, since his father died when he was only ten years, although it seems that studied the frescoes of Titian in the Scuola di San Antonio de Padua in his youth. The influence of the Venetian master is glaring in view of the early work of Varotari. A little wedding at Padua with Caterina Mesa ( 1612 ), he moved to Venice in 1614 . The following year he enrolled in the brotherhood of Venetian painters. That same year made ​​his first trip to Rome , where he focuses extensively copied Titian. In 1618 received his first major commission for a Venetian patron of Victoria Carnutes on the Normans . In 1619 performed designs for the mosaics of the Basilica of San Marcos . The following years lso dedicated to decorating the interior of Santa Maria Maggiore. By 1625 he made ​​another trip to Rome. He received several commissions, including a copy of the great works of the generation immediately preceding artists. In the City of the Popes also had the opportunity to study the great masters: Michelangelo , Annibale Carracci and Palma the Younger .Varotari participated in the design competition for the construction of Santa Maria della Salute . Defeated by Baldassare Longhena , had to settle for a work painted for the high altar of the basilica. Padovanino was a highly respected artist in his time. Although much of his fame due to his talents as a copyist, deserves a place in the history of painting in its own right. He picked up the legacy of Titian, whose style was very faithful throughout his career, and lasted well into the seventeenth century, giving it a great narrative ability and a sensual spirit that transcends the capacity Counter prevailing at the time. His pupils included Pietro Liberi , Bartolomeo Scaliger , Pietro della Vecchia , Giulio Carpioni and his own son, Dario Varotari Young . His sister Chiara Varotari was an excellent portraitist. -

• Well this comes from the Spanish Wiki. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padovanino Could be added by someone who is good at English- .. somehow. Hafspajen (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The only information I would add to the article from this is the information about his mother. I can add it, but am not sure how to add the reference. Is the information about his father and his sister from this same reference? If so, I wouldn't need to add a new reference. If it's from a different reference, I don't know how to add it; besides, the info about the mother would be best placed between the mention of his father and the mention of his sister, and I don't know how that would affect the references.

Also, I see early in the material you copied here that he "moved to Venice in 1614", not "by 1614", so I'm going to change that in the article. That answers my first question. I'll go back and read again to see if my second question is answered. CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see my notes above, after (1) and (2). CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Hafs... CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. Hafspajen (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pottery

@Hafspajen: (This is my second ping. Look at end of previous section just above.)

I was looking for images of pottery and looked at the images in the article on Pottery. I clarified the date in the caption on one image (I got the information from the file after clicking on the image). Then I saw that another image had no date (I always like to see a date, if there is one, on images of art). I clicked on the image but could not find a date. It says "my own original work" -- does that mean that this person took the photo of the object or actually made the object? It looks quite old and is in a museum. Can you help me find a date for this object? It is

. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit lost here - because this kind of pottery is very much the same style throughout the centuries, maybe it would be best to contact the person who took the picture and ask. Look at the HISTORY of the file page and you will notice who that is. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing picture

Ferdynand Ruszczyc

@Hafspajen: Hafs, I just looked at my user page and saw that one image is missing. The caption is still there, though. It's "View of Mont-Gargan and sunset. Robert Antoine Pinchon. Bef. 1909." It was the tenth painting down from the top (after Lishuan Bridge). What happened? Was it removed from Commons, or is it somehow not loading?

P.S. I hope you don't mind my occasionally adding comments on your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NNoo, noo! I don't mind at all !Hafspajen (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S.S. Do you want me to nominate another of the images at User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 9#Nom (they're toward the end of that section)? CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this the one missing? View of Mont-Gargan and sunset. Robert Antoine Pinchon. Bef. 1909. Hafspajen (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

Of course I want. Hafspajen (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I will. CorinneSD (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I nominated another Henri-Edmond Cross painting. Is it O.K.? I can't say anything about the quality of the image. I just summarized important points about the painting from the Henri-Edmond Cross article. Was that O.K.? CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Where are you? You didn't answer my question about the missing picture, or my question about how I did in my nomination of a Cross painting. CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping didn't worked. As usual. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Can't find it. must run. transcluded looks GOOD! Hafspajen (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Good. Thanks for the additional image of the "money ship" painting in a museum. I see it is a very large painting. What do you think of that painting? CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it is facinating, I was trying to gather some info from all over articles att Sca's page, hope he will make that into English. Added a lot more images at the Ferdynand Ruszczyc ‎ article. The guy is great - and unknown, as usual. Probably like the Curlionis too, a behind the curtain thing. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Another great artist! Thank you for telling me about these great artists! I copied one onto my user page. What about that missing Robert-Antoine Pinchon image? CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Most probably removed by some adm. on comons .. Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel like expanding that article? Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) O.K. Well, then, I'll have to substitute another image there. Did you see the comment opposing the nomination of the Henri-Edmond Cross painting? I don't know how to judge the quality of that kind of image. I'll have to leave that to you, Crisco and others.

What article, and what do you mean by expanding? Do you want me to look for material to add, or will you do that and let me polish the prose? CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Sca#Witamy w Polsce has various google translations. Unfortunatelly I am not the person to Englicize that part. User:Hafspajen sadbox II - put that there. Hafspajen (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Polish Google translation - that this one, put together information - that's two. Three different translation in there Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Well, unless Sca wants to do it all by himself, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like plounging into this translation, that's fine. if you want, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do you want me to summarize and paraphrase for the Ruszczyc article? Yes, please, sumarize. Also compare to the article text, in the main time, maybe that should be there too.... and now probably you now soon why I called my box as I did.Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are having a party. Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you've been reading the comments at the WFP nominations for the Henri-Edmond Cross painting that I nominated. I know nothing about judging image quality, so in my nomination I just mentioned some highlights from the article on Cross. You probably saw Marika van Dam's comment about that: "What's with all the art crit here by the way? Seems superfluous." I don't think I should nominate any more images (unless you provide me with something to say about the image quality). CorinneSD (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT WAS I SAYING ABOUT BITING NEWBIES!!! Hafspajen (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, what do you mean? Crisco wasn't critical of me. It was another editor. Or am I misunderstanding something? CorinneSD (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

YES! Drmies !!! Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies !! Hafspajen (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, I can only say keep calm, the nomination is going to pass, it has only one oppose, just don't think about it. Ignore all the discussion, ignore editor, ignore it all. Keep calm.- Hafspajen (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Haffy's got it right here. Let such people toot their horns as much as they want, for nobody listens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am calm. I guess I should trust that Hafs would not suggest I nominate an image unless it was of sufficiently good quality. I wasn't concerned about whether or not the image would be accepted. It's just that M van Dam seemed so knowledgeable about image quality, the one thing I could not evaluate. I was also trying to understand the discussion so I could learn something. I'm just curious -- why do you think M van Dam's detailed and seemingly logical analysis of the image quality is better ignored? Why do you think "nobody listens"? Shouldn't we all listen to what others have to say? CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Corinne you are too smart. Put that at side and don't ponder. Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

All right. CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Just you wait. Hafspajen (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

All will become clear. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Marinka van Dam is blocked indefinetly as Coat of Many Colours sock. See here. Disregard any comment per FP voting rules: Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. - And don't bother dear, you are doing very well. You have found very fine images for us. Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

^{Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops}.…Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I had read the discussion to which you pointed me and realized what was going on. I'm glad it was resolved quickly. On another note, is there anything you can tell me so that I can better judge the quality of images of paintings, or should I just leave the selection up to you? CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, don't leave the selection to anyone. In your case I say - just trust your instinkts. You have plenty of it. One only needs to take a look at your userpage. Chose and ask a second oppinion - ask Crisco most of the time - and the basics you know - minimum 1500px x 1500px - the google art project files are usually safe files 90% of them. Go and hunt - you like different things than Phil or Crisco or Adam or I would do or the others - and that's an asset. We need participation, polite and well breed users, your kind of taste and sharp observation. Just go for it. Hafspajen (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the confidence you have in me. I may need help with uploading an image from Google art project when I find an image I like. Maybe you've told me before, but I'm not sure how to upload or where to upload. But tell me later, when I've found something. CorinneSD (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant look among the files already on commons or in articles. If you want to uppload anything - ask Crisco. (That is why we pay him - Ok , just joking) Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh...O.K. I'm confused. I thought all photos on commons had already been accepted as featured pictures. Thank you for the additional information. CorinneSD (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, featured pictures - those that are here -> Wikipedia:Featured pictures and are about 0.0001 % of all pics on Wiki. Hafspajen (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I'll start looking today. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is kinda a big deal. Hafspajen (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The basics is that all file nominated has to have - minimum 1500px x 1500px -( the google art project files are usually safe files 90% of them). the picture was good, but it has to fit technically. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I hope you removed it from the nominations. CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How did the geranium got involved? You called it Peale Geramium. Did you put the file in the box on FP page - or you copied an other nom? Hafspajen (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here read this, you will soon get it, what it is about. Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I had first filled in all the information to nominate "Rubens Peale with a Geranium" but before I saved it I saw (under the image) that it was already a featured picture, so I changed the title; maybe I forgot to change a second mention of it. So confusing. I will look at f p c in the link you gave me. (I had already looked there about two months ago; I guess I didn't remember everything.) CorinneSD (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that might have caused the pic-problem. Crisco maybe will be able to fix a better file, who knows? Left him a message - AND pinged you. Hafspajen (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I got the ping this time. It worked. (I do like that painting of the two sisters, that is, two daughters of Rembrandt Peale, if Crisco can find a better image.) CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive or trim

@Hafspajen: I just thought I'd mention that now, when one saves an edit on your talk page, it takes a long time for the edit to finish saving. I think it's because your talk page is now pretty long. I know you probably like looking at all the images, but you might consider either archiving the entire thing or just trimming text and/or images so that it doesn't take so long to get to the bottom of the page and for edits to finish saving. If you archive the whole thing, you know that in a short time it will fill up with glorious new images; it will also give everyone a fresh new group of images to look at. If you wanted to save just the images for you and/or everyone to find easily, you could make a gallery of small images and place the gallery at the top of your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How can I figure out what your reaction is from those little smiley faces? Are you upset? Are you hysterically laughing? It's all up to you, of course. It's your page, but you could look at archiving or trimming as a kind of housekeeping. Also, if your page is shorter, it will be nicer for your friends when they leave comments. CorinneSD (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hysterically laughing, I guess - can't now, Signpost is out soon. Hurry hurry ...Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hesselius - and a google file - File:John Hesselius - Rev. Richard Brown - Google Art Project.jpgHafspajen (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I nominated it. How did you find this image? Is there a way to search for Google Art Project images? CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

. Hey, that was not used! Pictures has to be in articles before nominated for a week .. well, hope it will go, anyway. Use fix now . Corinne, will you put a text under the pic att systers. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

HAFS, I don't understand your statement: "Hey, that was not used!" Do you mean, "You weren't supposed to use that one?" If I wasn't, why did you supply me with the link to the image? Your next statement is not quite clear, either:

Pictures has to be in articles before nominated for a week.

Do you mean:

Pictures have to be in articles for a week before being nominated?

(a) I didn't know that, and (b) why didn't you tell me when you gave me the link to the image? I thought you were suggesting I nominate it. So I did.

Regarding your request to add a caption to the Peale sisters image, I looked just now and it seems that there is a caption already. Isn't that enough?

Jim Cartar and Corinne, a picture has to be 7 days in the article, it is HERE -> Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria -it is very important that you both read throug that. I think actuall that Rabbit should be removed, wait a week and nominate again. One can add that to Domestic rabbit too. Hafspajen (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim Cartar - also I am not the real expert at judging photos at all - only paintings - I asked you to ask a second oppinion by Crisco first... before nominating any Hafspajen (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

continuing

I voted for a few of the featured picture candidates. I wondered whether to vote for the building that looks like it was lit by the late afternoon sun (or yellowish-orange floodlights). I kind of like the photo, and I see quite a bit of detail in it, but another editor voted against it because it is low resolution. I'll have to follow your advice regarding that one. CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I can't give you any advice on that. I simply don't know. If you want to ask advice, ask Crisco 1492 - he had a mystical remark in the beggining that I don't follow. You didn't added Tre Reverend Brown to the noms by the way, and we should ask about that too. First a picture has to be 7 days in the article - and that one was not in any. I added it now, - but maybe we coiuld wait a week if it is possible to fix the nomination or delete and make a new - I don't know - Hafspajen (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Crisco, can you help with this? I guess I nominated Rev. Richard Brown too soon. Should the nomination be removed? If so, can you do it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hafs. I'm totally lost. I thought you were gently criticizing me for not having waited before nominating an image, but I don't know which image you were referring to. I thought I had nominated Rev. Richard Brown, and that that was the image you were saying I hadn't waited enough time for, but I guess I hadn't. I apologize for having misunderstood you. If I understand you correctly, I should now wait a week before nominating Rev. Richard Brown. But if it wasn't in an article, where did you find it? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, on commons, I wanted to tell you about the commons goole category. If you klick on the little commons icon, @ on this picture, you will notice down on the page category google files by artist. File:John Hesselius - Rev. Richard Brown - Google Art Project.jpg

Try it, and if you find something 1) make sure it is used. 2) if not, add to article and count to 7 days - than nominate. Try. Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This pic is linked to two google categorys Smithsonian_American_Art_Museum and Google_Art_Project_works_by_John_Hesselius

Rosalba Peale - not used - but if you write a little stubb on it .. or kick out some of the unfortunate gallery members from Rembrandt Peale ... well did myself

Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thank you for the information! You can see I'm still on the learning curve regarding images. I just looked at the article on John Singleton Copley. Wow! You did a lot of work in a short time! I'm going to look at the article again; I'm sure it looks better now. I have a question: you put a piece of information inside <!-- ... --> so that it remains hidden except to editors, right? Why did you do that? (Just trying to learn.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Because I didn't liked the pic. If someone else did it - to comunicate with other editors. I say you go to Smithsonian_American_Art_Museum and hunt - most are safe if used! Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hafs. I clicked on the link for the Rev. Richard Brown image, and looked at all the information, but I didn't see anything that showed "category google files by artist" (quoting you, above). Where should I be looking? CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not here - you have to look at the image ON COMMONS . That means klick on the little icon in the right upper corner and look at the image ON COMMONS, DOWN ON FILES - IN COMMONS CATEGORY. Wont be able to notice them here on Wiki. Just see here - this is a category that I am talking about Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Smithsonian_American_Art_Museum .

Hafspajen (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh... Thank you. What a nice collection of images! I'll be looking at them. CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think people are checking how long time it was in the article - and see it was not a week. Hafspajen (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the Rev. Richard Brown painting or the Sisters painting? Anyway, you know I don't know how to remove something from WP:FP. CorinneSD (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What, systers are going fine - it is passing already. You want to remove the reverend? Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever you want to do, you must learn how to add a nomination (or remove) - go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates ‎ #Current nominations and PUSH EDIT - AND add the title like this {{Template: WikiTHIS AND THAT NOMINATION TITLE}}. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So I should remove Rev. Richard Brown because it is too early? Yes? or No? I tried removing another one about a week ago (with Geranium -- because I saw it was already a featured picture) just by blanking everything, but it didn't remove it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

? What -? Hafspajen (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I don't know - could be a point removing it and add it later - to wait the full weeks - but you have to decide that. Hafspajen (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Crisco, I need your help. Hafspajen is leaving it up to me whether to remove the nomination of WP:Featured picture candidates#Rev. Richard Brown, because it had not been in the article seven days. I don't know what to do. (a) Should I remove it? and (b) Should it be "delisted" or "deleted", and (c) How do I do either one? I am clearly new at this and need guidance and assistance. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I only said that it is possible that people checked that it is not filling in for the criteria. Hafspajen (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Give it time. We've got another 5 or 6 days to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello CorinneSD:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, Hafspajen! Happy Halloween to you, too. CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on User Page

Kansas Bear That poorly written and ridiculous passage is also on your user page. CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Corinne! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dari (Persian dialect)

@Lysozym: Hello, Lysozym. I'm wondering if you would mind reviewing the series of edits just made to Dari (Persian dialect). Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see Talk: Dari (Persian dialect)#Requested move. CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Emmet

Thank you . The original phrase was "...at the estimated cost of twenty military and " It seemed to just trail off with no apparent end to the sentence, or meaning for that matter. (I would be happy to attempt to field any questions.) Mannanan51 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mannanan51: Thanks for the sunflower! I agree with you perfectly. Did you see the comment I had left -- a minute too early it turns out -- on the talk page of the article at Talk:Robert Emmet#1803 rebellion? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese macaque

@Apokryltaros: I just read the article on Japanese macaques, after having seen a documentary film on them. I wonder if you could tell me how they got to Japan in the first place. CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I assume their ancestors rafted into Japan, or crossed over during the Pleistocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. What happened during the Pleistocene? Was Japan attached to the mainland of Asia? CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cypresses at Cagnes

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Henri-Edmond Cross, 1908, Les cyprès à Cagnes, oil on canvas, 81 x 100 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

No idea what this tastes like, but it sounds interesting. Thanks for your messages. Unfortunately my desktop stopped working when we got back to Esposende last night, so I'm still on the rather awkward netbook... Rothorpe (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. Thank you! I've never tasted bubble tea, but it is very popular with young people. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

Since Sminthopsis84 has removed my comment from the existing discussion, I will address your concerns here. I remain concerned that you have not been equitable in your assessment, that I have been judged where Sminthopsis84 has not. For example, you described my initial comment as "peremptory" and related notable sympathy for Sminthopsis84 to feel it controlling, but bypassed how the same reasoning is even more applicable regarding Sminthopsis84's reversion. You offered allowance for Sminthopsis84 to have a "slightly heated response", but not I, whom you advised "not to take it personally" and to "Start a discussion. Stay calm." This is not an even-handed response, which I am concerned comes at the expense of reception to the point, which is that reverting by its nature contributes to a hostile editing ecosystem, as I referenced from the beginning, including driving away editors. While I appreciate that Sminthopsis84 has apparently taken offense at being confronted regarding a truly unwarranted reversion, ironically validating the point about editors wanting to leave WP when finding editing unpleasant, it is not wise to indulge a behavior (presumptive reversion) that itself exacerbates that systemic hostility, and I think my address of such behavior was quite tempered, if unwanted. Please note, by the way, that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay, as is Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. BRD presents rational advice for the editor looking to add to WP, but is no license to revert. For illustration, you can advise a person not to go to a bad part of town at night, but such advice is not justification for others to assault them if they happen to be there then. We will live with the consequences of our governance decisions whether or not we acknowledge them. In that vein, I am also concerned about the endorsement of classism in editors, that "This editor deserves more respect from you," in contradiction to not just a WP guideline but WP policy, as this is a standard that would make WP even less welcoming. And my point, from the beginning, has been about the ecosystem on WP, which, again, is a serious concern. ENeville (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

ENeville: you are losing sight of the issue, your edit was a bad one, it was reverted, now you are abusing multiple editors, myself (Sminthopsis84) and CorinneSD about this. To get back to the original edit, you are claiming that it is better to say "In biology, symapatry [sic] is when two species or populations exist in the same geographic area" than "In biology, two species or populations are considered sympatric when they exist in the same geographic area". As I previously pointed out on my talk page, your version is relatively illiterate and would reduce the quality of wikipedia. Your continued argument is a case of ignoratio elenchi. It is time to stop abusing other people about this. You were reverted, you were wrong; as was previously said to you, "get over it". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You have never addressed the guideline that I cited in the initial edit, nor the points I raised in objection to your reversion, you deleted my last comment on your talk page, and now you're indicating that continued pursuit of the point on my part is abuse. I don't think you've proceeded in good faith. ENeville (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@ENeville: I haven't been ignoring you; I was out of town for a week and unable to get to WP except once, briefly. Upon my return last night, I read your comment (above) as well as the article to which you provided a link, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I also spent some time catching up on my watch list. In that article, Revert only when necessary, I found common sense advice. Some things in that article might tend to support your position, but I think most things tend to support Sminthopsis84's actions. For example, the second paragraph in the section Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Acceptable reversions is the following:

• In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits.

Clearly, Sminthopsis84 believed that your edit made the article clearly worse and that there was no element of the edit that was an improvement, and reverted based on that belief. Sminthopsis84's edit summary was, granted, quite brief, but, as I explained to you, you could have asked for further explanation, and you did not. Reverting edits is part of what Wikipedia editors do when editing articles, in an effort to make sure a well-written article stays well-written or to improve articles. There are established policies regarding this. I referred to one of them: there is a whole article on "[Be] bold, revert, discuss". You seem to be ignoring this or saying it is not a good policy. If you have concerns about any of Wikipedia's policies, you can suggest changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). I've seen quite a few discussions there about changing policies. You're not going to get support from me. I agreed with Sminthopsis84's edit. While I would not go so far as to say your version was illiterate, I would say it was poorly written (and I gave one reason why in my first comment to you -- that "X...is when..." is not the best way to word a definition of something). I read the first few paragraphs of the article at the link which Sminthopsis84 provided, above: ignoratio elenchi (I'll read the rest later; I found it quite interesting.), and I believe I understood why Sminthopsis84 did that. Sminth was saying that your version was to some extent illogical. There is an example there about a man and an atrocious fraud. The two sentences seem to be very similar but the re-arrangement of the words (and thus the argument) makes the other sentence (and argument) not the right argument/statement/proof. I'm not a botanist, so I'm not quite sure what exactly was illogical about your version. If the use of the adjective "sympatric" instead of the noun "sympatry" is what bothers you, the definition could be expressed using the noun. (But you could have said this yourself.) I think it would be something like, "Sympatry is a state/class/condition in which/whereby....," or maybe "Sympatry occurs when..., but not "Sympatry is when....". But actually, even "Sympatry occurs when..." is not really a definition. When you want to define something using a noun, you need to give another noun that tells in what class of things it falls. For example, if you wanted to define a grater, you might say: "A grater is a device used in a kitchen for grating cheese, onions, etc." You need the noun "a device" (or "a gadget") to define the class in which the word falls. But Sminthopsis84's definition is another way to define this state/class/condition (whatever it is) -- using the adjective. If you had another way of defining it that you thought was better, you could have suggested it. If you felt your way was better, you could have asked Sminthopsis84 exactly what about your version he or she objected to, and I believe he or she would have answered you. It is your attitude and tone that has irritated Sminthopsis84. I'm not irritated by you. I'm just puzzled. You need to get over your feelings regarding this issue and approach future editing exchanges a little differently. Have confidence in your opinions and views of things, but also be open to discussion, exchanging ideas and opinions, compromising, and learning something new. Then you will enjoy contributing to Wikipedia instead of feeling put upon or hurt. Your contributions are welcome -- you are welcome here. You need to really read and take in what we have said to you and the articles to which we have supplied links. If you stay stubbornly stuck in your position, you will not enjoy editing on Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're making an effort to seek mutual understanding, although I don't agree with the attribution of emotion or the comparative treatment of the actors. I think your proposals for alternate wordings are fine, and I encourage you to implement them. I consciously made an effort to use accessible if vulgar language for the benefit of the general audience, but other ways are valid, too. I chose not to pursue further editing under the circumstances because I'm not interested in an edit war. More broadly, while we apparently differ on our assessment of the original edit, we have at least proceeded in a manner with constructive possibility. Let's set aside the precipitating edit for the sake of consideration of the larger issue, that of practices on WP and their consequences on the editing environment. I suggest that reversion is fundamentally a rejection, which would-be contributors will naturally take as such, and if a person making even a valid edit must expect to be reverted and defend their contribution, this raises the level of hostility in the editing environment, and will drive people away. By contrast, treating material as it lies, including the most recent edits, and modifying it towards a better article, develops a practice and spirit of inclusion, without being either rejecting or passive. So, as you go forward dealing with this and that and the other around WP, my request would be that you reflect on the impact that accepting programmatic reversion would have on WP. Happy editing to you. :-) ENeville (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ENeville In one sense I agree with you, that reverting another editor's edits has a great potential for communicating rejection. On the other hand, WP articles repeatedly tell editors not to take reversions personally. Are you suggesting that, rather than reverting edits, a discussion should be started on every one? I think that would slow the pace of fixing errors and improving articles to a glacial pace. I've noticed, E, that you seemed to have ignored much of what I have written to you. I am not the person, and my talk page is not the place, to suggest changes to Wikipedia policy. I am not an administrator. I told you that such proposals and following discussion belong at WP:Village pump (idea lab). I am sorry if I misinterpreted your emotional state when you wrote your first comment; it's sometimes hard to tell how an editor feels. I am puzzled about this statement of yours, just above: "I think your proposals for alternate wordings are fine, and I encourage you to implement them." Perhaps I didn't say it, but I thought I did say that I approved of Sminthopsis84's version. I only provided alternatives to show you what you could have suggested if you had wanted to suggest an alternate version to Sminthopsis84. I also don't understand your next statement, "I consciously made an effort to use accessible if vulgar language for the benefit of the general audience, but other ways are valid, too." What accessible if vulgar language? What general audience? Please try to be clearer when you write. Besides repeating your opinion about the need for a policy change, you have given no indication that you understand the gentle criticism I have made of your approach to disagreement. CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We all contribute to the dynamic, and I'm just suggesting that you consider the consequences of the practices that you stand behind, beyond the pump or whatever conventions seem accepted. That said, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle are both extant essays offering guidance, and as I said, the latter doesn't negate the former. It's reasonable to encourage editors to take a chance on bold editing and be prepared to be reverted, as described in WP:BRD. It's also reasonable to encourage editors to revert only when necessary, such as with vandalism, as described in WP:ROWN. I did skip detailed response to portions of your statement that seemed immaterial, for instance I didn't address the discussion of grammatical possibilities because I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that the issue at hand hinges on them, because re-editing someone else's edit for grammar is not reverting, and thus not in dispute. I didn't mean to ignore your point, just focus discussion. In that vein, without getting burdensomely verbose, I will say that I was referring to my use of "when" by my use of "vulgar language". My reference to a general audience is about making technical articles understandable. Regarding your "gentle criticism", as I said, I don't think it has been evenly handed out, nor do I think it's entirely on the mark, however I didn't see a value in expanding on secondary points of dispute, since I think the specifics of this case pale in comparison to the matter of programmatic reversion of good faith edits, which is actually not supported, by essay or policy. ENeville (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rembrandt Peale - The Sisters (Eleanor and Rosalba Peale) - Google Art Project.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt Peale - The Sisters (Eleanor and Rosalba Peale) - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita to FA?

Hi CorrinneSD, would you be interested in participating in trying to promote Cucurbita to FA status? You have copyedited it, and it was previously GA, and I expect that your experience with featured pictures would be helpful. This is not something I would normally get involved with, having seen strips torn off editors when they have the cheek to try such a procedure, but I was asked by a friend to help, and immediately thought of you as a more qualified person. Perhaps if several of us work on it, the strip-off-tearing can be minimized. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad to work on it. I'm not as sure of myself when it comes to pictures as I am with copy-editing, but we can always ask Hafs or Crisco about the images, can't we? Is there anything other than a thorough going-through that I should do with the article? I guess there must be some guidelines or standards somewhere for featured article status that I could read. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, I suggest you ask User:Sasata about what to look for. He seems to have a lot of experience at this sort of thing. I'm also going to ask Zad68, mgiganteus1, and maybe a few others for help. Let's coordinate the talk at Talk:Cucurbita. HalfGig talk 13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice, that's quite a suggested team! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ananias and Sapphira

It would appear that both versions are accurate. They did lie about the sale price and they were called on it. My take is that the problem was not holding back a portion, but deliberately giving the false impression that they had donated all of it. This is a note from the NAB: "The sin of Ananias and Sapphira did not consist in the withholding of part of the money but in their deception of the community. Their deaths are ascribed to a lie to the holy Spirit (⇒ Acts 5:3, 9), i.e., they accepted the honor accorded them by the community for their generosity, but in reality they were not deserving of it." Since the lie is more serious than an accusation (which may or may not be true), it appears that that is what caused their deaths, so I probably would not revert. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dari (Persian dialect)

@Lysozym: Lysozym, where are you? I hope all is well with you. Are you following all the changes and edit summaries at Dari (Persian dialect) made in the last few weeks? User:Omnipaedista, if you have time, could you take a look at them, also? CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I meant the edits made before the move which was just done after I wrote this comment. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Second P.S. I just noticed that there are several "clarification needed" tags in this article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita

I expressed a number of concerns at Talk:Cucurbita#Questions about wording. HalfGig responded to them. On a few of them, s/he responded that I should go ahead and make the edits. On others, s/he said "Defer to Sminthopsis84", which is fine. However, before I make any changes in the article in response to HalfGig's go-ahead, I thought I'd wait and let you read my concerns and HalfGig's responses to them. When I know you've looked at them, then I'll go ahead and make necessary changes (and then of course you can review those, too, if you want). CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@HalfGig: Is this all right with you? Or should I just go ahead and make the changes? I don't want to offend you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Corinne--I was wondering who was to do what too. It's fine with me if you go ahead and make the changes you are okay with. On the ones where I said defer to Sminthopsos84, I meant I'd prefer to see that user respond first on that point. Sound okay? HalfGig talk 23:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course! I understood that, and that's fine. I was just wondering whether I should let Sminthopsis84 read my concerns and your replies on the other ones before I made any changes. But if you're okay with my going ahead, I will do that. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. User:HalfGig -- I just saw your note on Sminthopsis84's talk page requesting that s/he read and respond to this exchange here. It was a good idea, but I just wanted to say that it wasn't necessary since I had added a link to Sminthopsis84's page in my first comment, above, so s/he would get a notice, but I can understand that you might not have seen it. Also, for the future, I prefer that you not put my user name in a heading on talk pages. It's nothing serious, just a preference. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry, I didn't realize. HalfGig talk 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed and somewhat amazed by the detailed analysis that you've done, are both doing. I will have to defer working on it a bit because for the next couple of days I'm very busy in real life. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Help in translations

Thank you, that was very kind of you. I may end up making my mind about translating some of the Spanish articles, it's just I think it would be a lot of work for you (or the other editors), but it was a very very kind offer. Thank you. --RoRo (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RoRo: You could do the best you can first, and indicate where you're not sure or where you have questions, and we can work together. CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I translated almost all of the article Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho from the Portuguese WP article, and I'm more fluent in Spanish than I am in Portuguese. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Peace

Hafspajen I'm sorry, Hafs. I didn't mean to put you down. I'm trying to bring both ends to the middle, and bring Fylb around. I never said you were stupid. In fact, I think you're brilliant, and regarding your writing, sometimes it's very good, and I actually enjoy reading (and figuring out) what you are saying. You make me laugh sometimes, like when you write "Holly molly". (The expression is "Holy moly".) I hope you'll erase those phrases from your talk page. They're out of context, and others may misunderstand my intent. I hope you know I was just trying to help. CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Oh, my God -- Hafs! I just read your latest comment. I was trying to explain to Fylb the potential for misunderstandings without actually accusing Fylb of misunderstanding you. (I felt that if I actually accused Fylb of misunderstanding you, there would be no chance she would resume chatting with you.) Hafs, you're a wonderful, wonderful person -- so intelligent that I would call you brilliant, so knowledgeable, so generous with your knowledge and images. You have such exquisite taste in art. You're a great conversationalist. You really brighten my day, and I've learned so much from you. I appreciate so much the generous way you have helped and instructed me and shared images with me. I don't know why Fylb or anyone would not appreciate you. Really, you write quite well. It's uneven. Sometimes it's very good and sometimes it's full of errors, but I know even that is sometimes due to haste; I know you are often in a hurry. Please forgive me if I have hurt you in any way. I was only trying to make peace and repair a broken friendship. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I would never intrude in your archive, but you said it was still open for comment. Welcome to my new Talk page. You are welcome to continue discussions started in Archive 10. Fylbecatulous talk 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I must bow out. I cannot lie awake at night and agonise over whether I have hurt Hafs. This so reminds me of messages I have left and then there is no drug or solace for thinking I have hurt Hafs and they are not going to get over it. Whereas you seem strong enough to shrug these reactions from Hafs off, I cannot. This will be my final explanation and I know Hafs will never understand. I have said way too much already. Happy this is in your archive. Peace and good will. Fylbecatulous talk 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fylbecatulous It's fine, you can leave a comment anywhere on my talk page or in my archives. As you have guessed, I felt Hafs had misunderstood something I had done/said, so was trying to sort that out. CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fylbecatulous talk 21:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fylb! I love tea! Do you? CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)