Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 10 October 2021

Welcome!

Hello, Emigré55, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Misplaced Pages Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• to Sm8900, Thanks! working on it....Emigré55 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marwan Lahoud has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

• to CaptainEek : Thank you! Emigré55 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Your submission at Articles for creation: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) has been accepted

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Misplaced Pages! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

I am amazed (and impressed) to learn from here that you are the infrared photographer of this work. I imagine that you have a wealth of knowledge of the painting. Remember, though, that Misplaced Pages can only use published material.

Note that the article doesn't yet provide such expected information as dimensions, condition, significant "restoration" work, or even location. (I mean, it has been shown at Museum Gouda, but where is it now?)

The painting probably never had a title, and now it doesn't seem to have one either. Instead, it has nonce titles, for convenience. I retained your title, because I had no good reason not to, and then found "the" (in reality, a) Dutch-language title from a source you provided. Even I, who know no Dutch, can see that the latter means "Portrait of an unknown lady". I think that the article should briefly list whatever titles of convenience have been used to a significant degree, saying who has used which. (A more comprehensive list should appear in the Wikidata entry for the painting.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd overlooked the dimensions, which are provided (but unsourced). The French article says that the painting is in private collection, but gives no source for this statement. ¶ How/where was the painting "discovered" in 2006? -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and nice editing of this article. As to your comments and questions, I will continue to add to this article, in as much as I can give all references needed.--Emigré55 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Pieter Pourbus

Thanks for your expansion here. I've removed the excess categories (see WP:OCAT). Two points: at the moment the lead is far too short, and there are too many one line paragraphs, making it read rather like notes. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Anna van Egmont

Your recent editing history at Anna van Egmont shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm The Banner. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:The Banner. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Misplaced Pages strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. The Banner talk 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Hereunder, copy of the message left on your talk page:

--Emigré55 (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice try to hide your battleground behaviour and the fact that you simple do not have a clue. The Banner talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Message left on TheBanner talk page (04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)):

 ::* WP:PERSONALATTACKS: Again a personal attack. 
 ::* And a new fault against WP:GOODFAITH: in saying you are "suspecting" me of being Marc Couwenbergh. My personal page says that my mother language is French, and does not say I speak Nederlands. Check it out before accusing me. --Emigré55 (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:The Banner. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Being aggressive is not the way. The Banner talk 08:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphs removed by TheBanner from his talk page (08:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)):

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=975372172

Ow, you really want to show off your harassment of other editors? Great show...

You are really the only one I know that is will to advertise his own harassment.The Banner talk 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc Couwenbergh

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh where I have started a discussion about the reliability of the two Marc Couwenbergh sources. The Banner talk 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page). Of course this information is also posted where you started this discussion. --Emigré55 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It means that you are reading badly, as it states nowhere that he is an art historian. Even his Linkedin-account does not state that. But the "reliable sources noticeboard" can help with this. The Banner talk 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Portrait Young Noble Lady by Pourbus.IR Details 05 gauche.tif

Hello

Blocked

You have been blocked for a week for persistent slow edit warring at Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and vexatious litigation foolish accusations at ANI. Also for unreasonable deflection and evasion at Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), such as taking elaborate offense as the use of words like "yep" and "dude". That kind of thing is a waste of the valuable time and patience of other editors. I considered a much longer partial block from Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and its talkpage, but considering your creation of the article and considerable input in it, that seemed cruel. It remains a possibility, if your disruption at the article should continue after this short (all things considered) sitewide block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Appeal to block

Emigré55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WP:INVOLVED In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. WP:INVOLVED states:
“In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.»

Bishonen was involved in a conflict where Eggishorn and I took side.
In this conflict, after request of Eggishorn here, he performed an indef block here, block that I opposed here.

It is worth noting that Eggishorn is the same editor who asked for a block against me here, which was followed by the present block by Bishonen, exactly as in the previously mentioned dispute where Eggishorn and I took side.

For that reason alone, the block should be dismissed, without further examining his grounds and/or supposed merits.
If this reason is not accepted by an uninvolved admin, I will then detail why in addition, the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy).
For the sake of avoiding everyone to lose precious time, it does not appear to be necessary to detail, at this stage, why the reasons given also violate our blocking policy, as Bishonen involvement alone is a sufficient reason for reverting a non legitimately performed block. Emigré55 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nope. Not WP:INVOLVED. --jpgordon 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Jpgordon: As of courtesy, please explain/elaborate. --Emigré55 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to block

Emigré55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.Emigré55 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Bishonen blocked me for this alleged reason: “persistent slow edit warring at Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)”.
Whereas blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.
But I had made only one change on oct 27th, here, at 14:10, amended by a minor one at 14:11.
As it was justified in the header and in the talk page by a new source having appeared: “RKD, the most reliable source for art history in the Netherlands, mentions not only Couwenbergh, but also Couwenbergh's hypothesis about the sitter and his article on the subject. See new section on talk page on this issue », this only one edit cannot be regarded as edit warring.
For the record, my previous edit on this page was more than a month old, dating back to Sept. 16th, here.

Whereas The Banner reverted my edit immediately, at 14:13, 2 minutes only after my edit, and without any prior discussion on the talk page, starting, alone, an edit war, here.
And the page was, surprisingly, immediately blocked by Deepfriedokra at 15:09 here.

If one must consider an edit war, it was started by The Banner, with his revert of my change.
So, there was no edit war from me.
Only a change in the page by me, based on a new source, and the first change.
Moreover, there was no possibility for me to start an edit war, as the page was blocked just after The Banner revert.
Blocking me could could not have the purpose to prevent any further “damage”, because damage was impossible, as the page was already blocked.
My block appears in consequence to be punitive, and not preventive, all the more since it was the result of a call to block me, by Eggishorn, here.

In addition, she mentioned 2 other reasons:

1/ “vexatious litigation“ :
She then changed, after the block, when I asked for explanations, to: “ foolish accusations “
Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.

The initial charge having been changed, this alone shows that the accusation was weak, and in fact non-existent, as admitted when I asked the question.
Indeed, I had not started this litigation, so accusing me of vexatious litigation was not grounded. It should be enough to dismiss the sanction.

The second charge, “foolish accusations”, is also not grounded. It is hard if impossible to understand. I asked for an explanation, which I was denied.
I rely thefore on the general definition of the adjective foolish, as given here, to quickly analyze if my accusations were/are “foolish”: “unwise, stupid, or not showing good judgment ».

But my call for a topic ban only of the Banner was all but « foolish ».
It was explained and reasonable as very limited, and reasonable, as :

• I limited my call to a topic ban. And this, in order to prevent further damage from the Banner , i.e., that HE further conducts « edit war », what I demonstrated here above he did, and is the only one to do.
• I left it tot the admins to decide sanctions if they considered that I was harassed, what I documented at large.

It demonstrates on the contrary that my call for a limited sanction was wise, certainly not stupid, and showing good judgment, since it was aimed at preventing further edit wars, and not punish The Banner.

2/ “unreasonable deflection and evasion at Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)” :
"..such as taking elaborate offense as the use of words like "yep" and "dude"."

Calling someone "Dude" is very often considered as inappropriate, and even disrespectful, as explained here.

Therefore, it was not an unreasonable deflection evasion, especially since it repeated and as I asked that it stopped.
As such, calling me "Dude" was even against WP:ETIQ, which reminds editors: “be polite”, “Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia » “.

Finally, it was not considered that I mentioned that these offensive (to me) words were used by That Banner “on purpose”, as he admitted himself, at the very end of this post, with an added mention. I.e., to goad me.

Therefore, blocking me on this ground lacks also mere merit, and appears as a sanction against me, after the harsh and blunt call to sanction made by Eggishorn.

Decline reason:

Your block has expired -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Breach of interaction ban

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

In order to put an end to a dispute introduced here at ANI, I accepted on November 11th, 2020, a 2-way interaction ban proposed at the end of this complaint.

The other party involved also accepted the 2-way interaction ban, here.

On my part, I strictly respected the interaction ban.

However, the other party modified here one of my entries, on June 13th, 2021, on the article I had contributed to, and on which he had literally harassed me in the summer and autumn 2020.

The interaction ban rules here specify that:
« Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
(...)
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. »

This means that the other party to the interaction ban did not respect it. This modification, albeit small, is also a clear provocation, as this modification is obviously not needed.

I would like to stress out that I have been deeply affected by the events at the time in 2020, which lead me to merely not contribute anymore, as I felt harassed and suffered depression after this severe episode.

I feel now also under surveillance, if not victim of stalking by this behavior, and harassed again, months after the interaction ban. This is an unbearable feeling.

Can any admin help me and tell me what to do? so that it stops?
And that the other party be sanctioned for this violation?

Thank you in advance
--Emigré55 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• In order to assess your request I have studied the history of the events that led to the interaction ban. Rarely have I wasted so much of my time on such nonsense, wading through ridiculous amounts of verbiage where you whine and complain about the gross and monstrous things you have had to endure, such as being subjected to the horrific experience of reading a sentence containing the word "yep". After all that I checked the editing history of the edit you have complained about here. I found it to be a trivial change, which restored wording which you had originally posted. I'm not going to waste yet more of my time on discussing whether it was technically a breach of the interaction ban. This report of yours is vexatious litigation, and if you continue to do things which achieve little if any useful purpose but which waste other editors' time you are likely to be blocked indefinitely, as you have been warned before. If you are really as upset and traumatised as you claim by things that happen on Misplaced Pages then clearly editing Misplaced Pages is something you shouldn't be doing. JBW (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The complaint does appear vexatious on its face, but that's easy to say when you're not the victim. Although the caption did originally contain the word "lady," it was later changed by Emigré55 to "noblewoman" which means The Banner's edit indeed was technically a revert made in violation of the IBAN because it undid a change introduced by Emigré55. And lest we forget, in the same edit, the image size that was set by Emigre55 in this edit was also reverted. It's also hard to ignore that both of these changes were introduced for no apparent reason. Even though I do agree that it's too early for enforcement through blocks, advising The Banner that further such poking will not be tolerated would've been perfectly justified. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: Would you object to me undoing the contested edit on the basis that it was made in violation of the editor's voluntarily accepted editing restriction? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

That's totally up to you. JBW (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@78.28.44.31:Thank you for your comments and action. --Emigré55 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: I find it very sad that you have come to this conclusion.

I find it also hard to hear that you bluntly judge and call “vexatious litigations” what were initially questions on my part, asking for help, whereas I have not made a complaint/litigation at ANI, as probably others would have done directly.

Your last sentence in particular is a shock to me, because you attack my feelings and seem to doubt them and my good faith (also against WP:AGF). Whereas, if you have read thoroughly as you claimed, you could easily see that I have indeed stopped contributing, as stated on my front page, since these events of 2020. And the reason why: because of what I felt during the past circumstances, and the fact that I did not find the protection and support I needed, and expected, to contribute in a peaceful environment, without suffering from power games from one or another.

I feel a bit better to see that 78.28.44.31 jumped in, with another opinion, and took action, as I asked to and expected from an admin. And I appreciate that you have at last let him act. --Emigré55 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here are some more comments.

I have re-read the last sentence of my message above. It doesn't contain anything which is intended to suggest that I "doubt good faith ". On the contrary, it is precisely because I do believe that in good faith you really do get upset and worried by things that people say on Misplaced Pages that I advised you that editing Misplaced Pages is not a good thing for you to do.

I have warned "The Banner" that if I see any more of the kind of editing that you drew attention to then I'll block them from editing.

I admit that my original message above could have been written in a more sympathetic way. Unfortunately, the frustration I experienced in wading through pages and pages of your writing, endlessly repeating the same complaints, and endlessly exhibiting the same inability to understand what others say to you, left me in a somewhat irritated state of mind. JBW (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: Thank you for your additional comments and your time to clarify some points.

As to your last sentence in your first message above: I bitterly felt at the time that you were doubting my feelings and good faith when you wrote "If you are really as upset and traumatised as you claim (...)" . Thank you for having waived this misunderstanding.

Thank you as well for your warning action the other day. I appreciate it.

I also saw that you are “inclined to agree. At least 90% of the fault is from that editor", speaking of me and my request which would look like a breach in itself plus a personal attack and harassment. I am not sure to understand why. If I have read WP:BANEX correctly, "interaction bans do not apply to the following: (...) - asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user ». So, my request, to which you responded (and I thank you again for that), cannot be a breach of IBAN, neither is it then a personal attack or harassment as it solely focuses on the breach of IBAN.

I hope you will agree with me, solely for the sake of clarity, and avoiding further misunderstanding. Thank you. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, I'm MB. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Éric Zemmour. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MB 16:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MB, Hello. I just answered on your talk page. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision Undone

Apologies for my revision to Eric Zemmour, I actually did not mean to edit the part about The First Sex but rather only include a mention to the debate with Mélenchon. Hope that clears it up. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@HadesTTW:I got it now. No worries. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Important information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: hello,
I do not understand the reason for this message. I have not made any disruption in this topic area in the past, nor in BLPs. Please explain.
On the contrary, in this article, I have created discussions topics in the talk page. And always invited to discussions on reverts.
I also fully abide to the rules of BLPs.
On a fake news (from some media sources on a particular point, which I explained in details here in the talk page)) which I reverted with all sources, I see that my amendment (together with sources and evidence) has just been reverted again here. I wrote to the editor in question here on the talk page, as he maintains part of his edit on this, against all evidence . How should I then proceed?
Thanks in advance, --Emigré55 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Note the italicized text above: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date". I have given you this alert because I noticed there was conflict at Éric Zemmour. Your opponent User: Munci has also been alerted to these special rules. (Not Hemiauchenia, however, as they have already received the alert within the last 12 months, and it's not supposed to be posted more often than that.) I'm not here to take part in the discussion, but as an uninvolved admin; therefore, I won't address the questions you ask, or advise you, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, Thank you for your answer.

I don't mean to bother you, but I also read above "If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor". That is why I am coming back to you.

Therefore, and as I do not wish to make something against the rules, but on the contrary to do what is possible in order to improve neutrality of this article, as I did until now, I am asking what to do when ones face a fake news. And all the more when a fake news is reintroduced in the article. Which is indeed an inappropriate edit. Thank you in advance for your advice.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)