Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 31 October 2020

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

Hello, Emigré55

Thank you for creating Marwan Lahoud.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Don't use external links in the body. Use External Links to link to external websites.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep 08:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep:

Good afternoon Scope creep,

Thank you for your editing of this article.

Not sure why you deleted this §...:

N.B.: Complete versions of the 3 agreements signed can be found here: Martine Orange et Yann Philippin, «Airbus paye 3,6 milliards d’euros pour solder douze ans de «corruption massive», on Mediapart.

It is in my opinion useful (although a primary source) to give all unbiased info to the reader.

Should it be as a footnote?

Can you please tell me?

Also, is the article now marked as "reviewed"?

cheers,

--Emigré55 (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Good article. External links in the body of the article is illegal. This: Mediapart is an external link the body of the article. Put it in the "External links" section and refer to there as something , or create a reference out of of it, and use something similar to this: <ref name="mediapart">blah blah blah</ref> to reference it in the body, use <ref name="mediapart"/> It has been reviewed. Hope that helps!! scope_creep 10:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep:

It sure helps!

thank you very much!

and thanks for the compliment!

--Emigré55 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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.Template:Z187 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&diff=975397820&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

Emigré55, I am reaching out to you here instead of in a more public forum so that hopefully I can help mitigate the stress you are feeling. You have been here just over 6 months and to reach emotional burnout that quickly suggests that this community has probably failed in making you feel accepted. For that I'm honestly sorry. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and information you wish to share and that is supposed to be the point of this project.

You state that you are feeling harassed by The Banner. I'm not going to pretend to tell you you shouldn't feel harassed. Your feelings are yours and nobody can tell you what they should be. It is policy by both the site and the site's owners to take harassment very seriously. In practical terms, however, this means that there is a very high bar to substantiate behavior that will be treated as harassment. Content disputes and disputes over sourcing can lead to such behavior but are not treated as such in and of themselves, generally. That another editor doesn't accept your edits, doesn't make "positive" contributions to an article, or doesn't accept offered compromises, none of these are usually going to be treated as harassment, either.

I notice that you basically repurposed my subheading of "request for a boomerang site ban" in the current ANI thread. I feel that you may have taken what I said about Eissink as a template and therefore feel somewhat responsible for possibly misleading you as to the best way to resolve the current conflict. If so, I'm sorry because this is not that way. First of all, The Banner did not start that thread, JzG (a/k/a "Guy") did. Secondly, you asked for a topic ban, although I now note you've fixed at least that part of the subheading. Thirdly, and most importantly, you are asking for a sanction of another editor and offering to document is post hoc. It doesn't work that way. Documentation of harassment, in the form of diffs, comes first, and then sanction requests. Putting it backwards like this undermines your case severely even if you go back and add the diffs later.

All that said, there are steps you could take yourself to improve your editing situation. First of all, I urge you to drop the attempt to get The Banner sanctioned. If looked again at what you claim they've done and the interactions between you and I find only that there is a serious disagreement on whether the sitter of one piece of art is identified correctly. This is really, really, not worth the level of drama and agita that has resulted. Let me put it this way: what's the absolute worst that could happen if you completely abandoned the discussion? Only that the Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and Anna van Egmont articles would indicate that the identification of van Egmont as the subject of the Pourbus painting would be left ambiguous for the time being. That is not a matter that anyone's happiness should rest on. This should be about the information, not about WP:WINNING the argument. If better sources become available in the future, both can be updated. There's WP:NODEADLINE we need to meet and getting it right now has little value in a topic such as this.

If you back away from those two articles, to which your contributions are otherwise exemplary have unquestionably greatly improved, I am certain there are other similar topics that could use your expert attention. When we create articles, there is a tendency among all of us to think of them as "ours" and to try to make sure they are what we think they should be. Once created, though, we don't WP:OWN them and anyone else can edit them. The edits that are introduced by others may not always be what we want them to be but that's the basic premise. If we wanted to publish an article on a topic that only said what we wanted it to say, we wouldn't publish it here.

I don't wish this to in any way sound condescending or dismissive of your feelings. You are rather an editor I see having gotten themselves enmeshed in the implicit and explicit rules that govern this place without being first given an understanding of those rules. The process of setting out to become an article creator is difficult for anyone but it is made even more difficult when one trips over some of the more-obscure rules or over the even fuzzier unwritten rules. After that, new(ish) users can find their struggles to understand or protest against these only entangle them further, as a fly in a spider web. I honestly want to help cut some of those threads so you can continue to contribute. Please feel free to ask me any questions you like her or at my own talk page. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thank you first for having taken the time to express at length your thoughts about this very unfortunate and sad turn of events. I appreciate it. Your long developments deserve a thoroughly thought answer, which I will prepare later today or this evening.

After having completed the diffs asked by Dreamy Jazz, I need now to rest, as unfortunately my heart does not suffer too much stress, and handicaps me a lot.

However, in the meantime, if you wish to help, you can support me in my request for a topic ban regarding The Banner. This will certainly cool down an overheated subject by him. And stop his harassment to me, which I documented and which goes unfortunately well beyond a mere editing disagreement on or about who is the sitter on this painting and the merits of the right source for this.--Emigré55 (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That was, well, almost the exact opposite of the take-away I'd hoped to communicate. I read through the diffs, and they do not demonstrate harassment by any reasonable measure. Your continued pursuit of sanctions for non-sanctionable behavior is now somewhere between quixotic (at best) and self-destructive (at worst). I hope it is the former but fear it is the latter. To put it bluntly: Please stop. Find something, anything, else to do. I really, really doubt that The Banner will pursue to a completely unrelated topic, which is what you should be directing your efforts towards. There are over 6million articles and tens of thousands of requested articles on this project, surely at least one of them could use your expertise? Here's a link to requested visual arts articles to get you started. If that advise is somehow unacceptable for you, I don't know how else I can help you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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).

@Bishonen: Please explain :

1/ why you blocked for “vexatious litigation”, and what you consider “vexatious” in my "litigation".

2/ why you blocked for “unreasonable deflection and evasion” : in adding “such as...”, do you imply that there is another reason, different from your explanation on “yep” and “dude”? if yes, what is this other reason?

--Emigré55 (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

1. By vexatious litigation, I'm referring to your foolish accusations here, here and here. However, since you did not start the ANI thread, perhaps "litigation" was too strong a word. I've changed it to "foolish accusations".

2. Besides the yep and dude debacles, I'm referring to posts such as this. But the yep and dude were the main examples of deflection. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Please note, per my block notice above, that you can appeal the block to an uninvolved admin. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for your answer. Please further explain possibly ambiguous words :

1/ what you generally consider to be a "foolish accusation". why do you deem in particular these 3 diffs as "foolish" in your opinion?

2/ "such as...": is it an example? or the base for your block? if a base, are there other posts you consider as "deflection"? or is that all?--Emigré55 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I answered your questions clearly and in good faith. Please read the diffs I have provided and reflect on them. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: rest assured I am not questioning your good faith.

However, the term "foolish" you used is somewhat general/generic, and is/can be ambiguous. Hence my question to you in order to let you precise it; and why you consider it applicable to the 3 cases you have selected.

Also rest assured I have read the diffs.

"such as..." is equally ambiguous, as it can mean an example, or that you did not limit yourself to other possible ground(s). hence my questions only to know if there are other ground(s), if yes which one(s). or if that was all.

So, please, precise this 2 terms. TY in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: As I have not had an answer to my 2 last questions, I will assume that a/ you do not wish to explain why the 3 diffs you mentioned are "foolish", and b/ there is no other ground or case for "deflection" different than the one you cited.

If my assumptions are wrong, please, let me know tomorrow morning. TY. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:49, 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:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=] In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ] states:<br> ''“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.»''<br> Bishonen was involved in a conflict where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> In ], after request of Eggishorn , he performed an indef block , block that I opposed .<br> It is worth noting that Eggishorn is the same editor who asked for a block against me , which was followed by the present block by Bishonen, exactly as in the previously mentioned dispute where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> For that reason alone, the block should be dismissed, without further examining his grounds and/or supposed merits.<br> 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).<br> 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. ] (]) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=] In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ] states:<br> ''“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.»''<br> Bishonen was involved in a conflict where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> In ], after request of Eggishorn , he performed an indef block , block that I opposed .<br> It is worth noting that Eggishorn is the same editor who asked for a block against me , which was followed by the present block by Bishonen, exactly as in the previously mentioned dispute where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> For that reason alone, the block should be dismissed, without further examining his grounds and/or supposed merits.<br> 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).<br> 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. ] (]) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=] In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ] states:<br> ''“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.»''<br> Bishonen was involved in a conflict where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> In ], after request of Eggishorn , he performed an indef block , block that I opposed .<br> It is worth noting that Eggishorn is the same editor who asked for a block against me , which was followed by the present block by Bishonen, exactly as in the previously mentioned dispute where Eggishorn and I took side.<br> For that reason alone, the block should be dismissed, without further examining his grounds and/or supposed merits.<br> 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).<br> 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. ] (]) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

So you want to appeal the indef block of Eissink or your own one week block? The Banner talk 11:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock