Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

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)

Although Misplaced Pages is not a source, as you should know, you have aggressively/bluntly demanded to check the German and French version of this article as the only justification for your deletion of the title, and better-known name, of Anna van Buren.

In so doing, you only prove to be wrong again, unfortunately for you :

• The German version is beginning with these words, which you either have chosen to ignore or probably did not even read : "Anna von Egmond (niederländisch: Anna van Buren....)..." https://de.wikipedia.org/Anna_von_Egmond, which means that Anna van Buren is her name in the Netherlands language.
• If you had only read the French version, you would have first noticed that I am the main contributor/author of this page, which contains numerous sources for the information I added. You would have then also noticed that I wrote in the article « Anna succède alors à Maximiliaan en tant que comtesse van Buren », which translates as follows in English « Anna then succeeds Maximiliaan as Countess van Buren ».

And what is proved by her father’s biography, and numerous sources, but which you did not bother to check either.

All this evidences that your blunt assertion that “She was not Anna van Buren but became countess of Buren by marriage”, as a justification to your previous deletion, is based on nothing, and hence a pure invention on your part.

And indeed, that is how she is even called in the Netherlands, Anna van Buren, or Anna van Bueren, as many secondary sources prove it :

• https://historiek.net/anna-van-buren-1533-1558/1209/
• Huygens database author also notes that she is «better know as Anna van Buren»: « ANNA van EGMONT, vooral bekend als Anna gravin van Buren .... » (First sentence in : http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/vrouwenlexicon/lemmata/data/AnnavanBuren)
• https://marccouwenbergh.nl/anna-van-bueren-versus-de-mona-lisa-van-pieter-pourbus-meester-schilder-uit-gouda/

As you are a Dutchman yourself, judging from your personal page, it is puzzling why you don’t even know this and/or want to ignore this fact.

So please, acknowledge your “error”, and revert your abusive deletion yourself.

Or I will do it, based on the numerous sources I showed you.

Finally, I would like to add that this new deletion from you shows unfortunately also that you persist in ONLY deleting information in this article (Unless I am mistaken, you haven’t brought a single addition, or positive information, to this biography). Which begins, at this point, to be a disorganisation of the encyclopaedia and could even be characterised as vandalism.

As you are not an art historian, and not even interested in art, as your personal page shows, I advise/urge you to stay now away from this page. Your skills are certainly better at expanding Michelin stars.

You can/should also consider that there are 6,938,132 other articles on the English Misplaced Pages to improve and discuss.

I noticed you claimed File:Portrait Young Noble Lady by Pourbus.IR Details 05 gauche.tif as your own work. We commonly understand that to mean that you are the photographer. Since Infrared Reflectography requires specialist equipment, I was wondering if this photo is part of a research project that you were part of. Has any of that research been published anywhere? thanks, Vexations (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emigré55: I see you're around. Could you take a moment to respond please? Thanks,Vexations (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes the photos are part of a research project. Other than the parts of that research published in the catalogues of the exhibitions of Bruges and Gouda, I do not know of other publications. Can you please also let me know about the progress of your own research, especially in the directions you have pointed? To my best knowledge, at least 2 out of the 3 scholars you mention know the painting well, for having written in these catalogues and organised or contributed to this exhibitions. Are you an active research scholar in art history yourself? thanks in advance. Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, I'm not an art historian, nor am I a researcher. I do know a bit too much about imaging techniques. I was looking at the provenance of the painting. I know it appeared at auction but, even after going through every single Old Master auction of 2011, I still haven't found the lot. I did find the Weiss catalogue from 2011. I haven't got access to a copy of the Gouda catalogue. Can you tell me something about who conducted the research that you mentioned? Did you take those infrared reflectograms? Vexations (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot tell you more, unfortunately. As much as I would be happy to share what I know, I'm now stopped by the rules of wikipedia first, and second by the privacy protection owed to the few individuals, included myself, involved in that research project.

As to the rules of wikipedia, I am sure you will understand my prudence, all the more after the harsh attacks I and/or this article have suffered, which I find unbased, or biased, and terribly negative. This has also deeply slowed, if not killed, my willingness to contribute to the encyclopaedia. To be frank, I now ask myself if I will continue edit the biographies of other old masters I had in mind to edit, and for whom I have sometimes already achieved extended biographies in my own computer. The same applies to entries on remarkable paintings I have seen in my long career, which are poorly represented at the time being in the encyclopaedia, and which I intended to share with wikipedia, digging in decades of observation and experience, and in my very large personal art history library.

Thank you for your understanding. --Emigré55 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your privacy of course, but I don't think Misplaced Pages should rely on unpublished sources. Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policies, and we do not allow original research. I'll see what I reliable sources I can find. I welcome suggestions. I don't have access to Van Oosterwijk: The nearest Library that holds a copy is 4000 miles from where I live. Vexations (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, Everything I wrote is of course verifiable. You are welcome to check. And I believe other people did it before you. This is also the reason why I cannot answer your questions above, because I would also then give you informations which have not been published.--Emigré55 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

Emigré55, I am not an administrator. I did not block you. Appealing on the basis of my being involved is useless. It is, in fact, worse than useless; it demonstrates that you have not actually understood either the blocking policy nor the Guide to Appealing Blocks and will result in the rejection of your appeal. It is to your own advantage to close this appeal (I suggest bracketing this entire section with the templates {{atop|result=Please see below|status=Withdrawn}} .... {{abot}}) and then thoroughly read, understand, and follow those links to formulate another appeal. I (honestly) hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)