User talk:Max9844419087 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Max9844419087 (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 3 October 2020 (→Categories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:12, 3 October 2020 by Max9844419087 (talk | contribs) (→Categories)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hi Max9844419087! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Max9844419087! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please review Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Please, review Freedom of speech and Spying.

Max9844419087 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither of your links have anything to do with expected behaviour in the Misplaced Pages community. FlightTime's link does. This is a private website and you are expected to edit within its guidelines; you are new and not expected to know all of our many policies, but you are expected to abide by them once they are pointed out to you. You may also want to review Misplaced Pages:Free speech which explains why making such an argument is a non-starter.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: You may want to review Harassment, Stalking, again Freedom of speech and Lawsuit. I do not care whatever. I am telling you right now, I'm feeling harassed by you and the user above. So please, stop texting me. The user above has been spying on me, which I can prove through the discussion we had but a few hours ago. The said discussion, I believe, had a racist underlying. Again, I do feel harassed by @FlightTime: at this point.

Max, this last statement sounds like you are making a legal threat against Misplaced Pages or one or more of its users. Misplaced Pages policy calls for users to be blocked unless they retract such a threat. I would recommend that you rescind this last statement before that happens. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: If you are absolutely sure that is what I meant (which I invite you to prove by citing sources that lead to a recorded conversation or official statement linked to me wherein I clearly and without reasonable doubt make such threats) and you think it is just, then I do invite you to block me forevermore. I also invite you to read Misplaced Pages's article regarding Blackmailing, Bullying, Stalking, Discrimination and Spying. I finally remind you that although your statements may be coherently true according to Misplaced Pages's bylaw, law and Ethics are above Misplaced Pages's bylaw or any other. I'm also going to say clearly that I do feel harassed and persecuted, that I can prove that the above user (FlightTime) has been spying on me, just as you have deliberately attempted to undo two different edits of mine on two different articles. This morning I woke up (I'm a very fragile person), and as soon as I open my PC to make some edits and help people out, I found more messages from you on my talk page. You have been harassing me and now you are scaring me as well. Now you are even threatening me. Max9844419087 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Max, it's not spying. It's a standard function of the Misplaced Pages system. Your contributions are available for all editors to examine. Other editors (myself included) have offered you advice, not bullying, but you have chosen to take offense that other users do not share your enthusiasm for the arcana of Slavic history. There is no discrimination involved here; there is merely an attempt by other Misplaced Pages use to try to help inform you of the relevant policies and guidelines, while also trying to make sure inappropriate or improper content doesn't get added to the encyclopedia. This is a collaborative process, which is why we discussed the matters at the relevant talk pages. And, despite your canvassing for help, which is considered disruptive, the users whose assistance you sought did provide a useful compromise, which I have implemented. If your initial experience here at Misplaced Pages has been rocky, I will apologize for any part I've had in that. But I will also note that you came with a belligerent attitude, seeing every piece of advice as an admonishment. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative experience; accepting advice and learning is very much part of the process. Finally, when you tell Ponyo (an administrator no less) that they should review Misplaced Pages's article on lawsuits, the "reasonable person test" would conclude that you are threatening legal action. Your further statement that "law and ethics are above Misplaced Pages's bylaw" further leads me to believe that you will seek legal action if you don't get your way. I again urge you to recant these statements before you find yourself blocked. (For the record, I am not an administrator, so I have no power to block you.) WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I won't say everything over again for the umpteenth time. You can read over my previous replies. Your assuming mine is a belligerent behavior is due to your failure of assuming good faith, just as is the fact you believe I had a personal interest in any article I edited. I agreed with you on Belusic's article, my purpose having been filling the article, which you guys asked me to do. You showed, however, undue determination in covering and minimizing facts about Chris Waltz. Further, even when we all (including yourself) agreed to mention briefly his mother's heritage and connection to the poet, which was to be explored further in a footnote, you up and went and modified Waltz's page so that it doesn't mention his mother's Slovenian roots at all, which goes against the agreement you yourself backed. So I am trying to assume good faith here, but you are making things hard for me. Please, keep your personal likings out of Misplaced Pages (if that is the case, which I'm not necessarily saying it is). Max9844419087 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Max, I'm done here. Clearly you and I are simply not able to collaborate successfully. I'll leave it to others to help or manage you. Good luck. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Again, if you feel you were right and just in suppressing the heritage of Chris Walt'z mother, and if you do not think that you and the other user have followed my actions, when my edits did not present to you by mere chance, if you think that-- after I asked you to leave me alone while you kept on publishing on my talk page after observing my actions, thus spurring me to reply and scaring me as well--you didn't stalk me. If, more broadly, you deem this just, and you are okay with it, then I'm okay with it as well, and I will accept whatever the administrator's decision. Max9844419087 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rick Rossovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Muniz. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Viewmont VikingI did not engage in any edit war, the EDITORS HAVE AGREED to maintain content the way I'm changing it (see Waltz's talk page), thus, I'm carrying out the DECISION OF THE GROUP, which includes the editor's.

Max9844419087 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You should leave the change to other editors who are not involved. You have reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours. I highly recommend if someone else makes changes to the article that you disagree with you let others make the changes. I will not be making anymore changes to the article at this time. As mentioned on the talk page I believe the information is Trivial and should not be included, I changed it back to what I believe the talk page is stating but you believe differently. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Viewmont Viking No sir, here you are being revisionist by all means. The decision made by the group (including that who opposed in the first place, i.e. WikiDany 61) was the following:

As determined in the talk, wherein all, INCLUDING WikiDani61 have agreed with Doremo, the Slovenian heritage should be mentioned briefly next to his mother name and "the genealogical relationship be explained in a footnote" It is you who is engaging in an edit war, and it is me who is reverting to what the page is supposed to look like (according to proven facts, Misplaced Pages's approach and a decision made by the group) Max9844419087 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubert van den Eynde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Averbode.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christ Surrounded by Singing and Music-making Angels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Self portrait

Hi, it appears we already have an article about Self-Portrait (Ingres) under the title Self-Portrait at Seventy-Eight (Ingres). Think your new material could be merged somehow into the old article? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thjarkur, thanks for your interest and your message. The portraits are two separated entities. They were executed at different points in time by Ingres, and are housed in different museum (one at the Uffizi, Florence, the other at the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp). Both portraits are reportedly based on a photo of Ingres taken in 1855. The Florence painting lacks several features and objects (present in the later Antwerp painting), such as Ingres's hat and, more importantly, his medals and ribbons. Both portraits are relatively important for the collection of the two museums, Antwerp's and Florence's. I suggest we keep the articles separated.

Max9844419087 (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A complete misunderstanding on my part, sorry for that. While the paintings do at first glance look identical, the thing that made me think they were the same was that Self-Portrait at Seventy-Eight (Ingres) was marked on Wikidata as being the same subject as nl:Zelfportret (Ingres). I think I have now moved the Wikidata connection over to the correct page (with nl:Zelfportret (Ingres) being the same subject as Self-Portrait (Ingres)), but hopefully you'll correct me if I'm wrong. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's okay Thjarkur, they do look identical at first sight! Yeah, thanks for linking the pages, I'd forgotten to do that.

Max9844419087 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Poverty in art

Hello, Max9844419087,

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I edit here too, under the username TheAafi, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Poverty in art, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheAafi}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

@TheAafi:Hello TheAafi, thank you for your message. I created the article by mistake, it was supposed to be a category, but I must've messed up something at some point. I wanted to delete it myself, but I didn't have the authority to do that. So thank you for for doing that. Have a good one! Max9844419087 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Some of the material you included in The Man in the Chair and The Lecture of Emile Verhaeren has been removed, as it appears you added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Diannaa. To violate copyright material needs to be copyrighted in the first place. In this case, however, material was drawn from the website of a prominent Belgian museum. The website was created to inform people on the paintings and perhaps to draw them to the museum, not a scopo di lucro via the web pages themselves, to sell copies, as with a novel or a subscription website. Material wasn't copied intentionally in any way, if it was copied at all. Text was rephrased after having been read and digested. The article wasn't created while reading the source side by side, and of course it wasn't copied-and-pasted. If some words or bits of sentence matched those of the original source it is because evidently it was not possible to break the sentence (/ concept) down further. Further, each and every sentence in those articles was sourced, to indicate the original source of the public Belgian Museum.

Max9844419087 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your additions to The Man in the Chair and The Lecture of Emile Verhaeren were flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and were assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report for The Man in the Chair; and this one is for The Lecture of Emile Verhaeren. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap that the bot found.Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the source document is. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Diannaa, and I probably badly expressed what I meant to say. I appreciate your effort to improve my work and thence Misplaced Pages, but what I want to say is (said that since I'll pay more attention this shouldn't happen again) if it should, or if some of my previous work should be found as such, please notify me first before permanently deleting, so I can edit it without losing precious sources, such as references and pictures.

For example, by permanently deleting my work on The Man in the Chair without notifying me, I lost some references and especially the picture (in public domain) that I had found on Wikimedia Commons (now, maybe there is as a way to view the previous version of the article, but if so I am unaware of that). Finally, in the past few days, my home's connection to Misplaced Pages (my whole network, non just my Misplaced Pages profile or my PC) was interrupted between circa 11 pm and 1:30 am. We were able to determine that the problem stemmed from Misplaced Pages. Immediately after the resumption of the connection, the custom text of the creative source page within my profile (when creating an article) appeared slightly modified in two different ways over the first two days; the third day (always immediately after the connection resumed) there was the bot notifications and the third day your new space on my page. All people using my network found themselves unable to use Misplaced Pages in that time span (the website is obviously a very important tool in studying and preparing researches). Now it might be a coincidence, or it might not have involved specifically you, but what I'm trying to say is that if the interruption of my connection to Misplaced Pages is tied to the changes and reviews made on my profile in that time span, then I think it wasn't just towards other people using Misplaced Pages in my household. Max9844419087 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Max9844419087

Thank you for creating Caritas Romana (de Crayer).

User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice article, but please be careful of close paraphrasing and copyright violations. See WP:COPYVIO.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Onel5969 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969:Hello Onel5969. Yep, I've been more than careful this time around. As specified in the note (you can see it in the article's history) parts of the article (Caritas Romana (de Crayer)) where indeed paraphrased in this particular case, but from other articles here on Misplaced Pages, that is Roman Charity and Gaspar de Crayer. Sources from those articles were firstly verified, and then incorporated into the new article. There is no possible copyright violation here. Thanks for reviewing the page and for your help! Max9844419087 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent... feel free to revert my changes then, since it's a WP:MIRROR issue, and remove the revdel tag. Nice job.Onel5969 13:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969:Okay Onel5969, done. And thanks again! Max9844419087 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Keep up the good work!Onel5969 14:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay Onel5969, thanks! =)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japonisme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Stevens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In your latest edits to Josip Belušić, you have referenced this paper "Istranin izumio brzinomjer" 21 times. Do you recognize that this is a school paper written by two 7th graders?? This is not a reliable source. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message User talk:WikiDan61. The paper was edited by a PhD. But the point is that the paper wasn't meant as a source but rather as a receptacle were many other sources (cited in the Misplaced Pages article) are subsumed. It isn't an original research, but a set of ""common knowledge" bits. Most importantly, the doc paper contains official documentary record otherwise not available on the internet. To avoid further polemic, however, I will delete that "source" from the article.

Max9844419087 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit filters

One of your recent edit summaries read:

fixed reference error. ERROR "An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to one of the following blogging, etc." appears. No such source has been used in this edit. Hopefully the warning is not the result of problem in the past with warring editors and prejudiced people. To the admin: if there is any problem with any reference, let me know and I will fix it pronto

First, I will again remind you to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Second, I will point out to you that this message is the result of automatic filters that Misplaced Pages has implemented to prevent the introduction of links to certain sites that have been blacklisted. Many sites on this list are blogging sites, which end up blacklisted because users write blogs and then attempt to use them as Misplaced Pages citations in an effort to drive traffic to their blog sites. Your reference may have been perfectly innocent, and you have just fallen victim to other users' abuse. But blogs are generally poor sources anyway, since they don't undergo editorial review as do newspapers and magazines. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 10:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I perfectly understand the concept. Upon reviewing the article's sources, I believe the culprit might be a link to wise geek. Since that isn't a reliable source, I would add it to the external links, because it is still an article on the Croatian subject written in English. However, it might be interpreted as an attempt to drive traffic to that website.

Max9844419087 (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, if a website is not acceptable as a citation, the same site will not be acceptable as an external link. If you think the site offers valuable insight not available elsewhere, you can request delisting of the specific site. You may or may not succeed in such a request, however. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. In fact, in the meantime I just deleted it, as the article doesn't rely on it. Thank you.

Max9844419087 (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cites in Adonis (Duquesnoy)

The article cites "Kerényi 1951" and "Cyrino 2010" but no such source are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also "Cate et al. 1975" in La parisienne japonaise. Renata (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Yeah, I fixed both pages, they should be okay now.

Max9844419087 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this helpful?

In a recent edit to Josip Belušić, you added:

In the second half of the 19th century, the World's fair was held in Paris in 1855, 1867, 1878, 1881, and 1889.

While this is factually correct, how does that help in understanding Belušić in any way? An encyclopedia article is not a magazine article; we should strive to present the relevant information, and avoid the irrelevant. The fact that other Expositions were held in Paris in the 19th century is not relevant to Belušić's life or accomplishments. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not a magazine article. But informing people and accurately depicting the background to help them better understand the matter at hand is customary of Misplaced Pages and most other encyclopedias. Notable examples consulted by many people online include Misplaced Pages itself and Britannica. Belusic's invention and the whole article depend on and are tied to that 1889 Exposition, so I believe that a link to the latter had to be added. Which I did. Then I proceeded with mentioning the year when the exposition was held in Paris (avoiding a brief description of the exposition, following your clues), which at the time was the world's capital. I continued by pointing out that Belusic exhibited in 1889. All information given is factually correct and sources were implemented. I wanted to add a list of notable visitors, but I didn't because I respected your previous edit. All that data informs users on the pre-eminence of that years' exposition, and helps in understanding why Belusic's invention was eclipsed. At any rate, I respected your previous edit and merely added a sentence mentioning the pavillion and the years the World's fair was held in Paris. This also allowed for the inclusion of a nice postcard, which gives the paragraph a touch. If you believe my edit breaks any rule or should definitely be deleted for whatever reason, then undo my edit.

Max9844419087 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I had already added a link to the 1899 Exposition; the main article note was not really needed. Highlighting that Belušić exhibited at the 1899 exposition, which also featured the Eiffel Tower, was appropriate. Adding the list of other notable exhibitors at that exposition appears to be an attempt to embellish Belušić's accomplishments by associating him with other notable people. (Belušić is notable enough in his own right, but does not become more so by the mere co-appearance at the exhibition.)

My question relates directly to the list of other expositions that were held in Paris, which proves only that Paris held a lot of expositions, but does not do anything to further the understanding of Belušić or his accomplishments. Remember, we want to describe Belušić's accomplishments, but in no way embellish them. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The exposition was held in 1889, not in 1899. That is a decade later. Actually, considering Paris' prestige, world's fair held there in half a century are just a few. I think that your interpretation of my edit is quite... oblique. I mean, I don't see how anyone could assume that except if they started off thinking that that was my purpose (embellishing Belusic). On the contrary, the purpose of it all was quite the opposite. There was the Eiffel tower, multitude of people visiting and exhibiting, thence, his (Belusic's) invention didn't get as much attention as it would've in, say, Adelaide (where, incredibly, world fairs were held almost as many times as in Paris) or at any rate in a less popular location and at a less important event. Anyway, I didn't rewrite that bit (list of notable visitors), but merely the years wherein the exhibition was held in Paris (which, again, are a bit from the main article whereto I directed via the link above; and a preamble to the description of Belusic's participation at the 1889 fair, the last to be held in Paris in the 20th century, and arguably the greatest of them all), the Main article link and a pretty picture. Surely, I beg to differ, but if you believe my edit should be undone, then go on and do it. I do not wish to argue any further.

Max9844419087 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for mistyping the date of the exposition, but you seem to be missing my point completely. Belušić exhibited at the 1889 Exposition; what point does it serve to point out that there were other Expositions in Paris in the 19th century? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, please check the date of the Paris taximeter competition that Belušić won. I edited it as 1899 based on the date of the Exposition, but since the proper date for the Exposition was 1889, that's probably the year that the competition took place as well. But since you appear to have access to print sources that I do not, I'll leave it to you to correct that. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok User:WikiDan61, I think that you know better than that... The mistake has nothing to do with other print sources: each and every online source cited points to the 1889 Exposition... But it's okay, we're just human beings. As for the rest: I already explained why that, imo, should be included, and I really don't know hot to explain it other ways... So I'll leave it to you to decide on that paragraph. If you choose to have it written your way, maybe you could find a way to include the postcard.

Max9844419087 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Mountainous Landscape with Saint Jerome

Thanks for creating this article! Could you explain what you meant when you wrote in your first edit that the "bibliography was likewise copied from two sources"? It's not permitted to copy content from sources that are not in the public domain, so I wanted to check with you about why you decided to copy that content. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi AleatoryPonderings, thanks for your message. So, here's the thing, I copied and pasted the bibliography, altering it but slightly, from one of the sources. I did so some other time too. Bibliography meaning other material (books, and the pages thereof) where users may find info on the article's subject, and, sometimes, sources not available online from where I'm drawing information myself. Perhps in this case I should've titled the paragraph "Further reading," though. So it is not possible to link to those sources otherwise (title of books and number of pages can't be paraphrased)... But if that means breaking the rules then let me know.. although I hope you see what I'm saying; and I can't see how could I link to those sources otherwise...--Max9844419087 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I'd suggest removing it, especially given that the article is already well-sourced. It's a nice question of copyright law whether lists of bibliographic material can be copyrighted, but we tend to err on the side of caution regarding copyright issues here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)