User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 2

Portrait of Pére Tanguy

Hi. I've nominated Portrait of Pére Tanguy, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Chimino (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was nice of you! I've just recently started working on paintings and am just getting my feet wet, but LOVE working on van Gogh. Thanks so much for the nomination! And, if Modernist see this, thanks so much for your help shepharding me in the right direction! --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NP, you seem to have a natural talent for encyclopedic writing, keep up the good work! Cheers, from a fellow van Gogh lover,--Chimino (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job Carole. Keep doing your best...Modernist (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Boo, hiss <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Portrait of Pére Tanguy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Ehh, seems this nomination may have been more trouble than it's worth :/--Chimino (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all!!!! I've been typing my way around here for a bit, but haven't quite felt the work was as polished as it could be. But, I wasn't exactly sure what was needed. So, I've gotten a lot of guidance since the DYK, which I value as much as your kind nomination! In addition, your faith in me meant a lot to me - much more than having the DYK finally published or not. (But, getting it published as a DYK would be nice!) Thanks so much! You're very sweet! --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. What I meant was that the article, which now reads very well, might have a couple of format issues. Having a look over WP:MOS might help. What caught my eye in the Tanguy section is the lead section, and how it relates to the body of text. Ideally, the lead section does not contain citations, because it summarizes facts that are supposed to be cited, and discussed more in-depth, in the article itself. This also means that the lead should preferable not contain info that is not discussed and cited in the article. See WP:LEAD for what is intended. I wanted to correct that myself, but the format you used is quite laborious, but you may consider having a second look - when you're okay with that, of course, and provided you agree. The citation format, I have to say, looks a bit counter-intuitive to me (it's needlessly complicated), but you're of course entitled to dismiss that. Btw, the article as we stand has a "citation needed" tag that you may wish to address at some point. Dahn (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your feedback, I am trying not to get discouraged here, so I appreciate you're helping me understand what your comments mean.

1) Intro: I will look over WP:MOS and WP:LEAD tonight. In the meantime, I removed the citations in the intro, reread the article, which seems to me to summarize points from the article (but maybe not what you'd consider key points??) and does not contain information not previously in the article. Maybe the articles will help me understand what is missing.

2) I don't know what you mean by "the format you used is quite laborious"

3) I am not quite sure what you mean by the "citation method is counter-intuitive and needlessly complicated". If you mean using the cite web, cite book and cite journal templates (e.g., Template:Cite_book), it's something that I learned from an editer than I respect here and the related articles.

4) I guess I'm still not clear what is so wrong about the article that on the DYK page you said "and the fixes still needed are too in-depth for now"

I am quite sure that all you're wanting is the production of the best possible articles, and that's why I feel like I have a lot to learn from you. Your help in keeping me from getting too discouraged would be very much appreciated. I have other writing to do, but I have liked it here at WP.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Carole, relax. My comments were about the article in the long-run, how it should eventually look. As I noted, it passes DYK requirements, so that base is covered. For the rest, it's a follow-through issue that may help you in that article and future ones. If you want, I'm willing to clarify all my comments, but it may be better if you do read the MOS page first, and compare it to your article (which is good, but could be better, and I'm glad you take an interest in improvement). Please note however that I'm alo caught up in many other things, and may not be around at all times. Incidentally, I'm not watchlisting this talk page, so could you reply on mine? Dahn (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on my quick lunch break now that I'm back to work. Rather than starting yet another thread (DYK, my user page, your user page) about the same topic, let's just call it a day on this topic. It's now gotten to the point of being funny. Without having anything more definitive or constructive than "and the fixes still needed are too in-depth for now", "laborious", "counter-intuitive", and "needlessly complicated" -- I'm not looking to have any other non-constructive comments. I'll look at the material you mentioned tonight. I do agree, though, that the article is better - and I have learned somethings to carry forward. So, thank you for that - and thanks for approving the article for DYK!

If one of the other editors sees this, though, and would like to point out ways to improve, I continue to welcome that feedback! Thanks to those of you who may see this who have been incredibly helpful and constructive along the way!!! It's what has made this hobby fun.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Carole, I'm sorry you're reacting like this. Let me clarify a couple of things in my perspective: a) the comments I made at T:TDYK were addressing the point in question, that is DYK submission, and I gave it a positive review after you addressed those concerns; b) I believe did make constructive comments, such as no citations in the lead (read the guideline, please) - I can't be expected to spend my entire editing time pointing those things out bit by bit, particularly when they are not relevant for DYK, and particularly since you already showed your interest in following the MOS in the long run; c) because of the web of citations in the lead, and the fact that they verify info which should eventually be summarized there and sourced lower in the article (that is, effectively written twice), I also think it is better to suggest this to the contributing editor, most familiar with what source cites which info, than to risk botching it up by attempting to do so myself.

The MOS is subtle, complicated, and gets some time to get adjusted to, which is why I asked you to at least have a look over it before, or as we engage in this conversation. I did not mean to seem pedantic or arrogant, but there really are no other ways to improve one's editing style - my own writing improved as the MOS evolved (given that I was here already as it was being created). I actually think you're already a good editor, but your style just happens not to be entirely compatible with the guidelines. Yet. And, in fact, I was actually quite glad to see somebody writing about Symbolist painting, which is both a favorite of mine and one of the subjects of my most recent project.

I don't have the power to impose anything on you, nor do I imagine I could have that power, and we're all equals here. But it doesn't help if you ask for clarifications and then get upset when you read them. And please, if you reply to this message, at least notify me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carole. Can I just make a general point? It seems to me that you are doing fantastically well for someone who is a new(ish) editor - in fact, you're doing so well that some other editors are almost thinking that you are as experienced as they are, and so are judging your contributions on those terms. I now look back on the the edits that I did in my first year with considerable embarrassment, and it took me years of editing before the idea of contributing to DYK was even suggested to me. So, don't be discouraged, take your time to learn the ropes over MOS things like putting citations in the lead (which is something that many very experienced editors often don't worry about much), enjoy it at your own pace, and treat any criticisms that come your way as a learning experience. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, thank you for your very thoughtful comments! I truly appreciate it! I think we all have different styles. I think I learned a lot from the recent exchanges and I'll absolutely take the learnings with me. And, I choose for my own piece of mind to let the portions of conversations with rude, general, unsubstantiated comments go by the wayside and have a bit of a chuckle. I won't forget that the passionate editors have a lot to teach me. I just have enough difficult things in my life right now that I'd like to stop "hitting my head" against the wall, if you know what I mean.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, Time gives the opportunity for a bit more reflection. It's my job to facilitate fixing problems and my success is due nearly entirely with communication style - and I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would tell someone who has spent hours taking my feedback and making corrections a "dump and run" kind of comment: "and the fixes still needed are too in-depth for now". And then when they followed up to better understand give further dump and run comments. It's unfathonable to me. I think that I've just been really lucky in my professional career to work with people and promote through consulting and change management how to give collaborative, considerate, and constructive criticism -- that these type of comments kind of shock the system. Most of the editors here are VERY good at giving feedback and I really appreciate their guidance, shepharding me along the way!!!

For those that aren't it does make it a diffcult experience and something that isn't constructive is never helpful. Would it be helpful if I wrote a short article on how to give criticism in a way that: 1) helps the person understand what needs to be done 2) without feeling slammed in the process?

If there's no response to this, I'll let it drop - but I'm happy to work on it, because I think it could make the experience here even better for others. And, in the meantime, I'll take the WP:MOS in bites (like how you'd eat an elephant) because it's too much to absorb in one sitting.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea to write an essay - though you may want to take a look at Category:User essays to see if the points you make have been addressed before! Obviously, editors here come from all sorts of backgrounds - and you may need to bear in mind that some use their involvement here as way of expressing or overcoming their frustrations over their real world life, sometimes because, in a sense, everyone (regardless of age, experience, background, knowledge, native language, etc.) is seen (at least initially) as equal here. That has both advantages and disadvantages! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Carole, here's my final attempt at explaining something you keep misrepresenting: what I have said is exactly what you keep hearing from other users and liking it, namely that the article's DYK problems had been fixed, which is frankly all of what I could be expected to address in detail. My exact words: "The article is not exactly up to WP:MOS standards (for instance, see WP:LEAD on how the opening paragraph[s] should relate to the text), but it is up to DYK ones, and the fixes still needed are too in-depth for now. I have verified the hook and the date, but I need someone to help with the character count". You describe this as "hit and run", but you don't seem to be familiar with the fact that DYK self-nominations require reviewing another submission - I had another article up for DYK, and I only fulfilled a minimal job that was required of me, and tried to point out (since you asked!) what more is needed. If it helps, I think the article as it is now is in pretty good shape.

That you "feel slammed" by my observations is really not my intention, my doing, nor, at this point in time, my concern. Since I don't want a process such as DYK reviewing to take forever, I have to comment on the issues as I see them, with as much time as I am ready to allocate them. And my time too is finite. Did I say something that was out of line or uncivil? No? Than please don't make me responsible for how it "made you feel". Is anything I mentioned really worth you telling me and others that you can't stop laughing? Because it has become quite demeaning. (So is Ghmyrtle's comment about "frustrations", which is also uncalled for.)

I suggest that if you take a long good second look at what happened and was said, you'll see just how much you're overreacting. Have a good day or whatever it is where you are at. Dahn (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My comments - including the one about "frustrations" - were not aimed at you, personally, at all. Carole is a relatively new editor, and I was simply passing on some of my wider experience here. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, thank you for all the effort you provided. I do understand that you are busy with other efforts and that it is absolutely a requirement to have articles reviewed before they are posted as DYK. I admire the intention to put out quality work. You absolutely gave me a number of tips that will be helpful as I move forward. I had no problem whatsoever with the comments that were direct and gave me something to work with. You know that I went and made fixes based upon clear direction, so anything that I made fixes to is absolutely not only not questioned but as I've said all along, valuable. Something I probably should have been clearer about I have learned to be much more careful to keep the references in-line rather than at the end of a paragraph, to attribute opinions to individuals rather than just show the reference, to not have inline references in the intro... and reading between the lines, to remove content that does not further the story. For all of that, I am very greatful.

It's the verbiage also direct quotes that I felt were not definitive or constructive "and the fixes still needed are too in-depth for now" (DYK page), "laborious", "counter-intuitive", and "needlessly complicated" (these above in this section of this page). Is it possible that I overreacted? I concede that I am a sensitive, especially when I'm trying hard to do a good job - and may have overreacted. Is it possible that you may have something to learn from this experience as well?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, thank you for your comments! I really do appreciate it, and really did get the impression from the feedback on the DYK page that I was doing a very poor job writing articles. I now realize it's much more about polish and style (like info from MOS) as well as the learnings I mentioned to Dahn. Sorry that you got pulled into this. Your comments did help a lot, though!!!! Thank you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your WP:user page

You might want to add something (anything) to your userpage. This will get the red out of your name in edit histories. It's your choice, but I recommend it. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way you can add images to your user page - provided they are in the public domain...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If I can help in any way, feel free to ask. I have friendly editors who monitor my talk page, and if I can't help, I am reasonably sure that one of them will step in. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will likely take you up on that!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

vgv template

May I weigh in? It's getting huge, and will only expand as more articles are written on his paintings. I wonder if the list of paintings on the template shouldn't be for major works (i.e. Tanguy) only?--Chimino (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We might have to make a separate template - of just Van Gogh paintings or works by Vincent van Gogh, along the lines of what was done with William Blake; for now it's still ok...Modernist (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just got part way through 1882, there's a lot more I was going to move over. That's why I wondered if we wanted in in periods, like Raphael. I'm happy to move ahead either way (adding the written articles to the template - possibly by period (Holland, Paris, Arles), or selecting just notable works). I defer to the two of you, more seasoned at this. If we're going forward with notable works - what would be the definition of notable works?

For now, I'll hold off adding paintings to the template since I was just doing it in chunks and just part way through the template (just partway through 1882).--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to Modernist as well; my main concern was the template growing larger than/overshadowing the articles themselves. Anyway, keep up the good work.--Chimino (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

van Gogh Olive Orchard

van Gogh did 15 paintings about Olive trees, the topic for the next painting from NGA that I wanted to work on. I'm also wondering if it might make sense to write one article about Olive Tree/Orchard, have a gallery of the paintings, and then right about the subject as a whole. What are your thoughts Modernist or Chimino (or anyone else) on that? Thanks so much! It's great to be able to bounce ideas by you!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thanks Carol, although I'm still pretty much a newbie myself. I think it's a great idea, similar to the articles on VG's self-portraits, or Monet's Water Lillies.--Chimino (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Pére Tanguy

Cheers, BigDom 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Carole!--Chimino (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really nice! And a fun DYK sound bite!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Images sometimes appear as a box with an "x"

First of all, thanks to all the editors that help me out along the way!!! It's greatly appreciated!

For anyone that may see this. I'm wondering why images sometimes appear as a white box with an "x" in User:CaroleHenson/Olive Trees. One thought might be there's too many images - but it's far less than the number of images in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh. Any ideas? Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the images; sometimes it's a glitch that fixes itself. This editor User talk:RogoPD added the initial lion share of the Vincent van Gogh articles that we have. You might leave him a note. He comes and goes, although I haven't seen him around lately...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Panderoona

Hi CArole, hope you're doing ok - it looks like it from your recent contributions. I'm just wondering whether you could drop by on User_talk:Panderoona. This is a new user who is becoming a bit daunted by it all, rather as you were a couple of months back. Since you are now doing great I thought perhaps you might care to offer your thoughts to the newcomer and spread the load a bit. If it all comes from me then I think we might lose the person from the project, which would be a shame. Thanks, and no obligation! - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to reach out. Hope you're doing well - I'll get back to history later, but having a lot of fun Van Gogh-ing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tea and biscuits, I think? Had a DYK at the weekend, so am catching up with you (slowly!) - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Until I get a featured article and am doing things in a more polished way, I am very must still trying to catch up to YOU! Take care! Carole--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh's kids

Hi Carole here's a few more kids:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Good job...Modernist (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful!!! Thanks! Nearly each one of these I had been looking for but didn't find! Great! I'm doing a little work on the Roulin Family and then I'll plug them in!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

Hi Carole I'm wondering about this line - Vincent's paintings were sold in bundles at an incredibly low rate to pay off creditors that's in the lede at Agostina Segatori Sitting in the Café du Tambourin. The mythology is that Vincent only sold one painting in his sweet short life to Anna Boch - The Red Vineyard. If bundles of his paintings were sold (even if he didn't profit from the sales) - which paintings? - who bought them? - how many? - what happened to them? - did the buyers profit? - is the source accurate? so many unanswered questions. What do you think?..Modernist (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a better way to word this. Basically the scenario was that: van Gogh had traded paintings for meals at the Tambourin. When Agostina went into severe debt/equiv. of bankruptcy her debtors came to make whatever money they could on the contents of the restaurant. They got pennies for a stack of paintings - when the frames alone where expensive. I read this in a number of places, so I'd say that the information is reliable. Van Gogh considered this a travesty and was incredibly upset at the loss of his work in this manner. I'm tired tonight, but I'll try to think of a way to reword it - or possibly get a direct quote that more accurately reflects: 1) what a financial and emotional travesty this was, 2) that neither Agostina or van Gogh gained anything from this. There was no work that anyone made any money at the time on the buddles - I'm guessing not since his work was not yet appreciated and he couldn't sell them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No rush Carole, I'd be interested in learning more about which paintings - or which works were involved...Modernist (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I was curious so I went and looked at the reference for the bit further down in the article... the paintings that were taken were of flowers. For the moment I reworded the intro to say that the paintings were confiscated (which was true as well) and will work on updating the information in the body of the article. Somewhere I read that he was upset about not at least getting the frames - since they were very costly - so there's more I can add to it. My heads a little fuzzy so it will come together later. Night! Thanks, by the way for doing the va tag updates on articles I wrote about earlier!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

G'night Carole. Really great work...Modernist (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added what I could find, which seems to indicate that most of the confiscated works were still life of flowers. It seems that there are about 45 paintings made in Paris that would fall into this category. I tried checking a few museums that provide provenance info to see if there might be a hint there - but the paintings I looked up came through a friend of van Gogh or Johanna van Gogh. I bet some van Gogh expert has an idea what might have happened to the works - it would be interesting to find out! I haven't been able to find the source that mentioned that a 2nd hand dealer burned some of the confiscated canvases (I guess just keeping the frames which he could make some money on). It's a mystery what happened to the bundles, with likely an interesting story.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems there might be an interesting story and 'bundles' of undiscovered van Gogh flower paintings out there......somewhere. I think it is definitely a compelling mystery; with interesting art historical potential. Carole you are stirring the pot; good show...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent you 2 emails...Modernist (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw one that got transferred to my yahoo account and responded to it. It seems I've seen email here, but I don't remember where. Sorry I missed the first one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent them both to the same place...Modernist (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a search and sort and only came up with one, unless one of them went into spam. Do you mind resending the first one (or whatever one I didn't respond to)? Thanks!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very weird, I think I'm totally missing something. I haven't had anything come through my personal email (where I received one email from you. Two questions: Did you get the email reply from me? Should I be looking for an email box here on wikipedia (I've been looking around and just not coming to it.)? Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Carole - I got your reply to my second email. Then I sent you a copy of the first one (that you didn't get twice) to the address of your email to me, shall I try again?...Modernist (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very strange! I still don't have it. I tried sending myself a test email to see if it's a server issue, but it popped right in and I checked spam and the email didn't go there. To be safe, I'll go add your email address to my address book, which couldn't hurt. Sure try again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL its getting funny - I sent you a third time :)...Modernist (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just gone one of the attempts with the other email to which I replied. I also tried a test send. And so you now have several from me. Very weird, must have been some sort of server issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Success...Modernist (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Excellent work Carole, on all articles related to - Vincent van Gogh. Modernist (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I absolutely would not have done as well without you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CaroleHenson. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Langlois Bridge at Arles

Hi, good additions there. If you manage to expand 5 fold in the next 5 days (not hard given that there was little text there before), we can get it on WP:DYK and I will suggest it should go on there on 29 July. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'll see what I can do (before I return to work tomorrow).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you be off line after tomorrow? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, during the day.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. But if DYK has minor questions and I can not answer, you can probbaly answer in 10 minutes. What do you think will be a good DYK fact from this article? Needs a ref too, of course. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet, the only thing that I've found interesting so far is that in many ways Arles / southern France was like a new land for van Gogh, like Japan that he very much wanted to visit, yet he found a sense of the homeland in this bridges. It was "something funny" he said (Van Gogh Museum)... and I don't yet have a ref for the likely reason, the bridge was engineered by a Dutch engineer (read in Langlois Bridge article, but need a ref before I'll add it to this article). I may uncover more. Can we do the DYK after/on the weekend?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DYK check says: "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 18 edits ago on April 28, 2011" Last edit was February in fact, so anytime by Monday should be fine. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've got to run for the moment, but it's a fun article and whatever I don't finish tonight I will over the weekend. Thanks, History!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be around the rest of the day afterall and have completed the draft of the article. Thankfully Modernist went through and caught some edits. That said, if you'd like to talk about the article today, let me know. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think as of now this looks better than many Wikipedia articles, so I am not sure what else you would want to add. You just need to decide on a DYK fact with a good reference today and then we can set it up for July 29. That way, eventually July 29 will become a national holiday in the Benelux - they just need an excuse if one gives them the idea. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of: Van Gogh called the Langlois Bridge at Arles painting "something funny.. I will not create every day." While the climate was very different than his homeland, there was something about the setting for this painting that reminded him of the Netherlands and he asked his brother Theo to offer it to an art-dealer there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the .... Van Gogh called his Langlois Bridge at Arles painting (pictured) "something funny.. I will not create every day." is probably the best quote. They may say the rest of the sentence about Theo makes it too long for a DYK item. Also it probably needed a non-web reference, so I added that from Hulsker's book. I think that will probably work fine, but you could make the quote even longer, without bringing Theo into it. Then it would be ready to go I think. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote the way that you revised it looks good! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us try that. There were a couple of other items that could be added I thought after I started to look for the last ref and I will play with those later, but it is pretty much done, unless they all turn to be fakes, and that would make a good new article. History2007 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, everything should be referenced in the article. It just may be that the reference covers several sentences. For instance, "something funny" was on the VGM reference on a space below the painting and description (as I added to the post-script for the VGM ref). Thanks so much! It's fun getting a DYK!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is here now. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, History, that was nice of you!!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of Dr. Gachet

Hi Carole, On the Portrait of Dr. Gachet page, there is an uncited claim of the second version being a forgery. I was planning on expanding this article in the near future, but in the meantime was wondering if you've ever come across this claim in your research?--Chimino (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went to three books were I found discussion of forgeries of van Gogh's work and one of them discusses forgery of Gachet full link to query OR if the full link doesn't work here's the book and the query was: "forgery OR forged "van Gogh". In addition, two men are identified as being involved in forgeries or the sale of forgeries: collector Emile Schuffenecker and Otto Wacker. Good luck, I'll look forward to reading the article!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I was aware of the Wacker scandal, but was surprised to hear a painting as high-profile as Gachet could also have been forged. Appreciate the info...--Chimino (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I read of the potential forgery of Daubigny's Garden there was an art historian or art critic who blasted (ok, my word/interprettation) van Gogh for making paintings that were so easy to forge - and it seemed to me that there was also discussion of forgeries coming about after the confusion of the war (WWII and possibly WWI). [Added: the van Gogh's practice for making multiple paintings of the same composition added to the confusion.] It's a very interesting topic to explore, so I'll be definitely looking forward to see what you find!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of Dr. Gachet; after reading up on everything, the Orsay's scientific evidence is convincing, but I do believe others of the Auvers period were forged (such as the Blossoming Acacia Branches I just added to the List).--Chimino (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting! I heard today that "Still Life with Beer and Fruit" is considered a fake - conversation is posted at Talk:Van Gogh Early Works, and it seems like that's the case - but I've had a hard time finding reliable information / news articles in English about it. Since it's a fairly recent find (October 2010), it's not in the books I'd look for information. What list do you have going (e.g., article on face Van Goghs)? Do you think that should be added to your list? Good to hear from you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's something about "Beer and Fruit"; I had indeed considered beginning a "Fakes" page at some point on WP, but given the sheer lack of evidence behind the topic, I decided against it. Really, other than the proven cases (such as you mentioned earlier), and those which may be obvious to the viewer (such as the Oslo self-portrait[1]), it's all purely speculation in the end. The VG Gallery website has some interesting articles regarding the fakes debate [2]; I suppose in the end, we'll never know the full story.--Chimino (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bridge at Arles barnstar

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		For a bang-up job expanding Langlois Bridge at Arles, an article on a key painting by a major artist. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel!! And a continued thanks to Modernist who has greatly supported me, edited the articles and ensure that I've aligned with the WP:MOS and other guidelines!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, well deserved Carole...Modernist (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I too was about to award you this barnstar but someone else got there first. Well done. Excellent work - and you've done so much is such a short time. Trying to emulate Van Gogh, no doubt! - Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Langlois Bridge at Arles

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gate in the Paris Ramp

Hi Carole, I haven't seen Gate in the Paris Ramp 1886 however here are three that haven't been included in the List here, that I found along the way, although there are others out there...Modernist (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Flowering Orchard, 1888, Van Gogh Museum - (I added this to the Flowering Orchard article)
• 
  The Caravans - Gypsy Camp near Arles, 1888
• 
  Roadworkers, 1889, Cleveland Museum of Art - This is in - (Post-Impressionism)

Cool!!! I think the first, the Flowering Garden is F555, but the image I used seemed to me to look the closest to the museum's image. Do you think this is something in addition to F555? Love the other two you found!!! I'll hunt around to get the F#s and add them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the first one here [3]...Modernist (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well aren't you clever!!!. Yes, that sure seems to be the F555 - in the same place, too, in the first triptych. It's just a hazier version where the colors are a bit off. The version currently in the article is most like the museum's image. A cool thing is that they used the same intro picture!! And, have identified the components of the second triptych (which I wasn't able to do except that it included the pear tree). Do you think I can create the second triptych in our article based upon what's in the French article?

Swapped out the caravan image for the one in the list F445. Going to work on the road workers next. Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of Van Gogh

Hi Carole. As you seem to becoming something of a specialist in describing Van Gogh's paintings, I though I would bring to your attention the conventions for capitalizing Dutch names with "van". I had trouble sorting out things myself so I certainly understand the usage you have chosen. The article Van (Dutch) provides a pretty good overview and states in particular: "The "v" is written in lower case, except if the first name or initials are omitted, in which case it is capitalised, as in "de schilder Van Gogh" ("the painter Van Gogh") or "de heer Van Teylingen" ("Mister Van Teylingen")." These conventions also seem to be used pretty widely in English, as in the main article on Vincent van Gogh. You will see I made what I considered to be the necessary edits to your wonderful article on Langlois Bridge at Arles but would like to give you the chance to respond before making similar changes to the other articles you have written on Van Gogh. And by the way, I was wondering if you would be interested in aiming for GA (good article) status for the Langlois Bridge at Arles. I think you are almost there. - Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly - I take responsibility for suggesting using the small 'v' Carole initially used the capital 'V' so if we decide to go with Van Gogh it was my mistake. I think at this point we should change to capital 'V'...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go along with the two of you on the capitalization of "van". Is there an automated edit in WP to change "van" to "Van"? If not, I can work on it as I go back and check each article which I listed on User:CaroleHenson#Van_Gogh.

Butterflies (van Gogh) has "van Gogh", should I do a move with the capitalized "Van"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to have a review for Good Article status!! It would help me better understand what would bring an article to higher status. Thanks for offering that as a suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to change v to V ourselves, I will do as many as I can today and from here out we'll use the V...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I think you've misunderstood the capitalization rule. The spelling is "Vincent van Gogh" or "Van Gogh"; the "v" is lower case if a portion of the name precedes it. I've reverted several changes you made. Glrx (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! Ok, thanks, Glrx!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the best way for you to go about the good article process is to nominate it yourself using the procedure shown at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Once it comes up, I would be happy to help with the review. You can also immediately see the criteria you need to follow and you may like to make some adjustments first. - Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I followed the process correctly for nominating the article. I looked through the criteria for a good article, and then how one would review an article, and I think the article is in good shape for the review. I am hoping, though, that this process will help me better understand how to identify and take a mediocre article to the next level. Thanks so much for the suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you already have Olive Trees (series) in the stack. I'll have a good look at that one now. - Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vase with Red Poppies

Thanks for making that article; the original redirect from the List went to the Cairo painting, and I was told to make an article for it if I wanted it to link properly.--Chimino (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Backs of Houses

Sorry about adding the image of back of houses without seeing whether or not you'd seen it; I'll run the next ones by you if I find some more orphaned images...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! If you don't mind parking them at the "Discussion" tab, that would be great! I will say that I think that the oil paintings are well represented in rows in the List of Works, it's just whether the images may be better or not than something already out there, or for a spot where there's no image.

There's hundreds of images in the List of Works, with just a couple dozen without images (find on ?), which I'm happy to pick away at. Just 'cause I'm a curious kind of gal, do you have a particular intention for the images that you're finding right now? Did it all come about because of my question about the watercolor painting a day or so ago?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I figured that if I come across a few we might as well add them in. Ya do seem to be a curious kind of gal, by the way...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're funny!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Olive Trees (series)

The article is certainly a good candidate for GA. I think you have covered all the essentials. It might be useful to be more consistent in maintaing a single format throughout (use of galleries, etc.). Maybe it would also be an idea to explain the general context in a bit more detail and also add a word about how significant the olive tree paintings are to VG's work as a whole and how they have been received (if you think this is important). The aspect I found most difficult to follow was the section on the spiritual significance. You provide a very general introduction to VG's interest in spirituality going right back to 1876. Perhaps it would be more useful to concentrate on his more immediate concerns around 1889 and the effects, if any, of his illness on his spirituality. GA articles on art also usually include a bibliography or further reading section. I see you have several pertinent references to literature - so some of these could be used in the bibliography. If you think I am being too demanding (as I probably am), please let me know. This source may be of some assistance.

One of the articles about paintings to have GA status is Bonaparte Crossing the Alps. I'm not suggesting you should cover all the sections and the amount of detail presented there but it might provide a few ideas. Let me know if you need further help. Once you are satisfied with the article, I'll start the review - if no one else gets there first! - Ipigott (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being too demanding, I think you've made some very interesting and helpful points! I'll take a look at the article you mentioned and with your comments work on integrating them into the article. Thanks for taking the time to review the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ipigott, I've made changes based upon your comments. Do you mind having a second look to see what you think now? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly done an excellent job on all this and seem to have invested a considerable amount of time. I also see you now have a total of 18 olive tree works. Some of your additions and references provide much more insight into VG's motivations, especially in regard to spirituality. The overall display and the gallery presentations have also improved significantly.

One of the jobs of a GA reviewer is to examine whether the facts presented in the article are properly referenced. You have certainly provided far more refs than most editors but there is just one, for me important, aspect of his painting which does not seem to be covered by the reference given. It is his use of color, especially in relation to blue for the divine. Maybe it's in H. Suh's book but I could not find it in Erikson's though I did find the "radient gold light" there. I'm sure it is not difficult to find a more specific reference for this, perhaps to be inserted after "the intense blue of the sky to symbolize the "divine and infinite presence" of Jesus" in the following passage:

He began to use the color blue to represent the divine. In both The Starry Night and MoMA's Olive Trees in a Mountainous Landscape, Van Gogh used the intense blue of the sky to symbolize the "divine and infinite presence" of Jesus. Seeking a "modern artistic language" to represent the divine, he sought a numinous quality in many of his olive tree paintings, such as by bathing olive trees, an emblem for Jesus, in "radiant gold light".[22]

Another minor suggestion is about the lead. It now ends "His paintings of olive pickers demonstrate the relationship between man and nature." Perhaps that could be reworded as "His paintings of olive pickers emphasize the importance Van Gogh ascribed to the relationship between man and nature in his understanding of the divine." And I think the lead needs some kind of conclusion such as "Van Gogh's olive tree paintings, some of which are among his finest works, were completed in 1888–89, the year before his death." Please don't just copy my wording though. I'm sure you can contribute something more appropriate. You did a great job on the biography section. I wonder if External links should not be a separate section? They are not necessarily references. - Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great ideas for the intro!!! And, I kept running across the "blue" "divine" quotes yesterday so I'll work on correcting the ref. Thanks for your input!!! I think it's really coming along.

The "External Links" is under a grouping of "Resources" which I've seen before and seems to make sense to me from that context. I'll pick up with the rest of the suggestions and if you still disagree about the External Links, it's fine with me to change it, I'm just giving you my rationale.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I made the changes to the intro, great suggestions!

I found the information about blue, divine, radiant color in the two pages of the reference provided:

Van Gogh employed the intense blue of the sky as a symbol of the divine and infinite presence, particularly in his masterpiece, Starry Night, as well as the olive tree, which symbolized the presence of Jesus Christ in the many paintings depicting groves of olive trees from his Saint-Remy period. (page 82, first full paragraph)

His goal in the religious painting (of olive groves) at Saint-Remy was to develop a modern artistic language that would subtly suggest a numinous presence: hence his frequent painting of olive groves, often bathed in radiant golden light. (page 149, in second full paragraph)

I have since changed the information in the reference to open up on the first of two pages cited (82) which was probably the source of confusion.

Thanks again for all your pointers! You've made a lot of great suggestions for a polished article and it's very much appreciated!!! How does it look now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article looks pretty good to me now. I'll try to find time to do the GA review tomorrow. Thanks for following up on so many of my suggestions. Perhaps you could now also apply this approach to the Langlois Bridge. It's great to work with someone who's so responsive and obviously keen on the subject matter. - Ipigott (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your help getting there. I will absolutely apply the same concepts to the Langlois Bridge article and future articles!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh redirects

Please stop redirecting articles about Van Gogh's paintings to your newly created article. Stub articles about notable subjects should be expanded, not redirected, and by consensus, every one of the paintings of a famous artist is individually notable. Dolovis (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no other one line articles that I'm aware of right now, so I think we're safe there. It just seems so dishonoring to me to have one line articles with just the painting name, who painted it and year. I didn't realize that there was a rule about redirection of stub articles. I'm guessing in the Manual of Style somewhere?

As a compromise, how about I 1) revert the articles and bring back the one sentence articles + 2) add the Main template to go to the Early Works page. If your concern was just about future redirects (i.e., I don't need to do the extra work) that's fine, too. --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you might want to add a link to Van Gogh Early Works from those articles that you have identified as being about Van Gogh's early works. You might want to put it under a “See also” heading or add the Main Template as you have suggested. However you wish to handle it is fine by me, but the redirect was not appropriate. Dolovis (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Looks good! And tonight I finished putting in all the paintings I could find from the Commons, whew (the end of two months of work on the List of Works)!!! Chimino has been adding some that I wasn't able to find in the Commons. Things are sure coming along!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your first good article, nicely done...Modernist (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, what fun! Your support, guiding and input has been a big part of getting there!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CaroleHenson. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More on the Langlois Bridge

On looking more thoroughly at the article, I find I have some additional concerns. The first is in relation to the article Langlois Bridge. A reviewer might wonder (a) why you did not simply expand that article and (b) why you have copied a fairly long section (the Silverman quote) from it without - as far as I can see - any changes. I also note that nearly all your images are in that article too. I therefore suggest you enlarge on the section you have copied, for example by providing a more complete introduction to Silverman's work, possibly along with comparable sources, and replacing the bullet points (which are not always welcome in WP articles) by a paraphrase in running prose. In regard to the images, I suggest (especially in connection with the drawings) you add an appropriate introduction. Perhaps you could go even further with the section on drawings, explaining more of the background and the relationship between the drawings and the paintings. There might be some indications here or here. There also seem to be a number of books on the subject including the one from the Rijksmuseum (Sjraar van Heugten, Vincent van Gogh drawings, Vol 4 - ISBN 0853317410). I also see there's quite a lot on the drawings (in French) here. You should be able to find the equivalent passages from VG's letters in English. You may well have other sources or access to libraries. And while I'm here, I'm glad to see the problem with the redirect has been sorted out. Look forward to your reactions. Maybe once again I'm pushing you too hard! - Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny! While you put this into my talk page I was answering in a fairly lengthy response on your page: User talk:Ipigott--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Must be telepathy! Anyway, thank's for all your comments. You may not have started the articles but you've certainly contributed a great deal to both. Be careful not to add the same passages to both though. - Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I went a bit far on the drawings but that's probably because I hadn't realized the article began as an account of a single painting. It now looks more like the "Langois Bridge series". Anyway, it's entirely up to you whether you want to add anything on the drawings. I found it quite interesting to see that VG said in one of his letters that he started experimenting with the drawings before going on to the paintings. This seems to have been a fairly common practice of his. The technique used might also be of interest. Your "Drawing" gallery also looks as if it needs a word of introduction, the way it is displayed. But don't worry too much about this. Once you are through with the GA, I may edit in some additional content myself but I don't want to interfere too much now.

In regard to the Silverman quote, it's the fact that it is repeated that causes the problem. Some Wikipedians would fault you on redundancy - so we need to avoid that. Your suggestions about how to resolve the problem seem fine. The only danger is that someone, sooner or later, is likely to suggest that the two articles should be merged into one. Another problem (for me) is that the languages in the other articles about the Langlis Bridge all have quite a lot to say about the VG painting(s). But let's just see how it goes.

I'm also following all your other efforts to enhance coverage of Van Gogh. Great work. Keep it up. And don't get too bogged down in further improvements just to the Langlois articles. But as your friend Sitush suggests, you'll soon be aiming for a Feature Article. And for that you really have to have full coverage! - Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it must be telepathy! I made comments back at the thread you started on your article, since that's where I had the list of response items. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh works: Forum for changes / standards / etc.?

For folks who have been watch the Vincent van Gogh articles and helping them move along, would you please take a look at: New section: Forum for standards, changes, prioritization. Thanks everyone who has been following along on the developments. It's a good thing. It's just starting to hit critical mass and it's probably good to sort some things out for standards, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual Arts Project

Hi Carole, sign up and join the visual arts project - [4]...Modernist (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on VA talk,

Thanks, Riggr! (funny name - I hope it hasn't set in so much it's hard for you to get about.) I went ahead and and did the redirecting. Thanks everyone!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(reply) Since you brought it up, I feel the need to explain! I had previous accounts with "riggr" in the name, such as my first one, User:Outriggr. After that, it became an in-joke (or, I wanted it to be one). Since my current account signifies the limited degree to which I am a participant any more, "Riggr Mortis" seemed fitting... although I'd hate to be confused for a fan of Scandinavian death metal or something. :-) Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A very funny summary of how one might go from Outriggr to Riggr Mortis - and an enjoyable one at that! No, worries I didn't make a connection to the heavy metal band... I just figured you were either slowing down in life - or just wanted a funny handle. And, it seems it's not really either of those, but a better background story. It's put a good smile on my face!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sien (Van Gogh)

A tag has been placed on Sien (Van Gogh), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be concerned about with the above msg, Carole. It is a housekeeping exercise. When you move a page, a redirect is created & this bot is just requesting deletion of the redirect. Keep up the good work. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much, Sitush! I was afraid when I realized that I accidentally started the article as a main page it might cross some wires somewhere. I hope all is well with you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wish that I had a bot to do my housekeeping. Running out of clean plates here & I need to get out that peculiar thingy that sucks up dust etc. Mind, I'll have to clean the dust of it before it can be used. <g> - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, too! I have been asking my cat (who keeps coming to visit and get loving) to refill my ice-water. No go, unfortunately - not in her job description. And, I hear my clothes in the dryer calling my name. I want Woody Allen's world (Sleeper?) where a robot will come and take care of things for me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Book

Hi Carole I wanted to tell you about this book - Rosenblum, Robert (1975), Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko, New York: Harper & Row, ISBN 0-06-430057-9; I highly recommend it - it's an interesting read especially the Van Gogh section...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Carole, I just saw that your article about Van Gogh's Olive Trees was promoted to GA Class. I think you are doing wonderful work here and are a great asset to Wikipedia! Once again, congratulations!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne, It's nice to hear from you again - and especially with great news! Thank you! You are a great asset, too!

Talkback

Hello, CaroleHenson. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

References

Hi, a suggestion or two on refeferences....if your using a book source as an inline more than once, put in the bib. or sources section, and trim down the actual inline to the author, year and page number, as here[5]. And, and this is important, try and avoid citation templates, hand code the refs. This is for many reasons, but mainly because thoes templates take up a lot of space, are hard to follow, and make edit mode a rough place for other editors. The are almost never used in art pages. Now, that said, LORD GOD are you doing great work here, and this is not a critism, just tips. Best. Ceoil 13:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

!! ?? - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi please explain your indignation and bafflement with words rather than puncation. Was just friendly advice. Ceoil 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Carole will know what I mean, I think. She may even be aware of the famous telegraphic conversation between Victor Hugo and his publisher upon the publication of Les Miserables. For your edification, however:

• show me where it says that cite templates should not be used, whether on art pages or elsewhere. There are numerous citation styles and the primary requirement is that they are consistent within an article. To the best of my knowledge, all styles are ok except barelinks.
• show me where it says that a bib should be used when a source is used more than once (I would agree if it is used frequently, eg: Churchill Machine Tool Company), but I think it actually can confuse people, and especially new contributors, if there are only 2 or 3 uses

Your opinions are fine but they appeared to be worded in a way that is somewhat commanding, even though I acknowledge that you introduce with the phrase "a suggestion or two". You've since clarified that it was just advice. Anyway, I think that Carole can make up her own mind unless you can produce a policy or guideline to assert your suggestions. Just my 2 c. No biggie. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

God, I didn't mean to be commanding, it was just advice! The wording was deliberatly ironic and friendly. To be met with bulletted 'show mes' is ug, not the way I work. And I wasnt even talking to you. O whatever, forget it. Ceoil 13:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's advise should be heeded because he is a veteran at writing some of the best articles on wikipedia in the visual arts and he is trying to simplify and clarify for Carole the best way to reference so that editing those sections that she references are easier to navigate. Spelling is not his long suit however :)...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good morning everyone, it seems like there's several things being suggested here, so if I may take a stab:

1) Use a bibliography when there are several references for the same book or journal source. I think the key point is that for articles with a number of total references or even in a shorter article if there are just a few sources but used many times, it's best to use a bibliography. That makes sense to me.

2) When using a bibliography, shorten the information for the in-line references. Yes, very good point! I'm guessing, then, that rather than having the link to individual pages, I put the link to the source on the bibliography.

3) Don't use the cite web, journal or book templates. The templates (which are provided by WP) make it very easy to format the information, especially when additional bits of information need to be added. I read, too, that it doesn't matter what method is chosen, just as long as it's consistent throughout. I'm wondering, though, if we can net-net where the three things get us:

Using a bibliography and short in-line references will organize the source information and eliminate the need to use templates in the article. So, for the longer articles, this will have a significant change in how the inline references look in edit mode. I must say that I find the cite web, journal and book templates very helpful for ensuring that the references are always formatted correctly, so I'd like to go ahead using them on articles when there is no bibliography. In that case, there won't be as much info to sort through so hopefully that templates will be much less of a distraction. What do you think? The web citations don't go in the bibliography, do they? Thanks, you've all been a tremendous help!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do what you want, Carole, as long as it complies with the guidelines. You can achieved Featured Article status if you follow them, so which ever if most comfortable for you is ok. Sorry, but I didn't see any irony in the original comment. I'm English, not American, and so I usually do recognise irony. Still can't see it, for that matter. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely see the issue where there are long articles with lots of inline citations - and using a bibliography and short inline ref will clear up those situations significantly. I recognize that if there's an entire community that does not use the templates coming into an article (especially a long one) where they are used makes it difficult to sort through the info. Like I said, I'd like to go ahead using the templates for the cases where the info doesn't go into the bibliography.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

One issue which I hit quite often is needing to cite umpteen different pages from one source. The bib + shortened cite format certainly does assist there provided that subsequent contributors understand it. The basic cite templates are fairly easy to follow, but the anchor stuff used with bibs seems to confuse. If they do not understand it then the time spent monitoring and fixing can be a pain. Just my experience, that's all. There is an article here about a blind woman who composed many hymns etc - I forget the title right now, but Fanny somebody IIRC - where the citation method has created a phenomenally long list of refs unnecessarily. As I recall, there were nearly 900 footnotes & many of them were redundant! - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting.... Is there a MOS or VAMOS issue with using refname in a short ref for a bibliography to avoid having a lot of lines for the same page number reference?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No. <ref name=xyz>{{citation}}</ref> for one occurrence and then <ref name=xyz /> for the others is fine & does remove a lot of the weighty markup/template in the edit area. I do it all the time. However, that is not in itself the bib style, although it is a part of it. The Churchill article shows the bib style. It is, like most things, easy when you get the hang of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The 800-odd citation article I mentioned above is Fanny Crosby. It needs a special maintenance tag all of its own: the "long article" one doesn't do the situation justice! Several people, including myself, have mentioned the point to the (almost sole) contributor but s/he says that it will be sorted after everything has been added. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind looking at Still life by Vincent van Gogh (Paris)#References, specifically reference 1 and 8, that relate to the bibliography item for Wallace. Both 1 and 8 have two uses in the article. Does that look right? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not the way I would do it, but you are not far off. Would you like me to edit it to follow my scheme? You will be able to compare the diffs & revert if you want to do so. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. Then I'll take a hand at making changes to that article (since it's current in progress) so Ceoil and Modernist can take a peak.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done - my way means that click on footnote superscript --> footnote & click on linked name in footnote --> bibliography entry. You can use the authorlink field of the bib citation to link to a WP article on that author, if one exists. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice cross-linkage to the Bibliography! At this point I'd like to have Ceoil and Modernist weigh in because I've written "series" articles that include from a small group up to 30 or 40 paintings that I'm hoping someone may want to come explore and create articles for individual pieces of works (or smaller groupings) - so it would be nice to have it set up so that it's easy for someone to take the info and run with it.

Ceoil and Modernist, do you mind taking a look at Still life by Vincent van Gogh (Paris)#References, specifically reference 1 and 8, that relate to the bibliography item for Wallace? Sitush did a version that links the reference to it's Bibliography item, which I think would be very helpful when there are multiple books by one author (Mancoff, Fell, etc.) that I run across from time to time. The previous version I did a simple short inline ref that does not link to it's bibliography.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the two examples are in the current version of the article. Wallace is Sitush's example, Mancoff has does not cross-link to the bibliography. And, by saying I hoped someday someone might want to dig deeper into one or more paintings, I didn't mean you, but another newcomer like me who has the interest to do so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, blame me. Why not? :-) Sitush (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm laughing because I think you're joking with me! You could say I'm giving you credit for being able to link a reference to a bibliography!!! It's very slick! It's all in what's going to best serve the work. Ceoil and Modernist have a better idea of who other writers are that come to the visual arts project and how people are guided. That's all!!! (Not all of us are [strike: lucky enough] have been able to benefit from the hard work to get the Cambridge degrees!!) You're amazing, some of us (me) are just trying to keep up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, now we're back at an earlier point. I put the smiley on the end because I know that a lot of you Yanks just do not understand irony.

I would imagine that there is a art project, perhaps even a VG project. These projects set certain standards etc and it is often wise to follow those standards. However, it can backfire: one recent example I can recall was WP:UNIGUIDE, which took an absolute pasting when it was quoted at AfD with regard to one of the forked articles from University of East London. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I thought you were joking. It's just the mother-hen in me comes out, too (even while I'm laughing).--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has happened here. I'd hate to think that I have dissuaded others from contributing to this thread. Still a little bemused about developments elsewhere a couple of days ago, which briefly touched on this particular subject. However, I am always open to suggestions and debate. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, either. I'm guessing the conversation thread may just have been confusing to track - it got kind of long. For the moment, I'm moving ahead with using bibliographies for longer articles and continuing to use the templates. Two articles I'm working on right now will probably need to be converted to Biblios.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In the news

On Yahoo today: [6]...Modernist (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is interesting. I'll add something to the Trees and Undergrowth (Van Gogh series) article about milky film of wax, going through restoration. Very cool! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CaroleHenson. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 14:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Starstruck with Moonridden

The timing of my intro of you to Moonriddengirl may, it seems, have been a little unfortunate. I think that she'll still assist & you should certainly have a word, but she does now have a new job. I'm really pleased for her but simultaneously would not wish that one on anybody. If anybody can do it then she can ... but, geez. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, through one of the links that RHaworth provided me I found the Welcoming Committee site and left a message and links with them on their discussion page, too. And, I've recieved input from Ipigott and Panderoona that I've started implementing - and already implemented your comments. I wasn't sure if they'd find it ok to look at a work-in-progress effort, but then it seems to make most sense to ask know before I spend too much time on them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In a while

Carole in a few weeks or less Ceoil and I will nominate the VvG article for FA status and I'd like you to join us...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article is deserving of FA status and the two of you definitely are worthy of the praise!!! Why would you include me, because the article links to articles that I wrote about VvG? (i.e., thanks for thinking of me, but I'm very cool with the two of you receiving your due recognition).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a lot of activity on the article. If you'd like help in any way, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carole, thanks, I'm ok for now although you are always welcome to work there. However I do want your help especially when we nominate the article - which will be soon. I'm gonna send you a note...Modernist (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. My VvG books came in - so I'm going to pick them up shortly and pick away at the Still Life paintings of Paris.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole your input will be invaluable [7], [8] the challenge will be to greatly improve the writing and keep the paintings...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. I couldn't quite follow the discussion in the first link, but the 2nd (sandbox) link appears to be a to-do list. I'm assuming for the Vincent van Gogh article. Is that right? Should I just dig in?

Check out TK's sandbox. Dig in if you can, I've been making some minor changes at VvG as well...Modernist (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carole, Why don't you hold off for a little bit until I have a chance to finish my notes. I haven't read all the way through the article yet and will be adding to the notes, and then consolidating & cleaning them up. That's just stuff that jumped out at me if I were to review the page and will need fixing. I think the first thing we need to do is determine who has which sources and what to use. Also, we can use the sandbox talkpage to discuss whatever needs discussing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. When you're ready, I would be happy to tackle, as a starting point, the movements of Vincent and his family (why, etc.) I think that's 4-5 items on the list. I added a few comments on the sandbox page, but I'll add more where I know I have info. Let me know when and I'd be happy to dig in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page - what are you using for sources? I'm trying to determine what to order from through ILL. Also, so you know, I tend to do most of my work in sandboxes, so I'll be there mostly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the sources I primarily use: For the information about Vincent or his families movement, I'd use Wallace, "The World of Vincent van Gogh". And I have three books from the library and another three to pick up today.

• Silverman, D (2000). Van Gogh and Gauguin: The Search for Sacred Art. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 0-374-28243-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=8c9jt9AToD0C&pg=PA326.
• Harrison, R, ed (2011). "Van Gogh letters". Van Gogh Letters. WebExhibits.
• "VGM painting or topic articles". Permanent Collection. Van Gogh Museum. 2005-2011.
• Helvey, J (2009). Irises: Vincent van Gogh in the garden. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-89236-226-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=LUZ-dHerY3sC&pg=PA46.
• Edwards, C (1989). Van Gogh and God: A Creative Spiritual Quest. Chicago: Loyola Press. p. 112. ISBN 0-8294-0621-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=fYA9QzwvsekC&pg=PA112.
• Shoham, S (2002). Art, crime, and madness: Gesualdo, Caravaggio, Genet, Van Gogh, Artaud. Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press. p. 150. ISBN 1903900050. http://books.google.com/books?id=E7F8eSRKBFMC&pg=PA150.
• Strieter, T (1999). Nineteenth-century European Art: A Topical Dictionary. Westport: Greenwood Press. pp. 53—54. ISBN -313-29898-X. http://books.google.com/books?id=lDr7Tbk__1kC&pg=PA53.
• "Van Gogh paintings". Van Gogh Paintings. Van Gogh Gallery. 2011.
• Mancoff, D (2008). Van Gogh's Flowers. London: Frances Lincoln Limited. ISBN 978-0-7112-2908-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=KRbgR7QtwvgC.
• Leaf, A; Lebain, F (2001). Van Gogh's Table: At the Auberge Ravoux. New York: Artisan. pp. 11—12. http://books.google.com/books?id=MBxJtWUz-CoC&pg=PA11.
• Fell, D (2001). Van Gogh's Gardens. United Kingdom: Simon & Schuster. p. 25. ISBN 0-7432-0233-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=QssD77mFRkkC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&f=false.
• Fell, D (2005) [2004]. Van Gogh's Women: Vincent's Love Affairs and Journey Into Madness. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers. p. 228. ISBN 0-7432-0233-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=lqSjxGgvVMMC&pg=PA228#v=onepage&q&f=false.
• Fell, D (1997) [1994]. The Impressionist Garden. London: Frances Lincoln Limited. p. 30. ISBN 0-7112-1148-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=95ydh8dDth8C&pg=PA30.
• Maurer, N (1999) [1998]. The Pursuit of Spiritual Wisdom: The Thought and Art of Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. Cranbury: Associated University Presses. pp. 200. ISBN 0-8386-3749-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=wf_PoXKhggkC&pg=PA200&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false.
• Ross, B (208). Venturing Upon Dizzy Heights: Lectures and Essays on Philosophy, Literature and the Arts. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. p. 55. http://books.google.com/books?id=_HvvB-xrxxUC&pg=PA55.
• Zemel, C (1997). Van Gogh's Progress: Utopia, Modernity, and Late-Nineteenth-Century Art. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 225. ISBN 0520088492. http://books.google.com/books?id=n2gWfmFn0_QC&pg=PP225#v=onepage&f=false.
• Lubin, A (1996) [1972]. Stranger on the Earth: A Psychological Biography of Vincent van Gogh.. New York: De Capo Press. p. 228. ISBN 0-306-80726-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=BHVwceHVI5cC&pg=PA228#v=onepage&f=false.
• Hansen, Nichols, Sund, Knudsen, Bremen (2003). Van Gogh: Fields. Hatje Cantz Publishers for Toledo Museum of Art Exhibition. p. 13. ISBN 3-7757-1131-5.
• van Gogh, V; Suh, H (2006). Vincent van Gogh: A Self-portrait in Art and Letters. New York: Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers. p. 271. ISBN 1-57912-586-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=VwcHLRuIzkAC&pg=PA271.
• van Gogh&fp=1&dd1=0&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=0&OID=110000969&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0 "Flowering Orchard". Collection. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2000-2011. http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/all/the_flowering_orchard_vincent_van_gogh/objectview.aspx?page=1&sort=6&sortdir=asc&keyword=Vincent van Gogh&fp=1&dd1=0&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=0&OID=110000969&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0. Retrieved 2011-04-27.
• Garrett, M (2006). Provence: a cultural history. Oxford and other locations: Oxford University Press. p. 67. ISBN 0-19-530957-X. http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ljkr1MkYVoC&pg=PA67.
• Van Gogh, V and Leeuw, R (1997) [1996]. van Crimpen, H, Berends-Albert, M. ed. The Letters of Vincent van Gogh. London and other locations: Penquin Books. p. PP385. http://books.google.com/books?id=l4gbXITFl-gC&pg=PP385.
• "Imperial Fritillaries in a Copper Vase". Works in Focus. Musee d'Orsay. 2006. http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/works-in-focus/search/commentaire/commentaire_id/fritillaires-17256.html?no_cache=1. Retrieved 2011-05-20.
• "Factories at Clichy". Search Collections. Saint Louis Art Museum. http://www.slam.org/Collections/. Retrieved 2011.
• Crispino, E (2008). Van Gogh. Minneapolis: The Oliver Press. p. 20. http://books.google.com/books?id=G5gPqjJ9Ws4C&pg=PA20.
• Galbally, A (2008). A remarkable friendship: Vincent van Gogh and John Peter Russell. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Publishing. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-5228-5376--6. http://books.google.com/books?id=OXpgapo52p8C&pg=PA145.
• Barr, A (1966) [1935]. Vincent Van Gogh. New York: Arno Press for The Museum of Modern Art. p. 70. ISBN 0714620394. http://books.google.com/books?id=fdCzDt666RMC&pg=PA70.
• Nordenfalk, C (1953). The Life and Work of Van Gogh. New York: Philosophical Library. p. 191—192. http://books.google.com/books?id=5PjiAwxTTwgC&pg=PA191&dq#v=onepage&f=false.
• Meier-Graefe, J (2006) [London: Michael Joseph, Ltd. 1936]. Vincent van Gogh: A Biography. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. pp. 86–90. ISBN 1428654003. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jf9hjSaCqAoC&pg=PA86.
• Art and history of Paris and Versailles. Florence: Casa Editrice Bonechi. 1996. ISBN 978-88-8029-651-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=ucHxBnbIVtwC&pg=PA53.

Thanks. Have you been using these online, or do you have access? We need to determine the best scholarly sources that each of us has. Gbooks are great but not always reliable unfortunately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly books that I read on books.google.com. Two things: 1) If I start with Vincent's and his family's movements, most of my information would come from Wallace, The World of Vincent van Gogh, which I have on hand (and have several others on hand, too).

Why would the information on books.google.com be unreliable, if it's an extract of verbiage from the book? It's the first time I've heard that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For featured articles, and particularly a biography such as this, it's better to use books instead of gbooks. Gbooks are fine for searches and for verification but the problem is that the pages disappear, page views are limited, and page views differ by region. Since we have an international crew here, there's no guarantee what you can see is seen by others. In that sense, they're unreliable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so if I'm understanding: it's not the content that is unreliable, it's the pagination - and that a link provided to a page in the references wouldn't necessarily work for everyone. I can get access to books where needed to verify page numbers, etc.

I put a note on the talk page of the sandbox, when you'd like me to help out, let me know. For the moment, it sounds like you're asking for time to collect your notes, etc. so I'll honor that an await a nod on this page or response on the talk page for the sandbox.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically they're frowned on at FAC. Because only snippet views or selected pages are available, often content is taken out of context, so for a biography like this, it's better to use the actual books, though some gbooks can be added to the mix. If you have a look at The Sun Also Rises the sad fact is that I collected and read all those sources. As for getting started - I need a break & won't finish reading the page until later, so go ahead. A warning though, a page like this will go through many changes before we decided it's good enough, so content added often gets deleted or moved. I do that to my own stuff all the time. But I would like to see more details added at this point and then we can decide later where things belong and what to keep and what to dump. I'll be back soonish. Oh, before I leave, I'll be adding a link here about gbooks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see this about gbooks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Vincent

Ever open your mouth and be dismayed at the words that come out? Happened to me tonight. Apologies. Ceoil 18:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Ceoil. Yes, I absolutely know how that feels!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wont happen again. And seems well be working together a fair bit in coming months. Big challenge, but we have a good team. Looking forward to it, welcome on board. Ceoil 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil. I'm not looking to get involved in several months work for VvG articles (you may or may not remember that I posted something several weeks or maybe a month ago about dialing down on VvG) - but I was [to start today on the Vincent and family movement stuff (including use of bibliography)]. I'm hurt and I'm reading between the lines that I stepped on toes by diving in. I'll sort out what I'm feeling with an overnight sleep. I'm just surprised that rather than reading what I wrote in response, there was an assumption that I was fighting. That doesn't say great things about the way I was viewed in the VvG work - and I had thought I already was part of the team. It's been a sad day. I truly appreciate your attempts at recovery!!

Carole, firstly make no mistake - you've been greatly appreciated - certainly by me. What happens during the FA process though can be rather difficult; and one needs to be able to deal with criticism fairly well, I know that I need your help there and I know that you will benefit from the process and you will do fine, hang in there...Modernist (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole, firstly Modernist is right about the FAC process. I just re-read the section in the sandbox that I've blanked to see what happened. I was hungry, I had a lot coming at me at once, I wanted to get the sandbox page up, and when you asked if you could start I meant "sure, but we won't be using citation templates." Look I've taken it on the chin with citation templates - had to remove 200 of them from a page & so I was just saying, use the refs tags with author & page number. I was being very brusque and for that I apologize. Ceoil, I know, is tired. It's all cool. Nothing to worry about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone gotten that my question was NOT about templates, what was confusing to me was "this page". I was trying to figure out how to execute that? Put the edits in the talk page of a sandbox? So, I was suggesting that I make the changes in my sandbox and move them over. This is why I'm upset. I'm not feeling criticized, I'm feeling totally and utterly unheard. I have no idea why this blew up the way it did! None!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC) I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just really realy confused.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG - I totally misunderstood! By "this page" I meant the main van Gogh article. You thought I was talking about the sandbox page. Who ever said communication in this manner is easy. And I didn't understand what you meant by execute. So, a misunderstanding all around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

YEAH!!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole I think it's a good idea for you to start up your own work page. It's also a good idea to pay attention to real life concerns first; before doing anything here, what we do here is volunteer our valuable time, knowledge, energy and experience for all of which we should be royally paid, but most of us are not...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

YEAH, we have connection!!! I thought that the short refs had something to do with a problem having refs on a talk page.

Ok, sounds good. Do you mind oking the use of the sandbox page, too TK for the family movement items: 1) that you're ok with the items I said I could help with and 2) that you're ok with using the sandbox? Then I'll start tomorrow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict: Modernist is right - and speaking of all of that, I have to cook dinner now, but will finish reviewing later. Glad we cleared that up! Post edit conflict: Honestly I haven't totally looked over the family stuff you posted because I'm still in trying-to-get-through-the-page-mode. But sounds as though you know what you're doing, so be bold and go ahead and start. We'll all work at different paces on different things and it will all come together. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Here's the link to my sandbox if you'd like to check in from time to time User:CaroleHenson/Vincent van Gogh article workspace with: 1) comments about what needed to be worked, 2) original text (to make it easier to find where to paste new text) and new text. It sounds like this approach (working the Vincent and family movement items in a sandbox) works, so I'll move ahead tomorrow. I'm not making a several month commitment, nor do I want to get immersed, but I'd like to help out where I can to help in the short run.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just found it. Multitasking as usual. It looks good and I've added to my watch. Really have to get into the kitchen now, and then will be back at finishing reading the article tonight. Tomorrow will be less busy for me - unfortunately this was a very busy weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have stuck to my word to think about it after an overnight's sleep - I was just so excited to feel like we were having the same conversation that I commited to getting back into VvG work. These kinds of conversations are difficult for everyone - and it might not seem so, but I know that you all were trying to get to a better place.

I'm going to heed Modernist's advice for the moment and concentrate on some things I need to take care of. It sounds like you all will be working on this for awhile, so I may pop back in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Vincent

Basically the way these things work is that people pop in and out. I'll walk away for a few days and think about how to restructure the biography - it need the most work. See what I've just posted in the sandbox. Anyway, sorry about the firestorm today - welcome to the wacky world of wiki. It gets a little crazy here sometimes and then calms down. One thing I have to say, this is the most beautiful page I've ever seen on this project. It's well worth getting the finest text we can to match Vincent's art. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What you express is similar to what drove me to long nights working on the List of works by Vincent van Gogh and getting articles out there as a reference point of a great number of his paintings -- very much for the same reason as you want to make the biography even better. It may just be that for the moment I've given all I can give to Vincent. We'll see what comes - you do great work - as to Modernist and Ceoili - and I'm sure that the biography will be stellar!

Well, whatever you think is best. You do have the knowledge and it will take me a while to get up to speed, so it'd be nice if you wanted to pick at it. I have to step away because I promised a copyedit to someone else for a Featured List and that will take me a few days. So I won't be back on this until midweek at the earliest. Lots of little jobs to be done as well, if you're interested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I got calm and reflective this afternoon when I asked myself "what was that all about?" A calmness came over me that this was just a step on the path. I've been backing off time-wise and getting more active in my life - and I felt it was kind of like life bonking me on the head saying: Carole, stay true to your priorities - get back on the path. I hope that makes sense.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it makes sense. The thing to remember is to know when to step away and how to pace yourself. The reason Ceoil and I think four months is that it will be a slow three or four months. We're not saying we'll be working non-stop for four months on a single article - that would be madness. We all have other priorities in our lives and stop in here when we have time. Anyway, whatever feels right for you is fine. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen, there's been something going on for awhile where reactions don't seem to be in synch with what I'm writing. Yesterday I had a feeling that there's something going on besides the "templates" or there wouldn't have been such a wild, ongoing misunderstanding and reaction. It seems clear that no one was really reading what I was saying - but reacting and then giving me unfounded lectures. What girl (used loosely, I'm a grandmother, albeit a young one) wants that in her life?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If instead I was told - hey, Carole we'd like to have your help on VvG article, but a couple of things to discuss are: 1) we aren't using Google Book references (here's the link with more information) and 2) we're not using templates for citations in this article, as you'll see if you go into edit mode. Wouldn't that have saved a lot of heartache? That might not be all the underlying issues, but my perception was that there was a lot more going on underneath the surface and that I wasn't really a desired team member. That's just not a dynamic I'm happy to be part of - I'm looking to increase joy in my life. These are rhetorical questions and I don't need an answer back - just trying to be clear.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right; I was rude, overbearing and insensitive. I apologize. The review is there and it's similar to any FAC review I'd do. If it came to FAC as is, I'd oppose. At least you guys have a sense of the issues. I've done two difficult biographies and have had a 50 per cent success/failure rate depending on how you look at it. Both were in my discipline (literature) so I think it's best I leave the art articles to the art people. Sorry again. I'll let Ceoil and Modernist know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for listening with openness, that helps. I am sure that you have to offer - and that you have a thorough approach, if that's not come across, I apologize, too. Much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

TK, if your out I'm out too. rude, overbearing and insensitive? No your weren't, you were helpful, constructive and insightful, and you brough some much needed experience and guidance. I apologied myself, but it had to become a bigger thing than that, and rooted in pride in other articles, which are unreviewed, and not the article we were thinking of working on. Ceoil 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have always seen this as a project by the three of you - so the whole wild understanding yesterday should have no impact on your plans - at least I would hope not. I was talking to you TK because you seemed to be the lead - and seemed to be willing to listen to what was really going on - and that I was feeling it from all sides. It wasn't at all meant to target you specifically at all!!! You are incredible, did an incredible job on the summary and should be commended for that!!!! You all of done such incredible work on the article - and it's to be commended, as well as the incredible work by TK to develop the summary of really going perspectives to use for improving articles. I'm getting that it's harder to accept constuctive criticism from a newbie, Ceoil, and I'll accept that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's one of us whose become very de-motivated to continue this work, I truly hope two don't go down.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It never had to be this way, indeed I apologised last night, an apology now deleted I notice. If you could let it go, it being a non issue, as far as we, who have aoplogied enough are concerned. It was a small thing, can we move on? Ceoil 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (Your apology wasn't deleted, it just got moved to the VvG archive.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I really hope so, and if you would take me at face value, as somebody who said something stupid, instantly regretted it, felt bad and appologised, then saw reams of text and lost his patience, that would mean a lot. TK mentioned earlier that I have a short fuse, and its true. I'm often a crank old bastard, though I tend to cool quickly. You took a hit on that, for sure, and undeservedly, totally. Thats it. It was not intended to devalue all the work you have done as a volunteer for our project. We all in this together, were on the same side, and we have obviously shared taste. Friends? Ceoil 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, friends. Thanks, Ceoil.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You were asking for a reason why I reacted the way I did, and I'll tell you in a round about way. FAC is a tough business; you get so involved in the article, hours, weeks, months invested, that your hugely proud of. You nominate at FAC, and despite thoes hours, weeks months, you can be slipped up on trivial non substantive matters, including puncuation, and can than be tough, but it will happen. That kind of thing doesn't bother me, around long enough, but it bothers some, and from the first reactions to TK's review last night, I got a sence, rightly or wrongly, that it might bother you. Probably wrongly. But I've had some bitter experiences in the past with defensive co-noms[9] as an eg. That was a rough one, and took a lot out of me at the time. That was were I was coming from, for about five minutes, two apolpgies ago! Fair enough? Ceoil 21:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by what your saying and how it's relevant to this situation, but sure fair enough. Rather than prolonging this, I hear your spirit of cooperation and pulling me into that spirit of cooperation, which I greatly appreciate.

How about if we just try and respect one another, and don't respond to messages if there isn't time to really understand what is being said. Rather than assuming the worst, for instance, can you just state the request\direction rather than assuming I'm going to fight about it (e.g., let's not use <br> in the captions of images for "xxx" article, we're not using google books as references, whatever the case may be.) A pledge I am making, too. Would that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For historical info about me, I've written manuals, communication materials that had to be run by 10 different deparments, then a communications department before the work could be published. Department D rewriting the edits Department A made to the original text -- then legal or communications making tons of changes that then had to be run back through all 10 departments again. Then, it goes to the client who makes changes - you guessed it - that all had to be run by all 10 departments, legal and finally communications for final polish. This takes months -- just the review process.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What I said was not exactly obtuse, Carole, and your reply is dissapointing. don't respond to messages if there isn't time to really understand what is being said. Really, you just confirmed what I was worried about, beautifully actually, so we'll let it at that. Anything beyond this would be circular game playing, and I've no interest, should have gone with my gut instinct from the start. Archive this sorry mess please, I have other things to do. Ceoil 22:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WOW, LORD GOD (a spot of humor hopefully for you), surprised once again, Ceoil since my perception is that this all grew out of a huge misunderstanding! I'm guessing that we see this situation very differently, just like politics, religion, etc. - I'll agree to disagree. Sure, ready to stick a fork in it, it's done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carole, I'm putting this here so all involved can read it. Regarding this conversation, I think it's time to move away. You've made it very clear that you're hurt. I'm hurt too - not so much for myself, but for my dear friends Modernist and Ceoil. As editors, I have the highest regard for them; they've helped me immensely during my wiki-career; and I consider them wiki-friends. I'm particularly upset that Ceoil apologized multiple times and his apologies were summarily dismissed.

Regarding your complaints about me and the specific topic of the thread on Sitush's page: I simply asked for sources which you linked. I said gbooks aren't reliable. I did not say you cannot use them. Personally, I prefer not to, because they frustrate me. I'd rather have hardback volumes without disappearing pages. The comment about the refs was a throw-away aside (I've explained and apologized for this multiple times), without realizing it was any kind of an issue. And honestly, it should not be an issue.

I did not intend to take charge or to lead the effort - I made a review. Typically before articles are brought to FAC, they go through multiple stages of review: WP:GAN and peer review. I review at FAC fairly frequently and know how to do a review - this was a way to save time rather than submitting to peer review. I am also hurt that you and Sitush believe I've steamrolled you - that's not all my style.

Clearly we've written more than enough walls of text that causes a WP:Too long; didn't read reaction. Time to move on and let it go. I'd suggest you and Modernist give this a shot. Feel free to use the review as a starting point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I don't think it's helpful or healthy to say any more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series)

The article Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes to the article - good catches! I've only done one other GA article and I don't remember the process for updates/review, but I put comments regarding the updates to the article in the talk page. Please let me know when you have a chance if I have further tweaking I need to do and/or I didn't document the updates correctly. Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seen the outcome. Woo-hoo! Good work. Now, if you can teach me to paint ... - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Sitush!

It's funny, I'm not an artist - but I've been thinking about getting a watercolor set again. Any time I've tried it I haven't liked the results but after reading about the dry brush approach and starting with a sketch, I'm becoming inspired by Van Gogh and Frank Weston Benson (the bearer of my first artwork crush). I think I'm going to start on some of my mandelas, which are a meditative, spiritual practice for me. (I know you're saying right now, "she's not catching the humor and taking me at my word again", but it just triggered a decision I came to today that's fun to share.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, go for it. What ever makes you feel good. Honestly, I cannot do artistic stuff for toffee & cannot sketch a straight line with a ruler. As for looking at it, well, I guess I sort of know what I like but please don't expect me to explain why I like it ... or even ask what it is! Artistic ability is clearly not a genetic thing, given that one of my (recent) ancestors was Sydney ... you know my last name. And, dang!, he does not appear to have an article on WP!

I have a 6 inch brush and a very large can of white paint here. I need advice. And if it is watercolor then I am in trouble because it is intended for exterior display. On a house. That gets a pounding from the wind & rain & airborne sea salt.

Whatever you take up artistically, don't stop doing your stuff here. Hopefully some photos for you from Abergavenny when my situation improves. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems you're always good for a laugh for me! I would love to see photos from Abergavenny!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another GA. I responded to you on my talk page...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC) --CaroleHenson (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vincent

Wheatfield with Crows cropped up on my watchlist today, and my gut reaction was I really want to work on the bio. Our friendship started well, then became a disaster, and likely we will always put each other at the far end of a untrusted stick. But we have have the same interests, and a shared goal, so its pragmatic to put it aside, roll up our sleeves and work together. No way would I approach the article if you were not there, that would just be wrong. I'll give it a try if you will. This not an apology or explanation, its a path forward. Ceoil 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a very gracious invitation, Ceoil! Let me think about it a bit; I've been enjoying writing articles about early Colorado history and Frank Benson that I have several in various stages of completion to wrap up. Either way, I won't be hurt in the least if you work with Modernist, TK and others on Vincent's biography to make it a featured article. You and Modernist did great work on it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot to offer the page. Ceoil 22:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting link [10], TK was wondering if VvG was aware of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay 'Nature' and his other work as well as Walt Whitman's poetry...Modernist (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes very interesting article - and how much better to depict his shift than from his early peasant paintings to Starry Night. I think Van Gogh was well-read of Whitman - it seems to me I read that when I was working on the "Undergrowth" paintings, especially "blade of grass" - but don't remember if I mentioned Whitman in the article. I might search and see.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Found one place: Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)#Nuenen and Paris, 3rd paragraph. But know that I read it about the undergrowth paintings, too - and when discussions of the types of books that he read. (Was one of Whitman's books in the stack of novels in one of his paintings, hmmmm. I don't remember.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that you mentioned Whitman too, but not sure where or when...Modernist (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole, can you do something with the Flowering Orchards section of the bio? I'm going to concetrate on early life, and general sources and prose for a bit, but this is one of my favourite of his series, and is underdeveloped on the page. Developing the 'works' section will be challenging, to keep it tight enough that we can cover all the themes and series without weighing down the page is going to be tough and will need restraint, but as a team we can do it I'm sure. These are in my head at the moment so I'll help you in any way I can, if you are up for it. Ceoil 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's very good to know that you all are moving ahead with the featured article status for the biography! I'm not interested right now in working on the biography article.

I will keep watch for edits made to VvG articles I've written to see if I can carry over some of the edits to other VvG articles I've written (like those from Khazar on Flowering Orchards). And, if you have some questions I might be able to help out with, I'll do what I can. Great work you're doing!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Carole, there's not good way of doing this, so I'll just spit it out. As I've been trying to work my way through the main van Gogh biography, I've been linking into some of the subarticles, which you seem to have written. It's important to for you to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to avoid copyvio. The issue needs to be addressed and all the articles scrubbed. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a wide, sweeping statement. Do you have examples?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It was meant to be done in a friendly manner. If you'd like diffs, I'll can easily get them, but I don't know how productive that would be for you. The better thing to do would be to read the policies. Once I have diffs I can make a CCI report, and honestly, I prefer not to go that route. But will if forced. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you mean about "friendly manner" (or more to the point unfriendly manner). If I understand you correctly, you're asking me to go and rewrite about 40 articles. I'm just trying to get clarity on what the issue is - and what the problem is. I read the info, but there's a lot there and I'm not sure 1) what specificially you think needs done and 2) where you see examples. I'm not in any way trying to force you to do anything - as I'm sure you're not intending to do with me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone is going to be accused of close paraphrasing/copyvios then it does make sense to provide some diffs. Making a CCI report is not obligatory when you find an example of such practices. Your wording, TK, does sound a little threatening here, although I doubt that was the intent. In particular, the procedure for dealing with copyvios etc includes attempting to rescue the situation where possible. Are you saying that in these instances it is not possible? In the context that you use it, "scrubbed" has two meanings over here in the UK: "clean up" or "delete". - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Either the wiki servers are slow where I live, or I'm having internet problems. Pages are loading very slowly at the moment. I will provide diffs; had hoped that Carole would read the policies and understand that verbatim copying, or changing only a few words constitutes copyvio, but will spend the time making spotchecks & giving specific examples. Scrubbed = clean up. Though CCI often deletes. Depends on the severity & honestly I haven't looked that carefully. This will take time & can't be done until the slow internet connection/ server issue is resolved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No hurry. I did read the policies - and I don't think that I do verbatim copying - that's why I'm looking for examples. It's just a surprise because it's never come up before, even in reviews for DYKs or Good articles. But I'm not saying it's not the case, I'm just looking for some examples. From what you've said, it seems like you're stumbling upon them as you're working on the biography. So, if when you're working on the VvG biography you stumble upon them you'd give me some examples, then hopefully that won't be too much work for you - and we'll get some examples I can work with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples. These are only spot-checks, a single example from only a few pages:

VVG1 Van Gogh's family in his art

Johannes van Gogh, who was a gold-wire drawer, a Bible teacher and a clerk in the Cloister Church at The Hague. His great-uncle Vincent, an accomplished sculptor who died a single man, left money to the family which allowed Vincent to study theology at the University of Leiden.

Source: [11]:

Johannes was at first a gold-wire drawer like his father, but he later became a Bible teacher and a clerk in the Cloister Church at The Hague. He married Johanna van der Vin of Malines, and their son Vincent (1789 -1874) was enabled, by the legacy of his great-uncle Vincent, to study theology at the University of Leiden

source: [12]:

(1) Text from source: Johannes was at first a gold-wire drawer like his father, but he later became a Bible teacher and a clerk in the Cloister Church at The Hague.

Issue. I can see that this might be a problem. Do you have a solution for rewording that might not cause any copyright issues (so that I can better understand how to approach cases were info is extrapolated from a sentence)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I now see that part of this might be order, which is a little tricky cause it's a chron order. Does it help to reword the titles of his vocation - and break them into three sentences (they were in two sentences in the original)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(2) Text from source: Vincent (1729-1802), was a sculptor by profession, and was said to have been in Paris in his youth; in 1749 he was one of the Cent Suisses. With him the practice of art seems to have come into the family, together with fortune... He married Johanna van der Vin of Malines, and their son Vincent (1789 -1874) was enabled, by the legacy of his great-uncle Vincent, to study theology at the University of Leiden.

Non-Issue? I'm not sure how there's an issue here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't an issue. But I am not sure that TK thought that there was. This is where the refactoring has made things a trifle tricky. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have just worked out the refactoring non-issue. It confused me at first. I now see that you have left TK's original message above. As far as this second "slice"goes, which you have number as "2", the only obvious issue is using the exact same words "to study theology at the UofL". This is pretty minor but if TK feels strongly about it then I would like to see how it could be better worded - short, factual statements are difficult to reword other than by changing the actual order of the words. But maybe, eg: he went to the University of Leiden, where he was able to study theology as a consequence of a legacy left to the family by his great-uncle Vincent,a sculptor who had never married." - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not add the piece Carole has labeled number 2. This is the reason I've asked for the refactoring to stop. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

He knows that. Were you going to take a break so we can work on this. You likely saw that I changed the way we approach working this to suit your preference. We'll get there with calm heads - just give us a bit of time to work on it please! I was just about to make an edit when I got interupted again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush is making assumptions about me about things he thinks I've added that I haven't, because of the refactoring. If you don't read the copyvio link that I provided and you deleted then it's impossible to understand the issues, particularly about order. But this has reached the point of splitting hairs, when the issue is really much bigger. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I like it!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, everyone. The refactoring didn't help but we'll live with it & CH knows for next time. It is too far down the road to rollback. Jiggling about with a sentence is one thing, Carole, but the wider point that TK is making is that these are just examples. The concern is that there may be more in the articles than have been picked up. Got to take my dog for his walkies. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be this hard!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, yes, it does have to be this hard. I tried to fix an article earlier and you reverted the edits, but these issues are a pet peeve for me, and considering the prominence of the artist and the number of readers to the page, very worrying. I will make a few edits to show you how it should be done, but then each page will have to be scrubbed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

VVG2Also from Van Gogh's family in his art

Theodorus van Gogh was a handsome man with a loving nature and spiritually devout. He was not a great speaker and throughout his career he was placed only in small villages, but was cared for and respected by the communities he served and "idolized" by his children.[2]

Theodorus van Gogh was a man of prepossessing appearance (“the handsome dominie” he was called by some), with a loving nature and fine spiritual qualities; but he was not a gifted preacher ... But in his small circle he was warmly loved and respected, and his children idolized him.

Non Issue? I don't see how this is an issue. Can you help me out? Is it that I put "idolized" in quotes?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are pretty much following the order that things are written in the source. "His family, and others who were well acquainted with van Gogh, had much admiration for him. His abilities as a preacher were limited and his career consisted of placements only to small villages, but he was nonetheless a devout man." I would have to look up "prepossessing" as I cannot for the life of me think of its precise meaning right now; however, as it appears to be a compliment then I can safely assure you that I, too, have a prepossessing appearance! - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

VVG3Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series). Note, I fixed this one [13]

van Gogh, who particularly enjoyed Walt Whitman's poem about beauty to be found in a blade of grass, began painting swaying stalks of wheat in Paris.

Source [14]

Van Gogh ... particularly admired a poem about the beauty in a blade of grass. He started painting grasses in Paris

In the article on June 22, 10:51:

Van Gogh, who particularly enjoyed Walt Whitman's poem about beauty to be found in a blade of grass, began painting swaying stalks of wheat in Paris.

In the article on June 22, 12:31:

Van Gogh, who "particularly admired a poem by Walt Whitman about beauty to be found in a blade of grass", began painting swaying stalks of wheat in Paris.

In the source:

While institutionalized, van Gogh read a great deal and particularly admired a poem written by Walt Whitman about the beauty in a blade of grass. He started painting grasses in Paris, notably wheat fields, their swaying leaf blades expressing movement and energy. At Saint-Remy he painted close-ups of wild sedges and oat grasses…

Question If you're going to take a direct quote (which makes sense), should it say "particularly admired a poem written by Walt Whitman about the beauty in a blade of grass" to be exact? That seems a no-brainer, I'll go make that fix. Thanks for catching it to begin with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Anasazi Heritage Center

The Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau, which consists of southern Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and southwest Colorado, was the homeland of ancient Pueblo, or villager, people. By 1300 AD there had been a shift to the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico and the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona. Anasazi is a term commonly used since its publication in the 1930s. The Navajo word does not represent specific tribes but means enemy or outsider. It is therefore disliked by the modern Pueblo people who have oral histories about the ancient people, make pilgrimages to ancient sites and maintain shrines in the Four Corners region.[2]

Source: [15]

The ancestral Puebloan homeland was centered in the Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau-- southern Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and a lesser section of Colorado-- where their occupation lasted until 1280 or so. By 1300 AD the population centers had shifted south to the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico and the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona, where related people had already been living for centuries... Modern Pueblo people dislike the name "Anasazi" which they consider an ethnic slur. This Navajo word means ancient enemy (or old-time stranger, alien, foreigner, outsider) although it has been in common use for about about 70 years.

Frances Wisebart Jacobs

On April 19, 1863 a fire swept through their Denver store, causing significant damage. The Wisebart Central City store also succumbed to fire with $50,000 in damages. The Jacobs then moved to Denver and Abraham Jacobs ran his O.K. Clothing store on Larimer Street until it went out of business in 1885. The same year, one of Frances and Abrahams' sons died.[3]

Source: page 38-39

First the "great fire" swept through Denver's business district on April 19, 1863 and did serious damage to his Denver store. Then a fire in Central City destroyed the Wisebart store, hitting the owners with a $50,000 loss. Within a year, the Jacobs family moved to Denver where Abraham also owned the OK Clothing Store on Larimer Street. But in 1885, this store went out of business. In a final blow, one of Abraham and Frances' sons died.

Owl Woman

Bent provided gifts to everyone in the village, which included horses, saddles and bridles; blankets and cloth; guns, kettles, beads and silver ornaments.[6]

Source: page 165- 166

William's task as groom was to distribute gifts ... He gave horses, guns, kettles, silver ornaments, beads, cloth blankets, saddles and bridles

Frank Weston Benson:

Each of the Benson children was given a weekly allowance, allowing them to independently explore activities of an educational nature.

Source: [16]

Each of them had a toolbox and a weekly allowance, to be spent on "things of an educational or experimental nature

I'm happy to explain why these are considere close paraphrases which we avoid because of copyvio issues. What specifically didn't you understand in the links I posted above? I am more than happy to clarify. The choices are to delete, to reword in such a way to avoid a close paraphrase (often exceedingly difficult), or to add attribution to the author and quotation marks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

VvG Family art

I was happy with where the edits got to for the Van Gogh's family in his art article - and I'm sure if you thought it was important to add Cent Suisse there was a reason for it (e.g., showed a bit more about his make-up, prestige to become part of that group, etc.) We come from two different perspectives some times, and I thought we got to a good end result. If you're happy with reverting back, though, I'll roll with it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring

Carole, I spent two hours putting together the examples you requested and formatting them. Per talkpage guidelines can you please not refactor my comments, so it's easy to see what's what. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what refactoring means, but I pasted your response in it's entirety, while keeping the breakdown for review (just like eating an elephant, it's helpful to do it a bite at a time - way too much to deal with at once.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of separating my comments, in other words, editing them, leave as they were & respond in a separate edit. Otherwise it's impossible to see the original edit. I posted in a single edit which has now been separated into multiple pieces. This, and this changes the original edit considerably. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit what you typed and pasted back in from history your response before I put it into sections. To help keep track, I numbered the items. If we could get Van Gogh squared away first, that would be great.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless to argue whether you edited or not; it's not the same as it was and examples I haven't added have been. So, whatever. In terms of whether it's an issue or not - I would not be posting anything that's not an issue. Everything I posted in my original edit is an issue. The thing to do is to read the policies I posted above and to follow the advice I gave earlier - either delete, rephrase (very difficult), attribute and add quotation marks. The policy of copyvio is particularly helpful. Do you still have it? I'm having difficulty following the many changes on the pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, I just needed to make some headway. I'm done with my edits to the Van Gogh diffs now. The only Van Gogh one I am sure is an issue is #Review VVG1: Van Gogh's family in his art 1 - the first sentence. Do you mind helping me out with that out?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole, I'm saying this one more time, and then logging out of Wikipedia. It's very important to take this slowly and to familiarize yourself with the policies. I've taken a single example from only a few articles (2 examples for one article). This is called spot-checking. In other words, each article has to be looked at slowly and rewritten if necessary. Sitush is right in his/her answer above - using the order of the source constitutes close paraphrasing and copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

TK, I think that sounds like a great idea - let me work with this with Sitush for awhile. I've got to now figure out where edits were made to what I put in there. I don't remember reading in the policy anything about order -- I think it's working through examples that really helps me the most - which Sitush has graciously stepped in to help with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

TK, definitely a "he" - that's why my temper sometimes gets the better of me, sorry ;) Carole, this is tricky stuff and I think that everyone gets it wrong from time to time. There are indeed some circumstances, particularly regarding the order of wording, where it is nigh on impossible to approach things from another angle. In these cases, Moonriddengirl once told me, just go for it. An example would be where you a presenting a potted history. Since histories only ever work as in themed or chronological order, and since themed is a rare case, it is next to impossible to avoid following the overall structure of a source. However, you can break things up by incorporating several sources, sometimes even in a single sentence. In the ideal world, yes, you read up, walk away, cogitate, come back and write without looking at the source material. In practice, especially if you have the sort of memory that I have, even doing that may not avoid close paraphrasing because entire phrases stick in my head. You'll have to bear in mind with these specific VvG examples, I know nowt about VvG and am not about to start reading umpteen sources, but I'll do what I can. It is particularly awkward when working with short snippets. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I seriously cannot believe that Moonriddengirl told you to follow the source and gave you permission for close paraphrasing. I follow the ideal you've defined above and I've spent about 8 months cleaning/scrubbing close paraphrasing / copyvio / plagiarism issues. Sweeping it under the table is not a good idea. If I easily found an example from every single article I looked and Carole herself admits to creating 40 articles, then the problem is widespread and needs to be dealt with. Or reported to CCI. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

She did. It was a particularly awkward situation, though. It may even have been an alphabetised list of some sort, but I honestly cannot recall the detail and am not about to go hunting for it. Generally, you and I agree on the method etc. We are in a very small minority. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alphabetized lists are different. Because so many sources exist on VvG, having a Wikipedia page essentially mirror the material on the Van Gogh musuem is extremely problematic. This is a case where synthesis is not only desireable, but necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush my impression is that you would forgive anything of Carloe, are biased, and not creditable. I'm not basing that openion on this conversation, revealing as it is, but its a general impression. Ceoil 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my are you kidding? He's the only one that's really told me what's wrong. Can we please stop this - go take a break and let me make some headway? Or do you really prefer that I not succeed in trying to work through this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP and let me make some headway - and no personal attacks or I am totally done with this conversation!!! WP:Civility--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP and let me make some headway. This is the last time I ask.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Its your problem not ours, and your now trying to shoot the messanger. In CAPS. Ceoil 21:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole getting upset and rushing is not the solution. First you need to understand the issue, and I'm not seeing that you are. In fact I spent a great deal of time showing you what you were doing wrong, and honestly you haven't a clue how big of a favor I'm doing here, so don't say Sitush is the only one to help. That's not at all true. But I'm thinking the best thing is to make a CCI report and let them deal with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

TK, I'm not upset, I'm done. You don't like that it reallly helps me to work through examples, you don't seem to like that I've said I've been reading the info but not getting it, and it seems you want to circumvent someone who's trying to help me understand, and you don't seem to like that I'm taking a stab at rewording items for you to look at when you're a little calmer. I've brought this issue up to the Visual Arts Wikiproject and will await a response, because I would like to get it resolved with someone who can keep a cool head.

I'm sorry that you're upset about reversion of edits - I can't remember a time I've done a complete reversion, but something obviously stung with you. I always put in a reason and I never re-edit edits that are accurate and clear.--21:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a second opinion. I had fixed the Wheat field page days ago [17] and obviously made a mistake, but I indicated that it had been fixed in my now refactored post. Anyway, I'll leave you to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Review your VvG articles as well, at your own pace, and re-write what you can...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I contemplate the days events what comes up for me is most of your VvG work (which I gave you barnstars for) should be viewed by you as starts - as most of them are. My best advice to you now is please don't start anything new, but go back over your work and improve those articles as much as you can...Modernist (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I responded via email.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Carole, responding to your email here. I don't always check my wiki email and didn't find it until the next day - at that point wanted to let the dust settle. I'm a little confused in that you think I my comments were appreciated, which is not how I perceived it here, but thanks anyway. I'd like to start working my way through Van Gogh's family in his art to set up for the main biography, but I'm sure you've seen my message on Modernist's page. If he prefers I stay away from VvG and if I'm perceived as creating unnecessary drama, then it's best I find something else to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi TK. Again, I'm not sure what I can do to help. If you cannot see that it was taken very seriously: 1) I stopped the work I was doing on another article, 2) Was working on addressing the examples to learn specifically what was wrong and what I needed to do to fix it, 3) Created a workpage to manage this as a project, and 4) Have since spent about 98% of my WP time since working on close paraphrasing, including additions to the close paraphrasing article to help other newbies in the future -- if none of that shows how seriously your concerns were taken, I'm really not sure what would.

That's why I think it's so unproductive for us to work together. The cavalry arrived, we circled, and efforts diverted to address your very valid concern. It must be so hard for you to not see when there is not only agreement but a significant rallying of effort to address what you bring up. For that I feel truly sorry, not that I'm responsible for it - but how hard that must be for you to think people are ignoring your concern when it is totally the reverse. I felt hurt for you when you felt that you needed to explain your background and what you had to offer - that was NEVER in question.

No, I didn't see your comment on Modernist's page - nor will I. I really don't have anything more to say, TK, because there's some sort of personal issue with me and it's very clear that our ongoing communication is not productive or profitable. I put this in email because I didn't want people swarming in response. Please understand that I am truly done with any work with you, it's just too hard and painful. I feel bad about how upset I got at the end, shouting to be left alone to work the issue - I should have just stepped away, let things cool down, when I realized that you just weren't ready for me to work on it. I apologize for that - stepping away, although would not have changed my ultimate decision would have at least cooled down some of the drama.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'll step away from anything to do with Vincent van Gogh. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you think is right for you. Just to be clear, though, I intended to back away from Van Gogh (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Van Gogh steam May 22) before any of the dramatic events transpired with you and Ceoil. And, never had an intention to spend "months" on the VvG biography - I was just going to help out with some of the items as a minor way to pay back Modernist for all his help along the way, never as a commitment to become back involved in VvG in any significant way.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole, you're confusing me. I'm politely asking if you'd mind if I work on an article you started. What I'm hearing from you is it that I can't see that you took my suggestions seriously, it's unproductive for us to work together, you emailed a response instead of putting it in a talkpage so no one else could respond but myself, you're done working with me, I think you're saying you feel sorry for me, and that I and Ceoil cause drama. So let me try again before I decided to go to the library: do you mind if I work on the article you started? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually nevermind. I'll return the books. I'm sure wikipedia doesn't really need a good van Gogh page anyway. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I had wanted to offer help in the copyvio cleanup, but... Anyway, you should know the examples I gave were only spotchecks, so each article needs to be thoroughly checked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been ignoring you, I had some daily life issues to work on and haven't read this until now.

I'm confused myself. I didn't realize that you needed a response from me about working on the VvG articles I wrote. You didn't want Sitush and I to work on them. As mentioned on Moonriddengirl's page, since that was an issue with you, we started with non-VvG issues. I never said that working through the examples would solve the entire problem - I'm not sure what gave you that idea that anyone thought working through the examples would solve the whole situation - which you'd see if you noticed the work on Owl Woman and my self-review and edits to Anasazi Heritage Center. I said I'm done with VvG because there seems to be such a huge communication issue between the two of us and with Ceoil - and have removed my VvG articles from my watchlist. Whatever you'd like to do there is fine with me.

It's such a shame that you continually assume that we have different goals and that I don't want good end products or am in opposition to the higher guidelines and strategy of Wikipedia. I now know I shouldn't, but in the past I took it as a personal slam everytime you make a comment like that.

What specifically do you need from me so that you can move on?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that you shouldn't be scrubbing the VvG articles. I said Sitush is involved - in other words he's your friend - and sometimes it's good to have another set of eyes look at things. That's what I meant. I also didn't say you were ignoring me. I haven't been following your edits so haven't a clue where you're at, though did notice that you posted something for Moonriddengirl about writing a page. Haven't looked at it though. I'm assuming your writing a how-to for these situations, or something like that. Anyway, everyone is very upset, and I apologize for becoming involved with Vincent van Gogh. I did make some headway today on the page I linked above (and there are problems to be resolved) but everyone is so angry with me that I decided to revert. I'll let you guys figure out whatever needs to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand that my relationship with Sitush is that he's more of a mentor to me - something I believe he's tried to explain as well - and that he has a strong goal, like you do to make Wikipedia be the best that it can be. Nor, do I think you realize the number of times he's supported your points. The only exception I can think of is use of reference templates. Clearly on the "close paraphrasing" items he's totally, and rightly, supported your points that the close paraphrasing concerns needed to be resolved. I think he's stepped in sometimes as a gentleman who felt that there were calmer, more productive ways to communicate to one of his "duckling" contributors, something he's only done for me on contentious VvG discussions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I ONLY added this point to help you understand that sometimes taking a deep breath, you might understand that you have more support than you realize. It's like the lady waiting on the top of her house in a flood turning away every manned boats attempts to rescue her - as she calls out to God asking, God why won't you help me? God yells back, "Lady would you just get in one of the boats?" (I'm a Buddhist, albiet a little tightly wound on occassion, but still like the story)--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll find this helpful - it's likely something you already know, but I thought I'd put it out there in the event something here might be helpful:

• What's my goal or desired end result?
• What can I do to help someone understand the issue and what is required?
• How can I encourage them?
• Is there movement towards the goal (whether it's taking a path I envisioned or another path)?
• Is my interaction helping ensure success?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not know Sitush was your mentor. If you want to see me as a screaming lady, fine. My goal was to bring attention to problems in your editing that are serious. You asked for examples, I provided them. You then quickly moved things around on the page, making it extremely difficult to follow the post with the examples, deleted the offers of explanation and didn't respond to them, and brought in another person who accused me of assuming bad faith. You have a lot of edits and have created many articles; at some point you need to stop referring to yourself as a newbie, because you aren't. There's a point at which familiarizing yourself with policy is a good idea and that is my goal. We use talkpages here to work out issues, and when I've brought up an issue with you, twice now, and quite politely, you've become very defensive. The reality is that this is an encyclcopedia anyone can edit, and I can change any of your pages without first giving you the courtesy of discussing. From this I too have learned a lesson. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not CH's mentor in the formal WP sense of that word, but she might consider me to be in the wider, worldly sense. Mind you, if I were merely a friend, as you keep saying, then there would be no harm in that: you specifically said that Ceoil jumped in recently to "protect you" as a friend. No big deal. Refactoring was an admitted mistake based on ignorance of the systems. We all learn by osmosis/example as well as by reading rule books; some of us learn better from one or other of those methods. Generally I have agreed with your points but you seem unwilling to acknowledge this. CH is not stopping you from editing pages - just do it. Beyond that, I'll just say what I've said previously: it might be best if you just avoid each other except when there is a clear policy/guideline issue. I see no new such issues in this recent thread: it merely covers old ground. You will note that with one brief, exceptional and conciliatory message some weeks ago, I have never strayed on to the talk page of either you (TK) or Ceoil. If I can manage this, with a temper such as I have, then hopefully others can also. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm moving this to archive. It's non-productive and there's obviously nothing here that is of benefit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)