User talk:Vexations/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vexations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Hot Jar

What is promotional about the Hotjar page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot333 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Tanya Talaga

Thanks for creating reviewing the page I created for Tanya Talaga. I've added in new citations based on your feedback. Thanks again for your help. - Archkris (talk)

Duchamp works

Greetings Vexations. Please read WP:NFC#CS and Wikipedia:Non-free content more generally. The images you uploaded are not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. They should not be included in a List of works by Marcel Duchamp article. Coldcreation (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Coldceation Sorry if I missed something. I honestly thought I'd met all 10 criteria from WP:NFCCP. I could add a separate non-free rationale for use in the list? Contextual significance seems applicable. If I ever get around to writing about the three King and Queen surrounded/traversed paintings for example, it's almost impossible to tell them apart without an image. Vexations (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Vexations,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Vexations. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welkom terug :-)

--Gyanda (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Gyanda, thanks. I've taken a little break to work on articles about every work that is in de ou par Marcel Duchamp ou Rrose Selavy, the so-called Boîte-en-valise. There are about a lot of them, so that will keep me busy for a while. It seems that the outcome of the wishlist survey looks positive for the folks at NPP, so I may return to reviewing once I'm on track to add more than 60 articles to the unreviewed queue. Vexations (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm really happy that you are back, and boy, you have got yourself a lot of work! I enjoy reading! Thanks! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: Map

I was actually wondering if anyone knew who makes the maps, and if they could find or make a map with the exact dimensions and quality of the one here, but with country subdivisions. I'd settle for one that is at least the same size so the countries don't get warped when I'm trying to fit them over the place of their previous incarnation. Am I making sense? I'm making a map for alternate and future histories if that makes sense.

--Abbazorkzog (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit, nevermind found what I was looking for. Thanks truly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbazorkzog (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Growth team updates #4

Welcome to the fourth newsletter for the new Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

We need your feedback!

We have two requests for community members:

Now that data is coming in for the welcome survey, we are planning how to use that data to personalize the newcomer's first day. See our current thoughts here, and join the conversation here.
Try out the help panel's interactive prototype, and read about how we're planning to roll it out, and post any thoughts or reactions here.

Two Growth team projects have been deployed (detailed updates here)

Personalized first day (welcome survey) was deployed on November 20 on both Czech and Korean Wikipedias.
- The survey is now being shown to half of new users (A/B test). Responses are being recorded in the database. We'll report on initial results during December.
- We are planning to test a second version of the survey, called "Variation C", which we think will maximize the number of users who complete the survey and stay on the wiki.
- The original objective of this project was to give newcomers the materials they need to achieve their goals, and so now we are currently planning how we will use the information collected in the welcome survey to personalize the newcomer's experience. We hope community members will read our current thinking and join the conversation here. Some of the plans we are considering include:
  - Making it easy for newcomers to see editing activity around the topic areas in which they indicated that they're interested.
  - Connecting interested newcomers to experienced editors.
  - Surfacing the help content most relevant to the reason for which the newcomers created their accounts.

Understanding first day (EditorJourney) was deployed on November 15 on both Czech and Korean Wikipedias. It has been done after a longer security review and final testing than expected. Data is now being recorded for all new users on those wikis, and we've been auditing the data and preparing to make initial reports during December. Stay tuned for the next newsletter!

Help panel is under construction

Focus on help desk (help panel) is planned to be deployed during the week of January 7 on both Czech and Korean Wikipedias.
This interactive prototype is the best way to see the design and wording in the feature.
We ran live user tests on the prototype, with results posted here.
In addition to giving the ability to ask a question, the help panel will also contain a set of links to existing help content. Our ambassadors on Czech and Korean Wikipedias are determining the right initial set of most helpful links in this task.
We encourage community members to try out the prototype and read about the rules for who will get the feature, and add any thoughts to this discussion.

We are still looking for volunteers

Do you want to participate to our experiments? We are looking for new communities to work with us (especially a new mid-size wiki), and people to become ambassadors to help us to communicate with the different communities. Discover how you can involve yourself or your community.

Also, please share this update with your community and interested people!

Learn more about us

You can visit our team page to find out why our team was formed and how we are thinking about new editors, and our project updates page for detailed updates on the projects we work on.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 09:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC) • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Vexations,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
- If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not your lab rat!

Hi, Vexations. Thank you for creating the opt-out userbox. I have made a small adjustment to it so it says "This editor..." rather than "This user...". I think "editor" better conveys the humanity and agency of the writers of Wikipedia, and the word "user" has always been a somewhat dehumanising abstraction and unintentional dismissal of human beings since engineers started using it in the middle of the last century. — O'Dea (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have formally proposed that userboxes be called editor boxes in future. — O'Dea (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

O'Dea, thanks for that. I agree. Editors are humans. That is especially important in the context of human subject studies. I haven't started using the template myself, pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Opt-out. I'm not quite settled on the wording, so I hope you'll keep that in mind while using the template.

Here's what I'm thinking: Interventional human subject research should be banned outright, including breaching experiments and all kinds of covert or deceptive research. If we can't get consensus to ban it, we need a way to opt-out that researchers are required to follow. Ideally, that would be a way that does not require editors to draw attention to themselves, and opt-in is preferable to opt-out. There are a number of ways in which an involuntary participant can withdraw from a study. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to formulate a protocol (policy) that covers that. A preference setting with a default of no consent to participate in research would be much better than a template that signals that an editor declines to participate in a study. Vexations (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a default of no consent is the obvious best option. Modern digital people are beset on all sides by entities destroying our privacy and benefitting without proper consent from our online activity. — O'Dea (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have thrown in my two cents' worth: Manipulated Wikipedian behaviour cannot produce neutral science. — O'Dea (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This might interest you

I've been doing some digging around. The professor who was in charge of the study, Robert Kraut (who has now withdrawn the research), has apparently done multiple research studies on Wikipedia in the past. This is an article that was just published today on the Carnegie Mellon University website: [1].--WaltCip (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WaltCip, thanks. I think it was right to withdraw the study. Perhaps more for the flaws in its design than for the reasons given. I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a response to how the researchers planned to deal with subjects who did not want to participate, and frankly mystified why they don't want to do an observational study.

Once you start looking into some of these studies, something that really struck me is how badly they are done. On the surface, they appear to have use all the right methods, but if you look into that study by Restivo, and you notice that he's given barnstars to about 15 users who were either already banned or got banned soon after, you begin to wonder if they actually care about the quality of the data they use or if using Wikipedia is just a ruse to get shoddy research published because nobody will question the quality of the data if everything is just out in the open. Vexations (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben Wilson

Thanks very much for this. I didn't know it would work with imprecise dates. Very neat! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, you're very welcome. Vexations (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Galerie Greta Meert

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Galerie Greta Meert.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Stettheimer

Vexations - I have just transferred my sandbox text on Florine Stettheimer to the actual entry page - I have a big favor to ask...before anyone edits it would you please be so kind and to add the Cathedral pictures and fix the few additional footnotes I added as expertly as you did before for me? I would be very grateful!!! I hope it will then be acceptable to any editors who read it - no one stopped me as I was re-editing it...(Please also check the "sources" and "notes" as I am not sure I got the format right!) I hope this doesn't take too much time for you, but you've been terrific and I hope you'll help with this last request.) THANKS!!!! Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 27 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink when you copy something from one page to another, please make sure to click on either the Edit or Edit source tab of both pages, not just one, or copying won't work; you'll break the citations and the images. I'm still working through reading the sources, so I'm holding off on commenting on the content of the article for now. Thanks for your patience. Vexations (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored an earlier version (with images and stuff), and commented on the talkpage, assume you are both watching that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I cannot believe, and as you will see on the Stettheimer talk page, would like you to give me Specific Reasons why on earth you would "restore the earlier version" of the lies and sources repeating completely untrue information, and take out the primary source information that I replaced and far more comprehensive truthful information based on facts taken from the artists actual diaries, letters and primary sources rather than untruths and exaggerations from an unreliable sources that have been repeated over the years? It is unconscionable that once again you have done this despite hours and ours of discussions on this - particularly your taking away my many additions of the primary source materials and its locations, additional monographs, theses, solo exhibitions and books on the artist!!! What possible reason in the entire world would you do this? That is not "editing" to take OFF source materials that are clearly stating the artist's name and include source materials in rare book libraries! Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink, this has nothing to do with the content of what you've written, but with your lack of skill in formatting a Wikipedia entry correctly. When you copy and paste material in the way you do, you create so much work for other editors to clean up after you that it's easier to undo your work and re-do it correctly, rather than trying to fix the errors you have introduced. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's just the way it is. Either you need to learn how to do it correctly, or rely on others to do it for you. I'm willing to help, but strongly prefer a step-by-step approach. I want to take my time reading the sources. I am not quite ready to remove the existing references, unless they are demonstrably unreliable and I will not insert unsourced sections. I assume that your issue is primarily with Parker Tyler's biography. That's fine, we can perhaps clarify why he should not be relied upon. Vexations (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for coming across as a bit of an asshole, but Vexations echoes my thinking. This [2] was how the article looked, and restoring an earlier version was a no-brainer. The inline citations were almost completely messed up, the citations section and the images were gone etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Btw, here [3] (p115) is a little interesting criticism on Tyler. He may deserve a sentence or two in the article (Legacy, perhaps). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Vexations If your statement about "good enough" was only about the fact that I was ignorant about how to do citations, please as I keep requesting help with doing those, kindly assist in correcting those as Vexations you so kindly did initially, and RETURN my Content to the Stettheimer Entry!!!!! instead of erasing it (AND my sources!!! which are far more comprehensive and you Eliminated them for no reason! OR give me specific reasons Why you erased my content!.

Sang: I DID include a citation to Parker Tyler if you would bother to look at my content instead of erasing it!!!!! and DID include him on one of my Sources!!! He wrote a number of books based on his expertise as a music and film critic and knowledge of other areas BUT in his book on Stettheimer he actually admitted in the text that as he did not know Stettheimer he "exaggerated and made up" a number of things he said about her such as she "wanted her paintings buried with her" which remains in the current Stettheimer entry which you insist on leaving and erasing my correct, factual (based on her will which I have seen!)!!!! Why the hell do you keep erasing my factually based on primary sources and my actual Interviews with her family members and friends who Knew her information?? I need to have specific reasons why you keep erasing all my comprehensive content please? Can't you please instead just assist me in correcting the incorrect citations and placing the relevant, important images as Vexations so kindly did in the Sandbox content? That was Factually Correct, has ALL the realiable and primary sources and was comprehensive and truthful for anyone wanting all the source information on Stettheimer - AND Vexations did a beautiful and "Correct" and "good enough" for WIkipedia job! ???????Barbarabloemink (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBLoemink January 31 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink, I'm going to try something to get the Stettheimer page in shape. Bear with me please. It would be very helpful if you could provide answers to questions I have and add two sections; Collections and Exhibitions. I will add those to the draft in your sandbox, and show you an example of how they should look.

I also have some questions about Stettheimer's early life. For example; The school that Sofie von Prieser operated, the "Lehr- und Erziehungsanstalt für Mädchen" was a boarding school for girls from 6–15 years old. Do you know when she attended the school? My understanding is that the family broke up in 1906, and that's when they moved to Europe, until their return to the US in 1914. The years prior to 1906 are a bit murky: They spent 1887,-88 and 89 in Berlin, I suppose after completing the "Prieserei" in Stuttgart from 1881? to 1886?. (this is all just conjecture) Do you know more about her education? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Vexations Let me answer your questions first. No, the family went to Europe much earlier. Rosetta moved the family to Stuttgart, Germany where they lived with relatives from 1881-1886, when Stettheimer was from 10-15 years and those are the years she attended the Prisersches Institute - the source for this is Karin Althaus and Susanne Boller's Florine Stettheimer Retrospective at the Lenbachhaus Museum in 2015, p. 14 who actually looked up the records at the school - one of the many "sources" the current entry leaves out! Prior to that she had private tutoring and there are actual small playing cards she drew that are very funny drawings she made as a small child of perhaps 6-8 that are in the Butler Columbia Rare Book and Manuscript Library (another source left out in the current entry) that show how precocious an artist she was. The family moved to Berlin from 1887-9 (at least - they may have lived there much longer as their "base" as they always made their European base in Germany for part of the year as they traveled from there until 1914 to France, Italy, Spain, visiting art museums, theaters, galleries, Cathedrals, and various family members. Sometime in the early 1890s, the eldest two children, Stella and Walter, who were much older than the younger three sisters, marry and move to California where they live for the next decades. The problem is that Stettheimer only kept diaries sporadically with dates, and her sister Ettie cut huge chunks out of Florine's diaries after her death so enormous amounts of information are now missing. We do know that from 1892-1895 Stettheimer stayed in New York to attend the Art Students' League and then after she graduated, she returned to spend at least half of each year traveling with her two sisters and mother throughout Europe. The remainder of Stettheimer's "education" came from her close study of all the Old Master paintings in the major European museums, and her introduction to European modernist painters: Van Gogh, Cezanne, the Impressionists, Pointillism, the Cubists, Matisse, a few years before these artists and their work were seen in the US.

When you say "get the Stettheimer page in shape" what do you mean? Are you going to put back all the extensive information that I spent 2 hours putting in about her life and work? And all the sources and footnotes that are factual and truthful and take out all the ones that I eliminated that are lies that a number of sources keep repeating over the years by using a source that admitted: "he exaggerated and made up information?" Or are you simply going to fix some of the incorrect citation format on my sandbox??? If it is the former, it doesn't matter how long it takes, I will, (and those who are interested in learning about Stettheimer and looking for truthful information about her will be forever grateful! Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 1 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink, I am going to look at each section of the currently published Florine Stettheimer, and replace, remove or fix incorrect information, and substitute it with the content from your User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox. I don't want to remove any sources that I think are viable, but I do want to replace them with better ones where needed and possible. For example; the Venetian Red source should be replaced with your book, which it refers to. To prevent my edits from being reverted, I want to be careful not to remove too much at once. That makes it easier for other editors to follow what I'm doing. Vexations (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Vexations Thank you! However, there is a lot of mistaken information and I am not sure you know what all of that is..therefore, Here are some Major example of false information in the currently published entry:

–Rosetta Stettheimer did NOT "adopt an "epicurian way of life" (i.e. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention." see Wikipedia entry). I have no idea where the writer got that from but it makes no sense and has nothing to do with the Stettheimers.

–What does saying they lived a life oriented to "artistic pleasure and work" mean??: the women traveled as well as attending school, theatrical performances, art museums, churches, all part of their cultural education. None of them "worked" and, like much of the writing in the current entry, the sentence has no meaning or reason for being there!

–Nor were the Stettheimer's "known as The Stetties" except as mentioned once in one article, but not referred to as such by any of their close friends!

–The Britannica entry on Stettheimer is Not a reliable source and it even has Stettheimer's birth date wrong! so it should not be used as a source on her life. –The current entry also states that Stettheimer studied at the Art Students' League for 3 years instead of 4.

–What does the word "polyglot" or "translator/linguist" have to do with their salons since there were none among the participants?

–Also, Stettheimer continued to hold Salons in her studio through the 1940s so the entry stating until 1935 is incorrect. The Salons included musicians, dancers, artists, collectors, actors, singers and not just "literati and European expatriates."!!!

–One of the most bizarre Lies is this one: "Stettheimer preferred to restrict showing her work to a more private audience as opposed to exhibiting publicly." When in fact, as the many exhibition catalogs will show, including the first Whitney Biennial catalog, and many of the earliest MOMA catalogs, Stettheimer exhibited in 46 PUBLIC exhibitions during her lifetime - virtually every year from 1916-1943!!!!! The entry then says: "From then on, Stettheimer preferred to show her work "in non-competitive situations", as Barbara Bloemink[who?] writes.[14]" quoting early mistaken information before I had completed my research which I subsequently corrected and published stating she exhibited 46 times!

–The statement "She also continued to refine her style in rendering highly personal self-portraits, including a self-portrait in the nude" is misleading as 1) Stettheimer included self-portraits in 90% of her paintings, all of which except 3 she exhibited publicly 2) her nude self-portrait is incredibly significant being only the 2nd nude self-portrait by a woman ever painted (the first as you know by Modersohn-Becker) and the first overtly feminist one.

– IF "Stettheimer refrained from self-promotion and considered her painting "an entirely private pursuit", WHY would she send her paintings to 46 of the most important public contemporary art exhibitions in the world (in Paris and New York,) throughout her life? She Wanted to be Famous, and once she complained in a letter to the art critic Henry McBride when O'Keeffe got more publicity than she did. Also in her diary of April 7th, 1934, she states when she drops off her painting of Virgil Thomson for an exhibition at the Salons of America: "publicity we hope." (Stettheimer papers, Beinecke Library, Yale University)

–Another TERRIBLE LIE is this one: "She intended to have her works destroyed after her death, a wish defied by her sister Ettie, her executor." Joseph Solomon, Stettheimer's lawyer, who wrote her will at her death bed, and showed it to me in 1995, told me explicitly that she wanted all her paintings, throughout her life, left as a single collection to a museum along with the furniture she designed. The crazy idea of "destroying them" comes from Parker Tyler's book where he talks about a "mysterious (if not mystic_ voice)" dealing with an "inherent, anachronistic impulse towards the burial of her works with herself." but also states clearly that "At the time of the legal memorandum...for an unexecuted will of Florine's...her uppermost wish was to keep her oeuvre perfect intact as a legacy to the world, with the hope of finding a suitable setting for it as a suite of some museum, which would also display the furnishings of her studio." (Parker Tyler, Florine Stettheimer, page 189) Many art curators, writers, critics have interpreted the above sentences and written, like the published Wikipedia on Stettheimer, that Stettheimer WANTED her works destroyed after her death!!!! which is NOT what her will or she wanted! as her lawyer expressly told me.

-Another outright Lie is "Stettheimer assisted her sister Carrie in the creation of the Stettheimer Dollhouse," The sisters often told people that they did NOT share or work on or comment on each other's work or projects; and there is no part of Carrie's Dollhouse to which Florine Stettheimer contributed in any way. - The current entry states: "Stettheimer wrote her poems on little scraps of paper and, like Emily Dickinson, sent them to friends instead of publishing them." This is incorrect and there is no source or proof of this statement: Stettheimer only sent 1 poem that we know of to a friend, Carl van Vechten. We don't have any proof that she sent any other of her poems to anyone else as when she died they all remained handwritten on individual scraps of paper until they were gathered and privately published by her sister Ettie.

- The entire "Modernist sensibilities and contributions" section needs to be completely re-written as it says nothing about her actual individual style or major innovations or contributions to art history. Nor does it identify how/why she is a "modernist" and how/why she differs from other "modernists", that she was one of the first consciously feminist artists in America, that she painted pointedly identify political works, etc. or why she continues to influence so many contemporary artists today, despite the title "modernist sensibilities and contributions"!!

-The "Legacy" section is missing many of the major retrospectives on Stettheimer's work

-The Sources and Footnote sections are missing Theses, the major ACCURATE articles books on Stettheimer, the major Retrospectives on her work, and most importantly the sources of the primary materials where her diaries, letters, and scrapbooks can be found.

As a result of the above, may I suggest that it might be easiest to simply fix the citations, which you are able to do so well (thank you!) and copy my content, footnotes and sources, from my Sandbox entry and replace the currently published entry? In any event, THANK YOU for your continuing assistance on this - I am very grateful. Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink, Thank you for pointing out those issues. I had noticed them too. I agree with you, and I intend to make sure that the article is purged of such nonsense. Please bear with me. Thanks for your feedback and your helpful clarifications on details.

But allow to give one example of how I think we can accomplish this: One way to refute the idiotic idea that she withdrew from publicly showing her work is to list the exhibitions that she participated in. In my experience, it is far more effective to say "her work was exhibited at the Whitney, the Jeu de Paume and 4 times at the MoMA during her lifetime" than to say "her work was widely exhibited" or something equally vague. Let the facts speak for themselves. Vexations (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vexations Thank you - I have spent another 3 hours today on the Sandbox Stettheimer, working on the Sources including adding exhibitions and collections so let me know what you think....a lot of the work I had already done on the Sources in my Sandbox had somehow Disappeared which I don't understand as I thought that was MY space but anyway...as I think it too much to add all 40+ exhibitions listed, I only put the 15 or so major ones she exhibited in like the ones in Paris, MOMA, the Whitney etc. as you'll see, but they run from 1900-1944 so they show she exhibited her Entire life! In terms of the collections, there are 2 still in private collections (that shouldn't be - one that is "hidden", one with a dealer, and one that is lost. The rest are over 100 in museums all over the US as I noted. I added more/all of the places where there is Primary (ie. her actual) material, sorted out the actual 2 monographs vs. books, vs exhibition catalogs so that is clear, and added to each major works. I also fixed grammar and info. in a few areas of the texts.

There are now 2 sets of the Cathedral images on the Sandbox site - it is GREAT that you were able to add them, but perhaps only 1 copy of each. Also, can you put on the Nude Self-Portrait which is at Columbia? It is Such an important (the First feminist self=portrait, only the 2nd nude self-portrait ever painted by a woman!) I can get you a copy but it is on google images so it can easily be downloaded....

Now if you can just go through and help me fix the few citations I added - I tried to copy yours but got flummoxed after a few moves...and then perhaps let me know what you think about the whole entry going to become the published entry??

THANK YOU for hanging in there...I wish I knew who you were so I could send you a bunch of flowers or something to relay my incredible appreciation for your understanding and help with this mess. Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 2 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5

Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussion

We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".

Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit. We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?
Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more. We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails. The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activity

We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.

Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
- Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
- The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
- The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
- Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
- Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
- Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
- A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deployment

The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:

About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
About 20% of them open up the help panel.
About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?

What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

thanks!

Thanks for adding sources on Martina Steckholzer. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Susan Watkins DOB

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/51889473/susan-serpell This link shows a photo of Susan Watkins's gravestone with her date of birth. This proves she was 38 at the time of her death rather than 37. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopianfox (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you for adding the biography info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopianfox (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noting here in case there are conflicting sources that WP generally considers Find A Grave unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Find_a_Grave. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless you're too fed up with that topic

If you have any input on my latest edits on Florine Stettheimer, please tell me. Am I reasonable or just annoying.

This "fictional anecdote" may amuse you: In the althist novel The Great War: American Front, there's a modern artexhibit in the CSA in 1914, cubism etc. The hostess is jokingly asked if she is sure a particular painting is hung the right side up. She is however not amused, because another painting actually was upside down for a day before anybody noticed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Georges Viau

Hello, Vexations. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Georges Viau".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Vexations,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6

Welcome to the sixth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Plans for the next three months

The Growth team has been working on features to increase new editor retention for the last seven months. We have made a lot of progress and learned a lot, and we've just finished planning for our next three months. During the next three months, we're going to focus on iterations of the help panel and the newcomer homepage. We have decided not to start the engagement emails project, because we think that we will be able to do better work by improving the projects we have already started. Specifically, these are our team goals:

Deploy and iterate on newcomer homepage
Continued iteration on help panel
Make the help panel available to more wikis
Add a fourth Wikipedia to our set of target wikis
Publish in-depth quantitative reporting on the data from this year
Assemble a report on what our team has learned so far about newcomers

Newcomer homepage

The newcomer homepage is our current major project. We hope that community members can read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. You can see in the accompanying mockup how we are thinking about the homepage.

We have recently decided on the specifications for an initial version that we can deploy and iterate on:

Shown in the User space
Desktop only (mobile comes next)
Four modules
- Help module: help links and ability to ask help desk questions
- Mentorship module: all newcomers assigned a mentor to whom they can ask questions
- Impact module: shows the number of pageviews for pages the newcomer edited
- Account completion module: gives some very simple recommendations of how to get started (add an email, start your user page)
Layout not yet personalized for each user

We're currently running live user tests on this configuration. Future work will include adapting the homepage for mobile, working on a task recommendation module, and considering how to encourage newcomers to visit their homepage.

Help panel

During the last month, the help panel was deployed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, adding it to Czech and Korean Wikipedias.As of 2019-03-14:

2,425 newcomers have seen the help panel
422 of them have opened it
175 have clicked links
27 have run searches
40 have asked questions

We have been analyzing the data around usage, and we'll be publishing numbers in the coming weeks. At a high level, we see at least some users are being helped by the panel, with many clicking on links, running searches, and asking questions. We do not yet see any problems that have arisen from the help panel. Therefore, we think that the help panel is generally a positive feature – though data is still coming that will allow us to see its numerical impact. If other wikis are interested in using the help panel, please contact us on our team's talk page, in the language of your choice.

Over the past month, we have iterated on the help panel to take into account the usage patterns we are seeing. You can see in the accompanying image how the help panel currently looks.

We added a search capability, in which users can search the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.
The help panel was previously available whenever a newcomer was in "edit" mode. We are now also showing the help panel when a newcomer is in "read" mode on a page in the Help, Wikipedia, or User namespaces.

We want to see whether users find the "search" useful. If so, we may spend time on improving search results. We're also looking forward to learning whether exposing the help panel in "read" mode in more namespaces will increase usage.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7

Welcome to the seventh newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Newcomer homepage release this week

The main feature that the team has been working on over the last month is the newcomer homepage. This feature gives newcomers a place on the wiki to get oriented, learn about editing, and see their impact (see the accompanying screenshot from Test Wikipedia). We intend to release this feature to Czech, Korean, and Vietnamese Wikipedias on May 2nd.

Like the other Growth team features, this will be deployed in a controlled experiment, in which half of newcomers will have access to their homepage and half will not. Users with the feature will be able to access it by clicking their username at the top of their browser, and it will only be available on desktop -- not mobile. Experienced users who want to see their homepage will be able to turn it on in their preferences.

Wikis receiving the newcomer homepage can expect these things:

Additional questions will come to the help desk from the "help module" on the homepage.
Mentors who have signed up for the "mentorship module" will start to receive questions on their user talk pages.
More users may create and edit user pages through the "start module".

Recent and future homepage development

The most important piece developed for the homepage over the last month is the "start module", which gives newcomers clear actions to take when they are new: add/confirm their email, go through a tutorial, start their user page. We learned about the need for this module from user tests last month. The next priorities for the newcomer homepage are:

Mobile design: to work well in mobile browsers, the homepage needs a separate design and engineering. See the accompanying mockups for potential mobile designs.
Features for discovery: only about 15% - 30% of newcomers will discover their homepage by clicking their username at the top of their browser. We are going to be designing additional ways for newcomers to find out about it.
Additional modules: the initial version contains some of the simpler modules. Potential upcoming modules include task recommendations and a feed of activity on the wiki.

Other updates

Help panel leading indicators: our team published data on the help panel's initial performance. The evaluation exposes some areas for improvement, but we think the help panel's behavior so far is healthy and that it is not having a negative impact on the wikis. We will be publishing additional data, making plans, and asking for community thoughts around the future of the help panel over the course of the next two weeks. If you are interested in trying out the help panel on your wiki, please let us know on our team's talk page.
Long term plans: the team had a week of planning meetings, in which we talked about some longer-term ideas for Growth work. Some of the top ideas are: to extend the newcomer homepage to help user's build their identity through a user profile, and to revisit the "engagement emails" project that the team put on hold. Over the next month, we will be asking for community conversation around how the team can spend our time in the next fiscal year, that starts in July.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.

---

Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)