User talk:Egrabczewski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Egrabczewski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Constructivists
added a link pointing to AIA
David Saunders (artist)
added a link pointing to Stamford University

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferencesย โ†’ Editingย โ†’ check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplasticism[edit]

Your additions all looks credible but that is not good enough to meet the Wikipedia policy WP: verifiability. You need to cite a WP:reliable source in support of what you write.

I hope that this makes sense but please ask at the WP:Teahouse if you need a better explanation. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Egrabczewski! Your additions to Rubinsteinโ€“Taybi syndrome have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. โ€” Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you compare my input with the original sources? Egrabczewski (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the help of an automated tool provided by Turnitin. โ€” Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your use of Turnitin. Is this tool available to all users of Wikipedia, so that we can check your judgement?
Secondly, it appears that you never actually looked at the sources and checked my contribution to Wikipedia against these sources. I would argue that they are not so closely related to the orginal articles as to cause a copyright problem. Using data from a research paper is normally acceptable in another publication and the text of my article was not a copy of the papers, which came from several sources.
I think you have done a grave injustice to this article by deleting the changes, which contained important information for parents and carers who have children with this disease. It would have been better to discuss your issues with me beforehand rather than just removing the content without further dialogue. I would request that you don't just blindly use such tools but think and do the research yourself.
If after doing so you still feel that I have in any way crossed the line regarding copyright then please give me some details about exactly how, so that when I continue to write articles for Wikipedia, which I have been doing for the past twenty years, then I can include these considerations into my own contributions. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the results from Turnitin by visiting the CopyPatrol reports that I mentioned in my edit summaries (https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en?id=1aebcddd-3249-4c77-889f-2415ac0fef03, https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en?id=fd49b3e1-20be-4cfd-8734-fd63fd7548e0). In order to review the iThenticate reports you will have to first log in to the CopyPatrol system and agree to the terms of use of the Turnitin people, who have kindly donated the use of this tool to Wikipedia. Then, you will be asked to provide authorization at Meta for access to your account. Now you are logged in to the CopyPatrol system.
Click on the link to the iThenticate report you wish to view, so that you can see what was found by the detection service (The iThenticate reports may take a while to load). Since the source paper https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.34058 is behind a paywall, I am not able to view it in its entirety, but I make a judgement as to what to remove based on the highlighted overlapping material in the iThenticate reports.
This one is where you added a new section, medical issues. You can see that there's quite a bit of overlap with the source document, and very little would remain if I only removed the overlapping segments. So I removed the entire section as the remaining snippets would not make much sense as a standalone section.
This report shows the overlap in the new section you added about adults with RTS. Here the overlap was pretty complete, so I removed the entire section.
There's only a handful of people working on copyright cleanup and a high volume of cases to be assessed each day (currently about 100 reports a day to assess), so is discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and neither is rewriting the added content or doing our own research. โ€” Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to follow your instructions and been able to see iThenticate reports on the Medical Issues and Adults with RTS sections, so thanks for thatย :-)
In my "Adults with RTS" section, then many of the terms in question are words that are used generically to describe medical conditions, so these are presumably not subject to copyright claims. Words like: keloids, hipohidrosis, urinary tract infections, sleep apnea, heart problems, cancer, hypothyroidism, talon cusps, caries, dental problems etc. If you remove these terms from the report then presumably there would be a marked decrease in the precentage score. Unless it is possible to argue that writing down these generic medical terms in the same order is infringing copyright then all that remains is the use of particular phrases in the paper itself.
Oddly enough, where I wrote "32 males, 29 females" which is semantically the same as "32 males and 29 females" in the article, the report shows no overlap. This gives away the degree of "intelligence" in this tool. It's more concerned with the lexical ordering of words rather than the meaning.
Now I understand the issue, I'll rewrite these sections but avoid similar phrasing in the original articles. This doesn't remove the issue regarding the use of medical terminology, so I have to assume you'll use your judgement on that and not just look at the percentage score given by this tool! Egrabczewski (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An experienced patroller will notice that the content has only be superficially paraphrased and will make a decision based on how closely the source has been followed. Simply changing a few words in a sentence or doing a bit of re-ordering is still a copyright issue if the structure of the sentence is preserved. That said, lists are of course okay to use, especially if alphabetized or organized in some fashion that is not identical to the source document. โ€” Diannaa (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bear that in mind. Thank you for your help. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi Egrabczewski. Thank you for your work on British Constructivists. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

โœ  SunDawn โœ  (contact) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoplasticism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Letter, Sonority and Fourth dimension.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts[edit]

Please note that draftspace pages such as Draft:New Visualization are not allowed to be filed in mainspace categories as if they were already finished articles. Categories must stay off the page while it's in draft, and may be added only if and when the page is actually approved for moving to mainspace. Since I've already had to remove the page from categories three times today alone, please do not readd it to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the trouble. I'm abandoning the article and requesting it to be deleted, so hopefully it won't cause any further trouble. I didn't realise that including the categories would cause anyone trouble, so I'll keep it in mind for the future. I assume we're talking just about the categories at the end of the article. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor MOS points ...[edit]

... that I noticed when editing Neoplasticism.

  • The reference tag should immediately follow the punctuation mark, without an intervening space.
  • The location= in {{cite book}} is the city where published, not the archive.
  • You don't in general need to credit the archive where you found the source, as it is usually evident from url=. But if you feel it deserves a mention (like the International Dada Archive, for example), you can use via=
  • You don't need to use access-date= for books, as they may reasonably assumed to be static.

Just in case it needs to be said, it is entirely valid to use the <ref>...</ref> citation method. I prefer the {{sfnp}} technique because produces a more professional "finish" but best of all it makes the 'source' much easier to scan. The content of a 'ref tag' can be very long and if there are many of them, it can be difficult to find the reader-visible material in a hurry. If you want to know more about the sfnp technique, I recommend User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates. I tend to start with ref/ref but move to sfnp for complex of potential GA articles. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the {{sfnp}} technique. I'll try to use it in future. Thanks for the userful tips. Egrabczewski (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is only fair that I observe that most editors only ever use the ref/ref method, but most recent GAs and almost all recent FAs use harvard referencing (sfnp). So don't let it get in the way of finding and contributing sources: that's the hard part, anybody can make them look pretty. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username[edit]

You may of course use your real name might want to read the advice at WP:REALNAME. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's worth considering the pros and cons. Anonymity does bring out the worst in some people. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP is pretty good at dealing with registered users who abuse the privilege. It is less good with non-registered users and there is a long-running difference of view on whether that facility should end. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplasticism 2[edit]

Edit conflict[edit]

Whoops sorry, I thought you had finished. Can you check if anything needs to be reinstated?

I tried to resolve a confusion between "visual means" and "visual media", which you seemed to be using interchangeably. We need to choose one and 'visual means' seems to me to be the better term, though it will always have to be in single quotes lest we get confused about what means means! ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination[edit]

I have submitted the article for GA review. Three months wait for someone to take it up is fairly typical, six months is not rare.

BTW, I said I would give you first credit: I misremembered the process. After GA is awarded, we have the option to submit a "surprising fact" to WP:Did you know which, if accepted, will appear on the front page for a day. It is at that point the proposer lists the contributing editors and it is at that point the editors are listed in whatever way they choose (IMO, in order of greatest contribution): see for example Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#Did you know nomination. So your next task is to identify the "surprising fact" (also called a "hook", since its purpose is to entice people to read the article). We get three "goes" at a nomination. NB that there is no obligation to propose a DYK, it is independent of the GA process. In the case of my last GA (Robert Hooke) it was the GA reviewer who suggest it when I said I was stumped for an idea. As I say, you have about three months to think about it. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the original article has been replaced, and the new article was based entirely on the Dutch version, of which Victor Steenberg seems to have been a major contributor (although I haven't checked if he is the major contributor). Although it's been a lot of work for us both, we've basically been patching up that article and checking the translation and references of a Google translated article. I don't feel I can take the credit for much of what's there, but we've both learnt quite a bit in the process - and so that's worth the effort, speaking personally.
For me the most surprising thing, after all these decades, is that nobody seems to understand that word 'plastic'; I'm still confused by the term. I was surprised by the fact that Theosophy had such an important influence on neo-plasticists. I've had Blavatsky's books "The Secret Doctrine" and "Isis Unveiled" on my bookshelves for decades, completely unread of course. However, I was surprised to find that Mondrian was reading theosophy and Krishnamurti - someone I've been following since 1970, when he was still alive and giving lectures at Brockwood Park in the UK, and all over Europe and India. He did in fact have an influence on my religious education, as he said many intriguing things that I still don't understand. The books Mondrian owned were when Krinshnamurti was still a young boy/man, and still under the control of the Theosophist movement. The story goes that Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater were looking for a new guru in India for the theosophical movement. They found a young boy, Krishnamurti, and used him for a while, however this boy was wise, and dissolved the movement they'd built around him. After that he toured the world telling everyone they didn't need a guru. His most memorable advice was to stop thinking - for reasons that are best explained in his books; the most important being "First and Last Freedom". None of this has anything to do with neo-plasticism though! How about the headline "Recycling 'plastic'" as a headline! Egrabczewski (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm afraid I have great difficulty taking such ideas seriously. I'm a "militant atheistโ„ข".
The concept of plastic arts has a long history; I think what throws people is the narrow modern usage. Despite Overy's catty remark, to me what is key here is that it was Mondrian who chose the word "plastic", not Boltzman and James (nor Motherwell (1945)). At the moment, we have put By 1936, writing in English for the Nicholson, Gabo and Martin book Circle, An International survey of Constructive Art, Mondrian affirmed the intentionality of the word 'plastic' in an essay he called "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art". at the end of the section: I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we should but that earlier or make more of it. The only thing that is making me hesitate is that it is important to recognise the reader's likely preconceived ideas first, and only then overturn them. Though I wonder if Overy meant that they should have written "the new plastic art"? Let's leave it for now, though.
Yes, Vincent Steenberg did a major cleanup of the Dutch version, so we should certainly include him as major contributor to this version.
"Plasticity" seems to be the word of the year, it is popping up everywhere: Google News, "Plasticity". --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed there was some resistance to accepting Theosophy as an influence, despite the overwhelming evidence!ย :-) Regarding the essay, the title actually states "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)". If Mondrian included the parentheses then perhaps there's a clue as to what he really meant. Today I was comparing translations of the same articles in Jaffรฉ's book "De Stijl" and Holtzman & James; they're remarkably similar translations, even though they're by different translators (I was hoping to see some variation in the language used). So far, when I'm reading these articles, I've found it useful to substitute the word "plastic" with one of the following: visual; creative; aesthetic; and figurative. I'm undecided which is the best. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That internet archive block...[edit]

... was a DDOS attack. See Multi-day DDoS storm batters Internet Archive. Sad people. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I had no idea. That reminds me. The British Library was attacked by ransomware a few months back and I couldh't get them to answer my query. I'd better check to see what the current state is. Egrabczewski (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Egrabczewski&oldid=1226809432"