User talk:C1cada

Welcome!

Hello, C1cada, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt. Appreciated. C1cada (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Petronella Oortman

Shouldn't be too hard to get this expanded to DYK guidelines (see WP:DYK, if you're not familiar with it); having that dollhouse on the front page would look nice. I wonder what 30,000 guilders was, relatively speaking--possibly enough for a nice grachtenhuis. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• DYKs not really my scene. I'll leave that to you, but I agree it would make a nice addition to front page. The sources I looked at did mention that 30,000 guilders in those days would buy a nice grachtenhuis today (we used to have *three* in our family :( ...). Thanks for taking that over by the way. I had run out of steam on it. C1cada (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Gauguin

Hello C1cada, I left you a message at your Commons Talk page. Thanks for your work. Cheers. Coldcreation (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coldcreation and thanks for your work! It's a very beautiful painting, but that original Yorck image absolutely terrible. c1cada (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Vollard

There is an amazing essay that John Rewald wrote regarding the deal between Gauguin and Vollard - John Rewald (1986). Studies in Post-Impressionism. Harry N. Abrams Inc. Apparently Vollard burned him - leaving him broke at the end, causing him to flip out, and go off the deep end. Vollard then threatened to sue anyone with the temerity to report the story; and consequently he was referred to as Mr.X in the press...Modernist (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Modernist. I didn't know that (haven't read Rewald). I did know Vollard had a bit of a reputation. I'll look the essay out. There's a section in the article that mentions Rewald. Perhaps it could go there. Basically I'm just filling in what I thought were some quite big gaps in the Gauguin bio. I shall do some edits on the Marquesas period and then go back and fill out some of the earlier stuff. I shall be a bit relieved when I'm finished... Thanks for your help (and Philafrenzy). c1cada (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That essay is actually one of Danielsson's sources, presumably for the couple of pages describing some initial hitches in the deal, so I can quote it as a primary source mentioning that in the Marquesas section. Danielsson is an excellent read if you haven't tried him. c1cada (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the template message, but it does a better job of conveying what I want to say than me typing it from memory. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No sweat, apologies. Perhaps you can fix this gratuitously unnecessary page move yourself then. Things you see are named by what names them, lawsuits and all. And in this case the name is "Wikimedia v. NSA" as the very first citation from the Wikimedia Foundation makes clear. I may not have the science to fix it, but I do have the wit to know it needs it. c1cada (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the best way to resolve that would be to start a discussion on the talk page. Personally, I think that the title of the article should be the long version, Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, but without discussion, there really shouldn't be any further moves. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well , I wouldn't oppose that. I do wish the original mover had opened a discussion first. Meanwhile the Wikimedia Foundation itself calls it "Wikimedia v.NSA". But I shan't do any more moving, promise. Didn't understand that about breaking the edit history. Thanks for your time and help. c1cada (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Gauguin

Hi C1cada, just to say hello. You are always welcome to tap my talk page for wiki related advice and will see you around. Best. Ceoil (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. Thanks for this. Big fan of yours. I put a little note on your talk page in appreciation. Of course you're always welcome here. c1cada (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with the new artist pic, but I think the prev photo of Gauguin at the piano gets across the sence of his wild, savage spirit (ahem), for better or worse. We might reconsider reinstating at some stage. Kudos so far. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The previous is already in his BLP. I will be doing (months ahead) a start for Te Faaturuma, where I'll include the profile. I much liked your Jug start and thought you would like the profile. Totally unbothered, do whatever you think works best. You have a much better sense of that than I have. Main thing is that the image is at Commons for others to use. c1cada (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone with both for now, but like you am indiffreent. Lets see how the page falls out. The Jug portrait hits me; there is huge hidden pathos; Gauguin was certain, brash, out there, and poor Vincent - left waiting. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't stand these edit conflicts. I was trying to say how much I agree with you before dealing with some ijiot arsing on about about John Forbes Nash, Jr.'s penis. Can you possibly imagine a more totally wonderful image? Drunk of course. c1cada (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That was me drunk I should hasten to add. Making inroads into the Christmas brandy there. I can't believe how much of it I got through looking at the level this morning. Probably as well there were edit conflicts when I got to Nash's Talk page. c1cada (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a private sector accoutant, increasingly dealing with pay per view statistations; but have rarely seen a face so mathemically pleasing and interesting as that. Shallow response: Gaunt is go and hallowed. 02:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's wonderful. c1cada (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and my new wallper. I like the tap, tap, tap - so do things aspect. He had a very active face. 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Marlene Dumas

Hi! I've just been explaining the status of this image on the Commons deletion request page :-)

You're right - however: the file has been released by the artist on a CC BY-SA license to Zachęta Gallery. The source site, Otwartazacheta.pl (open Zacheta) is a library of CC-licensed images in Zacheta's collection. All images not marked otherwise are CC BY-SA licensed. The Gallery sent Wikimedia PL a list of all CC BY-SA images with a standard permission - I forgot to ask the OTRS operator to insert the permission ticket into the file description. It should be done in a couple of days. Thanks! --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's good news. Nice image. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contribution. c1cada (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Things

It appears that I suck. I came up with a theory that you were somebody else, someone unloved, returned. It would seem I was mistaken.[1] Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't suck, Ceoil. I don't know many of your articles, but the ones I've seen (Jug, Christus mainly, also the German romantic I'm having a senior moment with right now) are all excellent. c1cada (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you c1cada. I am very much enjoying your contribs to the Gauguin articles. Ceoil (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And thank you! c1cada (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You've done impressive work at Gauguin and Oviri, both needed help; I just don't have the time anymore; Ceoil and I put Oviri together and as brilliant as Ceoil is - your help is appreciated...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Modernist is very wise. We are *delighted* to see you; the Ovri article is really taking shape. Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist. Of course I know how much visual arts is indebted to you. Pretty well every edit history has valuable contribution from you. I shall have to stop editing at Gauguin soon, for a while at least. One or two things I would like to fit in. Mostly I want to fill out the early days of his bio. c1cada (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking a little more closely at the early days in the bio, I think it's adequate. I'm not sure I need to add much there. I plan to make an article start for Noa Noa and that will be pretty much it for the time being. Certainly I've to finish before the end of April, after which my time will be rather limited for quite a while. Didn't really mean to edit quite as much on Gauguin. These things have a habit of snowballing. Thanks for your help. c1cada (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well deserved

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your work on the visual arts and imagery... and especially for your contributions to Paul Gauguin and Oviri. Coldcreation (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Coldcreation. And your efforts are well received as well. c1cada (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A user's constant insults and now curses towards me regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at your edits. They are inappropriate. Please be kind and helpful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice you reverted my deletion of the notice Did you imagine I hadn't seen it? I replied in detail at the ANI.

This is a very troublesome editor who misled the POTD administrator into including the phrase "eight years of genocide" in the caption of the recent 24 April 2015 POTD on Armenia Genocide day. Believe me there would have been a storm of protest about that. The genocide is recognised as taking place in 1915-1916. Eventually the administrator involved corrected his copy and we heard no more from our editor.

The Armenian Genocide includes the massacre of countless tens of thousands, possibly running into the hundreds of thousands, of Russian Armenians in the years 1918-1922. These massacres were undoubtedly genocidal in nature, but can't be considered genocide in its legal sense because, for example, fleeing refugees were not systematically massacred as they had been during the 1915-1916 period, although there were undoubtedly massacres of that kind.

It's an extraordinary thing, but these massacres have never been covered in the article. I have absolutely no idea why. I asked the established editors to provide an edit, explaining I didn't want to spend the time doing it. By 23 April 2015 there was no edit forthcoming, so I supplied my own. This was immediately reverted by our editor on WP:NOCONSENSUS grounds. The editor wished me to "propose" the edit in the first place on the Talk page. I got no joy from an ANI, so I did precisely that here Massacres after Word War I. There were no dissenting edits until I indicated that I intended to return it the article. Our editor then responded with this:

You need to provide a source that support your claim of the Armenian Genocide ending with the termination of the Tehcir law. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR.

I have never claimed the Armenian Genocide ended with the Tehcir law. The proposed edit makes no mention of the Techir law, nor the duration of the Genocide, and it emphatically is not OR but meticulously cited from two standard histories. Small wonder that I question the editor's comprehension skills.

I can't understand why the Russian experience is being ignored in this article. I trust you will assist me in having their history included in the article if my efforts are once again reverted when I return them for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. c1cada (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not considered the editing dispute, and won't. My actions were with respect to the accusations of insulting behavior. You seemed to be unaware that you had crossed the line in that respect. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I can't see how it can be construed as an editing dispute when the edit was not disputed but simply reverted, and when I took if to the Talk page attracted no dissenting voices except for the single comment I quote above which doesn't address any of the material in the proposal and imputes to me an opinion I don't happen to hold. c1cada (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I managed to get the Russian Armenians edit in. Hard work. c1cada (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for that. c1cada (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I shall do is refer to this editor neutrally as "an editor". While of course I accept your committee's censure and shall abide by it, I do want to stress that I feel the issues in this case entirely trivial. As I mentioned in my copy, if there was some issue of an editor being dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged (I mean by that not having the advantages of a good education), then of course I might have been less robust. c1cada (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported

here. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by C1cada

I have addressed this user in very neutral terms since Fred warned me my behaviour had crossed a red line. Of course I'm very anxious to respect the Committee's strictures.

The editing dispute here concerns two matters of fact. One is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Armenians living within the boundaries of present-day Turkey and the second is that, so far, recognition of the genocide in its legal sense is confined to the atrocities of 1915-1916. The French Wikipedia currently gives the best account. My motivation for wishing to clarify on these issues stem not from a 'denialist' stance, but in the first place to record the experience of Russian Armenians living in present-day Armenia, and second to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law.

The editing dispute here seems to me to derive from inadequate copy skills in English. Faced with an editor making adjustments to copy to clarify details such as the above, an inadequate editor has no recourse but to revert copy to some safe haven of the past. When the copy is rephrased to accommodate their concerns, they nevertheless persist in claims of "edit-warring".

For example, when I created a section "Massacres after World War I" recording the experience of the Russian Armenians, after pointing out the lede necessitated it and offering it first to the established editors, this user reverted it in full, insisting it be taken to the Talk Page. I took it to the Talk Page and over a period of a few days absolutely no modifications were suggested. When I restored it the article it was immediately reverted again, insisting that it record the genocidal nature of the attacks. I readily concurred since that was plainly implied by the context, "Ottoman policy", referenced in the text and the subsequent remarks. Finally the section remains in place. However the user could have avoided all the time wasting by inserting "genocidal" on their account, a clarification that, frankly, many readers might well think unnecessary in the context

It's manifestly clear that that the Armenian Genocide article needs improvement. I intend to persist doing that. Presently my goals are to implement parenthetical referencing throughout and to correct obvious errors of copy such as "The Armenian Genocide has been corroborated by many authorities" that I reference on the Talk Page. Come fall, I hope to spend some time improving its contents. Too much of the article consists of quoted copy-paste. c1cada (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban (Arbitration Enforcement)

Per the discussion about your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#C1cada, you are topic-banned for six months from editing, discussing, or seeking to move or delete any article or other page (including talk pages) on the subject of the event commonly referred to as the "Armenian Genocide" — including any references to this event in pages dealing primarily with other subjects. This topic ban will end on Friday, 6 November 2015, at 00:00 UTC. Please see my comments here for more details. If you wish to appeal this ban, you must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. Note that any attempts on your part to defy or evade this ban (including, but not limited to, sockpuppetry) will result in an extension of the ban, or in your being blocked entirely from all Wikipedia editing. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that include Perinçek v. Switzerland where I had planned a significant edit once the judgment is in? c1cada (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I declared my intention to edit significantly there in a remark to Gerda Arendt on 29 January 2015. c1cada (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your topic ban would indeed prohibit your working on an article about a legal case revolving around someone's publicly challenging the existence of the Armenian genocide. Don't do it. The fact that you had previously announced plans to edit this article is irrelevant; you'll need to sit back and let others update this article when new developments arise. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just want to clarify something here, Rich. I do not champion Dr. Perinçek. I ask you not to return here. c1cada (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with which side of the issue Doğu Perinçek is on. The same principles would apply to articles involving, say, Taner Akçam's legal difficulties. If you don't want me back here on your talk page, I will gladly comply, unless an administrative issue (e.g., something relating to your topic ban) requires me to post some applicable notice. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify because one of the submissions made to Arbcom was that I was pro-Turkey POV-pushing. I shall comment briefly on your appreciation of Perinçek v. Switzerland when my topic ban is up. It is then that I should not wish to hear from you further. c1cada (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, C1cada. You have new messages at Template talk:Pornography.
Message added 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Answered there. You pinged me as well. c1cada (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The only reason I pinged and tb'd you was because it is possible to disable the ping function, so I wanted to make sure you got my message. (Actually, I think it might start out disabled and you have to activate it, but I don't remember.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible to disable the ping function, eh? So it's not only Arbcom out to get me ... Thanks for your input Palmer. I'm afraid we're always going to disagree on that issue. Best. c1cada (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Vincent

I'd be willing to take you up; myself, Victoria and Modernist have put in a lot of work over years and been thinking about it for a while. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me know. I rather like the van Gogh bio and I'm not minded to change the text any way myself. I'm not really bothered either way the citation scheme. But we would have to decide exactly how to implement it, since there are several formats available. Also I really shouldn't be editing at the moment for pressure of other things ( the trouble is it's so addictive ): and I still have a couple of years of Gauguin to fill I want to do some time soon. Starting August I have time. I have the two catalogue raisonnes, Tralbaut, Naifeh & Smth at hand; a few other things as well. Cheers. I know Victoria's work as well. Admirer. c1cada (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I know how it is, and yes bloody addidictive. Seeing your ability and form on Gauguin I would be delighted to work with you. So I'm in any roads. I'll ping Modernist & Vic. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, but in any case can you be quite explicit aboit how to initiate it, because I'm really quite vague about the details. I can certainly do all the citation the sources I mention.c1cada (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We put in considerable work about 4 years ago, and I have more van Gogh books now than you could shake a stick at. Both Modernist and Vicotria are very well informed, so content is not so much the issue. Maybe the article needs a copy edit, pruning here and there, and ref validation - there are some non RS in there, and the formatting is all over the shop. The misadventure with paul could be better emphasised. Etc. Its not a small task. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Re ref formats, I think its safe to assume that raw html and non templated would be preferable. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Don 't know what those are .. that's what I meant by "vague". Let me know when you get started and I'll just chip in following your example. The only thing in the article that strikes me as really needing pruning is the stuff about Vincent's so-called "son". There seems to be much more than needed there. But I'm not going to start editing at van Gogh. It's too much. The Gauguin kind of crept up one me, that'd pretty much bio I want to contribute to Wikipedia this lifetime. Enjoyed doing it, but it is ultimately a chore since it's not all the same as blogging on your own account. That Wikipedia tone quite hard to achieve. c1cada (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

East, as opposed to east-southeast

First of all, thanks for the compliment on the article. I wrote it! I was about to revert to "east" just before you did. Both Boime and Whitney say east as well. And a google earth view of the asylum shows that the "wing" Vincent was in is nearly on a north-south axis, so his window would have been facing east. At any rate, around the time of the summer solstice, when The Starry Night was painted, the sun, moon, and planets would have risen pretty close to due east.

Sincerely,

Nedhartley (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Night Sky - Saint-Paul Asylum, Saint-Rémy - 0400 on 18 June 1889

Hi there, Ned. First, yes indeed, congratulations on your article. It's excellent. I'll add some images and references to the letters over the next few days.

That's right about his room facing directly East. Pickvance does say "east and southeast", but that's wrong as it turns out. I prepared a Stellarium image showing the view directly southeast at four in the morning at St. Paul asylum on 18 June 1889. Venus was low in the sky, south of Aries directly East. The moon, 68% gibbous, is due South in Aquarius. I'm not sure how easy that would have been for Vincent to see, given that his window was barred. I'll upload the image to Commons ("Starry Night" category), but I don't think there's any real value including it in the article.

I'm editing at Houses at Auvers and at some point in the future propose a significant expansion at the double square article.

Hope you do more Vincent in the future. Let me know. Kind regards.

c1cada (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a great picture. Thanks.

Might I suggest that the information you added re. the sketches of the village be moved into the Interpretations section, in the fifteenth paragraph of that section, the one that begins "The village has been variously identified . . ."

Nedhartley (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well we can agree on placement later. I just want to go through the article first, adding some supplementary images and references to the letters. I don't plan to edit the copy much. Pickvance of course the foremost authority and should be given due precedence. c1cada (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)