User talk:Lotje/Archives/2015/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lotje. 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. |
Books and Bytes - Issue 13
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
- Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
- Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
- Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shot glass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 5547516&dq=shot-glass&hl=en "...and brought out a bottle of brandy and a shot glass..."]] ''[[The Portsmouth Times]]'' (via [[Google News]]). September 6, 1941.</ref><ref>[http://news.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
VisualEditor update
- This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.
The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns en.wiki with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.
This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.
We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Jacob van Ruisdael
Dear Lotje, I noticed you changed the lead image on Jacob van Ruisdael. Modern art historians write that there is no known portrait of Jacob. See for instance Slive and Hoetink 1981, page 17. The image you found seems to come from a book from the 18th century, which modern art historians have dismissed as accurate. If you know anything else let me know, but for the time being I've change the image back. es: Edwininlondon (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Cit
- Edwininlondon, strange, does this mean the image on the Dutch page is not correct? In all honesty, I wouldn't dare removing it over there
Lotje (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edwininlondon, is this image better in your opinion? Lotje (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, not according to modern day experts. Seymour Slive spent a few decades of his life studying Ruisdael, and says there is no image. It looks like this image and the one on the Dutch wikipage are from a 1926 book of pictures published by a coffee company: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cover,_Vaderlandsche_Historie,_Zuid-Hollandsche_Koffie-_en_Theehandel_Rotterdam.jpg I am happy to change the Dutch wiki page with this extra information. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, there might be a copyright issue with this image in the US, as it's published after 1923. So even if we discover a marketing person at a coffee company knows better than various art experts, we couldn't use the image in the English version. I do agree with you by the way that a portrait would be a better image than a painting, but in this case there just doesn't seem to be one. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edwininlondon, is this image better in your opinion? Lotje (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 13 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Erol Erdinç page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Moths
Hi Lotje, the moth is labelled as a death's head hawkmoth, and has the characteristic death's head, indeed. But it also has a wing pattern more like Saturnia than anything else. Do you have a source saying that van Gogh actually based it on both moths? If so, we can certainly say so and put it in both articles... your confused editorial colleague, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Chiswick Chap, if I find a source, I will surely put it in both articles, maybe it is just what we call "freedom of the artist"? It surely is intriguing. Maybe someone on the Dutch wikipedia will be able to be of help.
Lotje (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else has already put the image back! I googled about a bit more, and having already found the Dutch page from the Van Gogh Museum, I found that its English page calls it the Giant Peacock Moth, i.e. 'pavonia'. So there we are, it's official. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh, you're like speedy Gonzales ! Awesome. Lotje (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Information added to the discussion on File talk:Van Gogh - Totenkopfschwärmer auf Aronstab.jpeg. Cheers. Snjón (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh, you're like speedy Gonzales
- Someone else has already put the image back! I googled about a bit more, and having already found the Dutch page from the Van Gogh Museum, I found that its English page calls it the Giant Peacock Moth, i.e. 'pavonia'. So there we are, it's official. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Undead may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- File:Les amants trépassés, The deceased lovers.jpg|thumb|upright|''The deceased lovers'', ca. 1470 ({{Ill|de|Frauenhausmuseum}}]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)