Egrabczewski

Welcome!

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:

• 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
• How to avoid a conflict of interest

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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)

Edit summaries

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 Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Neoplasticism

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. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Egrabczewski! Your additions to Rubinstein–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:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

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. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you compare my input with the original sources? Egrabczewski (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with the help of an automated tool provided by Turnitin. — Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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 that :-)

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)

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. — Diannaa (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. Thank you for your help. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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)

Drafts

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)

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)

A couple of minor MOS points ...

... 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. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Your username

You may of course use your real name might want to read the advice at WP:REALNAME. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Neoplasticism 2

Edit conflict

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! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article nomination

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. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sorry but I'm afraid I have great difficulty taking such ideas seriously. I'm a "militant atheist™".

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". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I had noticed there was some resistance to accepting Theosophy as an influence, despite the overwhelming evidence! :-) 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 Jaffé'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)

That internet archive block...

... was a DDOS attack. See Multi-day DDoS storm batters Internet Archive. Sad people. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

URL in sfnp page=

Just fyi, the practice of giving a hyperlinked page number via page=[https://example.com/example-book/example-page 123] is just as a courtesy to readers: the norm is page=123. The reason to do it is that some sources (particularly Google Books, sometimes OpenLibrary?) will return a specific page in response to a specific url but it won't give you the whole book so that you can read it for free until you get to page 123. Otherwise, beg, borrow or buy the book.

If the source is a web page then the page= should be omitted unless it is clearly paginated. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear it in mind. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

archive.log?

You wrote BTW The search facility in archive.log is very useful. Did you mean "archive.org"? If so, how have you wrangled it? I can only get it to search for single words. If I put subjectivism over objectivism for example, it gives me every sentence that has any of those words, not all of those words, let alone that exact phrase. Putting it in quotes doesn't help. What have I missed? (I'm using the magnifying glass icon). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I meant archive.org. Using double quotes, e.g. "subjectivism over objectivism", will do the trick. However, I would use the technique of looking at just one word at a time and seeing how it relates to the other, as the exact phrase is unlikely to be found in that form. Originally this was a Google translation of the Dutch article, and so wording may have changed (although the original Dutch article doesn't contain the passage we're investigating, and so I assume it was put there originally by me and possibly changed thereafter). Egrabczewski (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Odd, I was convinced that I had tried double quotes in the past, "it didn't work" so I never tried it again. <expletive deleted> Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I've looked through the list of articles in H&J and cannot find "universal - nominal" (nominalism does ring a bell but I can't recall which book I was reading at the time). I can reference "universal - individual", "universal - particular" and "abstract - natural". I've checked other sources and I suspect I got the idea of a list of opposites from Overy's book (see the middle of page 42) here: [1]De Stijl. Egrabczewski (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the paragraph with correct references. Let me know what you think. Egrabczewski (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm afraid your text goes too far beyond the source. Overy writes:

Both Mondrian and Van Doesburg knew Hegel largely through secondary sources like Bolland's books. Mondrian, however, is more discursive in his writing than Van Doesburg and draws heavily on Theosophy and the Anthroposophy of Steiner. His oppositions of universal/individual, horizontal/vertical, nature/spirit, masculine/feminine, abstract/real, determinate/indeterminate are an amalgam of Hegel, Theosophy, Steiner and Schoenmaekers.

You will have to rephrase. We could do worse than to quote Overy verbatim (inline, not as a blockquote). Unless of course we can track down where it was that Overy found that Mondrian discourse (but, unlike Overy, we must not interpret per WP:PRIMARY). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to trust the secondary source to have done that work, which is why they are preferred. In my view it's okay and I've justified every part of the paragraph, either by referencing or in the Talk page. So if you feel it needs to change then do it. I think my work is done here and I need to do some other things. I'll leave it to you to tidy up the wording if that's okay. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I also found a relevant passage in Holtzman & James (p 16). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In extremis

Wikipedia editors have a knee-jerk reaction to words like "extreme", because they are too subjective and therefore editorialising. See also WP:PEACOCK. So your contemplated the extreme dualities of is not going to work (unless it is a quote with a very solid supporting citation). How about contrasted the perspectives of? It would still get a {{according to whom}}? unless the following phrases are cited. Which is where we are still trying to resolve. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If editors want a solid citation of the word "extreme" then they need look no further than Mondrian's first article. See page 46 of "The New Plastic in Painting" (1917): "In moving from naturalistic painting to abstract-real painting, art has realized the law of opposites. All naturalistic painting served this evolution from an expression of the natural to an expression of the abstract and thus to an equilibrated plastic of extreme opposites". That's not the same as contrasting the perspectives of these opposites. It's about finding a harmony between them. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How to do citations when there are two by the same author in the same year

I hope you are content with my tweak to your addition. But the occasion certainly will arise when you really will need to cite two different articles by the same author in the same year. The trick is to append an a, b, c etc to the year number. Like this:

• van Doesburg, Theo (1925a). Müller, Lars (ed.). Principles of Neo-Plastic Art. Bauhausbücher. Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers. ISBN 978-3-03778-629-1.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for that. :-) Egrabczewski (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review of Neoplasticism has begun

FYI user talk:JMF#Your GA nomination of Neoplasticism. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you. I have notified user:Egrabczewski, who to be fair has done most of the work to bring the article up to GA standard. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) (sorry, right message, wrong article. Redone. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Fingers crossed! Egrabczewski (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Talk:Neoplasticism#GA Review

• can you deal with the queries at Talk:Neoplasticism#Sources, I'll have a go at Talk:Neoplasticism#Prose and content. We both need to work on #Potentially stupid break. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't receive notifications - not sure why not.

This is a long list of points and I'm not sure how to address this list without generating a confusing set of replies. Each question needs a detailed investigation. Any suggestions how to tackle them? And over what time period?

Do you want me to reply directly? Egrabczewski (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you got a watch set on the article? And do you check your watchlist? (You won't get a ping unless someone addresses you directly.) Of course you might just have missed it because it coincided with you working on the citations at the time.

Time is not of the essence but usually within two weeks. This time of year of course, that is not easy so it may be best to say up front that you will be inactive until even the end of August due to other commitments and request a stay of execution.

Would the way that I have responded at Talk:Neoplasticism#Prose and content work for you? The reviewer's queries at Talk:Neoplasticism#Sources are numbered and you can use those numbers.

But it is more common to respond point by point, like this:

• Challenge 1
  • Response 1
• Challenge 2
  • Response 2
• Challenge 3
  • Response 3

I have no idea what I did four responses together after four challenges.

Be prepared for

• Challenge 2
  • Response 2
    • Challenge 2a
      • Response 2a

etc.

We may find it useful to agree a response to the more awkward questions here at your talk page. But my starting point is always that the reviewer comes with a fresh pair of eyes and is best placed to emulate a naive reader. So I give very high credence to what they say. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I need some help with GA reviewers latest comment that "If "the idea of the artist" is being referred to, it will need to be explained. I like "The "idea" of the artist is the "human spirit" of the artist needing to express itself", but whatever you can add with appropriate inline references that adequately explains it will be good. This is necessary. If this concept can't be explained in the article with references I won't be able to pass it as a GA." I'm unclear exactly what he wants me to do. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@JMF: Did you see my last message? Egrabczewski (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not until now, real life must go on. It's August here too.

And you thought I was picky!

I think the problem here is with 'editorialising'. What he wants is that you cite, maybe quote, a wp:secondary source who expresses this concept. We can't merely make an assertion as that would violate WP:OR and thus be a mandatory GA failure.

We have the same problem with "imbued with Calvinism": it is not the word "imbued" of itself that is problematic, it is that it provokes the response "says who?". Our inference is not good enough.

Does the PhD thesis cover any of this? Either of Overy's books? Thinking orthoganally, I'll have a look in my "Story of Art" (Gombrich). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's good to know you have a life outside Wikipedia!

1, Regarding the first point about "The "idea" of the artist is the 'human spirit' of the artist needing to express itself", how about:

"Art too, as the product of a new duality in man, is increasinly expressed as the product of cultivated outwardness and of a deeper, more serious conscious inwardness. As pure creation of the human spirit, art is expressed as the pure aesthetic creation manifested in abstract form."

(Mondrian, 1917)

There are several more paragraphs about the human spirit in art in that same 1917 essay. Take a look at page 5-6 of his thesis: Threlfall thesis on Mondrian (1978)

2. Regarding Calvinism, We have T Threlfall's 1978 PhD thesis on Piet Mondrian, in which he states on page 7-8:

"... it is unsurprising, for Mondrian grew up a strict Calvinist under his father's authoriative (sic.) parentalism. Later he rejected the church of his father, but the question, raised by the ideas outlined above, is obviously did he reject the ideas and deterministic concepts of Calvinism?"

(T.Threlfall, 1978)

There are many references to Calvinism in this thesis, it's influence on Dutch culture, and on Mondrian's thinking.

"Although Mondrian reacted against the dominant influence of Calvinism adhered to by his father, the influence of Calvinism became part of the philosphy of De Stijl through the dialectic process of evolution." (Threlfall, 1978)

Seuphor (who knew Mondrian personally) says about Mondrian in 1903:

"... and Calvinism was still strong in Mondrian..." (Michel Seuphor, 1956)

Is this what he's looking for? Egrabczewski (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I would be cautious about using Mondrian's own words, per WP:Primary. I'm not sure that he will accept that, though critically the article is about neoplasticism, not about Mondrian, so why not?

2. The Seupher quote seems best, as it is a secondary source, though Threfell is ideal if our text is about De Stijl in general.

If we can't resolve the challenges soon, I think we should accept his offer to be gamekeeper turned poacher. I don't believe that he is being picky for its own sake and I think the article will be the better for his explicit contributions. It will still be substantially your work. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider translating someone else's work as my own - especially when the translation was done by software! I've enjoyed working collaboratively however, as well as researching this topic :-) I've posted two selections from Jaffé's 1956 book "De Stijl: 1917-1931" and one from Tomassoni's book on Mondrian (1968). Let's see what happens. Egrabczewski (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Failed GA

Main page: talk:Neoplasticism/GA1 § Comment for next reviewer

Well I guess that was not entirely surprising though I did think we might get there in the end. I never thought it was going to be easy but it has been more difficult than I expected. It was a lot closer to a wp:Featured article review.

I suggest we park it now until September at the earliest before we consider what if anything more we can, should or want to do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise that our time was up so quickly. I was still editing the article! Egrabczewski (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't close it based mainly off time, it was because it became clear that to get to GA the content would have to change a lot. I'm not sure how to explain it, you kind of just have to compare it with other reviews to see how unusually big the review was getting and how much conceptual change was required compared to other articles. The biggest I can see right now is Human history and this will be multiple times larger. According to the rules I should have closed this review earlier, but I was just really trying not to so that we could get it to GA. Egrabczewski, I am sorry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the significance of GA anyway? Egrabczewski (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I was taken aback too. I understood that he had agreed to an extension to the end of August. Indeed I thought the last thing he wrote was (in summary) "let's not spend any more time discussing this at the talk page, be bold and do the updates, then let's see the effect". Maybe he just wanted to stop reviewing and start contributing? We shall see.

GA has no special significance other than as a quality mark. And I guess recognition of the hard work it took to get it to that standard. Which is what lies behind my "or want to do". IMO, we have met the standard, but tbf the articles that I helped reach GA are all based on a good variety of source and involve hard facts with little or no need to try to understand the minds of the protagonists.

I didn't understand his reference to "machine translation". Wikipedia:Translation says we shouldn't just leave it to google translate to blindly import text from other language wikipedias, but I don't recall that we have done that? We did consult the principal editor of nl:Nieuw Bielding on one aspect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely discuss my reasoning for closing despite saying I would leave it until September if you would like, but I'm also just fine with you thinking worse of me. Up to you.

Machine translation: this is in regards to plastic. Per the Overy quote, this stuff is very difficult to translate. This means machine translations are insufficient; they can't capture the nuances. Unless there is a part that is particularly uncontroversial, English language sources will have to be the foundation of discussions of plastic means and concepts around it; we can't be the ones doing the translating, with machines or otherwise, as in this unusual circumstance it would be OR.

If you think I've failed it from criteria beyond the scope of GA, you can just renominate it. The queue in arts isn't so long now, and another reviewer would put it through to GA. Putting an article straight up for GA again if you aren't sure about the reviewers conclusion is standard practice. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rollinginhisgrave for your previous comments. We will no doubt consider them further now that we have more time to look again at the issues you raised.

However, on reflection, if you said you were going to do something, and we accepted that in good faith, then you are obliged, in any civilised world, to do as you say. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding machine translation: none of our references were made using it, even though I personally have used this to check the meanings of documents. Having said that, machine translation is something we're going to have to get used to. ChatGPT is far better than I ever expected - even surprising. Compare the 1917 "Neo-Plasticism" translation by Holtzman & James with that done by ChatGPT and tell me if there's a significant difference in quality [2]Neo-Plasticism. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic, partly because of language difficulties and secondly because artists are very good at writing dense and impenetrable explanations of their work. I've been reading several texts by other modern abstract artists in English, which is bad enough. Trying to do this in another language is another can or worms.

I may come back to this article once I've done some further reading. I've solved the issue of having no English translations of several Dutch articles and books by translating them myself using ChatGPT. The results are on my Internet Archive page. These include the following:

"The New Worldview" - Schoenmaekers (1915)

"Principles of Visual Mathematics" - Schoenmaekers (1916)

"The Gospel of the Earth" - Schoenmaekers (1906)

"Three Presentations on the New Visual Arts" - Van Doesburg (1919)

"The New Movement in Painting" - Van Doesburg (1916)

"Neo-Plasticism" - Mondrian (1920)

It's great to have these texts, of which the first five have never been translated into English. I translated "Neo-Plasticism" by Mondrian to compare it to the Holtzman & James translation. You can check this out for yourselves. In the meantime, I'll be spending my time reading over these translations, understanding and improving them. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave:, I don't for a moment doubt your good faith and at various points in the review we have both thanked you for the perspective you brought. I thanked you for the edit that closed the review. Let me thank you again – with no reservations whatever – for the significant time and effort you put into doing the GAR. As I said above, I never thought it was going to be easy. The only issue is that you didn't give any forewarning that you had reached the conclusion that it was time to wrap up, the contrary in fact. So yes, it was a shock.

Yes, we are disappointed – who wouldn't given how much work we [especially Egrabczewski] put in to get this far? If it isn't far enough, then that is a judgement we must accept. Your decision was not a frivolous or peremptory one. I wouldn't expect another reviewer to take a different view and wouldn't dream of asking before we have met the challenges you have set.

You remarked at one point that you have an interest in the topic and might have contributed were you not the reviewer, or at least taken a more active role in guiding towards GA. Now that you are free of the ethical constraint, hopefully you will look at that possibility again? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier, I've been taking a break from GA. I'm 100% up for taking an active role, I'll pick it up in September with the both of you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Egrabczewski, you are Hero of the Revolution! But just in case you missed it, see WP:PRIMARY: you won't be able to use your analyses of their work, at least not on Wikipedia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I knew you were going to say that! Egrabczewski (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)