User talk:Mootros/Archives/2010/July

Dutch [ahistorical understanding of the concept of nationality]
PLease stop these misguided removals of Dutch nationality for 17th century figures. There is massive consensus, inside wp & outside, that they are correct, whatever your own views. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, what consensus are you referring to? Nothing to do with Dutch or not. Nobody is debating whether someone was Dutch or not. The problem is the concept of "Nationality" or "Nation"? These are 19th century concepts. There might have been Dutch people (of Dutch ethnic origin, with Dutch custom, speaking Dutch, painting Dutch pictures...), but I don't think during the 17th century there was a Dutch nation or nation state, never mind nationality (as this box say). Please kindly revert this back. Mootros (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument has been raised & rejected hundreds of times re the Italians, Germans and others. The Dutch had a state from the late 16th century - a "nation state" is not necessary for a nationality. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read nationality it clearly states that nation and nationality is a 18th or 19th century concept. If you think that nationality merely refers to a state, than the "nationality" would be "Dutch Republic" or "Republic of Florence" for example. Where is such a consensus?  Please kindly revert this back.Mootros (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So no one had a nation before then? This is historically untrue & simply does not reflect normal English usage or WP consensus. I will not revert - please raise the issue somewhere else - try the Dutch project. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, prior to the 18/19th centrality people had ethnic origin, language, etc, but not a nationality. It has nothing to do with Dutch; did you read nationality. Please kindly revert this. Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a stub which does not support your edits. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How to do you support your claims? Please revert unless you can show that painter X had Dutch nationality bestowed upon him? Mootros (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mootros, you are currently in a minority of one against widespread usage, e.g. artcyclopedia "Artists by Nationality", where you will find Dutch and Italian. Likewise MoMA categorises artists by "nationality"., as does the American Library Association. See also The National Gallery definition of "School": "used to group artists by nationality, hence phrases like 'the French School' and 'paintings of the Spanish School'". We follow sources. Your view is currently WP:OR.  Ty  19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, doubts that there are French, Dutch, etc. artists, schools. The issues is the word nationality, which is clearly 18/19th century concept, hence inappropriate for 17th century people. Mootros (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent reference, Tyrenius. You are proofing the point: artist by nationality from 1880- 1954... Mootros (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the wrong link there. Of course MoMA has 1880-, because it is the Museum of Modern Art. It does nothing to prove your point about older artists.  Ty  01:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rembrandt - Dutch - enc. Britannica ...Modernist (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another useflu example, Modernist. Thank you. Nowhere it says "nationality". Nobody has every questioned whether 17th century X painter was Dutch or not. It is historically incorrect to state he had "Dutch nationality" Mootros (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an appropriate forum discuss there...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I am copying this part of this over there. Mootros (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pixable article with complete references ready for live
Hi Mootros, I contacted you several months ago about the possibility of creating an article for "Pixable" and it saying that article was blocked. I've created the full article, with sources and references to importance (User:Elaynekosty/pixable). Hopefully, you can help me pass this to the actual "Pixable" article. Thanks for your time and help! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaynekosty (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Elaynekosty, On first sight this looks fine to me. I have contacted an administrator who will hopefully unlock in due course, so we can copy it over here: Pixable. Many thanks for your effort! Mootros (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you use these four tildes ~ your post gets signed and dated, like this. Mootros (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is now unprotected; you may copy&past your draft in here: Pixable and save it. See how it goes. Let me know how you get on. Mootros (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting citations
Hello, Mootros!

How are You? What bout the corrections? What's better to make about the links?

Mit freundlichen Grüß

Farmount1989 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sorry I was busy elsewhere.


 * Here an example, see below.


 * You need to use this template for all newspaper article.


 * In order archive you could use this link to http://www.webcitation.org/archive and create an archive link. Best to use the "transparent" (but very long!) WebCite® URL that is created.


 * Don't worry to much about the "trans_title" field, I can check the translations later on.


 * Finally, you must ensure there is no repetition of citation. Each citation has a unique name, for example: '''


 * The above is the citation is now in the text. Please use this as a template. Good luck let me know how you get on. Mootros (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: An additional point, I am a bit worried about the size of the images, these are very small and in some cases almost impossible to read. Do you think you might be able to replace them with larger ones? Mootros (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dude
Checked in on your edits to see how things are going and am quite pleased to see you have moved on from that talk page and that user and have greatly expanded your realm of editing. Seems you are doing quite well. :) Keep up the good work! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good man! Mootros (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback2
Wikipedia talk:Service awards#Help with nocat usercategory  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   176° 53' 30" NET   11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Service awards#Help with nocat usercategory  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   232° 34' 30" NET   15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Set Sail For The Seven Seas   260° 56' 45" NET   17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate that. :)  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   325° 56' 45" NET   21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Service awards
Hi, that's interesting. I wasn't even aware that my Sandbox page is that known, (good, I;m glad!) though the editor listed above knows about it, and now you do, I suppose. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, it's fixed. Excellent! Mootros (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)