User talk:OrelPosrednik77

Ruskin
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits to Ruskin. This page gives an outline of limitations on the external links section. Links are usually limited to around 10. One link is given per organisation; that is to say, five links from the University of Lancaster is not advised. WP:ELPOINTS gives more details on these. I recognise that you must have put a great deal of work into adding Ruskin's links. No doubt they are all useful. The above points refer only to the 'external links' section at the base of the article. I'm sure they would be great for adding detail of his life and work, providing strong citations. Things are rarely ever lost on Wikipedia. Your links are listed here for your future reference. If you have any further questions or would like a hand getting to know your way around, I am happy to help. Please just leave a note on my talk page. I hope that helps. Best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the helpful reply. It is useful to know the protocol. I shall look at he links again, because I think some of them are less useful than others. For example, the Baldwin Library has been retained, but links to Brantwood, Ruskin's home open to the public, and the Guild of St George, have been deleted. I am also puzzled by some other editing. The section entitled 'Biographies' was in place prior to my joining the Wiki community. It has now been moved to further reading. In the move, my explanatory notes have been deleted (pointing out, for example, that Professor Rosenberg's book is really a biography of Ruskin's thought) and Robert Hewison's OUP title has been deleted altogether. What is the explanation for this? And why does the further reading not say that these titles are biographies, rather than some other genre of study? I note, too, that some of the hyperlinks have been removed. So, for example, we can still go straight to the wikipedia page on environmentalism, but not sustainability and craft. As a visually-impaired editor and user of Wikipedia, I find the use of endnotes (references, sources) unehlpful when linking to external sites (but crucial for citation, of course). At present, the references are out of balance, with few of Ruskin's most notable scholars being referred to. I am not suggesting that all of the edits are unhelpful or puzzling, and it is both a comfort and a joy to know that someone is looking at this. I appreciate your time, and asistance. With best wishes, OrelPosrednik77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi OrelPosrednik, Thanks for your reply. I am quite sure that the Ruskin article is in need of your attentions, especially as a Ruskin expert, which I am not at all. Yes, do look at the links again. If you have found some deadlinks, then do edit them out, but be mindful of WP:ELPOINTS' note that "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." I checked most of them 6 months ago but they may have changed since the last retrieval date given. I removed the hyperlinks to pages such as craft because these are generic nouns that do not link to pages helpful or specific enough to expand the thread of Ruskin study (in my opinion). It's an idea to check the page you link to before linking. A link to the more detailed Arts and Crafts Movement may be of more use. As to biographies, the text was:


 * The standard biographies are those of W. G. Collingwood, The Life of John Ruskin (2 vols.) (Methuen, 1893) read online or download the sixth edition (1905) (external website) and E. T. Cook, The Life of John Ruskin (2 vols.) (George Allen, 1911).read online or download vol. 1 of the second edition (1912) (external website) read online or download vol. 2 of the second edition (1912) (external website). A notable biography is Derrick Leon, Ruskin: The Great Victorian (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949).


 * The definitive, modern two-volume biography by Tim Hilton appeared as John Ruskin: The Early Years (Yale University Press, 1985) and John Ruskin: The Later Years (Yale University Press, 2000). A shorter biography is provided in John Batchelor, John Ruskin: No Wealth But Life (Chatto & Windus, 2000). For concise and affordable accounts of Ruskin’s life and work, see Francis O’Gorman, John Ruskin (Pocket Biographies) (Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1999); and Robert Hewison, John Ruskin (OUP, 2007), the text of his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography account.

There seemed little here that could not be more concisely and better presented as a list. Wikipedia is very keen on presenting a neutral point of view - that is to say not putting ones own opinion. 'Standard', 'notable', 'definitive' and 'affordable' are (arguably) subjective takes, given in a register that is not really encyclopaedic. We do not give external hyperlinks in the body of an article, only in further reading lists, External links lists etc. That is why I rendered them into references. I deleted Robert Hewison's John Ruskin (OUP, 2007), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography account because as written it sounds as if this refers to his ODNB Ruskin  entry. Standard encyclopaedias and dictionaries such as ODNB or Britannia are the places one would expect to find short biographies and there for are not usually including in reading lists. Giving edit summaries is also tremendously helpful to other editors in following changes down the months and years in the history of an article. The 'Edit summary' box is near the base of the page. It helps to show the good faith of a (new) editor. The 'See also' section commonly includes three of four links, not to people included in the article itself. In all these areas less is definitely more. Do the blue hypertext links (like this) prove difficult for your eyes? If so I can provide unpiped links (like this: Manual of Style (linking) if it's easier. I will reply to messages on your page to keep the discussion together for ease. Single block paragraph messages also help to follow who is saying what to whom. I hope that helps. Welcome again, best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, please don't be put off - I know it's tough when one's hard work is reverted. Your insight and knowledge is much appreciated. The guidelines can seem labyrinthine at first but many editors are here to help. The word 'bibliography' is a bit tricky as in articles it can be taken in different ways - as the works listing of the author, as a works listing about the author or as a listing of source texts in the article. "Works", "Sources", "Further reading" etc, in my view, are much clearer. Different articles use different formats. I think most of us learn here by trial and error more than pouring over the guidelines. I hope that helps and thanks again. Span (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your great additions to the Ruskin 'Legacy' section. Just a small point - we add page numbers for source texts wherever possible. It can be a pain to go back and find the page references after editing to add them in, if working from a number of sources. There's more about citation protocol here: Citing sources. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this message. You have nothing to apologise for. I am grateful that you are interested in the Ruskin entry, and that you are giving me advice as I seek to improve it. I am not quite a techno-dunce, but I am not technologically sophisticated either, and it is very useful to be guided as I learn 'on the job'. I had not noticed the page of viewer statistics, and this is most interesting. It underlines how important it is to ensure that the entry is accurate (first and foremost) and reasonably comprehensive. I am puzzled by some errors. When I first started editing a couple of weeks ago, Ruskin was said to have died in France! I am trying to work out how best to edit the main parts of the article. I think it needs to be quite comprehensively re-structured... I really only wrote yesterday because I was anxious that I had failed to sign in before making changes. This was an oversight. The eyes are holding up, thank you. And, please, keep up the good work. (By the way, if you do not mind me asking, do you have some interest in Russians? I noticed that a few of your edits were for Soviet cosmonauts I think I am right in saying…?)

Hi, yes, I am discovering a great interest in Russian literary culture. I love the Russian Silver Age poets - Akhmatova and Tsvetaeva. I have reworked both their articles in the last few years - not as an expert but because they had been woeful and unsourced till then. Such life stories! This has uncovered edit warring in many articles over Soviet/Ukrainian nationality. It's a tricky area in Eastern European subjects as the borders have moved so often. I try and keep an eye on nationalist edits (hence the cosmonauts). I have rewritten John Keats, Seamus Heaney and Jabberwocky also, again as holding text until an expert can work them up to GA or FA status. Others include Tom Stoppard, Garcia Lorca, Derek Walcott, Borges and Langston Hughes. I have done medium work on about 200 other poets. My interest is getting poetry articles up to a readable, pretty accurate, formatted place that wouldn't shame the subject. I suspect John R hasn't had a decent re-working since the article was worked up in 2006. (More stats here in case you have encountered them yet.) I'm sure there are errors and oversights. Which is why it's delightful you have found it. The death in France thing could have been some old vandalism unreverted, I don't know. Wikipedia has many strengths but 100% accuracy all the time isn't one of them - it has never claimed that.

There seems to be two main ways of majorly reworking articles. One is to edit piecemeal on the live article as you have been doing. This has the virtue of more accurate info being available to readers in real time and so giving an incentive to you to continue the work. The other is to use a sandbox. Users can create pretty much as many subpages for their own article development/thoughts as they like, such as this one User:Spanglej/Don Quixote. They are for your own use but are visible and editable by other users like any other page. Protocol deeply frowns on messing with another editors user pages unless invited. On your own pages you can delete /edit as you wish. Re-writing an article in a sandbox has the virtue of being away from prying eyes who keep twiddling with your edits :o)  You can learn and change about text for as long as you like, and make notes, much like writing your own objective referenced essay. You can invite other editors to co-write with you if you feel like it. The downside is that these articles often stay "in development" for an age and never seem quite finished enough to go live.  You can find a starter sandbox for you [ here]. For future easy access, you can put My sandbox on your userpage.   To create other sandboxes just type in the name of the page you want to create after your user name like I did with Don Quixote. For example User:OrelPosrednik77/John Ruskin. Clicking on this red link will take you to a page you can play with. Remember to save the page name somewhere. I keep a list at the bottom of  my main page. If the links don't work, please let me know, I'm still learning as I go. Nobody else is making substantive edits to Ruskin so I imagine you would have pretty much a clear run unfettered to work piecemeal. JPCohen has been working on Robert Lowell for over a year this way and KTLynch worked Oscar Wilde up to GA this way recently. I hope that all helps. Take what's useful and leave the rest - it can, perhaps, sometimes feel a bit overwhelming, like entering a new virtual world. I find it useful to remember there is no deadline, we do what we can do in our own time. Have a good week. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, this really is so helpful. It gives me much to think about, and many tools and ideas to play with. I am most grateful. I am really beginning a procees which will then be augmented by others in the coming months. All of us involved in this project are published Ruskin scholars, but we are keen to ensure that we speak to everyone, and not to ourselves. The obvously great and important thing about Wikipedia is that it provides Google's first result when you search for John Ruskin. I suspect that the article will end up changing gradually, and ultimately substantially(!) over coming months. A lot of what is there is fine, but some judgements need refining, and some evidence cited is more reliable than others, as I am sure you understand. Slowly but surely we will get there, and it gives me great confidence to know that you are helping to guide me through what, yes! - does seem a slightly baffling process, but it's getting easier, and largely thanks to you. And learning from my mistakes, of course.


 * I am glad that you are addressing articles on Russians, and especially Silver Age poets. This is another of my interests. Eventually I shall perhaps look at these myself (I can feel the bug beginning to bite)! I do read and write (and badly speak) Russian, so hopefully I can be of some assistance here, in time. Very many thanks, and best wishes to you. [OrelPosrednik77]

It all sounds good. I'm glad the notes are helpful. I agree that internationally this article is most probably the most used online source - a good way into checking out further sources - hopefully a way station to deeper investigation. It's probably best to add cites with page numbers as you go in case someone rocks up and reverts for lack of refs. Also - we sign off comments with four tildas ~ which gives a time stamp etc. Best wishes. Onwards and upwards! Span (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you
Yes, your edits are great. I probably was editing too close in to your own - you may have still been working on something when I made some minor copy edits. This can result in a "edit conflict" error message. I was just twiddling. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You should do what seems right. I don't mean to be breathing down your neck. Yes, 'enthusiasts' is more accurate than 'proponents'. It's harder to source and quantify people as 'readers'. Have a good day. Happy editing. Span (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. I'm sorry if I have given you the impression that I am checking up on your work. The article is not 'mine' in any way. There is no hierarchy. The overall aim of editors is to improve articles through collaboration. I am feeling like I've been very heavy-handed and it's a salient lesson for me around welcoming new comers. I have around 1000 articles on my watchlist (starred pages) and keeping track of all edits / vandalism can make us (me) too terse in tone. It happens when we (I) try to move too fast. I think it is a weakness of Wikipedia that it is currently geared around what isn't working, rather than what is. We tend to look out for problems rather than celebrate contributions. Added to that, we work in real time, as edits happen each day. WP (and I) are trying hard to find ways to up the appreciation levels (added Baklava).

One of the pillars of Wikipedia editing is "be bold", summed up in the phrase "Just do it! (with civility, of course!)". This acknowledges that little will get done here if we are too cautious and great creative strides can me made if we have courage and have a go. One of the beauties here is that it's usually quicker to undo errors than it is to create them. We have thousands of editors to ask for help, advice and support and very little is ever lost. It's nearly all backed up somewhere. So you don't have to apologise for me for anything at all. You are doing valuable work and are very welcome to our Wikipedia community which, I'm sure, can seem rather odd, arcane and opaque at times. Around 30 000 people a month read the Ruskin article. (See stats under the 'View history' tab). Your edits do make a big difference. Enjoy your weekend. London's a bit overcast right now (or my bit of it is). I hope there is sun where you are and your eyes are holding up. All best wishes. Span (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Third party refs
Hi again. Thanks for all the stonking work you have been doing in the past few weeks. It all looks great. Just a small note. We aim for sourcing with reliable third party references and shy away from reliance on primary refs, being wary of what is termed "original research". That is to say, conclusions or arguments that the editor of the page is making. More details here WP:PSTS. I know you are experts in the field, but where possible, it is best to cite a third party text (preferably not your own books, as we get into the waters of conflict of interest. Maybe, rather than replacing primary refs, you can add a third party text that echoes the point. It's a small thing, but there's no reason at all why the Ruskin article shouldn't be nominated for good article or featured article status sometime soon and the adjudicators are hot on this kind of thing. I hope this is helpful. All best wishes Span (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but Works is often given as a reference as here. I assumed this is ref'ing a text by Ruskin. For example
 * "Classical architecture, in contrast, expressed a morally vacuous and repressive standardisation. Ruskin associated Classical values with modern developments, in particular with thedemoralising consequences of the industrial revolution, resulting in buildings such as The Crystal Palace, which he despised as an oversized greenhouse. "
 * This seems to be using a primary source to support your contention (the veracity of which I have no doubt at all). It must seem odd and tricky, as you are reshaping pre-existing text in the article that was uncited and possibly full of OR. I haven't fine-combed through the article history and am greatly appreciative of the work you have done already, so am not wanting to labour a point or to ask you to do more work. I'm hoping you will not fling up your hands in despair. Do you see my point, or have I got it wrong? Best wishes Span (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please tell me more about "one seems to have to justify points not in contention". By the way, you can sign and date your name with four tildes ~ Thanks. Span (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it is tricky and there is by no means agreement through Wikipedia as to how much needs to be sourced. At the moment it is something approximating "anything that is challenged". For an GA/FA pretty much everything is sourced, but to avoid disrupting the reading flow, editors would often add just one source covering, at the end of the para. The FA James Joyce gives a sense. Every quote, needs a source. A surprising amount of readers use the refs to support their own reading and do go away and find out more (which is at least half the reason I add in more than might be challenged). If sourcing, then a third party publication is best. It does depend on the readers' good will not to get grumpy and challenge everything because they can. I am wrangling with one editor who wants to strip a long article back to one sentence because it is not sourced. It is all an evolving community project in progress. The articles that I have reworked attempt to use FA criteria so that if someone (myself, even) should decide to try and get it to FA, they would have a good place to start.

Featured article advice says "The advantage of good up-front research from high-quality sources is that it nearly eliminates POV battles, and allows more time to be spent on improving the article. Evidence to support particularly significant or possibly contentious points should be cited directly to the most reliable source available." Writing it well, does allow the article to become stable as there is little to contend. Again, you were going from almost no sources and weeding out the nonsense which changes things a bit. I, for example, as a non-Ruskin scholar, had no idea whether he died in France or not and what is agreed about Ruskin across the board and what is not or how much vandalism snuck under the radar. The citations are there to reassure the reader. Again, Joyce, Yeats, John Keats's 1819 odes or Ode on a Grecian Urn give a sense, not that you have to aim that high, at all, at all. Best wishes Span (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Guild of St George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)