User talk:The war moose

Welcome!
Hello, The war moose, 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

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.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi The war moose! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:12, Monday, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Isfeld has been accepted
 Mark Isfeld, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Mark_Isfeld help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Dealing with vandalism
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Freak the mighty. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's [ page history] to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Graham 87 16:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the wrong template to your talk page previously. Sorry about that! Graham 87 16:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

GOCE Drive
Hello. Thanks for your edits on the article Pieter Pourbus. However, if you noticed, I was already working on the article before you started. That's why we have the tag, to alert would be editors and to avoid a duplication of effort. I will discontinue working on it and remove it from my articles list. Let's make this work for everybody. Cheers! BroVic (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pieter Pourbus
Hello, I have observed with great sadness how your "editing" of this article turned it into what is now a poor article in my humble opinion. This is mainly the result of your numerous deletions, which are not explained or based on any rational. Deleting massively as you did is also contrary to the principles of collaboration of Wikipedia. I was myself working on the editing of the article, and considerably enriched it if you compare with the first version of the article, before you stepped in and massively reverted without a comment or explanation at each of your revert. I will now go back to editing again this article, trying to restore what is missing because of your destructive work. Judging from your very few additions, I imagine that you have no or little background in art history. Therefore, I humbly ask you not to start an editing war, and turn to other articles where your skills will be better used. Thank you in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After copy editing during a Drive, endeavour to place the GOCE tag on the article's talk page, so that if there are issues, they can be brought to the attention of the Guild coordinators. BroVic (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors. I have reviewed 's edits to Pieter Pourbus, and it appears to me that most of the deletions were of text that added no encyclopedic value. For example, these passages were removed:
 * "At the occasion of the exhibition on Pieter Pourbus at the Gouda Museum in 2018, Paul Abels wrote in the catalogue of this exhibition about the role Gouda played in his life by putting what little is known about his ties to the city in the context of late-medieval religious and social life In Gouda."
 * Pourbus’ moved to Bruges, perhaps because Bruges is known to be a city that produces excellent painting, although that reputation was waning when Pourbus arrived. Bruges is familiar territory for the Gouda residents. Pourbus would have heard many stories about the city of Bruges whenup. The two cities are closely connected by the beer trade, which was the leading line of business in Gouda at the time.
 * Those passages tell us nothing about the subject of the article. In addition, phrases and sentences like "who was destined to", "under the wing of", "The decade following his breakthrough in 1550 boasts the best work of his career", and "His art as a portraitist is also revealed during this decade by group portraits that are second to none" do not belong in an encyclopedia; please see WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY.
 * Other edits rightly removed external links from the prose.
 * I do not agree with every edit that The war moose made, but overall, their edits improved the article significantly., if you choose to restore some of your preferred text to the article, please pay attention to the formatting improvements made in the copy edits, and please do not reintroduce the flowerly language that was rightly deleted. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Other edits rightly removed external links from the prose.
 * I do not agree with every edit that The war moose made, but overall, their edits improved the article significantly., if you choose to restore some of your preferred text to the article, please pay attention to the formatting improvements made in the copy edits, and please do not reintroduce the flowerly language that was rightly deleted. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with every edit that The war moose made, but overall, their edits improved the article significantly., if you choose to restore some of your preferred text to the article, please pay attention to the formatting improvements made in the copy edits, and please do not reintroduce the flowerly language that was rightly deleted. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Good evening Jonesey95,
 * Thank you for your comments. I can understand and agree with some edits.
 * And of course I welcome additions or amendments of contributors who are knowledgeable in the field, and do not delete important and sourced information, as well as sources and citations.
 * As an exemple, please read the first paragraph which I just corrected, and now shows 2 citations and 4 sources which were deleted without reason by The War moose(and without an explanation!)
 * As to one of the examples you give, about the reason PP moved to Bruges, I think it is important to show the economic context at the time, which was attracting painters to the rich cities (as later happened to Bruges, which lost its influence to Antwerp).
 * Maybe this should be written with other words, to better explain this context. And I will always welcome someone who writes a better English than I do. However, when I read words such as "mainstream" (used by The War Moose in a following paragraph) it raises eyebrows, don't you think?
 * Also, all iconography indications have been deleted, which is a pure non sense for an encyclopaedic article on art and painting. in addition, some very large paintings appear now in very small thumbnails, which is also totally misleading for the reader...
 * I suggest that you ask someone knowledgeable in art history to review my contributions. This person may of course contact me for a better coordination and common work (on this point, please note that The War Moose did not have the courtesy to contact me before "editing"...whereas he could not ignore that I had worked a lot to improve the previous state of what was then a very poor article.) I will then be happy to work hand in hand with this editor.
 * Thank you in advance
 * Best regards, --Emigré55 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Jonesey95: I suggest to go back to the version of the article edited by Barkhart on 13 May 2020‎ at 01:54. It is the best base to add some editor knowledgeable in art history, with whom I can have then a fruitful dialogue. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Jonesey95: In my view, a mix of simple and flowery language is key to making prose interesting and accessible. Writers should strive to inform but also entertain their readers. If the language used is too prosaic, the reading experience can become rather monotonous. The war moose eliminated all what was in his own opinion flowery language. He/we should always remember in writing such an article that we are writing encyclopaedic articles, which should be certainly accessible to all, but also reflect the high level of art history, and contribute to increase intellects/intelligence of the readers. What "mainstream" language certainly doesn't. --Emigré55 (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In case you are not aware, I wish to point out that once it's on this encyclopedia, you do not own this article, and thus, no Wikipedian is obliged to "contact" you before carrying out any edit. I would also suggest that you better acquaint yourself with and imbibe attitudes such as assumption of good faith and civility as it relates to the site's content. Furthermore, I would encourage that you do not try to force your opinions on how the article should look. We have our various styles and opinions, and this is why there are policies and guidelines to help us make the most of those differences, rather than squabble needlessly. As long as you've published this article here, expect (and welcome) significant changes over time. &mdash; BroVic (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way about my edits. I attempted to eliminate awkward formatting and flowery language in the article so that it would become easier to read. I also shrunk the size of the portraits so that they would not break the flow of the text. If a reader desires to see a painting at a higher resolution, they can just click on it. You're right that I don't know much about art history, but I only removed or edited portions that I felt did not fit Wikipedia's tone, and left the bulk of the article's content alone. Feel free to edit my edits if you believe that I removed important parts of the article. The war moose (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. cheers. --Emigré55 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)