RobvanderWaal

Committed identity: 0c94385e5a294eb021455960f331f0fcda48e75638d4257a16cc66710d8768c25ef5e8bad5ded5d4bf970cd300e37a08cf00fbc678c87024c1e44158872dbb30 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Question

Hi RobvanderWaal, I appreciate the work you are doing and I'd like your input on an article that confuses me. I am curious and a little perplexed by this article: Lost works by Vincent van Gogh. It has no references and it seems to me to be speculative or even a little farfetched although I am not sure. Please check it out, thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Modernist. Thanks for the kind words and also your own input, which I appreciate. I had a look at that article. I'm not an expert, just a knowledgeable enthusiast, but it does look like OR to me. I really don't know how people can put up edits without citations. However it's interesting enough and I have chased down one citation and corrected a confusion with names. I will look at it again in detail the next few days, but of course if it ultimately can't be cited, then it will have to go. I don't have Hulsker's Van Gogh door van Gogh. I might get myself a copy if I see one cheap on the internet. Citing the letters is interesting for readers, but they are primary sources and so we get this problem with OR we are possibly seeing here. It would be better to have secondary sources cited. RobvanderWaal (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My take is that it's mostly OR. I read the letter to Wil, and the 'lost stuff' referred to are as stated in the letter and as you point out - books and other things, not Vincent's own work. Nice work thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The first item in the book list (Bram Huijser, Een kar vol Van Goghs en de handel daarin. In Kunstbeeld 1990, and Kunstkanaal) is in fact available on the internet in full, but you have to click through a mother page that has been set up in the face of "taunting from Google (?)". Bram Huijser is a published writer on graphic works http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Huijser, so that's a secondary source, albeit in Dutch (it might have been translated). I'll look though it and provide citations if I can, though I'm not sure what the position can be with citing foreign language sources. Anyway I'll have a go. Interesting article by BH incidentally if you can manage a bit of Dutch. RobvanderWaal (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read this [1] which looks like the original article from which the english version came. Also no references, but very compelling...Modernist (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my Dutch isn't good enough to judge whether the Dutch wiki really is the original or not (but it's certainly better Dutch than I can write). I agree it's compelling and worthy of getting up to scratch. I'll take it in hand. Give me a few days on it. Thanks for pointing it out. I shall probably take off to Europe now, scouring the flea markets! RobvanderWaal (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a few extra dimes if you find some :)...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just taken possession of a copy of Ken Wilkie's "The Van Gogh File" and I see there's a chapter on the "Breda Boxes", so evidently this is not all that new. I think I have about three weeks editing clear here, after which I will probably not be able to do do so much. I want to get as much done covering Van Gogh's Hague period as possible, plus one or two other things (a page to itself for "Sorrow" for example, such an important drawing). But I will do a little more on the "Lost works" article, at least cite Wilkie where I can and make it look a little less speculative and OR. Hope it doesn't lead to a rash of van Gogh forgeries :). RobvanderWaal (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for a copy too...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Rob, come by and have a cup of Tea!

Hello! RobvanderWaal, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the invite. Looks like a nice place and I might well drop in. Thanks. RobvanderWaal (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Adrianus Jacobus Zuyderland (Van Gogh series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private Collection (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) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers robo. Fixed. RobvanderWaal (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited George Hendrik Breitner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism (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) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers robo. Fixed. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Cheers J-Mo. Done. Thanks. RobvanderWaal (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for winding up the tea-lady.

Notice

Hi there. After our discussion on the Major depressive disorder talk page, I have initiated a SPI case, as I have suspicions that you may be the same person as a previously blocked editor. The rather stern-looking notice below contains a link to the case page, where you can make your own comments. Please don't take this personally, and if my suspicions prove to be unfounded then I look forward to working together to improve wikipedia. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche. Thank you.

I am not quite sure what sockpuppetry is, nor frankly care. I hope you will forgive my disinterest. Thank you. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Added: one way you can improve Wikipedia is by responding in good faith to the challenges made of you. I asked you to provide an explanation of your assertion that At Eternity's Gate is an expression of sorrow or despair when in fact van Gogh explicitly wrote that it was an expression of mortal frailty and the divine, an attempt to convey something of the spirit of Christmas and New Year. You did not do that, but rather referred me for some kind of procedure that I gather is an invasion of my privacy. Would you care to explain that, please?

I can add that there was no discussion on your part. Just a tedious repetition of your position.

I discussed it and you phoned the police by way of thanks. RobvanderWaal (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat?. Thank you.

Also, please see WP:NLT. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My remark "I discussed it and you phoned the police by way of thanks" above was a reproach and not a legal threat, whatever that is in Wikipedia. Did you imagine I was going launch a class action against you?

I showed you every courtesy and you showed me none. The fact of the matter is that you are wrong to assert the painting At Eternity's Gate is a depiction of sorrow, good or otherwise. It is self evidently a depiction of a resigned, frail old man, exactly as van Gogh himself described his intentions. I merely informed the Talk page that this was so. I did not attempt to edit the article. I left that to its editors. But you rather sought to pick a quarrel and when you found you could not win the argument, you sought to win it by calling in the police. RobvanderWaal (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I could easily "win" the argument by providing you with a link to the previous discussion, but since you read it all at the time, that would be a waste of time. I'm not going to keep reasoning with you every time you come back to launch your "van Gogh was happier than a kid in a sweet shop" campaign under a new username. "Calling the police", as you put it, gets the job done quicker. I'm done with this discussion. When you're willing to work collaboratively, appeal for an unblock under the Rinpoche username and take it from there. Until then, try not to clog up SPI too much. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. What is this nonsense about "van Gogh was happier than a kid in a sweet shop" campaign? I happen to know his life in some detail i.e. to say I have studied all the standard biographies in the course of my work. In my edit on At Eternity's Gate I went to some pains to set out in some detail how debilitating his condition was:

Symptoms were varied, but in their most severe manifestations they involved attacks of confusion and unconsciousness followed by periods of stupor and incoherence during which he was generally unable to paint, draw, or even to write letters. It was such an attack that first led him to being hospitalised at Arles, and following a later relapse, he had himself committed to the asylum at Saint-Rémy in May 1889, where he remained for the most part until May 1890.

On February 22, 1890, van Gogh suffered his most severe relapse, an episode Jan Hulsker called the longest and saddest of his life, and one which lasted some nine weeks through to late April. During this time, he was only able to write his brother Theo once, in March 1890, and then only briefly to say he was totally stupified (totalement abruti) and unable to write. He did not write Theo again until late April, but that letter makes it clear that he had been able to paint and draw a little during this time, despite his sadness and melancholy:

"What can I tell you of these two last months, things aren’t going well at all, I’m more sad and bored than I could tell you, and I no longer know what point I’m at ... While I was ill I nevertheless still did a few small canvases from memory which you’ll see later, reminiscences of the north [souvenirs du nord] ... so melancholy do I feel."

It is in these drawing and paintings that Hulsker sees unmistakable signs of his mental collapse, otherwise rare in his work.

For the last time I have nothing to do with the user Rinpoche (of course I know of him, we all do).

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RobvanderWaal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is not necessary because my edits are not damaging or disruptive. I am a new editor to Wikipedia and this my only account. I am not abusing multiple accounts and I am not a sock of user Rinpoche. I was aked to provide an edit of the article At Eternity's Gate, a painting by Vincent van Gogh, and I made a substantial edit explaining the genesis of this painting. My edit received an appreciative response from the user Modernist, a well known editor of the Visual Arts. I continued contributing to the van Gogh and related pages, at the same time developing a lengthy, I believe useful, article in my sandbox about van Gogh's studio at the Hague, which I have now lost. Yesterday I posted on the Talk page of the article Major depressive disorder, pointing out that the painting At Eternity's Gate, used to illustrate that article, is unequivocally not a depiction of mental anguish but rather of mortality and sanctity on the evidence of van Gogh's own writings. I merely noted it in a non-controversial and courteous manner. I described the situation as unsatisfactory but did not press any course of action nor attempt to edit the aticle. It was purely a 'for your information' post. By way of thanks I find myself blocked indefintely and an article I had laboured hours over in my sandbox confiscated. I ask you to unblock me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Based on technical AND behavioural similarities, I'm not at all convinced that you are not a block-evading editor. Nevertheless, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS - not WP:TRUTH. You do not have any right or privilege to force your changes on any article whatsoever. On top of this, you have displayed a horrific battleground mentality - even on the SPI report suggesting that "your editor" noticed something bad about another editor, and asked them about it. Your block, and the SPI are about YOU. The comment about "your editor" also makes me extremely concerned that you're both a) inserting original research, and b) editing on behalf of an organization - neither of which are permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Very well. I was warned that this would likely happen and now I know for myself. I went to some pains in my submission to explain I was not trying to force a change on the article. I merely wished to set out in a neutral fashion the facts of the matter. Is that 'battling'? So very 'horrific'? As for WP:TRUTH I am aware of that, but that should not be an excuse for propagating falsehood. That At Eternity's Gate is a depiction of mental anguish was never ever cited, as it should have been (but there are no reliable sources for the assertion). You misunderstand the implication of 'my editor': I didn't mean a Wikipedia editor, although as it happens she is an experienced Wikipedia editor.

I shall follow the progress of this icon with interest. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"I was warned that this would likely happen and now I know for myself." It's too bad you were not warned to take it slow and get aquainted with Wikipedia's guidelines or to take the advice of other editors seriously. You received the wrong warning, terrible advice and counsel.--v/r - TP 03:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for this. Just to make it a bit clearer, I was expressly asked to provide an edit on At Eternity's Gate but I was warned (in the opinion of my mentor) that I might encounter resistance and that most starting editors these days in Wikipedia don't in fact continue, the ones in academia (but I'm not from academia) in particular often getting a rough ride. The (in my opinion) somewhat suspect distinction Wikipedia makes between truth and verifiability was explained to me.

In fact I received a pleasant encouragement from one established editor, and an ivitation to vist the 'Tea House' and participate in a survey (which I did). I can't agree I went too quickly, whatever that implies. I happened to have time on my hands and I caught up and updated a few van Gogh articles I know my mentor had formerly expressed an interest: amongst other things I tidied up the article Amsterdam Impressionism, which was in the list of articles needing attention in the Visual Arts and provided a stub for Vincent's Tree Roots, an important painting, very possibly his last, that directly presaged German Expressionism and the Abstract movement. I corrected the worst of the original research errors I spotted in the articles (there are, I am afraid, people posting on van Gogh paintings who quite plainly don't have the first idea about what they are in fact looking at - I don't mean that in any elitist sense, just at the most basic level of understanding such things as the composition of a subject). By far the greater part of my editing was to prepare the long article I was developing on van Gogh's studio in The Hague in my Sandbox, now completely lost. It was a full month and more before I posted in Major Depressive Disorder about At Eternity's Gate and I did not attempt to edit the article nor insist on any course of action, still less utter legal threats as Basilisk suggests. Of course the situation there is very unsatisfactory, indeed extremely bizarre.

Regarding Wikipedia, I would say it's slghtly addictive. I suspect there are people who are in fact addicted to it, and probably not for the better of the project. I should think that at best I would have eventually finished my article on the studio and might subsequiently have, very slowly, contributed similar articles on his other studios. RobvanderWaal (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this Rob - I did enjoy your work here and your sense of humor...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Modernist.I admire your work here. Very many of these Visual Arts articles in Wikipedia are absolutely beautiful, and I can see that's in no small measure due to you. RobvanderWaal (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is always a {{second chance}}, if you want to do that.--v/r - TP 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will consider it, but probably I've done all I really wanted to do here. I see I can still post in the Dutch wiki and I gather my studio article was rescued by an admirer (well I'm flattered ...). Don't misundersand my position please. I support Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. I refer to it constantly, but I do not see it as an academic resource, rather as one complementing academia. I would be rather sorry, for example, to see the present pleasant mix at The Starry Night replaced by some dry proxy for an acedemic article.

Thank you every one. RobvanderWaal (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"but I do not see it as an academic resource, rather as one complementing academia" That's how we see it too. We're not the go to spot as a citation, but if you look at a topic we try to give a neutral overview of it and provide a wealth of citations about it. Your bibliography for any project is already written for you.--v/r - TP 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rob you worked hard here and your efforts are appreciated...Modernist (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning At Eternity's Gate

I find myself editing at Commons on another matter so I thought I would just make a small contribution tidying up here. Without seeking out my detailed notes, the painting At Eternity's Gate was first sold by a Paris dealer in 1905 who called it Grieving Old Man at a time when Vincent's letters had not been published and nothing was known of the painting's genesis ( Vincent had asked for some of his old prints and lithographs so he could make some colour studies while he was convalescing from his last and most series breakdown: the painting is an exact copy of a drawing he made in His Hague period some eight years earlier when he was pains to represent natural piety - a lengthy passage in his letters making that very clear). It's very unfortunate that the eventual purchasing museum (Kroller-Muller) chose to exhibit it as a foil for a popular Vincent drawing Woman in Mourning and entirely reprehensible that subsequently a manual on clinical depression used At Eternity's Gate as its jacket cover without permission from the museum. That's the background to all that.

What I had in mind for my Vincent edits was to provide articles listing his work by studio, locating them geographically and setting them within the context of his letters. I also had in mind to make considerable contributions to Dutch 19th century painting in general.

I shall never return to that project. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)