User talk:Barbarabloemink

Barbarabloemink (talk) early in the text entry my name is spelled incorrectly as "Blomink" could it please be changed to "Bloemink" or perhaps I can just change it? Barbarabloemink (talk)8:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Stuff like that is fine if you do, see WP:COIADVICE. Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florine Stettheimer[edit]

Hello, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, I have removed your recent changes at Florine Stettheimer for multiple reasons. I'm always glad to see an expert on a topic improve an article, but your claims need to have reliable sources. A not-yet-published book is not sufficient, and that brings its own issues of conflict of interest. If you'd like these additions to be included in the article, you'll need to find independent, reliable sources to back them up.

Another option would be to post on the article's Talk page (found here) about the changes you'd like to see, and other editors will step in. The various Wikiproject links at the top of that Talk page will also take you to pages which may be more closely monitored by people who like to help with projects such as this.

In addition, please brush up on Wikipedia formatting before adding anything else. Your contributions would have needed a ton of cleanup, mostly having to do with broken formatting and inappropriate use of the nowiki tag. Other editors can fix these issues, but the onus is really on the contributing editor to make additions as correct as possible, and leave the page in a readable state. Wikipedia formatting can take some getting used to, so you can always practice in your sandbox (link is at the top right of your screen).

If I can help with anything, please let me know. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Barbarabloemink! Thank you for your contributions. This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.

I am JohnInDC and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page.

Here are some more pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

FYI[edit]

There've been replies to your request for assistance here valereee (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setting you up with a sandbox page[edit]

Just dropping you a note here to make sure you stop editing the article at the Talk page. Go there and read what I've just said. I'll follow up with more in a moment. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing attention to your article revision[edit]

Just a friendly FYI that I added a link to your draft of the Florine Stettheimer article to the Talk:Florine Stettheimer thread as well as to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Worklist#Articles to be expanded/improved. Someone following that latter page may be able to help with reviewing your edits. The biggest issue I see with your proposed draft now is that unless someone has your book or the primary sources (letters, etc.) you used for it, there's no way they can verify the content. I know it's frustrating but it's the only way to maintain the sanctity of the encyclopedia's content and keep incorrect or otherwise harmful information from appearing on the site. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..Timtempleton thank you but I don't understand - but my book and all the other sources are in the libraries and as available as All the other sources on the current Stettheimer entry on Wikipedia!!! including articles on-line! And there is no "sanctity of the current Wikipedia Stettheimer content" as some of it is untrue as anyone can see if they bother to research the archives of her actual writings at Yale and Columbia! or actually if they read the source itself in the current Entry by Parker Tyler where he says he "exaggerated and made up" some of the statements in the current entry! In addition I have added a great deal of information to the entry so it is more complete....So how does what you said above relate? I don't mean to be difficult but the facts are the facts and anyone just has to do the research and check them or does Wikipedia want to continue to include untrue facts because whomever wrote the entry didn't do primary research? I do Thank You for answering and looking into this/ working on this issue with me 2604:2000:1383:88D1:F1CE:2370:29F0:BEC2 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 16, 20192604:2000:1383:88D1:F1CE:2370:29F0:BEC2 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quirk of the system. Existing content sourced to a book, online or not, is assumed to be correct unless proven otherwise. It's a first mover advantage, as unfair as that may seem. Rather than try to replace the entire article en masse with new content, content that may contradict existing info, perhaps it might makes sense to suggest incremental changes, and tackle the most egregious errors first? That can be done on the talk page. But without access to the book or online sources, there's little I personally can do to help, or review your content. And sources such as photocopies posted online on blogs unfortunately don't work either since those can be Photoshopped. That's why I thought a member of the art project perhaps with experience with female modernist artists (and better access to sources than I have) might help. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

....Oh Ok so do you suggest that I go to the site WikiProject Women artists/Worklist #Articles to be expanded/Improved and ask them for help - I KNOW they will know Stettheimer, and a number will probably know that I am the expert on her so will know that my information is the one likely to identify the most factual sources so that would be fantastic! 2604:2000:1383:88D1:F1CE:2370:29F0:BEC2 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 16 2019 2604:2000:1383:88D1:F1CE:2370:29F0:BEC2 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added Stettheimer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Worklist#Articles to be expanded/improved list, but there are a lot of entries there already - you could also post a request on the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists/Worklist. And by the way, when replying, you can preface your response with successive colons, starting with one, in order to indent the discussions, thus making them easier to follow. You can see how I do it on my comments. Good luck. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stettheimer and first female nude self-portrait[edit]

I've commented out the little note in the proposed rewrite for the article on Florine Stettheimer your sandbox. It might be easier to discuss what I thought the issues was on your talk page. I think what matters most is that we help our readers understand the significance of the work in context. There are a few things that I think we could point out. If Stettheimer was the second to do something, who was the first, and if she wasn't the first was Stettheimer aware of the other work? Were her American contemporaries? Does it matter that Americans tend to be much more prudish than Germans (think Feikörperkultur) ? As for being fully naked, Modersohn-Becker reclining mother and child shows her full body. With regards to the male gaze, I'd suggest that a painting that is so closely resembling an odalisque as Stettheimer's self-portrait, is far more accommodating toward that male gaze than any of Modersohn-Becker's paintings. But that's just my opinion, so we should just go with what that sources say. But If you do want make the point that Stettheimer's is "the only one painted with from a forthright woman's point of view, rather than for a man's pleasure", perhaps you can explain -how- it is different from Olympia or Maja desnuda. All the best, Vexations (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

===== =====Vexations - I have just transferred my sandbox text on Florine Stettheimer to the actual entry page - I have a big favor to ask...before anyone edits it would you please be so kind and to add the Cathedral pictures and fix the few additional footnotes I added as expertly as you did before for me? I would be very grateful!!! I hope it will then be acceptable to any editors who read it - no one stopped me as I was re-editing it...(Please also check the "sources" and "notes" as I am not sure I got the format right!) I hope this doesn't take too much time for you, but you've been terrific and I hope you'll help with this last request. I've also tried leaving this on your "talk" page to be sure you get it. THANKS!!!! Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 27 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations - Thank You!!! The pictures look terrific - as does the entire entry which you have made look professional and perfectly within the Wikipedia format which I was completely unable to do. I added information as you suggested about Modersohn-Becker and her earlier nude self-portraits and what makes Stettheimer's so different from all prior ones, thank you. Let me know if that is what you had in mind. If you feel that the content or grammar should be edited, please feel free to do so - I truly ONLY want this to be the best, most factual and useful entry on Stettheimer available in such a short and condensed form, that will also list the main primary and best most factual secondary sources... The big challenge, of course, is that when one reads this entry, in comparison to the existing one on Wikipedia's Stettheimer page, I think it is clear that the entry I've worked on demonstrates Why she is a significant artist worth reading/recognizing far more than the existing one. (The first portion of the existing one Was edited and re-written by me but then Wikipedia stopped allowing me to edit any more of the text as I had changed/added so much to the first few paragraphs!) However there is absolutely no one or way I can find to get the existing entry (and sources with false information) removed and Replaced with this entry which you too have put your efforts into to such a fine result. Thank you - can you think of Anything Else we can do to make this the main Stettheimer Wikipedia entry so readers have access to The True/Factual/Comprehensive information about the artist? (I know I sound like a broken record by now...sorry) Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 23, 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florine Stettheimer burial place[edit]

I thought I would ask here, if you knew where her ashes were buried or scattered. Her Findagrave entry just says "Cremated, Location of ashes is unknown, Specifically: Cremation took place 13 May 1944 at Ferncliff Crematory (Westchester County, New York)." It would be nice to be able to suggest a more accurate place. Thanks in advance. --Auric talk 11:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auric - yes as I write in the opening of my biography The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer (Yale University Press, 1995) about four years after her death, Ettie, her youngest sister, suddenly called Joseph Solomon their lawyer and told him that she wanted to go on a boat ride for lunch on the Hudson River. He arranged it and she showed up with Florine Stettheimer's Ashes in a cardboard box. After they were on the water in the Hudson she handed the box to him telling him to throw the ashes in the water. He was nonplussed as although he knew Stettheimer, he was not a family member. So he threw a few of the ashes into the water, and then handed the remainder back to Ettie who threw the rest in, and then opened the basket with lunch and proceeded to eat. Solomon told me it was typical of Ettie who was generally not very emotional, and did not care very much for Florine throughout their lives: she was much closer to their older sister Carrie who is buried in the family plot as is Ettie. Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBLoemink January 24, 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)== Four Saints in Three Acts photo ==[reply]

Hello Barbarabloemink I think it would be nice to illustrate User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox#Four_Saints_in_Three_Acts with an image that shows Stettheimers set and costume designs. The only suitable photo I have found is on the tumblr website of the Jewish Museum, here http://thejewishmuseum.tumblr.com/post/162122571557/artist-florine-stettheimer-although-known-for-her Unfortunately, I can find no information on the photo. There is no useful metadata in the image file, and it is not clear to me who took it, when, and where. (Is it the Wadsworth Atheneum or the 44th Street Theatre or the Empire Theatre?). Do you know more about this photo or do you have access to one that could illustrate the section on the opera? Thanks,Vexations (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, https://www.artforum.com/print/201109/four-saints-in-three-acts-29198 the Photographer is Harold Swahn and the photo was taken at the Wadsworth Atheneum in 1934. I think it may be possible to use a low-resolution version in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free_content. Vexations (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Yes we should illustrate 4 Saints in 3 Acts as it is evidence of Stettheimer's multi-disciplinary work (she is rare in American modernism in being multidisciplinary) AND she received international praise for her sets and costumes. I always believe in going to the primary source and the Jewish Museum show was not the source or a particular special use of the Opera images. The source for the images was the 1934 Wadsworth Atheneum for the Premier productions of the Opera as photographed by one of the publicists for the opening of the show which was a Huge East Coast social occasion. The maquettes and dolls Stettheimer made for the production planning, were all photographed by Peter Juley, a photographer who was hired by the Stettheimer estate right after her death to photograph everything in her studio and all her work. The ones specifically on the opera are in from the Stettheimer Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. I absolutely think you can use the low res ones on the internet as what collectors/museums care about is the images being used for commercial use or use by anyone raising money thereof. (They've been shown in every single "retrospective" exhibition on Stettheimer since 1995 so you shouldn't attribute the photograph to any museum - if anywhere it should perhaps list their location...but that's up to Wikipedia's choice and ideology)

Quick Note: In my Sandbox Stettheimer entry there is a weird section that I can't figure out from where it came and where it is supposed to go: The heading says "Notes" and then there is a very small a. and b. and then information that should be in the footnotes I think.... can you figure out where that should be as I certainly didn't put those in like that as I wouldn't have known how...my formatting is too ignorant.

Thank You!! for adding the images of the Nude and Heat etc. They look fantastic! Vexations you are doing a tremendous amount of work, and perhaps, since the Florine Stettheimer : User: Barbarabloemink/sandbox page has become a real collaboration between the two of us, perhaps the Wikipedia editor gods will allow us to Replace It! with the currently published on as it is no longer by just 1 person!!??

Again thank you for all the work you are doing on this! Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Barbarabloemink February 3 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarabloemink, Oh, don't worry, I'll replace it alright. What I'm doing now is using a script I have written to find all the sources in the current article that are not yet in the new version in your sandbox, and making sure that they shouldn't be in the new version. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm removing valid sources. I am very confident that the new version will be accepted. Vexations (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations here are some of the sources from the current entry that are good and should be included as they don't include any "lies" - the reason I did not refer to some of them (I did use Gammel and Zelazo as sources as well,) is that they are not the "original sources" to some of the information that they are used as sources for in the original entry, and I used the original sources instead (which of course they Should have referenced!):

Smith, Roberta (2011-11-21). "Art Books Recommended as Gifts for Art Lovers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-01-20. It wasn't "reissued to acclaim" as it was privately printed in a small number and only sent to friends, who admittedly loved it, but few received it!

Danforth, Ellen Zak, Florine and Ettie Stettheimer Papers, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale Collection of American Literature, September 1987. Retrieved December 16, 2006 This is a Primary Source so I am happy to include this in conjunction with the 4 Saints in 3 Acts - as it is the source of all the Stettheimer papers and many newspaper reviews etc. so we can put this as a footnote in that section

[[By the way = We should not add anything about the Stettheimer dollhouse in Florine Stettheimer's biography - it was entirely done by her sister Carrie, Florine purposely had nothing to do with it, and the three sisters pointedly often stated that they had nothing to do with each other's "projects." Therefore the Vivian Raynor article is not an appropriate source.]]

Gammel, Irene and Suzanne Zelazo. "Wrapped in Cellophane: Florine Stettheimer's Visual Poetics". Woman's Art Journal 32.2 (Fall/Winter 2011), 14.  [[Gammel and Zelazo re-issued Stettheimer's book of poems with a lovely essay - they are among the terrific scholars who are building on my work on her in Canada and this should be added to my list of Articles. Their poetry book Crystal Flowers is already a source.]]

Mulcahy, Susan, "Columbian Art: How a university bequest can go wrong", New York Magazine, March 14, 2005. Retrieved December 15, 2006 I didn't go into how Columbia University messed up the Stettheimer donation as that is too much detail for Wikipedia - but this is a good article to add to the "Articles" section.

Tessler, Nira (2015). Flowers and Towers: Politics of Identity in the Art of the American "New Woman". Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 115. ISBN 9781443886239. [[Similarly this just refers to a fact, that there was an exhibition of her work at a museum which I list in the section of museum retrospectives so there is no need to put that in the text and footnote it, but the article can be added to the "Articles" section.]]

Hope this helps! What you have done to the Stettheimer Entry in the Sandbox is Amazing!!!! it really is terrific and I hope you are proud of how well it reads and looks. You should be. Thank you!!! Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 5 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quick note[edit]

I've merged, with the exception of the lead, which should be a summary of the article, the contents of your sandbox to Florine Stettheimer. I think we can continue to edit there. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on sources[edit]

When we add source material that is not used in the article, we add that to the Further reading section. If something is used as a source in the article, it is not necessary to add it to further reading as well. Vexations (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on talk pages.[edit]

Hello Barbarabloemink I know you mean well and I realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are overwhelming, so I hope you don't mind that I point this out.

When you edit a talk page (unlike a an article, where this is welcome) please don't change the content of what someone else wrote. It's OK to fix formatting errors, but even when I'm wrong, please make the correction below my text so that other editors can tell what I wrote and what you wrote. That's what the signatures (~~~~) are for. Indent your reply by starting a line with one more colon than the text that you're replying to. I do appreciate the corrections of course. Our guidelines are Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Sorry - will do! Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of works[edit]

I thought you might find this interesting: User:Vexations/lists/List of works by Florine Stettheimer. It is an auto-generated list from data hosted by Wikidata, a sister project of Wikipedia. We can use it in Wikipedia directly (long story), but I'm interested in adding more data, which may help in expanding the article on Florine Stettheimer. If I can find some older works, those might help illustrate her development for example. Vexations (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: BarbaraBloemink Vexations It is great! I actually have made a catalog raisonne of All Stettheimer's works, including a number that she destroyed over the years and hope to publish it in my new updated biography that is now at publishers (that also includes the first complete exhibition history on the artist.) The biography also identifies all the figures in her paintings and all the architecture and actual events taking place and sites...people so often write that she "made up" her narratives and that they are 'fantasies" when she carefully researched every building and uniform and person she painted and they can all be identified from old photographs and news articles..she is endlessly fascinating! Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where Wikidata is so much fun. We can actually add field to each record that describes who is depicted in the painting. And then you can run queries on that database to find all paintings that depict, say both Carrie and Ettie. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barbarabloemink/New sandbox and Wikipedia:Autobiography[edit]

I've noticed your "New sandbox" subpage because you've added it to Category:Contents. Looking at this sandbox and your userpage, it seems that the sandbox is an autobiography. The Wikipedia policies can be overwhelming, but if it is an autobiography then you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Autobiography. In short, people should avoid writing or editing articles about themselves. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== User:Andrybak thank you very much for your comment regarding my autobiography however I have I have read all the Wikipedia warning policies on this. As you can see, I fit the "notable" category I have included multiple specific source information citations to verify every fact that can easily be checked. Also as I have written many other Wikipedia entries and have made more than 100 edits, this entry can be uploaded sooner than having to deal with unsourced or inaccurate information included by someone else who doesn't know my experience and accomplishments to date and has only recently or not registered on wikipedia or has few or no edits to their credit and so will take months to be even read, no less "reviewed." I realize this will be scrutinized as a result of my writing my own autobiography, but by having so many citations, hope to make it easy on the reviewer to fact-check and accept the entry. Thank you again, and please let me know if there is anything I am doing wrong. For example, I do not know HOW to include the "contents" box??? Thank you. (User talk:Barbarabloemink) 20:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Barbara Bloemink (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to attempt to write a WP-article, getting the hang of how referencing is done here is a must. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:REFBEGIN can help with that. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing can be worth a reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång thank you very much for your advice which I read carefully and tried to use in my entry on myself as well as trying to be extremely careful to only insert factual data that is fully sourced as I hope you will see in my sandbox entry. I would be very grateful if you and any other editors would look over this entry "Barbara Bloemink" and help me correct it so that I can publish it without any mistakes according to the proper WIKIPEDIA format. In terms of the "autobiography" question, a new, highly signifiant book that I have written is about to come out on the artist Florine Stettheimer, about whom I am considered the international "scholar and expert" and I've been asked to have a Wikipedia entry to go with the publication if possible. Therefore as there is no one who can "Accurately" and factually write the entry, I have done so and I hope that you agree it is factual and as sourced as possible. THANK YOU!!! for any editing and facilitating you can assist me in mutually writing this addition to WIkipedia.Barbarabloemink (User talk: Barbarabloemink) 13:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång and User:SusunW for your willingness to help mentions on Women in Red! I have gone through and completely individually sourced every mention in the autobiographical entry to a source that directly mentions my name and am going to delete what I have in the sandbox and substitute that in the hope that that better suits Wikipedia's requirements and hopefully format - although I admit I am flummoxed by the proper use of symbols and references vs footnotes so assistance is truly greatly appreciated! There are too few women museum directors - even former ones- in wikipedia so I am hoping that together we can help alleviate that just a bit by adding my biography so doing this is not entirely self-motivated. Thank you again for any assistance you can provide in getting my entry live and "up." with appreciation. Barbarabloemink (User talk: Barbarabloemink]]) 13:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization, very short[edit]

These are like russian dolls, and the wish is to add the most specific ones, so Category:American art curators‎ fits at Barbara Bloemink, but not Category:Art museums and galleries or Category:American people.

Also, categories should be fairly obvious from article text, and IMO a cat like Category:Feminist art historians (if it existed) is not, since the article as written hardly mentions anything about feminism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]