User talk:Ewulp/Archive 3

Dear Ewulp,

We represent Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. (“HLE”). Among other things, HLE is the owner of the copyrights and all rights, title and interest in and to the movies of Harold Lloyd (including but not limited to The Freshman) and the publicity rights of Mr. Lloyd, one of the most famous and popular actors and comedians of the silent era. We apologize for contacting you out the blue, but we are reaching out to you at the recommendation of legal counsel at the Wikipedia Foundation, who has suggested that we inform relevant editors of the official Wikipedia entry for Harold Lloyd, found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lloyd, about the serious concerns that have arisen regarding the unfounded allegations of racism and support for racially restrictive covenants that have been leveled against Mr. Lloyd therein.

Specifically, we are deeply troubled by the last paragraph in the Harold Lloyd biography section entitled “Personal Life” and its assertion that “[I]n the early 1940s, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant [in place in Beverly Hills] in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area,” (the “Allegation”).^[1] As detailed below, this Allegation is wholly without any factual basis. In the process, it not only unfairly besmirches the good name and reputation of an iconic Hollywood legend, but it is also has caused and continues to cause significant injury to HLE’s existing and prospective business relationships because of the very serious charges of racism that it raises—charges that are (rightfully) toxic in the public arena.

We understand, based on the Talk file for the portions of the Lloyd biography pertaining to racially restrictive covenants, that you have raised similar concerns about the references to racially restrictive covenants and Mr. Lloyd’s alleged support therefor. As you wrote in the Talk Notes: “The article shouldn't exaggerate Lloyd's role here; these covenants were unfortunately common throughout the US at the time, and Lloyd (as far as we can tell) was not one of the eight white Sugar Hill plaintiffs who sued to have their black neighbors evicted in the 1944 [sic] case that Judge Thurmond Clarke decided.” ^[2] Indeed, there are no facts whatsoever establishing any link between Harold Lloyd and the Sugar Hills litigation or any of the plaintiffs therein and, as detailed below, any allegation of racism against Mr. Lloyd is wholly at odds with any facts we know about his life and how he lived it. As such, we are writing to kindly request that you might consider, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, to correct the problematic portion regarding said Allegation and the surrounding discussion regarding racially restrictive covenants. Your consideration of this request is deeply appreciated.

Allow us first to begin by thanking you for the unparalleled public service that you, through Wikipedia, provide to the world. Wikipedia is an invaluable public resource that has democratized knowledge and leavened disparities in access to social, political, cultural and scientific information and its many volunteers, such as yourself, play a vital role in that. As such, Wikipedia has represented a transformative tool for education, transparency, and, above all, the truth in a time when so-called ‘Fake News’ dominates the Internet.

With Wikipedia’s dedication to accuracy, proper sourcing and careful research in mind, the detailed analysis below plainly demonstrates that the Allegation against Mr. Lloyd Harold is without substance or reliable support. And, unfortunately, the Allegation tarnishes the legacy of an American legend and causes direct economic harm to HLE and its intellectual property and contractual interests. As you know, charges of racism and bigotry can impact the way in which a public figure is viewed and it can shatter careers and legacies (see, e.g., Paula Deen, PewDiePie, Kate Smith, John Wayne and Morrissey). When these allegations are without basis, lives are fundamentally altered both unjustly and unfairly. In this particular case, the Allegations have already threatened HLE and, among other things, interfered with its existing and prospective business relationships. Specifically, HLE is under contract with certain companies for a forthcoming original, feature-length animated motion picture based on Harold Lloyd and his films. This project is now in jeopardy as a direct result of the unfounded Allegations. These companies have put HLE on direct notice that investor concerns regarding the Allegations are significantly curtailing the ability of the movie’s producers to raise the necessary funding for continuing support of the project.

In the Wikipedia entry for Harold Lloyd, the Allegation is footnoted with a single citation to a single source—a book by Stephen Grant Meyer. The Talk File for the “Restrictive Covenant” section of Harold Lloyd’s entry on Wikipedia,^[3] further expands on the purported support for the Allegation by referencing “at least three reliable sources for Lloyd’s involvement in presenting the restrictions.” Yet these sources—books by Stephen Grant Meyer, Anima Hassan and Nancie Clare—do not provide any credible support for the proposition that Mr. Lloyd supported racially restrictive covenants and efforts to keep blacks and Jews out of Beverly Hills or his neighborhood. Thus, the Allegations violate Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy and verifiability. Given the particularly incendiary nature of the claims—claims that easily fall under Wikipedia’s policy for “exceptional claims”—Wikipedia’s own burden of requiring multiple high-quality sources supporting the proposition is simply not met.

First of all, Nancie Clare’s book THE BATTLE FOR BEVERLY HILLS (St. Martin’s Press, 2018)^[4] states only that Lloyd “joined a neighborhood association whose goal was to enforce the city’s restrictive covenants that prohibited nonwhites, including Jews, from buying or renting property in the city,” id. at 195—an aspersion that could be cast upon millions of Americans at a time when both political major political parties—both Democrats and Republicans—supported such measures. More importantly, the book does not remotely suggest that Mr. Lloyd actually supported any efforts to enforce restrictive covenants (the proposition for which it is relied upon); rather, it simply claims that Mr. Lloyd was a mere member of a group that supported restrictive covenants. Above all, it does not provide any citation to substantiate its accusations and it does not provide any details regarding the neighborhood association in question or its identity.

Meanwhile, both the Meyer and Hassan books only restate claims from a single, 70-word article that appeared in the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 (the “Article”). Specifically, Stephen Grant Meyer’s book, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T MOVE NEXT DOOR (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001),^[5] alleges that “one of the white home owners who led the challenge to black occupancy in Beverly Hills was also an actor: the silent-screen comedian, Harold Lloyd.” Id. at 76. Yet the only citation it makes that might support any such speculation is to the Chicago Defender Article.

Amina Hassan’s book, LOREN MILLER: CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY AND JOURNALIST (University of Oklahoma Press, 2015),^[6] fares no better. It claims that “In 1941, . . . Harold Lloyd, famous for hanging from the hands of a skyscraper clock tower in Safety Last! (1923), led the drive to keep blacks and Jews from moving into nearby Beverly Hills. Id. at 132. To support this proposition, Hassan’s book also cites only to the Chicago Defender Article. And, to make matters worse and to cast the rigor of Hassan’s research into further doubt, she erroneously cites the Article to date the relevant events as taking place in 1941 when, in fact, the Chicago Defender has them taking place in 1945.

In effect, therefore, the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd solely emanate from the Article. All of the remaining sources that state the Allegation are simply mimicking the claim by citing back to the Article. Thus, to assess the reliability and accuracy of the Allegation, it is necessary to examine the Article. As even the most cursory review of the Article demonstrates, the Chicago Defender piece neither credibly asserts the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd nor does it have any support from other sources.

The Article, entitled “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive,” appeared on the front page of the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 and its total content of 70 words reads as follows: "The famous film comedian of the silver screen was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive. A recent letter, sent out over the name of the famous actor, called for a meeting of residents here to sign restrictive covenants. The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials who admitted that Lloyd had been elected president recently."

While it is true that Mr. Lloyd, at one time, served as the head of Beverly Hill’s Chamber of Commerce, the remainder of the Article is filled with ambiguities, inaccuracies, unsupported speculation and sophistry:

1. The Article engages in pure conjecture and succumbs to salacious innuendo in remarking, vaguely and in the passive voice, that Mr. Lloyd “was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive.” Notably, therefore, the Article fails to name any sources for its idle and unsupported tabloid gossip. For example:
2. The Article refers to a purported letter that was sent out by the Chamber of Commerce which the Article ties to Harold Lloyd. But, notably, it does not say the letter was written or drafted by Harold Lloyd, or even approved by Harold Lloyd (it merely alleges that it was “sent out over the name” of Harold Lloyd).
3. The Article fails to quote any actual contents of the purported letter. As such, its characterization of the letter and its contents are rightfully suspect and unsupported.
4. The Article only states the letter “called for a meeting of residents . . . to sign restrictive covenants.” As such, the Article does not state, outright, that an actual position was taken in the letter (i.e., that restrictive covenants are good or bad) and, quite possibly, the letter, if it existed, may have only provided information that such a meeting was taking place.
5. The Article is unclear as to when the letter was sent out (referring only to the vague characterization of “recently”), a particularly odd omission since official letter are always dated. As such, the Article’s leap in logic—that Harold Lloyd was recently made president of the Chamber of Commerce and that, therefore, the letter must be reflective of his point of view, is pure speculation. Indeed, the Article does not expressly spell out that the letter was written or sent out while Mr. Lloyd was, in fact, President.
6. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Article itself acknowledges that the purported letter’s authenticity and accuracy in reflecting the viewpoint of the Chamber of Commerce (and, by extension, Harold Lloyd, who is being tied to the views of the Chamber of Commerce by virtue of his presidency thereof for a period of time) was contemporaneously and directly disputed and called into question. As the Article admits, “The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials.” This sentence—the concluding one in the Article—renders the salacious, unsupported and speculative headline “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive” wholly bunk and makes any misrepresentation of this Article as historical truth wholly inappropriate.

It's also worth noting that the statements surrounding the sentence containing the Allegation in Mr. Lloyd’s Wikipedia page are also demonstrably false or inaccurate. Specifically, Lloyd’s Wikipedia page states that “Greenacres [Mr. Lloyd’s home] was built in the 1920s in Beverly Hills, one of Los Angeles’ all-white planned communities. The area had restrictive covenants prohibiting non-whites and Jews from living there unless they were in the employment of a white resident (typically a domestic servant). In the early 1940s, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area. The association lost its suit in a 1944 decision by Federal Judge Thurmond Clarke, and in 1948 the United States Supreme Court declared in Shelley v. Kraemer that all racially restrictive covenants in the United States were unenforceable.”^[7] Yet these sentences, and their citing sources in the Wikipedia page, are riddled with errors.

Among other things, this section contains the following inaccuracies:

1. The lawsuit to which the sentences refer challenged racially restrictive covenants in Sugar Hills, which is not in Beverly Hills, but in the West Adams area of Los Angeles. See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (referring to Sugar Hills as being in the West Adams area of Los Angeles).^[8] As such, there was no direct link between the lawsuit and Greenacres (which was in Beverly Hills), Harold Lloyd, or any neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills;
2. The “federal judge” handling the case was, at the time, only a state Superior Court judge for Los Angeles County (Judge Thurmond Clarke did not receive his commission as a federal judge until his appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the 1950’s). See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (noting that Thurmond Clarke was a Superior Court judge, not federal judge);^[9]
3. There was no West Adams Improvement Association or any other kind of homeowners association in the lawsuit;
4. The eight plaintiffs in the lawsuit were merely local citizens not officially representing any community; and
5. The decision was issued in 1945, not 1944). See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (reporting that the decision occurred in late 1945, not 1944).^[10]

This lack of rigor and precision in the page authors’ investigations and research highlights the unreliable nature of the claims contained therein.

While both Los Angeles and the United States have provided unparalleled opportunities to individuals of all races, there is no doubt that the city and our country, as a whole, share a tragic history of bigotry and racism as well. The legacy of racially restrictive covenants continues to haunt us to this very day, as, among other things, it has directly contributed to the vast disparities of wealth that still exist between white and African-American families. But there is no evidence that Harold Lloyd led efforts to prop up the use of racially restrictive covenants or even supported them at any time.

Indeed, everything the historical record contains about Harold Lloyd’s life otherwise suggests that such covenants would be contradictory to his personal values and the way he chose to live. For example, as Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd page acknowledges, Harold Lloyd was an active and honored Freemason and Shriner.^[11] As a Freemason, he earned the Rank and Decoration of Knight Commander Court of Honor in 1955 and was coroneted an Inspector General Honorary, 33°. As a Shriner, he was selected as the Imperial Potentate of the Shriner’s of North America in 1949-50. Non-discrimination and color blindness are core, essential values of both the Freemason and Shriner organizations, and have been so, long before such causes were popular or even widely accepted. As Harold Lloyd himself said in a 1949 radio interview regarding his involvement with the Shriner’s:

The Shriners have these marvelous hospitals, all over North America, that do nothing but cure little crippled children, and that's without regard to race, creed, or color. You can go into one of their hospital wards and see little colored children, little white children, all there just the same, there's no discriminating at all, and it's 100% charitable, and the Shrine does not seek aid outside. It's all done by the Shrine and of course that's one of the things they look with great pride upon. It's marvelous work.^[12].

Not only would support for racially restrictive covenants be inconsistent with Mr. Lloyd’s lifelong values, but it is also critical to note that there are no other sources that independently verify these incendiary Allegations against Mr. Lloyd. And, in fact, the individuals who know the most about Harold Lloyd’s personal history, life, values and belief strongly deny the Allegations’ veracity. Specifically, declarations sworn under penalty of perjury from Suzanne Lloyd, Annette Lloyd (unrelated to Mr. Lloyd), and Richard Simonton explain their relationship with and to Mr. Lloyd, the basis of their expertise and personal knowledge about Mr. Lloyd and their unequivocal certainty that Mr. Lloyd was never supportive of restrictive covenants and, in fact, found them morally repugnant and inconsistent with his values. Among other things:

2. Suzanne Lloyd, Mr. Lloyd’s granddaughter, was actually raised by Mr. Lloyd and his wife and, as a result, lived with him for over twenty years and she notes that “she never once heard Harold make a single derogatory remark about anyone based on their race, creed, or religion and I never witnessed him, or had knowledge of him, ever exhibiting any prejudice on the basis of race, color, creed or religion,”^[13] and states that the allegations of racism are “utterly inconsistent everything I know about the man that raised me,”^[14];
3. Annette Lloyd, a noted historian and expert on the silent-era and the life and work of Harold Lloyd,^[15] declares that, “In the 40-plus year that I have studied, the allegation of racism published in the Chicago Defender in July of 1945 is the only instance I have ever encountered in which HL was mentioned in this light or accused of any sort of intolerance or prejudice,”^[16] and that, in light of what she knows about him and his life, the allegations of racism in the Article “are wildly implausible and, also, wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the historical record, Lloyd’s personal values, and the manner in which he conducted his life,”^[17] as evidenced by, among other things, his political and charitable affiliations,^[18] and his work, where he regularly hired African-Americans during an era otherwise characterized by segregation and bigotry^[19];
4. Richard Simonton, one of the Mr. Lloyd’s last surviving friends, swears, under penalty of perjury, that through his many decades spent with Mr. Lloyd,^[20] he “can say with confidence and certainty that I never witnessed him indicate or express any kind of prejudice--never an unkind word about anyone,”^[21] and that, among other things, Mr. Lloyd’s extensive involvement with, and commitment to, the Shiners (and their core beliefs kindness, tolerance, and colorblindness) would make any support of racially restrictive covenants utterly inconsistent with his charitable work and the values he embraced through his life.^[22]

Finally, the Beverly Hills Historical Society recently unearthed archival video of Harold Lloyd joyously visiting a sick African-American child and embracing him and putting his iconic spectacles on him. The child’s face lights up and the warmth in this interaction is clear to any observer. The video is utterly inconsistent with any view that Mr. Lloyd harbored any prejudice, let alone any virulent racist sentiments. We encourage you to watch the video, which you can download.

All told, therefore, the allegations that tie Mr. Lloyd to support for restrictive covenants, which are published as fact on Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd page, ultimately all derive from a single 70-word Article that repeated unsourced tabloid gossip without verification or quotation. The same Article acknowledged that the very position supposedly attributed to Mr. Lloyd through the Chamber of Commerce had been disputed contemporaneously by the Chamber of Commerce itself.

As such, we are kindly requesting your action to correct and remove the Allegations from Mr. Lloyd’s page once and for all in order to serve the interests of accuracy and reliability that Wikipedia has always sought to uphold and to mitigate the tremendous damages that are being done to Mr. Lloyd’s legacy.

We appreciate your consideration of our request, which we do not make lightly, and we look forward to hearing back from you shortly. We’re also happy to provide additional details and documents if that might be helpful.

HLE1893 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the author of the paragraph in question, which was added by an IP January 3, 2016, although I have reverted attempts to remove it several times. As explained on the article's talk page, this is "largely on procedural grounds: edit warring isn't the way to edit, and repeated invitations to discuss the matter on the talk page have been ignored". As you will see by these diffs , , , , , this matter is of interest to the Wikipedia community. I encourage you to post this request at Talk:Harold Lloyd. Ewulp (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• HLE1893 has been indef blocked for making legal threats. — Maile (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ewulp

Sorry to bother you again with this but I have found that the Salvador Dali article had Feature Article status on 5 Sep 2006 and was almost exclusively in U.S. English at that time. I therefore propose to progressively revise the article into U.S. English in the absence of any consensus to the contrary. My apologies for the confusion.

here... At the time I removed it the gallery had 17 images in it. Seemed like a lot of images for such a short article. The iteration that you restored - the 6 images - looks much better. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw that ... no worries! Ewulp (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Ewulp! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist111^talk 23:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy New Year!

Ewulp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello Ewulp. Your name was mentioned in a dispute about the Baby Esther article at WP:AN3#User:197.89.10.25 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Blocked for evasion) but it doesn't require a response. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to check this problem out ?...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I just so wanted that photo to be of Esther Bigeou and some evidence on the web, Syncopated Times in particular, backed it up. But of course as the file states, no documentation. I overstepped. Sorry and thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's a shame the few verifiable images of her seem to be from old newspapers & are generally grainy. Ewulp (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ewulp!

I grant you may be right that an infobox may not be worth the trouble on the "Degenerate Art" page, though I was editing it down to focus more on the art than the exhibition. But given that it is about the art, and not about the exhibition, I think you are in error to lead with an image of the exhibition. EditGirl99 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, although I think a good case against leading with an image of a particular work of art is that "degenerate art" is not an artistic style but rather a pejorative term used by the Nazis to describe whatever Hitler didn't like. As such, the term is more about Nazi art policy than about the art itself. The current lead image, which shows a few works of art and a few Nazis, ties this together. Ewulp (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your corrections in the edits I made in Doodle. I am not a professional artist, but being a painter was my childhood dream. Life made me a software consultant, but I still can't forgive myself for not being what I wanted to. I thought, at least, I would contribute on Wiki, so that I can be in touch with Art. From India, so my English may be weird, so you are all welcome to correct me wherever possible. (I am going to bring more edits in the Visual Arts articles on English Wiki with my limited knowledge.) - Veera.sj (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask why you rewrote what I posted on the Baby Esther discussion page? . Inserting the bit about liParamount's gigantic ke? What was the point of that?

No idea how that happened. Ewulp (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello there I notice that Wilafa has recently added images of some of Dalí's more famous works. I understood from previous discussions that these were under copyright and wikipedia does not have permission to use them. Do you know whether this is still the case? It would be great if we could use more images of selected works. Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a safe guess that they are under copyright. The Wikipedia copyright enforcers usually take a dim view of using such images of an artist's work in a biography. In the case of (for example) Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War), the jpg is allowed in the article Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) because the painting is the subject and is discussed in some detail; its use in the Dali article might be allowed if the fair use rationale for that article is deemed acceptable. Ewulp (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carl von Marr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Bend.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Ewulp! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ewulp: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year!

Ewulp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Quick facts in friendship ...

January songs

in friendship

Close

Thank you for being around, and your good wishes! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This was probably not your intent, but by taking a citation out of the {{cite book}} format, you broke the link from the {{sfn |Hewitt |2018 |p=388}} to the full citation, {{{cite book |last=Hewitt |first=Catherine |title=Renoir's dancer : the secret life of Suzanne Valadon |publisher=St. Martin's Press |publication-place=New York |year=2018 |id={{ISBN|9781250157645|9781785782749}} {{OCLC|1006391440|1026408741}}}}.

You were probably trying to correct the {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |lay-date= (help) message that was produced by these deprecated parameters/values:

|lay-url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/books/review/renoirs-dancer-suzanne-valadon-catherine-hewitt.html |lay-source=She Was a Model for Impressionist Masters. Then She Became One Herself. — NY Times |lay-date=2018-05-29

Please look at Help:Citation Style 1#Anchors & Help:Citation_Style_2#Anchors. Please note that most citation templates automatically generate the ref parameter. Please see Help:Shortened footnotes to see how shortened footnote templates work with the parameter whether generated or manually set. Please also see WP:CITEVAR for additional information why citation styles should not be arbitrarily changed.

As you are an editor with a lot of edits (about 35,000 at this time & currently about 2850 at this time on the WP:WBE list), you probably will continue to encounter shortened footnotes. You may wish to look at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors & consider adding User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to you personal common JavaScript page at Special:MyPage/common.js. You can find a bit more information in my presentation at commons:File:Converting_Harvard_citations_to_shortened_footnotes_(sfn).pdf.

BTW, the deprecation of the lay parameters are not exactly a done deal, as you can see at the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 82#Lay-url Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made occasional edits to Suzanne Valadon since 2006; e.g., this edit initiated the References section. Sadly, another editor arbitrarily changed the reference style to the {{cite book}} format last August, with no discussion and in violation of WP:CITEVAR. It is not a style I am familiar with; I was tempted at the time to revert the whole mess. Yesterday while editing Valadon I noticed an unsightly error message in the References; after 3/4 hour wasted in studying Help:Citation_Style_1#Anchors in search of a fix for the template, I made a repair that I knew would work.

Since you're the one who knows how to do this, could you also fix "Further reading" (the John Storm book) before I commit another felony? Ewulp (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I corrected the hdl parameter for the Storm book.

I made the citation changes to the Valadon article. I actually believe the changes to be in concord with WP:CITEVAR#Generally considered helpful for the following reasons:

• imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles; The article contained a mix of plain text & citation templates in the footnotes & the references section.
• improving existing citations by adding missing information; I added online links & author links, & ISBN, OCLC, & ISSN numbers.

Additionally, I moved items from the References section that was not used for inline citations AKA footnotes into the Further reading section, as suggested by MOS:FURTHER.

I also changed unlinked shortened footnotes to shortened footnote templates (e.g. <ref name="Marchesseau 92">Marchesseau 9</ref> & <ref name="Marchesseau 92"/> to {{sfn |Marchesseau |1996 |p=9}}) for a couple of reasons:

• They are more useful in that a click takes the reader to the full citation
• They provide a standardized display format.

Perhaps I should have noted my intentions on the talk page, but since there was a mix of citation styles, information to be added, & other optimization adjustments, I proceeded as per WP:BOLD.

I am admittedly a enthusiastic proponent of Wikipedia:Citation templates. If one uses Visual Editor, this is what it inserts into the wikitext.

Most experienced editors seem to have embraced them, & the template editors have spent a lot of time continuously improving & standardizing them. I think there is a host of benefits in using them that that make them superior to untemplated text. Peaceray (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Camille Cazedessus Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. That illustration is signed by Gunn (and Gunn is credited for it where it appears on the Smart Set article, and on the file itself). Sorry to revert your reversion, but it seems warranted. Jcejhay (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're right. Evidently I'd clicked under the image instead of on it, and landed on the Gunn cover from the Smart Set article. I apologize. Jcejhay (talk)

During the last year, you have made suggestions to improve the Wikipedia entry on Thomas Nast. Accordingly, I want to call your attention to ThomasNast.com, a domain I have owned for 25 years and recently refreshed.

The site will give you a good overview of Nast in general and my biography in particular, America’s Most Influential Journalist: The Life, Times and Legacy of Thomas Nast. You can look at 160 Nast cartoons, each with its characters identified and its content and context explained. Categories include Christmas, Civil War, Lincoln, Tweed, Presidential Election Losers, Symbols, Shakespeare, and Inflation. The site’s purpose is to educate people about Nast and his work, as well as to preview my book.

The only previous substantive biography of Nast was published by Albert Bigelow Paine in 1902, and is frequently cited in Wikipedia. Although Paine was a good storyteller, his book has many significant errors and omissions because Nast misinformed him (eg., Nast never went to the front during the Civil War) or didn’t tell him about important events (Nast spent a year, beginning in May 1867, on his Grand Caricaturama (33 9 by 12 foot pictures in a traveling panorama which failed), Paine gave it two sentences).

There were also facts about his life that neither he nor Paine knew. Eg., Nast thought he was born on September 27, 1840, but his Landau birth certificate, issued under the auspices of the King of Bavaria, shows it was September 26. Understandable, every prior mention of his birth date is incorrect. I have made the correction to his Wikipedia entry along with a a copy of his birth certificate.

My 830-page biography contains 1,000 Nast cartoons, illustrations, sketches and paintings — 800 from Harper’s Weekly and 200 from other sources. The manually-created Index is predicated solely on Nast’s output. It includes Nast’s Life and Work; Topics/Issues and People/Characters. You can view the entire Index on ThomasNast.com. Harpweek (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge my error, thanks for correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.229.83 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ewulp: I notice that your editing history at BWJ goes back to 2013, so maybe you have some thoughts on the abuse of multiple accounts/sockpuppetry on the article. In 2016, Wotz5gaM received an indefinite block for editing warring and began using Ciscokid997 who was also blocked. Then, it appears they continued as Demojury73, but no action was taken. Now, DejaVudu19 is carrying on with the same type of editing (removal of material referenced to reliable sources that doesn't agree with their preferred source). Do you think that there is enough to report a block evasion? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There does seem to be a strong hint of WP:DUCK: All accounts show exclusive attention to the same article, make similar arguments, and the latest two accounts have four-syllable, eight-letter names starting with De, followed by two digits that add up to ten. But it may be best to ask an admin if this evidence meets the test, as I'm not experienced in these matters; I think I've only twice involved myself in sockpuppet cases, and those ones were comically obvious. Ewulp (talk)

Good points. I've put together a draft here and used some of your wording. Please feel free to add suggestions. I don't have any substantial experience with SPIs either, but know that things move along better when other editors also comment on the case page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I wanted to quickly say thank you for pointing out the Twinkle mistake I made on Hans Grundig. I quickly realized that I tagged articles incorrectly, so I'm going back and correcting the mistakes. My apologies if I messed things up. Losipov (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Losipov! Ewulp (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod – Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ewulp (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The file File:Barthel Bruyn the Younger Portrait of a Woman AIC.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, redundant to File:Bartholomaeus Bruyn, the younger - Portrait of a Woman with a Prayer Book - 1940.934 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "See talk" while reverting all my edits. What talk am I looking at specifically? Do you not agree the article needs to be cleaned up? ParXivalRPT (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! My revert was a knee-jerk reaction to seeing, in the lead sentence, the same spurious date of death citing the same confused webpage that has been added again and again by a disruptive editor. Explanation is at Talk:Baby_Esther#Date_of_death_unknown: 1984 is the death date for a different "Little Esther", Esther Phillips. I've restored the rest of your edits which I overlooked before & which are welcome improvements. Ewulp (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful! I apologize for any unnecessary confusion, I will definitely make sure to look out for vandalism like that. Thank you. ParXivalRPT (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"... the Italian Renaissance painter and architect..." is much better - look where they go. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, I'll revisit those. Ewulp (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Same to you Johnbod! Not familiar with this painting and what a beauty! All the best. Ewulp (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone else is participating in the defense of the Model (art) article, and this is needed; but as long as there are no substantive edits to the article itself or another downgrade, my policy is "Don't feed the trolls". WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of the IP. Though their argument is threadbare, it merits a rebuttal or two. Ewulp (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Specials, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry Hall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)