Long time no talk. Was very delighted to see the new boxwood article yesterday morning; it was the first thing I say at 7:30am on my phone, a nice start to what turned out to be a pretty rainy and miserable, long, stressful day in county cork. Notwithstanding, would be honored if we could include the page on the Adam Dircksz dyk nom;[2] how worked in an area that seems hugely under appreciated by art historians, although the work provokes strong emotions inn anybody who gets to see the pieces. Anyways, if you are ok with this, I'll do the necessary paperwork. My thanks as always. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Glad to brighten up a dull day in County Cork. I'd looked at doing something on Dirckszoon a while ago and had thought the sources were too thin, so congratulations for creating that; but as a result, the one in the Wallace Collection was near the top of my large offline pile of half-done articles, so it was not too difficult to dust off and finish. Now we have articles on the boxwood altarpieces in the BM and Wallace and Met, it would be nice to do the one in the Louvre at least (and then there is the Danish one, and the Hermitage, and Detroit, and Cluny, and indeed the Henry VIII rosary, and perhaps one of the coffin things). (But that reminds me, I must get back to my sandboxes - 1 - 2 - some day - or indeed that wonderful thing to the right).

My last brushes with DYK left me with the cube root of zero interest in that, but do feel free to use the article as you wish. I see it has been improved already. I'm now regretting it just a little, because I see it has stirred up the fair use warriors. Well, good luck getting a fair use photo of the altarpiece in the Louvre that is not on display. Theramin (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mere "thanks" ping isn't near enough to describe how much your work on Claudel pages, including the new one, is appreciated. Magnifico! Randy Kryn (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the song goes, you're welcome. It is not too hard once you find some decent sources, such as the museum catalogues, and the recent auctions helped a lot. I was slightly surprised when the article went red again. Who cares who wrote it. Theramin (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A true humble volunteer. With the work you've done on Wikipedia the art lovers of the world should build a statue of you (only half-kidding). I am still surprised at why dozens, if not hundreds, of art students and art appreciation groups aren't editing and adding to Wikipedia these days (except for DA, who's carrying lots of water over the threshold), and in exploring many of the pages enjoy the extent of the work done pre-2008, and am encouraged in anticipation that such a revival will occur again. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]