This is an archive of past discussions about User:Urve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Jesse Dungee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Gerda Arendt, based on the above quagmire with Debussy ( you say "readers are adult enough" but are editors? ;) ) and the troubles with Or, I think you will like the following. I was going to put it on your talk page, but you were kind enough to come here!
The teaching of the aleph 62f When they were comforted a little, Zacchaeus the teacher said to the father of Jesus, "Bring him to me and I will teach him what is proper for him to learn." He coaxed him and made him go into the school. Yet, going in, he was silent. But Zacchaeus the scribe was beginning to teach him (starting) from Aleph, and repeating to him many times the whole alphabet. He said to him that he should answer and speak after him, but he was silent. Then the scribe was angry and struck him with his hand upon his head. And Jesus said, "The smith's anvil, when struck repeatedly, may be instructed, yet is unfeeling. I can say those things spoken by you like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. These do not respond with any sound nor do they have the power of knowledge and understanding." 3 Then Jesus said all the letters from Aleph to Tau with much wisdom. He answered again and said, "Those who do not know the Aleph, how do they teach the Beth? Hypocrites! First, teach what is the Aleph and then I will believe you concerning the Beth." 4 Then Jesus began to enquire concerning the form of each character. He began with the letters. Concerning the first, why it has many angles and characters, pointed, thick and prostrate and projected and extended; their summits gathered together and sharp and ornamented and erect and squared and inverted; and transformed and folded over and bent at their sides, and fixed in a triangle and crowned and clothed in life. Zacchaeus's lament 71Then Zacchaeus the scribe, astounded and amazed on account of all these names and the greatness of his speech, cried out and said, "I have brought this on myself."
— Tony Burke (2016). "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Syriac): A new translation and introduction". In Tony Burke; Brent Landau (eds.). New Testament apocrypha: More noncanonical stories. Vol. 1. Eerdmans.
Thank you, and yes I love it. - Look for "adult" on my user page, - I'm sure you'll like it. - We are all both teachers and students, and it helps to remember.
Today is the day of death of Josephine Butler, a great women. The talk has a break-through discussion about not to use just a first name when referring to a woman. (I had the problem for Clara Schumann, where it was "Clara" all over the article, because biographies have it like that.) It also has an example of the language of the infobox wars (which I had completely forgotten). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
One of my many pet peeves, Gerda Arendt - thank you. This came up in a peer review of an article about the shooting of Vivian Strong, a young black girl killed by police in Omaha. In general (certainly not a statement about my friend Bridges2Information or anyone involved in those articles, who I'm sure mean well), the tendency to use first names for women and girls has always troubled me because it is sexist and suggests a kind of personal familiarity that we, as editors writing from the outside, do not have. It suggests that we deserve that kind of unearned personal familiarity, one which people rarely expect from the men we write about. Two other pet peeves in this area: I forget who first pointed this out, but "bore him a child" is one I sometimes search for, but usually don't remove. And the use of the word "female" as a descriptor makes me very uncomfortable though it's common. (NB: trying to get around "female" for certain subjects leads to some awkward writing; see Elizabeth Pittman, where she was the first woman and the first black person to do certain things in Nebraska, but using woman as an adjective is so unfamiliar that it is read as a noun, so the the sentence construction makes it seem like black is also a noun.) Urve (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree and together, we'll just stand up against the language of discrimination and aspersions even if used by otherwise highly respected veteran editors as in Debussy where it hit a teenager, happily queer, who had no idea they moved on battle ground. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I just saw an opera, The Enchantress (opera), about a woman who charms people by kind hospitality, - she is proclaimed a witch, and is poisoned. I am the infobox witch, allegedly, sending out my army behind the scenes, of infobox enforcers who attack articles. - Well, if any of that was true, I'd feel a miserable witch. When was the last time anybody attacked Debussy? What I do is, I write an article about a Debussy composition for his birthday, with an infobox, of course, for example The Little Nigar (2018), En blanc et noir (for 31 Oct 2019) and Cello Sonata (Debussy) (2022). For "my own" articles, I am free, and nobody has objected in a long time. Last time I had to defend "my" infobox for a composer was Max Reger (2016). For Sibelius, we "enforcers" were not successful for his centenary in 2018, but in 2021. A few glimpses into what was termed the infobox wars, but - I asked the candidates for arbitrator - seems no longer the right description. - This witch was pardoned 300 years later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not all witches are pardoned ;) - sorry, but I can't say I will ever change my mind on infoboxes. At least for what I write, and I don't write music, I generally think they're not beneficial ... there's a visual benefit to them (Duran's article could have a nice space in lieu of an image, for example), but I don't find them much useful beyond that. I haven't read our article on Willa Cather in a long, long time, but looking at the infobox now, do I think it can do her justice? Not really ... maybe this is is similar to how I feel about DYK capturing some essential factoids over what I feel to be someone's essence. And while words can't accurately capture someone or something's essence, I think an infobox, being so short, definitely can't. But I say "not beneficial" - I don't say "harmful". If someone adds one or wants one, I think they're speaking for hundreds of readers who also want one, but who don't have a voice. And if something is not damaging, then, well, why not? I will probably never add an infobox to something, but I'll also probably never remove one. And hey, maybe there's a silver lining to it all: All of the RFCs on infoboxes increase editor attention to neglected articles on important people, so maybe the articles get improved along the way? But that's the optimist in me - hopeful that this year's message of "in resilience" is true! Urve (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for great detail, and sorry for not much time right now. We don't talk about the forgotten articles but Debussy and Tchaikovsky, and some talk as if the infobox is an invasion into their property of a lead, while it serves the (harmless) function to have where and when someone is born and died concisely and predictably. This is standard for biographies on paper, but not the English Wikipedia. Add the list of works, and that's all I'd need for a composer. We have readers from foreign languages where Debussy is not covered for example. But like you, I'd never add an infobox where I know the principal authors are against it. (I did, recently, for Georg Solti, but that was by mistake, because - late at night - I had not checked who these principal editors were.) - The key question remains, however: is it these editors who decide, or the readers. Compare the discussion on Michael Bednarek. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think[a] one day I will have the courage to leave this deeply unpleasant place, but I continue to delude myself into thinking anyone cares about articles like this or this one, important ones, yes, and ones I am perhaps most proud of, but which almost nobody has ever read or cares about.
Maybe there are parallels between in-group DYK factionalists and what you experience in infobox disagreements. Or maybe this is just my attempt to make this response less of a diary entry. On a lighter note, I wanted to say before, but forgot, that the image to the right is one of my favorites. For some reason, it reminds me of when I visited the Nebraska Governor's Mansion as a kid and the guide kept calling this beautiful gifted chandelier Czechoslovakian. I thought she was stumbling over her words, but no, she really meant what she said - I just didn't have the capacity to appreciate it. Urve (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I love your image choice - that museum, seen with loved ones, that reflection of heavenly blue ... - I didn't look at the WT:DYK discussion, am on strike because of too long discussions, and that is one of them - ignore ignore ignore. Like you, I cherish articles that possibly nobody will notice, having begun with places I saw, first the village where I live, with the superb name of Ehrenbach (honour Bach = creek, but I think of the Master). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Mueller Tower in 2015. Notice that it's not surrounded by snow or wet cement. That is not the case today.Beautiful pictures. Unfortunately, the only thing interesting I've been passing by lately is Mueller Tower, to the right. On my user page, I quote an interesting section of an old Gothic story written by a woman for other women to read. It's otherwise a quite pitiful little story with cliche after cliche, trope after trope, attempts at reaching intrigue but never realising it. It opens, naturally, by stating it is "A woman’s ſtory at a winter fire". And it is essentially, at least in the introduction, a plagiarism of Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho, published five years earlier. Compare the original "On the pleasant banks of the Garonne, in the province of Gascony, stood, in the year 1584, the château of Monsieur St. Aubert" to the plagiarist "IN a romantic ſituation on the banks of the Garonne, in the province of Gaſcony, ſtood a caſtle which for many centuries had been in the family of the marquis de Netterville". Ha! But apparently the editors liked it? The story was originally published alongside a story called "Caſtle on the Clift"; in the next issue, after receiving a continuation of neither (though "The Castle of La Roche" promises one with an ominous To be continued), they plead: "WE are much diſappointed at not yet receiving any continuation of the Caſtle on the Clift. We ſhall likewiſe be obliged to the author of the Caſtle of La Roche for a continuation." Notice that Clift gets the much disappointment treatment, while La Roche gets only a request. Maybe they didn't really like it. :) Urve (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I love that! I've been listening and reading many things lately, but I find myself coming back to TORRES (listen to "Sprinter" if you'd like). A few years ago I first read tatiana de la tierra's poetry collection For the Hard Ones: A Lesbian Phenomenology, which is interesting (and difficult to categorize as de la tierra writes in her essay "On Phenomenological Herstory"), but which continues to strike me because of its insistence on declaring writing as a form of agency and emotion as a core part of existence. Among other things, she writes: "if it were possible to 'be' without feeling, we would never reach the discovery, or evoke the new vocabulary that is borne from 'being'" (p. 73). I certainly feel that way! Urve (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I understand that you reverted my edit because of issues with the copyright. The PD template for Denmark says that simple photos before Jan 1, 1970 are exempt from copyright, so it was PD in Denmark in 1996. As for the publication date, I don't think it needs to be determined. So long as a file is clearly a non-US work, and it was PD in its home country in 1996, the PD-US-1996 template applies. There's a lot of files on Wikimedia Commons with the PD-US-1996 tag and without publication date. Even when those files survive a deletion request (due to copyright issues), I've never seen someone remove the PD-US-1996 tag. For example: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aage_Bohr.jpg, commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Peter_Martin_Madsen_(Halsted)_by_Julius_Folkmann.jpg. I understand your skepticism, so I'm fine with continuing to use the photo as fair use. FunnyMath (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, FunnyMath, thanks for stopping by. I would be lying if I said I totally understood the rules of copyright, but I do understand your argument. After I changed the image, I noticed that the tag now discusses (or maybe it did before) the distinction between photographs and photographic works. I would consider this to be a photographic work if the test is "intellectual creation and reflect[ing photographer] personality" (from [1]) because of artistic details like the shadows, the perspective being somewhat above the children, the Queen being directly in profile. These all culminate, I think, in an image of colonial dominance over children, and distinctions between "high" (Danish) and "low" (Greenlandic) forms of life. Of course, this kind of argument can be made about any photograph, so I'm not sure. I figure: It may or may not be public domain (and I hope it is!), but since we have to interpret the artistic vision of the image to figure that out, it may just be easier for us to assume it's copyrighted and use a lesser version of the photograph. As a thumbnail, I don't think it's a problem... But I appreciate you made the change you did. I'm sorry I reverted; I don't like doing that, but I hope I explained why I think it's simpler this way. Hopefully while adjusting the images you read the article along the way... if you have more changes you'd like to make to Little Danes experiment or related articles, I'm all ears. I've been editing them virtually alone, so an outside perspective might be helpful. Urve (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright is indeed very tricky. Even I don't know all the rules. Actually, the two deletion request links above shows that people at Wikimedia Commons assume that the threshold of originality for copyright of photos in Denmark is very high. Even some studio portraits don't seem to be artistic enough.
But I totally understand your concerns, so I won't bother challenging your revert. I have indeed read the article when I edited the photo. It's very interesting, and what happened to the children is tragic, like not being able to speak with their parents in their native language. You did a good job on the article. I'll see if I can get around to editing it more, but I'm a bit busy right now. FunnyMath (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Today I came across (and came to own) a number of books related to Walt Whitman previously owned by Donald Kummings. He wrote his name and address on most, and very rarely added marginalia - when he did, it was usually to update publisher information for future reference, or (as in Minor Prophecy by Kuebrich) to highlight citations to his own work. These all seem to be collected and read in the 90s. Interesting! Urve (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that! - Something strange happens when I want to edit your talk, - don't know how I arrive at a long beautiful and malformmated poem in edit mode. I had to edit the whole page to edit at all. - I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! About to head out, but will return to look at stories and read later. I'll look and see if I can track down a poem. Urve (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Gerda, I like the composition of your food photos like this one, and especially this breakfast. As for the poem, based on what you described at leeky's talk - can you try this? Try to start a new section. If the poem appears, try to erase it and replace with something else, and then click publish. Perhaps then you can start adding new sections without it popping up each time. (Or you could also just publish the poem and then edit afterward, I think it might disappear for you after that.) Why it's doing that - I believe the new "new section" software saves old drafts. Perhaps you accidentally copied it when removing it from your talk, and the new software gets confused. Unsure. When I try to add a new section, that doesn't happen to me. Urve (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Rereading, it looks like I misunderstood a bit. But maybe these ideas will be helpful for the more involved issue that you have. Today: Going to look for more of Kummings' books. Urve (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, I did what you suggested, - adding it and undoing, and it seems fine now. Still, I don't know how it got there, with a time stamp of today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Urve, since you mentioned editing a bit in the area of eighteenth century fiction, I wondered if you might take an interest in the Featured Article Review for Mary: A Fiction, Mary Wollstonecraft's first novel. I poked around a little to think about useful sources but the bug hasn't fully bitten me to sit down with the editing itself. So I thought I'd send you the link and see if the big bites you instead! Of course it may not appeal to you so no need to trouble yourself if it doesn't spark an interest, but I figured there was no harm in mentioning it. I hope your editing is happy, wherever it's occurring :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, LEvalyn. I recently picked up a few dozen books on romantic lit (among other things), but a quick look through their indices suggests they're not helpful for this; mostly about poetry, and even if they were about Wollstonecraft, many are ancient ... like 1930s ancient :) I have two thoughts, though I know nothing about Mary, so maybe they're not useful. The first is that her "fiction isn't studied with great intensity" now, as you say, but I think this is because of movements within feminism and nineteenth-century studies ... while the recovery of women authors from this era used to be the craze in the 90s, I imagine there's not a huge appetite for this anymore (though I know a few people whose work is just that, so I don't mean anything negative by my suggestion). So perhaps our hands are just tied; certainly more recent scholarship exists, but I doubt it meaningfully changes the landscape. Relatedly, my next thought is that FA-adjacent areas on WP are a hellscape of nit-picking concerns by those who don't know mud from ... well, a certain substance that looks like mud ... and is unworthy of serious attention, unless you're in a block or get bitten by the "big" (:P) or want to avoid something, in which case OK. I might take a look. I should hopefully have more time for editing now. I do have an article in progress about an interesting Gothic story that I might email you in a few weeks about, I think you'd like it. I have a draft for Telling Complexions, which is an interesting book, but maybe not worth reading cover-to-cover. What are you working on? BTW, I was going to mention this the other week but forgot. If your institution doesn't have access to Cambridge University Press's Orlando, like mine doesn't, the Wikipedia Library does. Our article on Bonhôte fails to mention her cancer, but there's info there. It's a headache to navigate through WL, though - looking once for something was too difficult so I give up. Urve (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 56
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
I had a good story on coronation day: the Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;)
I heard pleasant music today - did you know a string quartet with two cellos (and no article yet in English? - I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, - amazing how that cross reflects different aspects, rotating slowly. Yesterday I saw and heard the enchanting Diana Tishchenko. I added a pic that I took to her article, also a lovely short video with interview and music. She said its all about communication, and true for us here as well. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)-
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
How are you, my friend? Any big projects coming up? I've been slowly working on a passion project that unfortunately doesn't leave me much time for this place – but soon, soon. Otherwise, one thing I've been having fun with lately is the 'fragment': fluff fictional stories (and poems) added to general-interest newspapers to fill space in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century, but which purposely leave out most context and any resolution. An interesting sci-fi version:
There have been Automatons formerly, said my uncle Toby.—Aye, that there have, said Trim; but they were no more, if compared with these, than your Honor's jackboots compared with the mortars used at the siege of Valenciennes. I have been to see them on Thursday night last, said my uncle Toby.—Oh! Trim, what bright eyes flashed around in the Boxes; yet none so bewitching to me as the Widow Wadman's.—Methought, had she been there, her whole soul would have softened to see a figure, resembling your fair benign spell love, or write matrimony. Yes, said Trim, and the laugh was so loud when the artificial attendants would come with liquor to the Region of the Gods (for so folks called the gallery.)—I am quite bewildered, said my uncle Toby; never have I heard of, or seen anything of the kind to equal these Androides.—They surpassed Archimedes's geometry, Trim. Indeed, said Trim, I felt as if on geometry myself; but rubbing my eyes once more, to behold the different movements of the figures in this camp of curiosities, I began to think them alive in earnest. — The Observer, 13 August 1797, p. 3
Thank you, and all the best for a passion project! - I do the small stuff, instead of making BWV 82 an FA (as promised), bringing Myrthen up to detail as wanted for 12 Sep, and preparing the St John Passion for a 300th anniversary which will come soon. Travelling all weekend, and many other pleasant events with company. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from the weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2023
Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
I stopped by my local library today and got a hard copy of What Belongs to You, going to give it another read (I do better with hard copies versus an e-book, which is what I started with last time). Thinking of you, hope you're well! DanCherek (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Always good to hear from you, my friend. I keep What Belongs to You on the shelf next to my bed, alongside some Wojnarowicz, boychick, a proof of Nebraska, some Cather, The Origins of Totalitarianism, The Prettiest Star (hopefully that's a blue link one day, though I haven't read it yet) ... Although it was suggested that Nebraska would be Whitmore's most enduring work, it is – like most gay literature of the time – neglected. (Probably for good reason. The book sucks.) Skir viewed boychick as the novel that would set him apart from his peers, but it has similarly been forgotten; his book also stinks, but it might be his most enduring work. (Which isn't saying much, since most of his other writing was low-quality smut or ephemeral pieces in middling magazines.) Hopefully you enjoy your re-read of Greenwell, and that he doesn't eventually become like Whitmore or Skir in the public memory, forgotten or untouchable. Keep in touch. Urve (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Vacation pictures offered if you click on songs, and my story today is a DYK hook from 13 years ago OTD: about the great music at one of my churches. Mozart's Requiem to come on Sunday, coupled with Arvo Pärt's Da pacem Domine, - I guess you might come if it was a bit closer. Perhaps watch the video of our last production, our first on yt, ever. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. In response to your post in my talk page, if you think treating a fellow editor with crass rudeness that includes the f bomb is reasonable and restrained, I think such biased and lacking interpretation of how things should be is bizarre and unadvisable. Instead, I advise you to take a good reading at the civility policy. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)16:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'll take it under advisement and "take a good reading" (whatever that means), but only because you asked so nicely. I will say that the "biased" remark is hurtful :(, in large part because I don't know what bias you're randomly accusing me of. But looking at the civility policy, I do notice that condescension is listed as uncivil. Weird.
If I wanted your advice, I would have asked for it. But while we're here, here's what I advise you to do: When someone criticizes something specific you've done, actually respond to that criticism, instead of focusing on an aside. This is important because focusing on inconsequential matters shifts the attention away from the topics at hand. Which are, namely, (1) that I still don't understand what you're trying to do with your revival of a user talk thread of someone who hasn't edited in over a year, and (2) that I'm concerned about your general attitude and editing. Urve (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The word "biased" in the context I used is my perception of your posts thinking it is reasonable to write, and I quote from Protonk, you came to my fucking talk page moaning about some shit ANOTHER editor said but it is unreasonable to talk about it over a year later. Maybe I just noticed it? Maybe I just decided to point out that reply after the accolades the editor was getting from someone else? I think it is reasonable to talk about it over a year later. I don't think it was reasonable and much less "restrained" the way that editor wrote to me. It was plain rudeness.
Also, funny you came to my talk page making your unsolicited opinion and yet here you are telling me "f I wanted your advice, I would have asked for it." I don't know what to make of it, except kind of hilarious. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)21:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, I came also to put you on notice that it is not ok to be supporting the crass rudeness you for whatever reason think is reasonable and measured because you are doubling down on it. In the meantime, I can't take your "notice" seriously if you think what Protonk wrote was reasonable and measured. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
So nice to arrive at your talk that feels like home ;) - today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk. All candidates won a neutral, no more. For a support, they's have to check facts a bit better, not as superficially as so far. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
BTW. Don't fault you for supporting nobody. I don't know if it's been mentioned in the arbcom discussions -- I try not to read them and rely on guides like yours ;), but it was at one point in the last election -- but the idea of "institutional memory" really bothers me. If women have been excluded from power in places like Wikipedia (which I think is true), then placing value on "institutional memory" seems to just be valuing men for having authority in the first place. That is, "institutional memory" seems to be a polite way of entrusting men with everlasting power simply because they were there first. But maybe I'm cynical. I recently bought some relatively expensive books for updating some articles: boychick, queer free, and maybe even one day finally creating Leo Skir (redlinked now), so I guess I'm not done with this place yet ;).
The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). - That's all for now. Best wishes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
_by_Julius_Folkmann.jpg){kind=link}
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Boychick (novel) and Talk:Boychick (novel)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)