User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 14

Copyright violations in Toni Morrison article

Victoria: From the sublime to the swamp—I've found copyright violations in the Early life and career section of theToni Morrison article. The copied material is from a book published in 2006. Several of the sentences in the section at TM were in the article before 2006, but most of the section at TM was added later than 2006. I confirmed the rest of the section was added after 2006 (an explanation is on the TM talk page). If you are not around or busy, no problem. But, I'd be thankful if you can take a look at the article talk page (I reverted all the edits ever made by a new editor). Enjoy the turkey season! Phil—Neonorange (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phil, thanks for noticing and bringing to my attention. When I first looked I thought it was probably a student editor (end of semester projects are due next week for most colleges), and my inclination now is to leave in your changes and then tidy in the new year. W. B. Yeats is an issue right now too. Victoria (tk) 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria. I will comb through the TM article to identify exactly what is copied. At first light, it seems there may be a common source that 'Feminist Study' and 'TM' drew from. What I find, but can't fix myself, I'll leave on the article talk page. Phil (voco) —02:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it briefly but haven't had time to sort through the edits. I noticed you left messages on user pages, which is helpful. Basically the page is in poor shape and could do with a complete rewrite, and I'm thinking I might be able to get some work done there when the semester ends. I can't get to it now. I'll have to find sources too. Do you have access to Jstor or Questia? If not, I think subscriptions are still available; both are good for literature. Victoria (tk) 18:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A little help

Hello. Actually I saw that how you expanded Empress Shoshi's article. It has been a time that I and some other users are discussing about the articles of Japanese empresses. Do you have any knowledge in this field? Actually Empress Shoshi's name Fujiwara no Akiko. But how did you choose the name Shoshi? Is it her posthumous name? Do you have any source to show posthumous names for all empresses? I really tried to expand articles about other Japanese empresses which are stubs but unfortunately I couldn't, because I don't know Japanese and I can't use the information from Japanese Wiki. I'll be very happy if you expand Japanese empresses articles as you did with Shoshi. Keivan.f^Talk 12:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

But I think it is also wrong to call her Empress Shoshi because Japanese Wikipedians say that Posthumous name for Empresses were disappeared in late Asuka-Nara period(上代, 6-8 century), and Nyoin name(女院) started to be used instead. Note that Nyoin doesn't always mean empress. During the Meiji period, Nyoin name has also been done away with, and posthumous name for Empresses were resumed. As a result, Empress Eishō, Empress Shōken, Empress Teimei, Empress Kōjun, only four of them have posthumous name after the Heian period. Keivan.f^Talk 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keivan.f, it's been a few years since I worked that page and much of it was overflow from Murasaki Shikibu. I do know that the Murasaki Shikibu sources refer to her as Shoshi, but I'd have to revisit the other sources (most of which I no longer have). If you want a page move then probably best to bring to the talk page. Also, without sources to support, I wouldn't know whether or not WP:COMMONNAME applies, but perhaps try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. Victoria (tk) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have contacted to Japanese Wikipedia and they say that we should use Fujiwara no Shoshi instead of Empress Shoshi. Shikibu's sources refer to the empress by her name, Shoshi, but it is incorrect to call her Empress Shoshi. The term Empress should be used with her posthumous name which is lost and we only know her honorific title which I think is Jomoto-in. So with your permission I think the page should be moved to Fujiwara no Shoshi. So are you sure you don't have most of the sources that you had before? What were they and can't you have them again? Keivan.f^Talk 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a reliable source! Furthermore, I really think the discussion should be held here, as this is the English Wikipedia, and consensus achieved here. I really don't understand the distinction and so need to look into it a little. Regarding sources: I wrote the article in 2011 from sources taken from the library or borrowed elsewhere. Other sources, such as pdfs downloaded from the internet, have been since lost. I will have to re-borrow the books from the library and find access again to the pdfs - all of which takes time. I do have Bowring at hand and he very clearly refers to her as Empress. As professor of Asian studies at Cambridge university, he is a reliable source. Victoria (tk) 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course he should refer to her as empress, because she was an empress. But when I look at Japanese articles which are about her they all refer to her as Fujiwara no Shoshi or Jomoto-in. Her posthumous and imperial name is lost and technically it is wrong to call her Empress Shoshi. I think in this case the title of this page should be Fujiwara no Shoshi according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles and we should see what is common in Japanese language. Also for example Fujiwara no Kenshi (Sanjō) can be moved to Empress Dowager Biwadono (枇杷殿皇太后) and Tachibana no Kachiko can be moved to Empress Danrin (檀林皇后), their posthumous names, but they can't be moved to Empress Kenshi and Empress Kachiko. But it seems that even in these cases their personal names are more common. But as you like to have a discussion here, I think discussing with Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan's users will solve the problem. They can tell us which form is more common. Keivan.f^Talk 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And it will be really good if you find some sources to expand Japanese empresses' articles. You have written Shoshi's article very well. ;) Keivan.f^Talk 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I enjoyed working on that page! I had a look at Bowring who says this book (linked here in Japanese and taken from Helen Craig McCullough) has detailed appendices in regards to titles. I would like to dig into this a little more, but yes, I think I'm beginning to understand the issue. Give me a couple of days to read through the sources, and regardless a page move should probably be mentioned on the article talk page. I will respond there. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

St. Francis

I owe you an apology for abondaning ship and leaving you to tend the FAC alone. Not cool, and sorry. This Bee Gees tune wont make it all better, [1], but who the hell doesnt like the Bee Gees. Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks. Victoria (tk) 19:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Still friends?, though owning up here to bastardism. I owe you, at the very least. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope friends. [2]. You are such a diligent and great person. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If I can manage it I'd like to take a longish break from this place (I mentioned that yesterday on your page), though as always it's a one day at a time deal. I'm a little demotivated and worn out - not to bring in self-pity or anything - it's just time to move on. Anyway, yes, and happy with the changes to St Francis. I honestly hit a wall and couldn't think how to combine the provenance w/ the exhibition. Very nice edit you did there; it's come together nicely. Victoria (tk) 19:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This place can be exhausting, god knows. I've been trying for years to dissapear. GRR Martin might write Winds of Winter sooner. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling ...

... that your newfound interest in me has something to do with this? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My second guess was this edit, which you've confirmed is what sparked your interest. Do you realize that Sarah defended me against the last round of sock-puppet allegations? You are making a mistake here, but I sure hope it's being made in good-faith, and it's not some kind of tactic to drive me away from "your territory", or in retaliation for disagreeing with SV. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't know there were other SPIs. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first person to apologize, but I think it's best not to have suspicions. To answer the question you left on your page, I've been looking at this for a few days after I noticed the talk page conversation. I'd put Irataba on watch with the intention of reviewing but something about that conversation felt like deja vu. I did look at Waters and to do my job diligently will have to do the same thing there as on Rose-Baley Party. Let's let MRG decide what to do about the tagging there. Victoria (tk) 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but FTR, I've been involved in a couple of very extensive discussions with MRG regarding close paraphrasing, and she has made it quite clear to me that moderate close paraphrasing is acceptable here at Wikipedia, which does not require an academic standard for plagiarism. I think most of what you found at RBP is not problematic, but there are a few that I should re-write if I don't just quit after this witch-hunt. I think editors get traumatized by sock-trolls, and they start to see them everywhere. I was singled out right away because I "knew to much" about the processes here, but I first edited Wikipedia many years ago, and I edited anonymously off and on for a couple of years after that. Last summer I made my first registered account, but I used my real name for it so I retired that after several weeks and made this one, that's apparently useless now, as I'll never live down these accusations that keep coming up. Like I said, if this is an honest good-faith suspicion I don't blame you, but please consider the effect this can have on innocent people. I have now been accused of being four different people, but, unless they are all the same editor, how could that be that I seem "just like" so many editors? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Just walk away from this, there is no connection so don't let it bother you. I've been accused for being a sock as well that resulted in an apology in the person who was the accuser. Just let it go and edit on, no need to quit over something like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria I just hope you have strong evidence here, if not you are pinning an innocent person, and possibly driving them off Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria, would you object to my taking a look at your writing for close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You made a mistake about me, and now you are putting me through stressful stuff just like ILT did to you. You are continuing the cycle of abuse. As I said before, I think this is good-faith, so I sympathize, but did you see that Copyright clerk agreed with me and suggested you had made a mistake, and the material you chose as evidence "does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation".? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Im sorry that things got so heated over at the SPI case, but in my opinion I feel RO is right about what she says when it comes to the Rose-Baley Party article. You are a great editor Victoria but given all that has happened I would just wait a week or so for things to cool down. Remember the SPI case you launched almost caused an innocent editor to quit Wikipedia and it took the efforts of editors to get her to stay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have a response to this. A lot of unnecessary heat got added to the SPI, including comments from you. I tend to fly under the radar here, but when it comes to work with sourcing and referencing, particularly on the GA and FA level, I'm confident in my expertise. I think our review processes are flawed but I can say for certainty the higher up the ladder any article will get a greater level of scrutiny. Of course you're welcome to seek an official i-ban to keep me away from any article that RO contributes to, but that might not gain traction. I wouldn't object if that's what you're seeking. Victoria (tk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Im not questioning your expertise, im just saying give RO some time to work on the article for a bit. This doesn't have to turn into an IB once she calms down then im sure you two can find some common ground. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, all I'm asking is that you leave me alone and allow me to fix the article with help from others. There is no need for a formal IB if you are willing to voluntarily leave me alone. By thanking Montana for this vicious comment, you have completely negated your earlier apology. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party

Rationalobserver, might I suggest you behave rationally and also let Victoria alone? A "new" user shows up, yet behaves in ways that are not consistent with never having edited WP before. The SPI now has a note that you disclosed your previous account to ArbCom, which is fine. There also does not seem to be any dispute that there are concerns with close paraphrasing in some of your work. I think Victoria was well justified in filing an SPI. I do not see what Montana did as a "vicious comment". Given the damage ILT has done here, and the time spent to clean that up, the concern was warranted. I also know what it is like to be accused of being a sock (as my first edit here got me accused). That said, let's deescalate. If you (or anyone else) want(s) to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page. If I were a police officer I might say "move along, nothing to see here folks". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NIce of you to offer to continue the conversation but it's best to let it die: I apologized in good faith, I made a good faith offer of help, in good faith I clarified a talk page comment, and when someone who has often been on the opposite side of another issue commented here, for the first time, I was welcoming - as one should be, imo. Anyway, I'm letting it be. No need to discuss forced mentoring b/c that wasn't intended, and I've already responded to Knowledgekid87 re I-ban. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Victoria, I appreciate you pinging me on the above situation, and I want you to know that I happen to agree with your position that there is a WP:DUCK here, so feel free to give me a heads up any time you think you have another related problem. I also want to note that I find Dennis Brown to be a respected user and when he popped out of retirement to comment that he's seeing what you see, that is worth noting and says good things about you and your credibility. I guess for now we focus on behavior and take drama to ANI. But a pat on the back to you for having the courage to raise this issue. If it wasn't ILT, it's a twin with a shockingly similar behavioral profile. In either case, don't go into a sock drawer alone. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Montana, for stopping by and nice to see you on my talkpage for the first time ever! For someone who keeps away from the dramah boards that was an unexpected move on my part, but I decided I had to take full responsibility and let the chips fall. Whilst going through diffs in the past few days it struck me how many editors have drifted away, so it's nice to see you on my talkpage. Old-timers and all! Gah! Btw - while you're here, I thought about you the other day as I was working on My Old Man (short story) - a very early Hemingway story (actually one of his first) about horse racing, set in 1920s Italy and Paris. I've only started it, but could use some horse expertise if you're interested in taking a look. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will peek at the article. On other things, check your email. Montanabw^(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RE Hemingway, I'd like to link the hedges, whatever they're called, that the horse jump, because it's important in the story. I suppose I could find it in the steeplechase article, I realize as I'm typing this. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Victoriaearle. This is a courtesy notice that a user has now mentioned you by name at the ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ceoil. Best wishes, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Diannaa. Victoria (tk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for what I caused

Victoriaearle, I feel responsible for escalating the SPI report by my inept sock hunting that I'm clearly not experience at. It was presumptuous of me to think I was in any way qualified to add to that SPI. I've added some problems/suggestions for improvement to Talk:Rose-Baley Party. Aside from the close paraphrasing concerns, there are more basic problems the GA reviewer missed. Like the link to Edward Fitzgerald Beale is clearly the wrong man and so is the image of him. The article is in category:Trains, the lede image is misleading and misdated: it's c. 1886, not 1866 and not relevant to article content. I'm still hung up on the single source issue; I see constantly rewriting material from a single source as bordering OR/SYN, if not already there. And the book was written by a man interested in his own family history; many of the party were his relatives. I hope the editor doesn't take my pointing out these problems in the wrong way, but it doesn't meet the standards of a GA: I liked your statement that you have no doubts about your competence in FA/GA evaluations. I see that you are widely admired and your reputation insures that no editors doubt your judgment. EChastain (talk)

See above. It's best that I don't comment about those issues. I will say this, fingers crossed that it's sufficiently generic, problems cropping up during the Wikicup is par for the course. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rose-Baley Party comments

Voceditenore, I'm leaving comments here because it's rude to ignore your messages to me. RO requests I leave Rose-Baley talk alone so I stopped by your page and decided it best not to post directly beneath RO. Re the tag, I said here I wouldn't object to removing and I'd planned to find a neutral admin to do so. You're absolutely right to point out about the close paraphrasing tag - I've edited that page and am aware of that. In fact that's what I was looking for, but the mistake I made was to grab the wrong tag on a template search, and here we are. I see it's been taken down, so that's good.

Moving forward, just so you know, I worked my way through more than one section but decided to only post one at a time. In the meantime things blew up a bit, re interaction ban, etc., which caused a chilling effect, but my question is this: why is any single editor or any single article exempt? The aggregate of the edits is concerning, not a few words found in a few sentences, just to be clear. Do you have a suggestion as how to handle that? Victoria (tk) 20:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. I'm a little confused. There's no interaction ban in place. Nor is there any reason why you couldn't have replied to me on that talk page. Sometimes when another editor is upset and blows off steam, it's more productive to just let it pass without comment and keep the conversation impersonal and on track. I don't think any editor or article should be exempt. My suggestion would be that if you are seriously concerned about any remaining instances of close paraphrasing, go through the article and quietly repair them. But as I pointed out, how close is too close is always a judgment call on which even experienced editors will not always agree. If the examples you cited were typical of what you consider so close as to be copyright violations, I'd have to say that I disagree on that assessment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I believe the reason Victoria did not reply to you on the article talkpage is that she's been strongly asked to stay away: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]EChastain (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, sometimes editors decide not to interact directly with others. It's usually a good idea to bow out when there has been a dispute, and when someone chooses to do that, it's best to let it be.

Re: close paraphrasing. I'm not comfortable talking about copyright violations, which is a legal issue. The issue is too-close paraphrasing. Victoria has a lot of experience at spotting it and of sorting it out. It happens a lot and it's not a question of bad-faith editing – it happens, for example, when editors are in a hurry; not hugely familiar with a topic; starting an article and relying on one source; have misunderstood the sourcing policies; or are not familiar with, or forget to add, in-text attribution (or someone removes it). It also happens when the topic is contentious and the sources have to be adhered to closely, or when other editors insist on that, even when there's no need.

The issue is not only whether this or that sentence is too close; individual sentences might be too close because it's hard to see how else to phrase them. The larger issue is whether the source article/chapter/section/paragraph has basically been copied, with slight rephrases here and there, without in-text attribution. That is, would the author of the source material recognize the Wikipedia article as, in effect, her work, but without credit? (Even with in-text attribution, it can be a copyvio if there's too much of it, or if certain key ideas or passages are at stake, but that's a separate issue.)

It's not a hanging offence; it just needs to be fixed by adding attribution, by rewriting (not just tweaking), and if possible by introducing new sources. The only unusual thing about this case has been the defence of it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so this is an informal and obviously unilaterally imposed "interaction ban". I was going by the editor's single comment on the Rose Baley talk page and was unaware of the conversations on her talk page. Be that as it may, I was dealing with the issue of the copyvio blanking of a section of the article. I've already made my opinion clear on that and my reasoning, as has another experienced editor/administrator who has looked at the article and removed the blanking template. Thus, I won't belabour the point here. The article is being gradually improved. Further sources and inline attribution are being added, along with work on the text. The use of Udell's diary in this respect has helped a lot. The administrator who removed the blanking template and I will revisit the article in a few days for a further assessment. I've pretty much read the Baley book in its entirety now and have a copy saved to my hard disk, so I'll be able to assess both macro and micro copyright issues. However in my view, Wikipedia is not in danger of legal problems from the article at this point. The situation is neither a "hanging offense" nor an emergency. Whether or not it is appropriate to rank this as a "Good article" is a separate issue, and that is not part of my brief. Once the improvement work has been done and the dust has settled, if any of you three still feel that it doesn't fulfill the criteria, then bring it to GA review or even better ask an experienced and completely uninvolved GA reviewer to do so. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore this has gone way off track. I'm appalled and frankly upset that you think I'm suggesting removal of GA status. Anyone here who knows me well, such as SandyGeorgia, Ruhrfisch, Nikkimaria, and a whole host of other editors, including Moonriddengirl and many others now gone, are aware of the work I've done to retain GA/FA status. I read the source and so it would have been easy for me to quickly rewrite in summary style and that would have been that. EChastain's diffs show why I stayed away; my original post to you was to acknowledge your comments made elsewhere, to point out the chilling effect of, in your words, the "informal and obviously unilaterally imposed 'interaction ban'", and I would have cleared up quickly without bringing in a lot of other people (hence my question about articles being exempt). Yes, I did link the online version of the Baley book so others could take a look because the process of checking text against source material is laborious and tricky, and I'm happy to see you've taken advantage of it. I don't know what more to say. I've unwatched all the many pages involved, de-escalated as requested, and am only posting now in response to the suggestion that I'd want the article to go to GAR. That said, yes, I have a strong interest in maintaining quality, particularly at the FA level. Victoria (tk) 14:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I submit that anyone who has followed your history on Wikipedia will understand and support your reasoning in staying away from that article. I hope that anyone who remains engaged will address the issues in earnest. Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Victoria (tk) 14:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for a GA review if an editor believes that it needs to be checked more carefully against the criteria. There's no reason to be "appalled" by the suggestion or to take it as some kind of personal accusation. My distinct impression from your and Echastain's comments on the RB tallk page was that you both felt it might fall short of the GA criteria irrespective of the close paraphrasing issue. Your comment...

"To be honest, I don't think your GA reviewer did you a favor, but that's often typical when the Wikicup is in full swing."

Echastain's query to the original reviewer...

"Did you apply each of the six criteria in WP:GACR?"

That was followed by her lengthy exposition on how they were not applied properly. Higher up on your talk page she states quite explicitly...

"I hope the editor doesn't take my pointing out these problems in the wrong way, but it doesn't meet the standards of a GA."

If I'm wrong about your and/or Echastain's opinions in that respect, all the better. If I'm right, but neither of you feel it's appropriate to ask for a review, that's fine too. It was simply a suggestion for how you could address any remaining concerns. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's an incorrect interpretation. I was explaining that a book published in 1973 was a reprint - the author died in 1960 - diff. The comment about the GA reviewer needs to be taken at face value. By signing off, the reviewer suggests the article is ok. In that sense the reviewer failed. Never ever any suggestion that I'm out to tank reviews. Or that I'm working in collusion with EChastain. I have a lot of respect for you and the work you do, Voceditenore, and I'm very very surprised at the tone that's being taken here. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that you were "out to tank reviews"? Who is suggesting that you were "working in collusion" (a loaded word if ever there was one) with Echastain?

I simply suggested that if either of you had outstanding concerns you could seek a review.

I addressed both of you here because both of you are commenting here in this section of your talk page. I don't know how many different ways I explain this to you. If you are determined to be offended by a simple and quite reasonable suggestion, I give up. In fact, I give up regardless. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore you said, "My distinct impression from your and Echastain's comments on the RB tallk page was that you both felt it might fall short of the GA criteria". The suggestion to go take Rose-Baley Party to GAR is neither simple nor reasonable given the sheer number of requests that I disengage. Taking an article to GAR, especially after this type of activity would be unnecessarily fanning the flames. That said, posting to the talk page is acceptable. To stop anyone from doing so is not. And frankly, that's what's happening. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion

Hi Victoria, I hate to see you going to rough times - though we all hit them now and again here on wikipedia. I actually came to your talkpage to ask if you might help me out with some copyediting of this article that I have been working on. Might be a good way to a to unstress and feel appreciated again? I certainly would appreciate it in any case. If you're not up for it I fully understand, and wish you the best. I hope to talk to you later at some point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RETENTION

Recommend that you not retire. If I can hang around the 'pedia, after all the bumps & bruises I've taken over the years? then anybody can. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually contemplated re-retiring this morning. Horrifies me that I wasted an entire f*ing day yesterday that I had planned to spend giving my article the last TLC it needed for the FAC nom. Now I'm behind by a few days. I chose to stay because I have a checklist of work I want to finish. I know my re-retirement may come sooner rather than later; I survived just fine with wikipedia for a few years. So I get it...but I hope you find a reason to make it worth being here again. Karanacs (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope everyone here stays; the damn drama trolls have to be fought by being dogpiled with numbers and tenacity, as reason and logic have no impact upon them. Besides, who might support me if I run for admin? Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you're not leaving, you're too valuable. Have a break and come back refreshed Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No idea who you are; came here via Montanabw. But same from me: stay! Sometimes Wikipedia gives you hard times indeed. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs - yes re wasting a whole f*ing day, or week, or years. Navel gazing at the moment re making it worthwhile. Victoria (tk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by you, - I am so sorry to see what you had to tell us now. I should have asked sooner if you agreed to nominate her for TFA. Will do and think of you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes please to Isabeau - probably for late in March because I think they're scheduling fairly far in advance. If you need help with the blurb I'll pitch in before it runs. The best pic to use for the blurb is File:Isabeau de Baviere (detail).jpg. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It wouldn't have happened without you. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear that - or anything else - from you! So far it's just the nomination, but I am hopeful, according to my slogan ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We are all standing here waiting for you to change your mind

The Marriage of Victoria, Princess Royal, 25 January 1858

Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• (These days I just agree with Hafspajen, hell or hight water. But 15thc articles dont write them selves.) Whateves. Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• RE 15th cent paintings - this book practically fell off the shelf into my arms at the library and I was obligated to bring it home so I'm hopeful there will be work on some 15th cent. pieces before the library wants the book back. Victoria (tk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(NB I have that, so if ever page #s etc are needed after you've given it back, do ask. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

• I stand in that same line (not without noting the irony that yesterday we waited for Hafspajen), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Dont worry Gerda!!! Bring back the much missed Outriggr while we are at it. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

... remember that he sent me a thank-you once for He was despised, - difficult case, know him way too little to reach out. Funny, I thought of Messiah today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Outriggr was far from diffuicult and FAR from despised. But I do like you articles so snap. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

sorry, English difficult ;) - case difficult, not the person, - and not he was despised, - it's just my article redirect, sadly often useful, like WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

English are difficult. Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As an Irishman I concur :) Thnks for the explanation Gerarda. Best, Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that I agree with Haf about anything V but I agree with him here. Your presence is required...Modernist (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Mordy. Those are kind words. ^{Do try to give a second thought about my layouts too in art articles ... you might start like them after a while ... It's like olives - you probably didn't liked them in the beginning, but probably you do now.} Hafspajen (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Adding my support. You would be sorely missed. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Featured content would be rather reduced on art side. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Toni Morrison suggestions

When I need Wikipedia help, I feel most comfortable in asking you. — Neonorange (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's nice of you to say. I'm sorry I keep blanking this page and I hope what I said was useful. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget about the IB, and please stay!

Look, I was really upset that you continued to accuse me after apologizing, and it came as a shock after I thought we would be okay moving forward. I.e., I acted irrationally when my feelings were hurt, and I said some things that I do not agree with today. All I wanted was some temporary space, which I've gotten, so thanks. Please forget what I said about the IB, including the Rose-Baley Party. If you still want to edit there please do so. I would greatly appreciate any help you are willing to offer me, and I sincerely hope we can move forward and put this behind us. I'm sorry I overreacted and lost my cool. I'll do better in the future. I think you are a valuable editor, and I sincerely hope you find your motivation to continue here. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems attractive and ok at first glance, but sadly I dont buy this plea for a minute. Rationalobserver, you expect us to buy into a mea culpla this late in the game, when you have tried, at lenght, to take multiples of our friends people down; seriously? There are better ways to conduct, and I suspect we all might be friends if worked through. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Essay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the naivete I've shown, it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone watching to wonder whether I've been living in a cave for the past six months or longer. The anser to that, yep, I have been living in a cave for real-life reasons. Last year I pruned lots of pages from my watchlist, including AN/I, AN, and all arb related pages, all wiki projects, etc. etc., and now I'm not up on the latest wiki- developments. Which can be seen either as a detriment or not. The thing is: after a while I realized I liked living in a cave. This place is overly addicting (the internet in general is overly addicting, imo), and focusing exclusively on content, staying blissfully unaware of all the drama swirling about, with a tiny watchlist (watchlists are evil because they beg for, well "watching" and then often "action"), and disengaging completely for a few days each week is as good way as any to cope.

Time is a severe issue for me, and this place (because it's so addicting) can be a time-suck. Equally, when working on content, interruptions are deadly. Two of our best policies are WP:DISENGAGE and WP:NORUSH. There is no deadline! There is no reason for a certain article to be finished at a certain date. There's no reason to have to drop everything to respond to a watchlist comment. If more people were willing to disengage and just sit back, let things settle down, this would be a calmer place. Instead, disputes go on and on and suck out any fun that could be garnered from this place. When it's not fun, it's not worth staying, imo.

The WP culture of hat collecting, which promotes work work work for such and such (adminship, green blobs, bronze stars, etc) prevents an attitude of disengaging or building content slowly. Hat-collecting isn't really healthy and is at odds with WP:NORUSH. I like to work slowly on articles that catch my interest, and there are plenty that will never get reviewed, because it's simply hard to find adequate sourcing for some articles. A topic that leans on only a few sources is more apt to be skewed. For reviewed articles we have to be mindful of quality assurance. FAs (and to some extent this is now true of GAs) will at some point be run on the main page, so they should be best we can produce, production or print-ready, and scrutinized. For any page to get to that point WP:NORUSH is a fundamental policy to follow.

This is a collaborative writing project with people from all over the globe working together to create a product. Each person brings his/her own viewpoint and strengths and when it really works well it's truly amazing. The more collaborative the better as far as I'm concerned. Because this is a global community, and for lots of other reasons, whenever someone is kind enough to take time to give advice, that's a benefit. Karanac's post about how to evaluate a source should be written up as an essay; it's truly wonderful (except she missed the bit about "juvenile" books, which we ran into on another article).

An "interaction ban" is at odds with the fundamental collaborative nature of this project, and usually, I thought, only imposed at the arb level. But I did notice another thread on AN/I about an interaction ban, so maybe has become more common during my stint in the cave; common enough to warrant its own WP acronym, IB.

So, now that I've made everyone read this far: let's get to the crux of the matter. Your message, Rationalobserver contains the acronym "IB" in the section heading. The person whose page this landed on, (me), immediately becomes defensive. To continue the defensiveness: no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations. See how quickly this can devolve? Not good, and not a place I want to be. And that's why I probably won't be around much. But let's continue. No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that. Instead we had a week or more of unending whatnot, a handful of blocks, the AN/I thread from hell, a couple of editors gone, and here we are.

Moving forward: in the spirit of collaboration I had left some links that might be helpful. The Huntington Library has images: here is Rose, fourth down, here are images of the Colorado river in Arizona and of a Mojave warrior, taken in the 1860s. They have a good biography of Rose here, which includes what happened after.

Writing an essay is probably not disengaging - the irony doesn't escape me. But I was afraid saying nothing would be misinterpreted. So I made it an essay. Moni would be proud of me. Victoria (tk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations.

I guess you're technically right about that, but I was referring to the fact that you apologized at 06:26 on February 1, but thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me six hours later, which gave me the impression that you still thought I was a sock, and that was quite frustrating. If all the problems at RBP could have been fixed in a couple of hours, I really wish you had spent your energy doing that versus digging up diffs to present as evidence at SPI. But, I'm not here to argue; I just wanted to put this behind me, and I think I've done that now. I sincerely wish you all the best. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

rationalobserver, did it ever occur to you that victoria was thanking montana for the nice things that montana said about her in that post? That's how I interpreted it - and that's what AGF should have had you learn toward. Not everything here is about you. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

See, this kinda seems like stirring the pot to me, but to answer your question: no. If I wrongly accused someone and put them through hell I wouldn't silently assert that someone who continued the same accusations was helping me. Montanabw's comment stoked flames that were just about snuffed out at the time, and I wouldn't thank someone for accusing you of bullying me right after I apologized to you for getting into an argument. That's speaking with a forked tongue, IMO. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm proud of you too :) I laughed to myself reading this, because just this morning I nominated an article for FAC, one I've been working on and researching for the last 7 years. SEVEN YEARS of my life in which I've spent from a few hours to a few months every year reading, writing, searching for images, reading more, writing more. I couldn't have done it full justice three years ago - it needed to percolate a bit. I'm proud of what it is now. I suspect if we hadn't both gotten disillusioned, we'd still be working on the history of the Catholic Church, all these years later, and still not finished. In my ideal wiki-world, I'd be left alone to write the articles, to bounce ideas off of other editors (like you) who like to learn and want to share, and I'd have a magic wand to put a protective bubble around my spaces so disruption (including all those middle-school students upset because they have to learn about history, bless their hearts) couldn't get a solid foothold. I am still waiting for someone to hand over the magic wand (come oooooon, universe), and still, twenty years removed from high school, dealing with those who choose to bully the nerdy kid. I have a great deal of respect for those who continue to slog away and focus on creating awesome content - as well as those who served their time and choose to go do something else for a while. Time to let the next topic percolate a while. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to help Rational observer to just drop it all and move on in a different mindset and focus more on articles and improving her writing instead of commenting on people but she's not just interested. How can you really get through to such an individual? There might have been flaws in her work but beneath all of this she does at least seem interested in content building, and ultimately that's what really matters. Yet every piece of advice or action is perceived as an attack or taken in a hostile way... Montanabw, Victoria, myself, Rational observer etc, aren't we all here ultimately for the same thing beneath all of this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse, Dr.B; I'm trying to move on as we speak but you keep mentioning past conflicts. Victoria, I'm un-watching this page now, so if you have anything else you want me to see please ping me in the comment or feel free to make it at my talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dead horse? No, you've certainly not cleared the air with people here, just 24 hours ago many editors were attempting to have you banned. This really needs to be sorted out. You were doing very well at one point and I began to help you and then you said what you thought to Eric and things since then have got even worse. Your comments at the Coffee report the other day worsened the situation further and came across as petty. You can't possibly continue to edit without the support and good faith among at least some of the editors here. Featured articles are a product of such an environment, there needs to be that mutual understanding and trust there. A collegial atmosphere where people don't accuse others of opposing to get one over in revenge for their buddies... Are you interested in producing FAs or not? That can't be achieved by just pretending nothing has happened and shunning people like myself. I was willing to give the article a thorough read and review but am not sure it's worth it given that you seem to be continuing to dig a hole for yourself to the point you're begging to be banned before it is finished. I'm trying to offer a way out and to change, I care about content ultimately, and I think that you can learn from it and achieve something on here. If you didn't bother at all with content I most certainly would not waste a moment in trying to help you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwatch

You know where to find me ... be well !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria 2

"at which the English king will inherits the French crown after the death of her husband Charles VI" ... not sure what that was supposed to be. Otherwise, the lead looks fine. Looking forward to TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked that phrase. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I took a quick look and it's deteriorated more than I'd realized. I'll get in before TFA to buff & polish Victoria (tk) 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bertin

I am unable to fit in the image of Baronne de Rothschild at this time. But believe me I tired, which I suppose is good enough. Suggestions welcome. To compensate, here is 15th c fatalism married with 20th century minimilism: [9]. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry, wasn't a mandate - only an observation that I'd noticed she was gone, but not meant to be actionable. Tks for work to I. Victoria (tk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Thank you for giving us this "interesting story", precious again, thanks extended to those you kindly mentioned in the nomination, Ceoil, Wehwalt and Tim riley (who I think watch this beautiful page). This will be the last TFA of a woman in women's history month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you it got to TFA. Condolences, btw. Victoria (tk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. People die, and some people here argue about hidden messages, - it's so unseemly. Thanks for understanding, Victoria, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fasinating, interesting page - a very worthy subject. Congratulations Giano (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba PR

I'm struggling to understand what it is you want to add, so can I ask why you are not willing to write it and add it yourself? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It;s a peer review RO, Victoria only needs to comment! Thankyou for your input at the peer review Victoria. Irataba is now at FAC, I hope you'll appreciate that a lot of hard work and effort has gone into addressing criticism to improve this here. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, think it's okay to point out that a source like this is deeply satirical and borderline racist or to point out that the date for the Whipple party was incorrect. There were too many edit conflicts at the PR and I couldn't respond to ROs pings, so I let it go, and then you left this message that it's gone to FAC. I realize I probably made enemies by speaking up, but I'm not in complete agreement with the silence of culture culture of silence on WP. Anyway, I'll keep quiet now and not comment at the FAC. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean "culture of silence", then neither am I. It's insidious, invidious, and leads to all sorts of distortions. Not at all healthy. The price we have to pay for speaking out is well worth it though, no matter how many vindictive or cultish blocks. Eric Corbett 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that what you're doing here is tantamount to harassment Rationalobserver, and I'm asking you to stop it now. You managed to wriggle out of a block before, but you may not be so lucky next time. Eric Corbett 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, Victoria is okay with me asking about this stuff here and now, as we are trying to move forward, and until she says otherwise I'll ignore your latest attempt to bully me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't give you fair warning then. Eric Corbett 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is harassment. RO was doing it on their own talk page too, now removed. Pinging Coffee, who said he would deal with it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a very genuine attempt at reconciling. If Victoria feels this is harrassment then surely she will say so, so that RO can react appropriately. Although I don't know what could be more appropriate than trying to reconcile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you joking Maunus? RO only reverted her multiple posts harassing posts [10][11] after Coffee was pinged.. And why did RO immediately revert Victoria's comment on her talk?[12] Why didn't she just respond there, instead of starting to post here right after? EChastain (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Because they changed their mind acting in good faith? That is my assumption untill something suggests otherwise.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break, Sarah. This isn't harassment. This is a good-faith attempt to put our difference aside and talk things out so we can move on as friends. If this was harassment, Victoria would have reverted my comments, not responded to them, telling me that she would respond more later: "Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet" Rationalobserver (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria, is this a problem, because I honestly thought we were just talking this out like women sometimes do? We never discussed any of this, and I don't see how I can move forward in a positive light with you if we don't talk it out. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Handled - RO blocked for 6 months. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

to be archived

Can we please just talk to each other? Per this comment I wondered if we could discuss our issues in hopes of moving forward in a positive way. We've never even had a proper discussion, and often I've felt that you were talking past me without really acknowledging my replies. For example, can you please explain why two or three times you encouraged me to upload pictures from the Huntington Library, but when I told you it wasn't safe you didn't acknowledge me? That seemed like a possible sabotage attempt. I think that we need to talk this out and achieve some closure without lost of others piling it on. Can we do this? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) RO, I couldn't answer. I got edit conflicted a gazillion times, supper was in the oven burning, the PR got closed in the middle of a conversation. So I let it slide. As it happens, I disagree with those assessments - unless the photographers, all of whom died more than 70 years ago, turned copyright directly to the Huntington, they should be in the public domain, unless they were published in books, I suppose. I wouldn't suggest materials if I didn't think they could be used, or to sabotage. I really don't operate like that. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) That's fair enough, but old photographs are often purchased by private collections before ever being published, so just because they are old doesn't mean they are PD. Take this awesome image. It isn't PD, even though it is at least 141 years old. Maybe this is an example of you giving advice about things you are not that expert in, but you never gave any indication that I might be right to be apprehensive. I feel like if we communicated to each other better we might find that we have a lot more in common than we do reasons to argue. Can you see that I was hurt by your accusations and attempt to get me banned? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I think you should ask someone else about that image as well. Unless we know for certain that the holding library also owns copyright, then these images should be PD. There's no reason to be apprehensive - that's why we have image reviews and why we write FURs. In an article like that you could well get away with at least one fair use rationale. Also, it's not uncommon to send email to a library to ask whether an image is free or not. I did see the Huntington's disclaimer but I believe it had to do with for-profit and WP is a not-for-profit, and is educational, so it wouldn't be out-of-the ordinary to ask whether they own copyright and if they do whether they'd be willing to release it. Victoria (tk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Can you see though that this is yet another suggestion that involves complicated aspects of Wikipedia policy that I am likely to mess up? At my stage of learning I don't want to put lots of effort uploading copyrighted images and writing FURs when PD ones are available. It far better for me to play it safe on images, and I am frustrated that you don't see it that way. That's why you seem like a saboteur who is trying to make everything more difficult. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Another example was the Kroeber 1925 source, that you had issues with but neglected to follow-up after I explained away your concerns on February 24. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Helping me I'm also confused because the last time that I tried to talk with you and iron this out you seemed to take the position that it was all my fault, and you had no intention of helping me with the Rose-Baley Party article where the drama began: "No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that." So why, may I ask, are you determined to be part of the Irataba FAC process, but RBP sat at peer review for 30 days and you didn't want to help, even though you claimed you could fix the paraphrasing there in a matter of "a couple of hours"? That seems inconsistent with someone who sincerely wants to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I had no clue Rose-Baley was at PR. Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Honestly though, I am so over RBP that I won't be making any more edits to it. It's a lightning rod for criticism and tag-teaming, and I couldn't care less what happens to that article now. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The point still stands though, that the last I talked with you, you said you didn't want to help me, but then you came out to participate at the Irataba PR without any intervening discussion with me. So that seemed like a weird kind of lurking, when you seem to follow my every move but won't even talk to me like a person. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Teaching me I'd like to make a point about comprehending Wikipedia conventions. I used to play basketball, in fact I was pretty darn good, and had there been a WNBA all those years ago I would have went pro. One of my favorite players was Larry Bird, and in the early-1980s I attended a b-ball clinic hosted by the Celtics that featured him. He taught us his philosophy of the game, and one major point was about passing, which I loved to do as a player. Bird said that when you pass the ball it is solely your responsibility that the person you are passing to gets the pass. He didn't accept any excuses by passers for dropped balls, even if an easy pass was missed. It's idealistic, but as an educator I take that approach to teaching. I would never excuse poor marks from a class by suggesting the students weren't smart enough. I take the blame, and the buck stops with me. I feel that some of the things you've tried to explain to me were a bit too complicated for my limited background in the relevant polices, but all misunderstands have been categorically blamed on me and my lack of comprehension skills. There have also been a few things that you were quite wrong about, but I haven't ever seen you acknowledge that, except that I am not ILT, which was painfully obvious to many people who looked at the SPI. I am not an idiot, in fact my intelligence is well above average, but I admit that some of these Wikipedia concepts have alluded me thus far, and I have made some mistakes with applying advice and getting along with the different cliques here. But Irataba is the first article I ever wrote, and I think for a beginner it's pretty good – I fully acknowledge that without the help of several more experienced and talented people if wouldn't be that great, but this is a collaborative project, so I take pride in the teamwork. Before me, there was no Irataba article on Wikipedia, and I am proud to have started it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Interesting you should mention this. I lived in Boston in the 1980s, worked on the 20th floor of skyscraper overlooking Boylston St. - was a great view for the Celtics parades. I'm cooking supper at the moment. I'll be back - but not immediately. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Appearance of tag-teaming Can you see why I might be paranoid about your newfound desire to help me, when you and at least two others who are involved in the FAC were trying to get me banned at SPI just 6 weeks ago? Can you see how this might look like you and your friends are trying to make my life difficult? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Some specific examples: Victoria: "Add more stuff about the importance of dreams in Mohave life. FAC reviewer: "What's with all this stuff about dreams?" Victoria: "We need more background and context" FAC reviewer: "There is too much background material in the article" Victoria: "We need more material devoted to the governmental system" FAC reviewer: "There is way too much about Mohave government, so trim it" Victoria: "We need more detail about Olive Oatman" FAC reviewer: "Why is there so much stuff about Oatman, and how does she even relate to Irataba?" There are many, many more examples, and the diffs are not hard to find. In fact, looking at your peer review it would seem that you and the FAC reviewer are of completely different minds about what to include and what to focus on, and they would absolutely disagree with your approach to writing the article. It also looks like this might be a two-way attack where you suggest we add stuff that they later oppose and demand we remove, causing further exhaustion. I'm not accusing you here, really, but if we are going to talk this out let's not leave things unsaid. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Topics I see that you've expressed an interest and knowledge of Arizona tribes, but which pages had you edited prior to February 15? Because I don't see any evidence that you've ever edited a single page to do with Native Americans prior to your accusing me of being a sock. Can I expect your presence at any and all Mohave articles I improve in the future? Are you willing to allow me to work on stuff without your help, or have you gone from "I don't want to help anymore" to "you have no choice but to accept my help wherever you go" without any interim discussion with me? I wish you had just asked if I would accept an Irataba peer review, because I would have, but the way you came in at the last minute with piles of concerns looked like an attempt to exhaust me at the end of an already long and in-depth peer review. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I find one of the most exciting ways to learn about the operation of Wikipedia, and to learn good writing, is to follow the talk pages of knowledgeable, creative editors. Without feeling the need to comment on every possible point of contention. Early or late, a useful comment is a useful comment. — Neonorange (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Neonorange. I agree. When content is created and prepared for review all comments are useful. I've been to review many times and every single time the article has improved immeasurably. That's one of the strengths of FAC and how the system should work imo. Victoria (tk) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignore

Victoria, years ago I received a short email by a Wikipedian which to share I don't think reveals too private matters and may help you:

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Like EChastain (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's good advice. I will now, thanks for reminding me. I thought an olive branch might work, but I guess not. Btw - I've meant to tell you that I think you've done extraordinary work in March in terms of pushing articles about women to the main page. I envy your energy and passion. Frohe Ostern! Victoria (tk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Danke, but Passion first ;) - Returned from singing Tristis est anima mea, scene on the Mount of Olives, matching olive branch nicely. On a hike, we discussed translation of "beweinen" (now on the Main page), and thought that "lament" might be better than "bewail" and "bemoan", - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, not until Sunday. Interesting question. I like the word beweinen - our English "whine" (BrEng "whinge") comes from it. The Lutheran words are often simple and powerful. With its French/Latin origin "lament" seems fancified, whereas bewail is the closest to the meaning, so I'd keep that. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Victoria, Hopefully you remember talking to me once or twice in the distant past, and that I'm not a complete stranger. I know it's been a long time, but I noticed your name recently and wanted to stop in and say hi. "Hi". :) ... Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, no complaints other than it was the coldest winter ever and I'm about ready to move to the a warmer climate! Thanks for stopping by - you caught me as I was just about to go offline. Enjoy your Easter! Victoria (tk) 01:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman

Here is another really good source for Oatman. It is a critical analysis of the relation between Oatman and Stratton, who published and sensationalized her account.[ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5668184&fileId=S0361233300006311]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I have concluded a general revision of the article on Irataba, along the lines you have been suggesting, your input would be appreciated at the FAC review page.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, apologies for the belated reply but I've had to go offline beccause of a sudden health problem, well actually eye problem, and am supposed to avoid computer work for a few weeks. The remarks I left at the PR were intentionally in broad brush-strokes and I've not been able to look at the progress. The only other things I remember I would have added is that the variations in the spelling of Irataba/Ireteba should be added and maybe bolded. Also, at that point there were some 19th cent. newspaper accts of this death mentioning him as good whereas Cochise in the column over was mentioned in rather different terms. Probably might be good to avoid the stereotype of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" or at least explain that was typical for that period. There were a few more points, but can't read the page! Thanks for the pretty award below. When I can see again, I'll take a look at Sarah Winnemucca. Victoria (tk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks for the help
	Hi Victoria, I just wanted to thank you for your critical thinking, superior research skills and keen overview which has led to significant improvements of the article on Irataba. Maybe our next FA will be Sarah Winnemucca? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

tender compassion
Thank you, not only for your admirable articles such as Bal des Ardents, but for showing your self in a great user name and the meditative Magdalen picture, for asking a question with tenderness and for counseling with compassion, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 91st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda. Funny seeing that diff to Moni's page. She's been on my mind a lot recently. Victoria (tk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's so great: that people are on your mind! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1510 saying on the "spiral of justice" may be right for your mood also, - take care, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that - almost put it up on my page. I was looking through an art book a few days ago and saw another similar one done in embroidery - those are very interesting. I like that carved one a lot. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I also like the collaboration around it, as summarized on my talk, - rarely found so many people interested in one of my obscure topics ;) - Next: Missa Dona nobis pacem by Ernst Pepping, the teacher of my teacher whose birthday is today. Reading the review of a performance in the Marktkirche was one of the last things the composer enjoyed before he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you are aware: [13]. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, thanks for pointing it out. I think it's a diversion from work that was getting done, another chance to stir drama, and I'm sorry to see Dennis Brown took the bait. The real question, or rather the real issue, is how many ANIs, MfDs, PRs, FACs, SPIs, blocks, etc., will it take until people get that there's a problem. I've noticed comments that content is more important regardless of who produces it, and though I should keep my mouth shut, I have to ask how many volunteer hours have been wasted by how many people, who instead could have been writing content. Personally I let an article go because time was up on the library books, and it's one that would have gone to FAC for the 100th anniversary of WWI. Wikipedia's loss imo. I mentioned above to Gerda that Moni has been on my mind a lot recently: she articulated best that we use the best and most recent sources and stick to them. We get up off our butts and go the library. No fucking excuses and drama. Just do it. I'm out for RL reasons for a while, but another Monism has keeps echoing in my head: fuck Wikipedia. That, in a nutshell, is my feeling about this place right now. Either we lack the mechanisms to deal with these problems, or whichever mechanisms we have are failing, but in the end it's just endless and wears down. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

PS - I posted to both AN/I threads. Used up my vision for the day, but it needs to be done. Enough is enough. Victoria (tk) 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have used your sandbox hre. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw for getting that done. I might be able tidy the table (it has some formatting errors and probably quite a few typos) but will be in & out for the next month - more out that in. It would be good to get more eyes on that situation, especially from people who weren't admins or even around then, because it seems to have been largely forgotten. Also with that many accts to trawl through it's easier work with more people pitching in, imo. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Moni had the right idea - sometimes you have to walk away. My multi-year break was exactly what I needed to get over the burnout and be able to face the idea of editing again. I'm trying so hard to stay in my own little area right now, and I've been creating a lot of articles on topics no one else seems to give a damn about, and that suits me just fine :) Enjoy your break! Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how wise Moni was and she had the right idea. I'll be traveling next month and am still dealing with vision issues, so not getting a lot done here. But I thought I could come in today and work on an article I started last weekend, had sources lined up and was ready to go, so it doesn't really feel fair. It *is* supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That said, I can work offline, pop in occasionally and paste in the work I've done. It's limiting, but the only solution I'm seeing at the moment. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Victoriaearle, DO take good care of yourself, OK? That's the thing that matters. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Retirement

What brought all this on Victoria? I've always thought that you're a great editor, and I said so when RO was complaining that one time and said that you usually know what you're talking about. We can't afford to lose you, or any editor who produces content period. I do hope this isn't related to RO and the request for her to be unblocked. If she directs anything at you again it'll be obvious anyway. While I do think you also gave her a pretty hard time over her content, even if a lot of it was valid criticism, I do think there's a way to move forward and deal with your differences. I don't like seeing people who have the potential to write good content on here blocked or retired period. That's why I'm often willing to ignore how some people behave at times and try to bring the best out of them. If this is related to a serious health issue (as mentioned on April 10) rather than the trivia of wiki stuff, I genuinely hope you recover from it and will return to edit in the future. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, see this on your talk page:...You are risking losing Victoriaearle from the project altogether... Why are you so surprised? EChastain (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh come off it Chastain, you're not going to blame Victoria's departure from wikipedia all on me. I've been nothing but supportive of her and the work she does here. And as far I know she issued no ultimatum saying "It's either RO or me". We can't afford to lose content contributors period, whatever their shortcomings as people or issues. Victoria is always welcome to produce content here, but so is RO, provided that they do just that in my book. If people reach a stage where they can't rise above their differences and focus on content and think one editor editing or not editing here is more important than the whole overall project then perhaps they are long due a break from here. If this is the real/sole reason Victoria has had enough which I doubt, perhaps given time she'll regain whatever brought her to wikipedia in the first place and value content more than worrying about somebody she doesn't like. And it's not as if I've ignored their disagreements, I've proposed some sort of interaction ban as a way forward, so it's not as if she'd have to tolerate RO "harassing" her every day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld I have a question: you wrote - "If people reach a stage where they can't rise above their differences and focus on content and think one editor editing or not editing here is more important than the whole overall project then perhaps they are long due a break from here." Is that how you perceive me? Has it become that personalized? Basically I'm in an impossible situation. If I edit, I'm doing something wrong. If I don't edit, I'm doing something wrong. I see that RO has now taken a wikibreak. If I edit while she's gone, will that then confirm what you've written above? What sorts of games are being played here? Why are people coming to my page telling me that I seem decent, that she deserves a second chance when I didn't ask for her to be blocked? Victoria (tk) 21:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply. I've said how I perceive you, you're a highly respected editor who is usually right. Yes, I wasn't sure if you'd left because of RO being unblocked. If that was the case which I doubt it is, then if somebody like RO would force you to leave such a fantastic project and one person like that gets to you that much then you're probably due a break anyway. I hope you regain your enthusiasm soon. Now archive again, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But you proposed a two-way interaction ban, when I'm quite sure that Victoria didn't feel that she'd done anything wrong. RO, on the other hand, undoubtedly has. Eric Corbett 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you view it purely from a development viewpoint, yes, much of Victoria's input towards RO did seem to be content related, but RO seemed to be more personal in some of her responses. I haven't looked into all of their interactions, but I do know that RO has received an extraordinary amount of criticism for her work, more than most would get in their wiki lifetimes, valid or not. Banning RO from speaking to Victoria might be a good idea, but my take on the situation here is that RO has been given a hard time over her content to the point most of us would want to throw in the towel. That isn't acceptable to me either. Constructive criticism is welcome, but not when it pushes editors to the point of wanting to leave wikipedia in despair. Victoria stated that she felt she was being harassed, and RO I believe felt that she was being bullied and her work stalked. In such a situation it would seem the most plausible (and healthiest) way to deal with it is a mutual interaction ban, regardless of who thought was right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, such bans are widely seen as a form of sanction. Why should anyone be banned from doing something they haven't done? Eric Corbett 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Because Victoria has made it blatantly clear that she thinks that RO is a sockpuppet, a problematic editor, and can't stand the sight of her. She was critical of RO's work to the point that RO snapped and responded angrily with that rant which led to her blocking. It's how you view the criticism which determines whether she has done anything wrong or not. Victoria made a lot of valid points I think, and well within her rights to do so. You might think it is innocent, but over several articles it looked a heck of a lot of criticism directed towards one editor's work (an editor who they think is a problematic sock at that). I'm really trying to be neutral on this, there are a lot of editors involved in this I have great respect for and like and don't have to bother saying or doing anything. All I saw was a potentially productive editor stopped from producing valuable content, and think they should be given one more chance and in an environment where they're not going to be criticised for every paragraph that they write. If not a formal interaction ban which as you say Eric might look like sanctions being imposed on one, then at least some sort of mutual agreement to avoid each other. I've managed to do it with The Banner who I have a similar relationship with to Victoria and RO and from my viewpoint I did absolutely nothing wrong. I frequently see ANI posts about him from various people. I ignore it, even if they're probably right that he's being a nuisance for the sake of my health if nothing else!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident myself that RO is a sockpuppet, or at the very least an editor unwilling to reveal her previous identity. Eric Corbett 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

She already disclosed her previous account to arbcom as well as undergone 3 SPIs with no connection. Don't you think enough time has been wasted on the effort? She isn't a sock and never was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't, no, because I don't believe she's telling the truth. Eric Corbett 23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You of course are entitled to your opinion but she isn't being disruptive. Without any evidence linking her to an another account there is nothing to go on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

More accurately, she hasn't yet been disruptive again. Eric Corbett 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! I hope you change your mind, but if not, thanksd for all your fantastic work, & all the best for the future, Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope Victoriaearle returns as well, and I do think that the harassment she endured from RO was a factor. Whoever RO is, and why she has so many people protecting her (and why VE has so few!), I don't know, but RO is obviously not a new user, whatever else is going on. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hopefully keep in mind that we all miss you and we need you...Modernist (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, the way you're describing this isn't correct, e.g. "[Victoria] was critical of RO's work to the point that RO snapped and responded angrily with that rant which led to her blocking."

Irataba was poorly written and sourced when RO took it straight from GAN to FAC1, which is rarely a good idea. It then went straight to peer review, when what it needed was a rewrite. It began to improve when, in the middle of Victoria's comments, you suddenly closed the peer review and added yourself as nominator to FAC2.

During FAC2, you and RO started blaming reviewers for its defects, including me, which was really astonishing given that I had tried to warn about some of the article's problems. When I defended myself (I hadn't planned to comment otherwise), I was attacked. RO did the same with Victoria: blamed her for something, and when Victoria responded, attacked. That is why RO was blocked. The thing you keep glossing over is that this is a pattern. The article continued to improve during FAC2, but is still not FAC quality, partly because a lot of good source material is missing, partly because of the writing.

Nothing is good about the way this has been handled. There was an attempt to rush it through FAC for WikiCup, there was selective pinging, intimidation, selective use of sources, selective presentation of posts on the unblock request, and now misrepresentation of what happened. It isn't good for FAC or community harmony, so please think ahead. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the wikicup at the time of the Irataba FAC. I've never been involved in the wikicup, it wouldn't motivate me, but I can see it motivates RO. Perhaps some notable background info was missing but it was near FA quality and Maunus admitted that himself. I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC myself if I didn't think it was a worthy candidate, and it wasn't just me who supported it but other respected editors here. And yes, I checked a lot of the sources and content myself during the PR and they were fine. And no, I did not blame reviewers for its defects, I'm always respectful of people who bother to review FAs, even if I disagree with many of their points. In fact I warned RO at the FAC myself to stop making snide remarks towards Montana and respond more constructively. I also think it's BS that Irataba was rushed, the peer review was kept open for an entire month, most are not kept open two weeks, and in that time we received an extraordinary amount of input, during which the article considerably improved. I'd not have rushed taking any article to FAC that I didn't think was near the line. Let's be frank. RO behaved appallingly over the gender gap and civility disputes and can often alarmingly seem to turn on people like that. I saw how Cassianto and Eric were treated, and at the time I thought RO was another of those dickheads who turn up at forums/Eric's talk page looking to cause trouble and contribute absolutely nothing towards content. RO also really irritated me by the removal of some of the posts directed towards her, particularly on her talk page, including my own constructive advice to her to keep away from commenting on people. It wasn't until I actually started reading her work that I saw any value in her whatsoever. Some of the content I've read is better written and more neatly organized than a lot of articles being passed for GA with often sloppy prose. I think she's more capable than people let on, to the point that I consider her a valuable editor when she fully puts her mind to it. And she's interested in a topic which badly needs editors producing half decent articles over. As I once said on my talk page in response to RO, Victoria is a highly respected editor here and usually knows what she is talking about. A lot of her criticism was valid, and I think RO learned a lot from some of the points. You may well be right that she has done nothing wrong at all and RO's articles needed that level of criticism, but I know how I would personally react to that level of criticism on TFA day for instance, and I don't think Eric, Cassianto and many others here would take it lightly either. I don't think this is really worth it. It's not a big deal. If RO so much as takes one more swipe at Victoria, Montana or whoever or does this again she'll be blocked quicker than I can say Gordon Bennett. In the meantime let's allow her to produce content and at least give her one chance to improve content. If she can't go a few weeks without pissing somebody off and getting personal then she'll be blocked and likely banned at some point. Victoria, as a content producing editor, you know that you are much welcome here, so I hope you return as soon as possible and get on with doing just that as we all should. If your eye is partly the reason I wish you a speedy recovery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, again this seems selective. Maunus did say at one point that Irataba was near FA, but after he had done more reading, and after FAC2 had closed, he wrote: "What I am finding is that RO seems to have read quite selectively - so that a lot of important information is not used, even from the books they have used to support other specific facts." That's what I found too. You wrote, also after FAC2, that you had only looked on Google Books and in newspapers. Should a history article have been nominated for FAC on that basis?

Much of the FAC1 version was a summary, in parts closely paraphrased, of the Frank Waters chapter, which – ignoring the issue of close paraphrasing and relying so heavily on one source at FAC – isn't an RS. It's clear that RO didn't intend deception; you can tell by RO's exchange about close paraphrasing with Moonriddengirl on Talk:Rose-Baley Party, and RO's exchanges on Talk:Donner Party about how to identify an RS, that they're unsure how to find and summarize sources. (But that should make you wonder whether RO really is an academic (e.g. [14]).)

The only people to pick up on the issues with the article were women. Those are the three editors you then suggest for an IBAN. It's difficult to AGF with that kind of thing happening. There's also the sockpuppet issue. There's evidence that this is GabeMc and the Jazzerinos (a good band name!), first mentioned here in November. I assumed you knew this, because in the middle of the Irataba peer review, you nominated one of his articles for GAN, and talked about him returning. I have no idea what to make of that, except that your wish may have been granted.

Here's the issue. A newish account, clearly familiar with WP, is causing trouble between editors who would otherwise have had no trouble between them. It's important not to help RO do that, no matter what is said to you by email. It's not just here and us; it has been going on since RO was created in August. The first target was Dan56, someone Gabe had been in dispute with before Gabe's retirement in June last year. RO tried to have Dan56 blocked because Dan voiced his suspicions, just as RO wants IBANs now. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 08:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he said that, but Maunus also said after he had finished something along the lines of it being largely a fine article and Rational observer should be praised for her work on it and tolerance of criticism. Here "RO did really quality work, they were extremely positive and open to constructive criticism and help and had fewer ownership issues than most editors I have ever collaborated with. The article is excellent. That is what matters." Well, I only looked in google books and newspapers for Bramshill House, The Tower House and Castell Coch, I must be doing something right... Yes, I'm aware GabeMC is many of the editors who think RO is a sock of. I'd be surprised if it was Gabe though, he worked almost solely on late 60s music articles, which RO doesn't appear to edit.And to my knowledge Gabe didn't have a habit of getting into disputes with people and quietly went about promoting Hendrix and and other 60s rock articles. If RO was Gabe, then for a start they'd undoubtedly be a fine editor, which few of you seem to agree that RO is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally was never in dispute with Gabe whom I respected hugely. I have, however, been in dispute with RO who I thoroughly despise. That contrast leads me to believe the two are not each other. Having said that RO is a sock of someone for sure. Cassianto^Talk 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When Maunus wrote the things you're quoting above (12 April), he hadn't looked at all the books. On 15 April, when he had read more. he wrote that important things were missing from the article, and that RO had used sources selectively. You were a co-nom. Could you not do this reading yourself? Then you would see what is meant.

Gabe was in constant disputes, particularly throughout 2014 with Dan56. He worked on albums and bands, and would have had difficulty transferring skills to an article that required academic sourcing and familiarity with writing history (when and how to use primary sources, how to distinguish between good and bad secondary sources).

I've seen sockpuppets do this before. I'm reminded of the Poetlister and Mattisse situations. Multiple accounts are set up, a few people become suspicious, and the socks rope in other editors to attack the suspicious ones, so that everyone is falling out. The socks are blocked, unblocked, blocked, unblocked, emails are flying, people retire in disgust, relationships between good editors are damaged for years. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 08:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Maunus's opinion still stands that it's a fine article. I've heard EChastain's name linked to Matisse more than RO actually. Sandy G has stated that RO obviously isn't Matisse and I take her word for it. I don't particularly care who people are provided that they produce valid content. If people are using sock accounts to promote some agenda or force a decision on here, then I'm more likely to be very concerned about it. I don't want to waste anymore time on this anyway. Time will soon tell if RO's not worthy of editing here anyway, as Dennis said to Yunshui, she deserves one more chance. And Dennis and myself share a similar respect for many of the people involved in this too and feel a little uncomfortable in intervening, but I believe it was based on editor retention reasons. I would hope that Montanabw and Sagaciousphil especially, two editors I otherwise think very highly of can try to understand this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that I think RO is Mattisse. I said I'm reminded of the Mattisse situation.

Regarding not caring who people are, if this is Gabe, it's someone who said he was a man now saying he is a woman, which bothers me a lot. I'm also bothered because I once critically reviewed one of Gabe's FACs, and he responded by attacking me, adding seven citation-needed tags to one of my FAs, creating a list of MoS issues in others, etc. So I decided not to review another article of his.

In January this year, RO asked me to review Irataba for GA. When I looked at it, I knew that I couldn't promote it without a lot of work, and I didn't have time, so instead I just left a note on the talk page later, pointing out some problems. I was attacked for it, completely unexpectedly. I would never had said anything had I suspected it was Gabe, because from Gabe the attack would have been predictable. So I think it does matter who people are, if they're interacting with the same editors wearing new masks. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 09:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"it's someone who said he was a man now saying he is a woman". It happens.. ;-) In a wiki context though, I agree that it's deceiving. I think a few people think that there's also a few female editors on here who pretend to be male.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: I'm not talking about someone transitioning. RO said here that, decades ago, they would have joined the Women's National Basketball Association had it existed, but Gabe said last year that he was male.

I don't like talking negatively about editors on other user pages, and it's something I rarely do, but RO reverts if anyone posts this kind of thing there. As you're in touch with RO, I hope you'll advise them to be honest and link the accounts, whatever they are, and take whatever sanction comes. Then they can return with a clean slate. If RO can't face that, close this account, wait a few weeks or months and start again, but as a real clean start this time; no interacting with the same people or fighting old battles. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 10:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Better launch another SPI, when does it become WP:HARASSMENT? As I stated before RO disclosed her previous account to arbcom, more editors telling her to disclose a previous account shows me the desperation to try and pin any account they can to her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Dr. Blofeld - thanks for stopping by. I confess I've not read everything above carefully but the one thing that jumps out is that I've been overly critical. I really did think long and hard about posting an Irataba review, considered waiting until FAC and in the end decided it would be better to do in the PR pre-FAC stage, and even then was unsure of the wisdom of posting a review. But let me emphasize this: it was not done maliciously. The article was submitted to FAC, it's a subject I have a lot of knowledge about and I'm familiar with the sources. Now, here we are.

  All I can do is apologize. I didn't know what to do with the many sources I'd saved to, and then a few days ago stripped off, Jstor, so I posted them on the talk there - again not as criticism but to share, collaborate, do what we do here. I did undo the post, but it's in history if you or anyone else is interested.

  Re retirement tag: it's been there for a while. I did edit during the weekend so have obviously been in and out. Without going into unnecessary detail, for RL reasons editing is a little difficult these days; and again without going into unnecessary detail, I'm having a crisis of WP faith so to speak. Hence the tag. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Wikipedia can certainly be difficult to be motivated with sometimes. I don't think you were malicious from what you said either, I didn't read everything you said, but I did see a lot of criticism on talk pages of a few articles in total, more than I'd personally be happy at being given outside of FAC/PR anyway. I did say that you were probably right about a lot of the issues and that I think Eric has a point, if you view it technically, you offered criticism and RO did make it a bit personal after a while. I can understand though why she might have got a bit unpleasant at least. I did change my perception of RO after reading her work, and I suppose her assistance on 16-18 March here I found a great help in ploughing through the points at a trying time at FAC. I can't see the usual sock trolls who turn up on Eric's talk page doing that, so this is largely why I'm seeing things differently. In fact because of the content and that I've seen in the last month or two I'd actually forgotten the details of some of the former things she'd done.

If you're serious about having JSTOR sources I'd be very grateful if you could contact Maunus with them. When he returns I hope he'll continue with it and it can then be returned. Admittedly I can't be bothered with it currently and think it's a potential battleground right now to be avoided, in fact I'll be having a break from FAC having helped promote at least 4 articles in 3 months I think now and two I've had more minor input into currently running! Perhaps by June once Irataba is definitely fully comprehensive and copyedited I'll try again. I do hope by then that you and Montana will be happier with the quality of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just remembered User:Ham II/250 paintings. Still missing and that was created over 6 years ago now. Must start a few, anybody watching interested in art take note too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Check carefully - I see quite a lot of those now exist under slightly different titles. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be losing too many editors interested in art: Hafspajen comes immediately to mind. Eric Corbett 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Too true! And many others. History seems to be thinning out as well. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I sense that there's a "thinning out" across the whole project. Obviously I can't speak for Hafspajen or anyone but myself, but my feeling is that a significant contributory factor is the increasingly heavy hand of the administrators, with their beloved blocks and bans. Eric Corbett 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I see it more that there are too few editors, whether admins or not, to tell troublemakers to knock it off. Plus this case may all be the result of a long-term sockmaster that the admin machinery has failed to nail - so not enough blocks and bans. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

But there are many such cases, and no machinery to nail them. Eric Corbett 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you it's getting more and more difficult...Modernist (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of talk about me here, that must have what cased my ears to itch incessantly during my semi-wikibreak. I want to make a couple of things clear: First I absolutely think RO has done an admirable job on the article, especially so if she is a newish editor who is working on her first major article expansion. I am at this point quite convinced that she is 1. not Gabe, and 2. that she is a decent human being who deserves a chance to learn and improve just like the rest of us. Second, I don't blame Victoria or Montana or SV for being suspicious, I know how it feels to be wary of socks out to hound you, and it is very hard to shake that off. It is thanks to all of the before mentioned editors, RO, Victoria, Montana and SV (as well as Blofeld) that we today have a very fine article on a historical person who seems to have been consistently overlooked, misrepresented or misunderstood even by professionals. Third, the article is at this point very good, and from my perspective clearly deserves the FA star - again thanks to the efforts of all involved. It is not an easy article for a beginner to write, it requires a lot of critical consciousness and confidence to be able to find and evaluate sources. So all in all I think we have a chance to come out of this pretty well, with an improved encyclopedia, and a whole lot of learning about an interesting topic all round. Now for my 4th point I have to say that I am of course extremely sad that Victoria has been so stressed by this process that she needs a good long break (I dont accept it as a retirement, your letter of resignation is simply not received), but I also understand how necessary this is for maintaining one's sanity on top of an intense editing effort like this. So that is it, from the horse's mouth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, you seem like a decent person and you write articles, so I'm glad you're not gone. I just saw the LTA page for ItsLassieTime and I had no idea how abusive she was to you; I'm sorry that happened :( I also notice the comments about GabeMc above and I don't believe for a second that he and Rationalobserver are the same -- just a few seconds looking at their writing styles is enough. ekips39❦talk 06:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good luck

Conrad von Soest

Hi. I just came to your user page to discuss something with you and then I saw that you have retired. You're a good user and have created articles with high quality. I wish you come back one day. Good luck. Keivan.f^Talk 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Keivan.f, that's nice of you to say. It's more of an in-and-out, than completely gone type thing. If I can answer questions or help with something, am happy to. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Called over to share the image to your right, and now it seems very apt. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thanks, it's a lovely picture of Odilia. I'm enjoying watching the Lochner page; it's coming on nicely and will be a template for the other bios that need to be re-worked. Nice job there. Victoria (tk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Have been reading and looking a lot at the International Gothic recently, and he seems like a good bridge back. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, I have too. It's a pretty style. Yes, he's definitely a bridge back and yet not completely - I've not read at all about the Cologne School of Painting, but I have come across some that are interesting; he's the best imo. It's really a nice page; I'm enjoying watching it grow. I might throw in a few inlines, so be aware. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"It's a pretty style", and so is RvdW. It was a natural progression, though not forwards :) Thank you so much for looking and spotting stuff. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not forwards. Sorry if I caused edit conflicts, was on my way out and thought I'd read through now. Not a lot to complain about - all very nitpicky. I shoved a bit of text around, but I won't be offended if it gets shoved back. It's difficult to write a bio with few facts and little information, but lots of beautiful images - challenges the text to image ratio! Victoria (tk) 21:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits were spot on. Thre are a few inlines I need to research and think about, but thanks. Re images, yeah, tell me about. I'm trying to keep in mind I'm not writing a bio of the Master of Saint Veronica, whoes work is often gorgeous. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, amused to see you swearing in the section above. I have thought you well, it seems. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Saintly? Victoria (tk) 23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are u saying I'm saintly? I suppose yeah. A vengeful and mighty saint though. People should tremble, if they know whats good for them. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Crucifixion

Look familiar?

Pretty exciting, though the text is hedged and not really inspiring ('greatest discoveries in early drawing ever' - Comic Book Guy anyone). Attributed to the workshop, but dated c. 1440. Wow. Ceoil (talk) 68:96, 79 April 3001 (UTC)

Yes, that is exciting! 1440 seems a little late, maybe a workshop copy? Haven't had the time to read it yet, and WP seems not to want to let me log in or see my watchlist today - in other words I don't exist! Is this something we should add to the article? Thanks, btw, for the Memling copyedits. Victoria (tk) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandbox notes are lengthy so more to add but I'm struggling with structure. I just took a look at Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin which has a good structure; I might take a run through there at some point, if ok? Victoria (tk) 17:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

For you

	Madonna on a Crescent Moon in Hortus Conclusus
	For you Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Hafspajen - that's one of my favorite images. Victoria (tk) 15:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Goya

Cheers for the copyedits, the article sort of needed them. Anything strange? We voted in favour of same sex marriage equality here today, which was nice. Funny, the whole business was illegal until just 1993. Country has come a long way, although its really just demographics and generation change. Still, go us! Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's all over the news here; a very big deal. Go you, is right, extremely proud to see it!

Cheers too for Memling copyedits - ditto re needing it. Goya has a couple of paras ending without cites, but it's been simmering for a loong time, and imo ready to come to a boil (in case you wanted my opinion!). The image placement is excellent on my computer, which is saying a lot since just formatting that page has been a bitch. Happy to pitch in; happy for you pitching in on the swooning virgin - having some issues with structure there. Victoria (tk) 19:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, getting feedback from family in the states; the last time ye guys heard from us was in 2008 and we had crashed, burned and were about to take the Euro down with us; so this is certainly welcome. Apart from its own inherent coolness. Every Irish home has family that are now endorsed by statute, but hadn't been before. The Memling article is perhaps the most beautiful painting either of us have worked on. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone was crashing and burning then, so that wasn't all that terribly dramatic, but this is very dramatic. All the news feeds here mention "Irish catholic" and I suppose that's something that should really be more on my radar, but I needed to read it about 15 or 20 times this morning, pagan that I am, to realize the full impact. What's impressive is that it's for an entire nation, and not as we do here, state-by-state which seem to change month-by-month, and so is really quite tremendous. Well done all of you. Getting out the vote is hugely important, but just getting the referendum was a victory too. I'm back and forth on the Memling page - it's very red! And there's more from the sandbox I want to stuff in! But thanks for saying. Iconography is interesting. Victoria (tk) 19:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway & patience

Victoria, the patient, sensitive, and, dare I say it, nurturing, approach to the shotgun question is an inspiration. From now, when I edit, I will read my writing twice, revise, read your words, and only then consider hitting the [Save] button. — Neonorange (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving such a nice message! It cheered me up a lot. Interesting issue, that, about the gun. Not knowing anything about firearms but aware of how sensitive that section is, I thought it safe to quote directly from one of biographies. I wouldn't have expected that people are going around Ketchum digging holes, looking for the missing gun to prove which brand it was, but every now then the power of the Hemingway myths, plus the power of WP, takes me by surprise. Victoria (tk) 17:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Dear Victoria you deserve this barnstar for having used your critical instincts to point out ways to improve Irataba, in this way triggering the process that eventually lead to its current, well deserved status as a Featured Article. Sometimes pointing out the flaws is a tough job, but someone has got to do it - and you for one are not afraid of getting your hands dirty fixing the flaws you point out. Though in this case it wasn't necessary, since a capable team was able to work it out. Thanks! ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Maunus. That's very kind and thoughtful of you. Congrats to all you. The article sets a good example for other articles about Native leaders. Victoria (tk) 01:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's well-deserved, Victoria! Kudos to you! Montanabw^(talk) 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Just popping my head round the door (virtual door; virtual head) to say hello (see section heading for confirmation). Hope you have been keeping well. Belle (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm a little slow on the uptake or something, but I didn't notice you'd edited the Memling until a few nights ago (and thanks for jumping in). I hope you've been keeping well too. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball/archive1 now live—normally I wouldn't nominate something so soon after writing it, but given how glacial FAC is likely to move over the summer with so many reviewers either on vacation or studying for exams, I want to get it up and running soon enough to give it a shot at the 1 August deadline. – iridescent 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for the ping - I'll give it a read during the weekend. I agree; for an Aug 1 deadline six weeks is about right these days. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)

I belive I am on record in observing your rockingness. To reitterate, thanks for the inlines and edits, againt today. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks. As ever. Though I did make a mess of the non-breaking spaces - thankfully Iri came to the rescue. It's really really great to see that goat finally at FAC. Like seriously. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Memling

Goya seems almost there, prob enough that I could have two FACs on the go; looking forward to the monming of the Annunciation. Will be available for responding. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a lazy holiday weekend (and fireworks tonight!) so probably not until mid-week. Possibly earlier depending on how I feel. K? Victoria (tk) 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

k Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Annunciation (Memling)/archive1. Victoria (tk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

functionality

There is no button to press for "you're welcome". Clearly the WMF staff are ignorant about manners amiright? Also good timing, I just got here (too?). But I don't have any plans. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I almost left an old fashioned "thank you" but because you did quite a lot in a single edit, I decided to annoy you instead with the little red button thingy. You're right, of course. Nothing new about that. I don't have any plans either. But after spending most of week unable to get on the internet, I realized I missed it. So here I am. Again. Victoria (tk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Lochner

I need guidance on this one - its a bit short and looks unfinished but expanding it at this stage would be to pad it out - very little about him is known and he has been neglected in art history, at least by writers working in English. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. I was thinking yesterday about Lady Murasaki who we don't know much about, that it's hard to work up articles with little biographical info. Yet somehow they come together in the end. I think I might have seen something about him in a book I took out of the library a while ago; will check. Tks for asking. Victoria (tk) 11:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont need you do do any research or anything, god knows youve helped me enough; I just would like somebody to view it from a distance - is it misbalanced, are there gaps, and what have you. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider yourself pinged [15]. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't do any heavy lifting re Lochner, but I was reading about Int. Gothic, was interested, but had to return the book, so it's an excuse to get it back. I'm interested in the Trebon altarpiece too. Re Vincent, funnily I've been working my way through books I have at hand, (hence trying to do something about Murasaki Shikibu) and thought I should crack open the VvG books. But … I'm a bit lazy this summer, so will see how it goes. I'm not in favor of changing the citation style there fwiw. It's way too much work and I don't understand how to use sfns anyway. Clueless about those. Victoria (tk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Etty

(Replying here to avoid going off on a huge tangent at FAC.)
Etty had the misfortune to be born 20 years too early. He's horribly tacky if you judge him as a member of the traditional English School or by the standards of anything post-1870-ish, but if you view him as the first Pre-Raphaelite (or joint-first if you count Géricault, but he was a bit foreign so needs to be viewed with suspicion), it all falls into place. All the elements of the reaction against Academical standards are there; the obsession with realistic depiction of humans and animals, the fascination with authenticity in settings, the insistence on forcing morality into everything, the primary colours; all that's missing is the language-of-flowers pretentiousness. Bear in mind also that I'm overrepresenting the nude history paintings as there's been more written about them so they're easier to cover in Wikipedia terms—he was actually remarkably varied (he introduced the still-life to the anglosphere), and some of his works like Mlle Rachel, Hero Expiring or The World Before the Flood look strikingly modern. He had the misfortune to be going through his "churning out derivative crap" phase in the 1840s, just when the people who ended up setting the tone for British art were students, so acquired a reputation as a dull hack which he still hasn't really shaken off; he then died just before the PRB started really making an impact so wasn't around to claim the credit for all the things they ripped off from him. (I usually give the example of Millais as the most obvious stealer of his ideas, but one can draw direct lines back to Etty from Ford Madox Brown, William Dyce, and virtually anything in Lady Lever.) – iridescent 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball is quite nice. Youth on the Prow is really interesting - I spent an long time looking at it and then as I read clicking into it to identify the various figures. In the end, I decided that if I spent that much time looking at a painting, there must be something worth looking at. I am glad to see this series and what a nice job you've done - you're definitely on a roll. I took a look at the bio but it's been a busy week IRL, so didn't get beyond clicking into the page and being massively impressed at what you've done. Haven't even begun to read yet.

Btw - while I have you here: I found sources for Struwwelpeter on Project MUSE, downloaded some, and added them to the stack of "when I get to it." That's a start. Victoria (tk) 00:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Givendale Church

Because he tended to create compositions out of figures sketched from other works, some of his history paintings are like playing "Where's Waldo" (or Wally, before someone complains about bias). The Destroying Angel is particularly good for this particular game. With the illustrations for William Etty I tried to give a more representative selection of his style—the individual articles are always going to be skewed towards his 1820s-30s history paintings as they generated the most critical attention, but he also painted "50 years ahead of its time" stuff like Givendale Church.

To-do lists have a way of never getting done. I have a vague intention of doing something with Millais's Cymon & Iphigenia and Dielman's The Widow on the grounds that anything that ugly deserves at least a stub. I'm casting eyes towards the Dogs Playing Poker series as well—quite how it took 350 edits to create something this stubby is beyond me. – iridescent 11:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Struwwelpeter

"Givendale Church" is quite nice and yes, very much 50 years ahead of his time.

Yes, I know what you mean about to-do lists. But ever since you mentioned it, about four (or five?) years ago, I've thought it would be fun to write up Struwwlpeter. But one thing I'm coming to grips with, finally, is that I tend to fade in and out of this place with a varying amount of enthusiasm, so things don't get done and I have a lot of "unfinished" articles that need polishing so I can pack away books that I'm sick of looking at.

350 edits for a stub seems about the way we're going now. It's rare these days to see any content building on my watchlist; instead there is a steady procession of bot edits, technical edits, categories added and then deleted and so on. It's just button pushing in my mind. Victoria (tk) 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I am sorry that I seem to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you can help me to do so; I'm obviously missing something key in your message. The only alternative understanding that I seem to come up with is "it's a trainwreck, we should all walk away", but I'm not sure that really changes things. The discussion won't close until the last 'crat sings. Risker (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Risker, I don't think it's a train wreck at all. I also don't think posting lots of diffs is productive at this point, because she's specifically stated that once posted they're here forever, and that's why I didn't when I opposed. I know that usually diffs are required for an oppose, but decided to respect those wishes. Thinking about it though, that does place constraints. I understand what you're trying to say - I hadn't realized that the lack of diffs was perceived in that light, but I can see that now, and given that, my oppose should probably be stricken. Victoria (tk) 20:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 8, 2015

Sorry, I got turned around, I forgot this had been through TFAR. It's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Um; I've "pivoted" on this - see Dan's talk for the sorry story. Ceoil (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil for the heads up. Whatever you decide is fine with me. I got unexpectedly waylaid and have been gone for a while, so haven't been following. Thanks very much for the copyedits to IOT - am trying to decide whether it's in good enough shape to throw at FAC or whether it needs a PR first. Tough article, that. Also - re Lochner, I left a comment on the talk there a while ago, but not sure if you saw it. I have a book that needs to go back to the library tomorrow - if you have it I'll return w/out heavy lifting; if you don't I'll take a few moments to see if it has anything that's worth adding. No other news. Victoria (tk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Didnt see note on the talk, will take a look. Welcome back. Re IOT, I would like to give another run through, but I did not see any real issues. I think you are basically good to go. Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I enjoyed being gone and thought about not coming back - but you know how it is. I need to get caffeinated before doing any work to IOT, and will need to take another look at the sources to be sure I've not missed anything. Am grateful for any help there. Like, seriously. Victoria (tk) 13:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Re caffeinated, I recommend investing $100 in a nespresso machine. That stuff kicks. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That could be very dangerous for me! Victoria (tk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, no pain no gain. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits! Very nicely done. During the week, I'll try to swing through the Guaiguin, which I can never spell and have memories of pulling sources for (like 5 years ago!). Good to see that's at FAC and I'm happy that I got IOT there. We'll see how it fares - it's a little unconventional. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus christ am I glad to learn that im not the only one unable to spell around here. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only can't I spell, I can't even put together a properly alphabetized list! Was just shaking my head at myself last night. Will try to get to Oviri if I can this weekend - gone again (waylaid again) next w/e. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the "almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting" gracing the day, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Tale of Genji

I was looking for something to nominate at FPC and thought I'd try pilfering some classic Japanese stuff from the Tale of Genji, but they are all really tiny. I don't know if any of these help; you've probably already seen and rejected them, but I thought I'd offer them just in case; at worst you have some pretty Japanese pics decorating your talk page.Belle (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I even have Genji on watch any more. Tackling that page would take more fortitude than I've ever had. The Met has at least one nice screen & might have some high rez images of it. There's one I might have cropped for the Murasaki Shikibu article. These are all nice - I'll take a closer look when I re-enter here later in the week. Victoria (tk) 12:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Gah! I must have drifted off Lady Murasaki early on and thought ToG was the one you were working on (checking your edit history, you aren't even working on her; you're doing some Hemingway dreariness ;P); I should have posted them to a random editor; still pretty pics; and no charge. Belle (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They are pretty and thanks for them. It almost makes me think I should do something about that article, but I think it'll happen in another year or more. Still, when I get there, I'll have these and won't have to search. Victoria (tk) 00:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Hey, nice to see your article on the main page. It looks good (the article and the blurb). Sarah ^(talk) 16:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks for stopping by and apologies for the belated reply. I can only take partial credit for the article and none for the blurb, but thanks for the kind words. Victoria (tk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks for backing me up, and look at this this way; we must be doning something right to say that art articles are the new road articles :) Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceoil I suppose we can spin in that way, but I made Brian angry, [16], and am upset about it. I shouldn't have gotten into the middle of it. Victoria (tk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dont worry about it. The characterisation is beyond the crime. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I do worry. About a lot of things. I worry about asking people to review for me (haven't ever done that); I worry every time I go to FAC; I worry about having a TFA I didn't know was running and worry about who will tend it or whether it needs copyediting and if I should do a rush job. I worry about what people think of me and I worry about what kinds of problems lack of communication creates. Basically Hemingway is dust as far as I'm concerned, won't be going to the main page, and I would pull it from FAC if I didn't worry what people think of me. So. Victoria (tk) 01:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I know. There is more to this than that. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Like that. Just compare images of art to images of roads ;) - Do you have plans for Easter 2016? (Because I contemplate a Bach cantata but don't want to be in your way.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock the transport articles; my first ever GA was a road article. If you approach them not as dry technical topics, but as a framework on which to write about the architectural and social history of an area, road and rail articles can represent Wikipedia at its best; I'd happily defend something like Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Richmond Bridge or Brill Tramway against anything else Wikipedia has to offer. ‑ iridescent 09:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Knock, knock, who's knocking? More art doesn't say fewer roads (or transport in general), and I only compared the images ;) - None of your examples is a road, btw. And thanks for your art images! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember the FAC for the Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and being impressed by the level of context, political and social background, and most espically, drama. The articles I was think of are just fact/fact/stat/stat. A lot of indie music articles (my other area)tend to be like that too, but its gets boring to oppose one too many times on "dry" and boring, so I sort of gave u. I had tried, lastly with "Be Here Now" which myself and Dodds made as caustic as was deserved. Ceoil (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, I was having a very similar discussion about "fact, stat, fact, stat" a few days ago (here); with some topics, you just can't avoid it. On an article on anything engineering-related one needs to include a technical description of what it actually is, and for a road, railway, canal etc that means a long chunk of "then it turns left, then it goes through a tunnel, then it goes over a bridge". There are ways to hide it—Brill Tramway is the supreme example of this, where I quite intentionally shunted all the "2-4-0 Manning Wardle tank engine" technobabble into a subpage written with the intention of nobody in their right mind ever reading it—but if you want to keep everything on one page, it can't really be avoided. (On some topics, one can get away with hiding the waffle—on my painting articles, the stuff on technique is generally reduced to one or two sentences on the assumption that readers are going to care about what it depicted and how it was received, not about the details of the glaze used and what medium was used to create the shading—but people reading transport articles are more likely to want to know this kind of detail).

@Gerda, Richmond Bridge is very definitely a road article, it just does a good job of disguising itself as an article on Palladian architecture and the funding of 18th-century public works. As regards the others, "road" and "railway" are virtually interchangeable terms in the early 19th-century UK; the whole "broad avenue" idea was a Napoleonic concept that was looked on with great suspicion (for good historical reasons, the English were very wary of anything that looked like it might be intended for the movement of troops), and the road network of England (and even more so Ireland and Scotland) was for the most part just a bunch of glorified dirt tracks which would have been recognisable to the Romans, and which the early railway network largely paralleled (as they tended to follow the same level ground along the river valleys). If you look at a map of England (the Scottish, Welsh and Irish railway networks have had the guts ripped out of them), you can see the main railway lines following the main roads even today. ‑ iridescent 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind road articles (or articles about engineering). Having driven across the US a few times, and driven all of I-80 and I-70 and being old enough (and not shy to admit it) that I watched I-70 being built (literally, from the backseat of a car watching the big trucks while waiting for the flag person to change the stop sign to go), they don't bother me at all. There is interesting background regarding the building of our interstate system in the US, so I think they have value, as do most transportation articles. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

TFA Pt II

Have you notcied Csldigicol - from the MMoA - have been made available The Renaissance in the North - WOW!!!!

ps; re Having driven across the US a few times - have only been on a few northern west coast US States, an ambition is to drive across in a year or two. Its only really sunk in in the last year or two how different y'all are, each state is really a country. Its fun teasing it all out. Should have listened to Bill Bryson...and apparently the movie is rubbish. Still, ignorant Europeans, eh? Anyway tune from back in the day (if we all had the time to devote to wiki) & best. Ceoil (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, a little under the weather at the moment and haven't had a chance to get caught up. Hopefully later today or tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 13:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything's alright forever. Peace in our time, and thanks again for backing me Victoria. Plus, I have a spell checker now, which might make life for you easier. Ceoil (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the Renaissance in the North you mentioned above is the James Snyder book I've taken out of the library a few times and mentioned a few times. It's one I'd like to buy, but I've gone fairly inactive here lately. Backing you? Hmm, dunno what to say. It was expensive. I should charge. Thanks for the tune. Victoria (tk) 00:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah expensive. My thanks though, difficult as it was. You're a good friend to have. Ceoil (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well now that you have spell check (thank god, she says), my job is done. Must decide how much to charge … hmm …. Victoria (tk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

in our time

fascinating article.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the hardest article about literature I've ever attempted. Three publications, vignettes, stories, background, etc. etc. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congrats on your latest FA. (What is that, 100 or so? If only people were more interested in counting things on wikipedia, we might know!) Outriggr (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

100?? Not even close, not that we're counting or anything! Thanks for the barnstar 'riggr, that's very kind of you. I'm oddly pleased about the latest FA, maybe because it was a hard article to write & took more effort than usual, maybe because I was at a low ebb. Whatever the reason, I'm pleased with the good reviews (from Belle, Ceoil and Lingzhi), whose efforts made it a better article. Thanks all. Victoria (tk) 15:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Was delighted to see this. I'm not sure about my contribs but is certainly an article to be held up in the lit cat, which seems to be suffering of late. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course your contribs were good! I wanted that page distilled, like the best whiskey of course, almost to fumes, to nothing, to bare bones. And yet keep the encyclopedic value. With so many stories, vignettes, etc, and all those angsty modernist personalities, it was hard to keep on track, and nice to have others calling on me when I over-trimmed, or to cut out all but the most essential words. Writing about literature is awful in my view, too much like work for me, too much of a grind, and there's no one doing it - well not "real" lit, at least. But, yeah, it is suffering. I'm not strong enough to carry on my own, sadly. It makes me cranky. Ready to duck back into the world of eye candy, um, ENA. Victoria (tk) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cranky; what, woman? Never experienced it, and how dare you even mention such a temperament. Hmmm. 109.78.8.15 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Never experienced crankiness?? Well, then, I must say, you're missing quite a bit. It's my best friend. Victoria (tk) 19:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pfff; lightweight. Comeback when you have a trolling /block record more fearsome than mine. You a light hearted dabbler ;) to your credit. I'm 83 or something, so am allowed. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sure and thanks for stopping by and chatting. As you say, will come back another time. Sorry again about earlier and any inadvertant foot-in-mouth comments, will remind to look at my watchlist once a month or so. Victoria (tk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)