User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 17

Questia

I have Questia access. Were you planning to do extended research, or just look up one or two details? If it's the latter, I could perhaps do it for you... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term I wanted to read the Rewald essay mentioned on the Van Gogh page - Questia has the book it's published in. For the long term I need it to retrieve sources for a number of articles I've not yet finished but would like to work on. The Brothers Grimm and St John Altarpiece (Memling) are two that I wrote using sources from Questia. I can't remember when it lapsed, but probably during the period I was gone. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewald

I bought my copy at MoMA several years ago...Try here: [1], and here [2]...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably would have grabbed a copy at the used bookstore as an impulse buy (or sat there and read it), but I haven't yet brought myself to the point of waiting for one to be shipped. Maybe I can get Questia renewed (that's the best option). I found that the only copy at our library system is in the city in the non-circulating section, so that would involve a day's work. Still trying to decide, but I'm thinking if you seem to think it's important, then we should get some of the material from it into the article. In the meantime, I'm sort of floundering around in my sandbox, in case you want to take a peek here. Feedback welcome. Victoria (tk) 20:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent

Hi. Re this removal, there are a lot of theory's and a lot of journals. Have seen this before with The Garden of Earthly Delights; we need to be slow to give credence to new research before widespread traction. In short I share reservations. Also noticing first order research on secondary sources from you lately. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I too tend to be conservative in these sorts of situations. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the feeling that our definitions of good and bad use of sources are not commonly shared. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm careful and don't just grab what's easily found on the 'net. But that means that hours and hours of work can go into one or two edits because of the background reading involved. Most people won't edit like that. Victoria (tk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see way forwards. If you dont mind, I'll copy across your work on His style, and we'll go from there. I seriously doubt anybody would dispute the quality of your work. Unless they want a tooled up Irishman and his 24 brothers and 53 cousins on their case (nod wink), that is. Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, but it's unfinished. This version might work, it keeps the letters but it does push the word count to about 9500. Look, my feeling is this. I respectfully kept to a sandbox so as not to make anyone feel that I was being judgmental or anything else, but when i read your post on the talk about style, and then the PR, I realized the style could only be written with a lot of heavy lifting. Sections like that don't write themselves - been through it with Hemingway and Pound and they're a bitch to write in an encyclopedic manner - so I gave it shot and pitched it. I cannot tell you how much I do. not. want. a dust up over something I've done here or written. I just don't. So you all work it out - I've unwatched the page. I'm ok with however it turns out. The work is in the sandbox and can be looked at there, worked on there, or not used. I'm just not fussed about it. Life is short and all that. Victoria (tk) 14:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

primary, secondary explained in practice

I won't even pretend to have read that YUUUGE thread above, but I will say that if you folks wanna propose a final version this in WP space, you should spend a few days (yes days) working up a page that shows the practical differences b/w your version and current one as it will work in article space. This may spare us days of blowhard argument. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. At some point, quite soon, I'll probably haul all of this off to a subpage. It contains some valuable links and ideas but needs sifting. Haven't the time for it atm. Victoria (tk) 01:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very happily in caravan in county Kerry in the rain for the bank holiday, fat on Spanish food but peeking in. Will be editing on tablet much as I can. Its going fine, not to worry. Really pleased. Have covered off as much as I can tonight; room for exp (by me esp on the flowers overview). Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and I hope you and the mrs have a lovely time. My advice is to ignore, don't edit on the tablet, enjoy yourself and jump in again the weekend after. I'm about 200 edits behind you, trying to address Brian's points, busy tomorrow, so won't get back to it until Saturday. There is no hurry and no deadline. I had a free day today and took advantage, that's all. Take care. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons why we have have so many colabs, and chilling out isn't one of them. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pfft. Go chill and have a vacation (or whatever you people over there say) and enjoy. I'm still in life is short mode. I'm off to watch politicians speechify. Why did Wikipedia run two articles on the main page about failed candidates during this crucial week when a woman finally gets nominated as a presidential candidate in the US? That's what I want to know. Victoria (tk) 01:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, read media matters. Z. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be in the business of politics. Nor do I think we should be running articles about failed presidential bids during a convention. That's not to say I don't have respect for the editors who write those articles, but ... Anyway, better stop before I get in even more trouble. Victoria (tk) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my view as an American is that the current election is a choice between ebola and the bubonic plague. It's always sunny in the States. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- we were on the road for a month then when we returned my better half declared summer cleaning day so still busy and tired sorry.
  - Lingzhi, I was going to choose plague (plague's usually easy to cure with common antibiotics, and ebola's very difficult to treat) until I saw that you'd linked names to them. So instead, I'll say "a pox on all their houses". ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not at all joking when I say that the sight of either of them rouses a sick feeling of dread and fear for the future of my country. No matter who wins – albeit for vastly different reasons – one day in the future historians will put a check mark on their timelines beside this election and say "This was the beginning of the death spiral of the nation." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back

Good to hear from you. I have a semi-funny story for you and Ceoil. Last year I was in Dresden and had my best camera along. I was all set to take pictures of a certain triptych, only they did not allow any photography in the museum. Still, it is an amazing and beautiful work of art, and I am not sure I would have sought it out if not for your article - thanks. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm jealous! I've never seen a van Eyck. I do remember that long conversation on the talk page and maybe we mentioned something about how difficult it is to take photographs in museums. I'm not surprised. What did surprise me was when I visited the Getty a year or so ago van Gogh's Irises was unviewable, because the crowd in front were all holding up cameras - it would have been a great commercial for iphones, but not the best atmosphere to view a painting. The medieval wing, on the other hand, was almost empty (but no van Eycks). Thanks for thinking of it and sharing the story. Must have been a fun trip, otherwise. Victoria (tk) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having read the article, I was looking around the gallery in the museum for a large triptych (and not finding it), so it was funny when I realized this little thing was the painting. It really is a jewel. I went back to it a few times. Some places in Germany sold photo permits - wish they did in Dresden. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a devotional piece small enough to tuck away while traveling on pilgrimage from Bruges to Jerusalem. A nice thing about doing these articles on Wikipedia is that we can showcase them with crops etc., so the tiny jewel comes across as much bigger. Of course the opposite is true too, I suppose, i.,e the Beaune Altarpiece. It's good to know about the permits. Victoria (tk) 11:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer to having time!

Still involved in recovery mode for our house after 1 month vacation: pulling chin-high weeds from out garden by hand, turning the soil, in addition to all the other housecleaning/furniture moving/etc. But I'm actually getting closer to having free time. I am genuinely sorry for leaving you alone. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds serious! Don't worry about it. I've littered the page with inline comments re refs, so have left you a treasure hunt to find them. One thing, is that I didn't realize the bundled refs took a different syntax than the sfnp refs, but I had to unbundle some for various reasons. I'm thinking we should just stick to snfp throughout - but that's up to you as the ref guru. There's the issue too of adding refs to notes, though there are now fewer notes than before. I'm out for the night, and possibly for a few days. Good luck with the household chores. Victoria (tk) 01:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like bundled because those multiple^[1][2][3][4] things annoy the heck out of me. But I am not the refs guru. The final word goes with Ceoil and Modernist and maybe John. I may have time soon. Maybe even tonight, cross your fingers. Will try to help as much as I can Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any with that many. Yes, I like to bundle refs, but look at FN188 in this version of the article, [3], with note & then ref inside or something. If that's how you all decided to format, then I've screwed it up royally. Also, there was a citation needed tag some two to three hundred edits earlier that was inside the bundled ref, but the ref was there. Verifying, figuring out, fixing, etc., took about 5 hours. Anyway, feel free to undo anything I've done or I can undo when I get back so you don't have to trawl through about a 1000 edits. Victoria (tk) 03:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're taking a break!

hey apologies again. I see you're unwatching & you're too damn tired to fool with Vinnie. I hope you're taking a nice break. Editors are more important than content, which is a somewhat impersonal way of saying (to put it more directly) that you are more important than Vinnie. :-) Apologies again and again if my inaction added to your weariness. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. It's been a hard FAC, I'm coming off a long illness and found that my stamina hasn't quite returned to previous levels. It's best to step away when it feels too overwhelming. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Sent via wiki mail, so perhaps to an old account. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. No, not an old acct (got changed three years ago); it's current. I found it. Victoria (tk) 10:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, or anyone else, notice these comments I made re images: [4], [5], and the work left for inspection in my sandbox, [6]???? I didn't want to clog up the FAC so posted there but am about to pull those comments. A simple "yes, might work" or "nope, hate it" is fine. Victoria (tk) 11:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replied...Modernist (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENA

Somebody has done a full translation into Greek[7], hope not with that new WMF innovation dept garbage tool. Note that the title is 'Flemish Primitive painters'; grand, not en-wiki. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was done in sections but I have no way of telling whether machine translated. Pinging Nishidani who knows all kinds of languages and might be able to tell us if it's gibberish or real sentences. Victoria (tk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was done, basically at one go, by an administrator on the Greek Wikipedia, Ttzavaras, back in January. It's not machine-translated, but fluent modern Greek. The author is a native Greek speaker, a graduate of Athens Uni, and an old-timer (b.1953). You can contact him in English or French I gather since his page indicates he is fluent in both.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed! Thanks for looking Nishidan. My other half speaks Greek, but ancient only! Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me there by the way. van Eyck's Arnolfini was my first introduction to painting, since it was hung in one of our bedrooms, a trip down memory lane. After my parents' death, I'd wake up every morning and reflect on their choice of it to mark their marriage.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishidani for verifying. I thought you'd be the person who'd know. What a story! Victoria (tk) 14:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was done purely manually: the editor copied the English text without proper attribution for the license and then translated it. This means, by the way, that you are entitled to have it deleted as a copyvio, if you choose. I assume that's not your desire, so w:el:Template:Ενσωμάτωση κειμένου ought to be added to the talk page, like this: {{Ενσωμάτωση κειμένου|en|Early Netherlandish painting}}. If s/he'd used the content translation tool, the translation would have been the same (because the Content Translation Tool does not require, or in many cases even offer, machine translation – it's main function is to convert links and templates to equivalent pages on the local wiki), but it would comply with the license.

Also, if you are generally interested in translation, then I will point out that what this editor did would have qualified for speedy deletion here. Saving a non-English copy of an article from another Wikipedia is "A2", or {{db-foreign}}. There isn't even the 10-minute suggested time delay that we give to "no content" articles. Given that speedy deletions usually happen within 10 minutes of page creation, he probably would have found the page deleted before he got the first section of translations saved (17 minutes after the initial save). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romanticised life

I am more and more coming to agree with you and Iri's position. The section header for one is driving me bananas. Otherwise, will level this sect. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't. Look here! It's simply rearranged without a single word cut. I was about to post it somewhere, but here will work. Victoria (tk) 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.s you're welcome to work there. Flinging sand is sometimes fun! Victoria (tk) 21:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yout version is very good, and thanks for the bail out (cough). As we are at it, I could live with loosing the Bacon para. I added that back in around 2009, for the sake of Bacon rather than Vince. Yeah, I know. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, hopefully the last word on BRIT Eng: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtEKUWRpUWg, also good call in asking Cas for prof opinion. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep Bacon - other than Matisse, he's one of the few very well known names who's explicitly cited VVG as a major influence. ‑ Iridescent 22:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I copy over and you take it from there? I left an empty header with no title, and haven't checked it. At this point, though, empty header? Eh, who cares? Victoria (tk) 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sopund of that. What the hell. & tks. Mentioned the bacon for reason that might resemble shoe horning trolls remorse. Now legitimised! Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with Iridescent to keep Bacon. I must go for a while. Can somebody else think of a title for that header besides "some kind of words here"??? Victoria (tk) 22:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus would batter me to death with a leather-bound copy of the Manual of Style for saying it, but "In popular culture" would probably actually be appropriate as a header. ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evil bones in my body are agreeing. You suggested this before, and you were right. Lets do it. I will also gleefully roll in my grave. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [8]. Should we move it over? Victoria (tk) 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, hold off. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, good thing I decided to read the message first. It was that close! Might be interesting though, now, that I think about it, to see how it looks in the article. Anyway, let me know when or go ahead copy if I'm not here. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its been there in forms before. Spun out I expect, or deleted by one of us! Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not following. You mean the "In popular culture"? Victoria (tk) 23:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. O no, wait Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looking at the article always helps. Got it. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, this is sorted now, right? I added back another small bit about the letters b/c I liked it, if that's ok. One of us should reply to Brian before the end of the day. I won't be around much next week. Victoria (tk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm having second thoughts and think I might have missed Iridescent's point. Might reangle it again more towards your initial version. Thinking - which is always a slow process. Oh, and well deserved below :)! Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly what I threw together in the sandbox was a terrible rush job and once I start doing things like that and not taking the time to think through clearly, it's a sign to step out because it's best to get it right rather than spinning. Thinking is good and should take time. I regret rushing, but stuff came up unexpectedly in rl and I thought I'd try to do as much as I could before stepping out. That was a mistake. It's always a mistake. Re below: it's for all of us imo. VvG is the posterchild for teamwork. Thanks to you for pulling everyone together, spearheading, making it happen, and all the work. I'm truly impressed. Be proud of yourself. P.s I'll be gone from editing until early September, but will peek in every now and then. Victoria (tk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Well done for being a great co-worker on Vincent van Gogh. It's been a great experience working with you. John (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! That's really nice of you. I don't remember when I last received a barnstar and am stupidly pleased. If I say so myself, we've been a great team and put in a great effort. Thanks for your work there too, and Ceoil's, and M's, and Lingzhi's, and Casliber's, and Brian's (lists are deadly - I'll leave out someone!). Wish we could have a group absinthe party. Victoria (tk) 18:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

I've just fixed the headings on Talk:Jane Austen, as unfortunately your recent edits nested them improperly, making the page harder to use for people relying on assistive technology. You can find a guide to the correct use of headings at WP:BADHEAD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter the contents of my Talk page by deleting text you may have previously added.

Please do not alter the contents of my Talk page by deleting text you may have previously added. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Vincent!

It was a long haul, but you prevailed! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what a great pleasure it was to work with you Victoria. What a great feeling to get to the end of such an exhausting yet rewarding process. The group absinthe party was a nice idea. We should really do it some time. --John (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VvG

		Barnstar of Fine Art
		To Victoria, congratulations on Vincent van Gogh - its always an amazing pleasure to collaborate with you, and you have been a good friend over many years. Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		Barnstar of Fine Art
		To Victoria...because. Your exhaustive research, attention to detail and critical view were perhaps the reasons why we were able to get it so far, and why we can have nice things. Go Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice of both of you! I'm sorry haven't handed out any barnstars - but, well, congrats and all that! I'm a little exhausted tbh ... Victoria (tk) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Nicely done! Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks Montana; I missed this earlier. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks from me as well! Will make something pretty when I'm more awake. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Missed this one too. Tks again. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding my voice to this, Victoria. It's excellent work. Well done to you and everyone else for steering it through. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Sarah, thanks for stopping in and for the nice words. Victoria (tk) 02:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone

Thanks everyone! Let's raise one to FAC and to Vincent! Thanks to to Ceoil, Modernist, John, Lingzhi for enormous amounts of work before and during FAC. Thanks to all the reviewers: Aa77zz, Brianboulton, Iridescent, Johnbod, P. S. Burton, Editør, HappyWaldo, Cassianto, Sandbh and Seppi333, whose comments transformed the article (which, imo, is when FAC really shines).

Thanks to the coords: Ian Rose and Laser brain for all your hard work and for input.

Special thanks to Casliber for pitching in with little notice to buff a difficult section.

To Martinevans123 I owe an apology to for being exceptionally cranky right after the cat threw up on my bed during a series of edit conflicts!, thanks for noting mistakes.

Thanks everyone for all the help, work, input, comments, collaboration. This is an example of how FAC works and works well, in my view, and should be celebrated.

Please stop into Vincent's cafe this evening and have a few rounds. I think he would be thrilled to see us all there. And thanks M for the sunflowers above, and John for this idea (in other words, it's all your fault!). Victoria (tk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria! I am opening a bottle of Cidre de Calvados that I brought back from my holiday in July. I also attach a photo I took earlier in the holiday with the article in mind. I realised it had plenty of images already so I never proposed it at the time, and I share it with you and the wonderful conoms and reviewers in a spirit of amitié. Santé! --John (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Cider is perhaps a bit less, shall we say dangerous?, than absinthe. I was afraid absinthe would put me flat on my face! Thanks for the pic - nice to see the real place. You were a rock on this one. Seriously. It was a joy to watch your copyediting. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iechyd da, Victoria. A lovely idea although, as usual, I made only tiny last-minute pedantic tweaks. A sick cat would probably improve my general editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. still counting those sunflowers... [reply]

Yes, you're right, we still have to get those sunflowers corrected, but dear god, I ran out of steam. Once I recover, will haul out the books again and take a look. You never know with cats, whether they're really sick or only trying to be bothersome, but that might have been the final straw for me (or perhaps for the cat who was sick of the books piling up in the area he thinks as his.) Victoria (tk) 20:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party baloons on me. Jesus Christ Victoria it was hard won. let's tear the house down, to an extent that Prince would have blushed :) Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for tearing the house down. Victoria (tk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I recommend Franciscan Well Brewery, inner Cork, or danone macroom, well better. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you're at either of those, please have one on me. I am a little in the mood to start saying things I shouldn't re things that are demotivating around here and that's without alcohol, but I'll sit on my hands. Victoria (tk) 02:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats everyone :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My daughter would be chuffed if she saw Bacon on the main page ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely work, and praise is long overdue. Well done! Kafka Liz (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz and thanks for stopping by. It's always nice to hear from you. Victoria (tk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a little in the mood to start saying things I shouldn't" - yeah, these things eb and tide but seem to be coming to a head. We *should* just be able do our content work, and not have to worry, but no. OWN is a key argument against local stewardship and respecting the judgement of the main editor - I cant loose you in the same month that Tim left after he was targeted. I think the "aw shucks" defence of certain editors is about to crumble, and though all this strife might seem dispiriting, hang on there. Ceoil (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about wading into it, but it's really not worth the aggravation. Still, the drumbeat of own is very demotivating. During the FAC things got unexpectedly busy for me and I came in here with blinkers on, focusing on what needed to be done and then leaving, but now have had some chance to catch up. I am sorry to see that we lost Tim riley to the infobox wars (pinging him because I forgot to yesterday and much of the VvG style section is the result of his PR comments, so he deserves to be at this party too) but he's not the first. I do understand his feelings - I remember asking for a self-block one year when I'd had enough of that infobox stuff. The thing that I'm concerned about now are those quote boxes we use for literature articles (apparently for decoration instead of to illustrate writing style) but I really don't have the fortitude to comment. So, short version, you won't lose me yet. I made a commitment to help with Austen and intend to keep it, but I'll be working very slowly. Victoria (tk) 15:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MoS discussion

With all due respect to those damaged during the IB wars, IMO quote boxes and cquotes are consireably more evil than IBs. The latter may be ugly, but the former frame the tone and thus the POV of an article. They are a way of subverting UNDUE and NPOV. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, I don't necessarily disagree. But we use them in literature articles and I don't know how to get around that issue. If I'm writing about a painting's style, I can slap the image (or even better, a crop of the painting) into the style section. How to do that in a literature article without pulling a section as an illustration? Whenever I do that I always take from critics so it's not as if I'm highlighting sections not being highlighted in secondary sources. Often I'll ref with "quoted in blah blah" because I'm much too lazy to find a quote in a book and frankly don't think it's my job. But I do think it's ok if I read three or five or ten secondary sources and the same quote is used again and again. Am I totally wrong?? Victoria (tk) 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE & NPOV really aren't major concerns if there are no controversies which editors are deeply invested in. I may be wrong, but I can't imagine people coming to blows over whether Jane Austen's work is Romantic or Realist or whatever... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could come to blows over the infoboxes there because from what I'm reading (and I've been doing a fair amount) her novels aren't neatly packaged as a Romance novel as the infoboxes are telling us (and that's one godawful article), see i.,e Northanger Abbey and Emma. But when writing about her style, her satire & parodiee there are specific passages mentioned again and if put in a quotebox and properly sourced. I can't imagine people coming to blows over them. But without quote boxes we lack a good way of illustrating. Well, we can use blockquotes but honestly, those are ugly and don't always format well. Anyway, I think with the case of all these things, it's doesn't have to be an all or nothing scenario. I have seven articles on my watchlist with infoboxes that show genres I disagree with (per good sources) and that info is scooped up and populated at Wikidata. Yet, if I try to delete the fields or (horror of horrors) the infoboxes (because not a single one of those articles warrants an IB) then all out war will break out. That's just stupid. Victoria (tk) 16:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe editors could come to blows about genres, try watchlisting a few music articles for a while (or just add "Merseybeat" to the genre field in the infobox on The Beatles, count to ten and run for cover). Each of these incoming links to Wikipedia:Genre warrior is a separate discussion relating to somebody warring over genres, and there are probably ten times as many in which nobody happened to link to that page. People get astonishingly oversensitive about these things. As I mentioned at the main discussion, I'd be strongly against deprecating quote boxes. There are numerous instances when you need to include a piece of text in an article, but don't want it cluttering the body text—having a piece of text included is no more "giving undue weight" to that text than including a particular image is giving undue weight to that image over another. (At some point, the penny is going to drop with a certain group of people as to exactly what the implications of "Wikipedia articles should not include small boxes which contain specific pieces of information selected from the article and give them more prominence than other elements which aren't included" are, and all hell will break loose.) ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Joy Division as goth is my usual example of this nonsense. What kills me is that I quite like, normally, the people on both sides of the IB wars. Myself and Rexx fought long and hard, ~~but in the end there is no animosity, and we do need people with his skill set.~~ Bty, you didnt get a thanks re VvG and I'm mindful that we never really quite satisfied you on the pop cult bit, but thanks for the advice and guidance all the same Iridescent. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My post above is terribly written - I conflated IBs and quoteboxes in a single sentence. Basically, yes, I could come to blows regarding genre in an IB and I don't think it's a necessary field. In regard to quote boxes, I can understand Lingzhi's concern that they might be misused, but I think they're valuable in lit articles. I think animosity is still apparent, feelings still running strong, and people are still being hurt. Victoria (tk) 21:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your post was actually very articulate, clear and convincing; I was speaking from a personal level. I suppose it could be said that I have been lucky to have escaped and stay distant, though those on both sides are very familiar to me, and I am decidedly against for certain categories of biography - Modernists are especially difficult - and treat them case by case, more jaundice than not. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know why these sorts of things need to be said, [9]. I've managed to go for almost a month without reading it and now that I have finally read it I don't think I need to spend my time here. And there's another comparing me to Essjay per the edit summary but I think I'll skip reading that. I'm glad we got Vincent through, but I have to think back to the IB arb case, to the things that were said then, and to people like Riggr for instance who were here then (and Ruhrfisch too) but now gone, and wonder how many more articles, how much more content, would have been written without the strong feelings and the divisiveness. None of this fighting has really been good for anyone. Well, I suppose it's been good for the articles that now have infoboxes that didn't then - if that's considered a win. So someone is winning. I must log out now. People to feed and all that. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy merciful Christ Victoria - and he was not blocked for that deeply personalised post? For shame - something is wrong here. another thing - Gerda is a dupe, and her hitlist page is used for coordinating attacks via watchlist. plain and simple. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called robust discussion or something and apparently not worth being upset over. My point was not so much to highlight a specific comment on a specific talkpage (where a lot of unpleasant things have been said) but rather to show that it's really hard to get along when old disputes apparently continue to fester. I've always thought it's important that we all do try to get along and that everyone should try to see eachother's point of view. But that comment brought home to me that getting along will be difficult, it's not happened in four years or so, and I guess now I don't really believe some rifts can be repaired, which is the tragedy in all of this. In that sense it is a war and there have been casualties. I'd be very upset to see the same thing happen over quote boxes. Victoria (tk) 23:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)...RexxS is a lovely chap and I think a lot of him as an editor, but I abhor his views on IB's; Gerda, likewise, although her views towards IBs seem slightly more skewed than RexxS or anyone else I know. Her infobox fan page, IMO, should be deleted immediately as it is nothing more than a noticeboard for the infobox police and masquerades as a legitimate way to canvass like-minded people to articles such as Noel Coward. The argument there has already lost us Tim Riley, with more to follow. Cassianto ^Talk 23:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is new, been going on for years. Have a look at the very first edits to that page of Gerda's up for deletion to see how aware I am of the issues. There was a time when I participated in IB discussions, (here's a classic one that lost us a long-time FAC writer); I took part in the arb case and got called a liar multiple times for pointing out that we're losing editors (and wouldn't be surprised to see that happen again); then I began to fade away. If an IB discussion broke out on an article on my watchlist or one I'd edited, I might comment - now I just don't care any more. It's been a slow fade for years and honestly if I hadn't been fading I could have maybe written twice as many articles; if someone hadn't once told me I was a braggart for showing off stars on my page I might care enough to put them there again. But basically I'm with Tim on this. These days, I'll come in and work some vital articles, i.,e VvG because Ceoil asked, and Jane Austen because Awadewit was a friend and I dislike what's been done there, but essentially I'm out of this game. It's too demoralizing to log in to read about how FAC writers care only about ownership and are territorial. If that's the overwhelming impression and the reason people think we do this, then, no, it's not worth sticking around. Essentially I agree with Sarah's proposal to write a MoS cheatsheet of sorts for FAC (it's only a guideline and no carries huge stylebooks around with them in real life - they're meant to be reference guides) and with Iri and the others who have commented there, but I think that the underlying issue of losing FAC writers and content editors has been an ongoing trend for years. It's too hard to fight all the time and to curate articles and to write articles. Well at least it is for me. And it seems impossible to change perceptions that curating & writing doesn't equal ownership. Victoria (tk) 02:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to sound patronising, Victoria, this is one of the most well thought out posts I've seen in a long time and one with which I wholly concur. Something needs to be done with regards to FA's and the enforcing of infoboxes. To have someone pitch up on an FA to ask about an infobox, is acceptable, assuming, of course, they respect the answer of "no infobox here thanks". But for that person then to open up an RfC because they didn't like the answer, with the sole intension of enforcing their preferred version onto an article with which they've had no prior association, is bloody disgraceful. All the time we allow this to happen FA stalwarts like Tim will abandon the project. On a side note, could I interest you with my final hurrah, comments for which are being invited here. Talk page stalkers also welcome. Cassianto ^Talk 14:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with all of this since it began so it's fairly easy to articulate my feelings. Though my tendency has been to let bygones be bygones, I found recently that not everyone adheres to that. It started years ago, here of all places, (you have to read down a few threads), then moved to Ernest Hemingway talk (I removed citation templates there like I have recently to Jane Austen (the only difference is that I'd originally added them)), and then skirmishes and battles for half a year until the arb case was filed. After that more skirmishes and battles and now we're where we are, which is that nothing has changed but a lot of good FA writers are no longer with us. I'll try to take a look at your article but no promises; I'm a little stacked up this week and won't have much time. If it's still in the queue next weekend, I'll be able to get to it then. Victoria (tk) 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll represent the Early Netherlandish painting appreciation community on the Burke and Hare FAC - your covered. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm on my way out right now and have things off wiki that need to get done and don't know when I'll get back. Also I'd had my eye on the Jessica Chastain FAC. Victoria (tk) 16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dont get me started. Related; John has really impressed me re pop cult standards recently. I feel his pain, and its coming to a head anyway,. esp wrt RAAIO HEAD ARTICLES. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your wonderful work on Vincent van Gogh. And for being part of what is now known as Wikipedia's Dream Team. A hearty congratulations. Cassianto ^Talk 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cassianto. That's very kind. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent

I think you might have scanned those pages to me at some stage. Just doing a bit of idle tidying up. Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did but without page numbers. I have to find that file and put in the page numbers, but not today. Sorry btw for missing this. I got reverted 43 times last week and I can't figure out how to reset my notifications counter; in the meantime I keep missing messages. Victoria (tk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Fountains-of-Paris and 43 reverts- I'm noticing similar trends in the Rambling Man ARB - people here will proxy via dupes just to bait a target. Tipcally the used editors are very young. Its a saddening shame. We are not all on the same side. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have that on my watch, but I suppose I should take a look. I like TRM and the work he (with Fram) does at DYK. I was sad to see the arbs took that case. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look for a "mark all as read" link at the top of the notifications drop-down window. That appears when there are any unread notifications. Perhaps that will help. --Mirokado (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mirokado - I'm not really sure what's going on. I only got one notification for a message here (the counter went up by one) but there are two messages here since I last looked. I have tried setting to "mark all as read" but it seems to want me to look at each revert to make them go away, so I think maybe something's changed with notifications. The first time I was reverted nine or ten times that worked, but not this time. I think I'll turn off reverts in preferences - that might help. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, if I click on the words "mark all as read," the dots go away. If I clean on each, they don't. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats really not the point. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the blue dots next to the notifications, they go away. The notifications not going away of their own accord is a feature, not a bug; people were complaining that they just looking at the list was clearing them all automatically and they were thus losing track of things they actually intended to action. ‑ Iridescent 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for that explanation. I did figure out I had to click through each one. The problem was that I didn't do it in a single session, forgot which number it was at when I walked away from the computer and somehow missed an important message. It's one of those software enhancements where sometimes the testing doesn't take weird scenarios like 40 plus reverts into account. Anyway, it's finally reset to zero. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question to talk page stalkers

I deleted a bunch of sandboxes but can't remember when and can't remember the page titles. I need to have the one about Ezra Pound reinstated. Does anyone know how to find a deleted page so I can ask an admin to put it back? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 13:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think only admins can "see" deleted pages. A rough date and a hint at your usual naming style would help them I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod, I guess I'll have to go admin shopping. I think maybe late 2014 but really don't remember. I thought it would something like Victoriaearle/Ezra sandbox or Victoriaearle/Ezra Pound sandbox. I've tried both of those to see whether they're deleted pages but can't tell. Victoria (tk) 14:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Iridescent, Floquenbeam, Sarah, Bencherlite, Crisco 1492 - I might have deleted sandboxes around the middle of September 2014. How difficult would it be to find them and reinstate? If it's not difficult, having access to the notes in the Ezra Pound sandbox would be useful. Thanks in advance if anyone can help, and sorry for being bothersome. Feel free to ignore. Victoria (tk) 16:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: User:Victoriaearle/Ezra Pound Sandbox. I got a database error trying to undelete the whole thing at once, so I did the latest versions, and will do it in a couple more steps so the server hamster doesn't get mad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Yes, the sandboxes have a lot of edits. I probably shouldn't have deleted it, but I like to toss all the notes when I'm done with a project. Then, of course, you want them back at some point. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [10]. I remember seeing that there is a way to look at deleted pages using something similar to Special:PrefixIndex, but I think it's still in development and not active on en.wiki yet. So I trolled thru your deleted contributions and searched for "Ezra". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, thanks, that's a huge favor and a lot of work. Victoria (tk) 17:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all (it *could* have been a lot of work, but wasn't). Glad to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the admins in the room, you know you can use Special:Undelete for this, right? Annoyingly, it only searches the beginnings of page titles; fortunately, in this case that's easy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. (long pause) You know, OR, you're making me look bad in front of the mortals. I thought we demigods were supposed to stick together... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that like it was obvious but now that I think of it, I only found out about that like a month or two ago. You can teach an old fossil new tricks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Opabinia. I'm assuming if I were a demigod and not a mere mortal I could see my deleted sandboxes? If so, it's a good link to have for the next time I might want to restore notes I tossed. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it finds all deleted pages whose titles begin with "User:Victoriaearle". Next time give that link to one of the lesser demigods like Floq so he doesn't have to search the whole deleted contribs list ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Victoria, here's what that page says (the part about "still in the archive" appears to be a legacy from a much older time; there's no risk of these ever being "periodically cleaned out"):

Show pages starting with: Victoriaearle
The following 13 pages have been deleted but are still in the archive and can be restored. The archive may be periodically cleaned out.

User:Victoriaearle (301 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Art sandbox (477 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Bibliography (8 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Catholic Church sandbox (141 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Early Netherlandish painting sandbox (427 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Hemingway sandbox (502 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Japanese art sandbox (596 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Medieval (105 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Olivia Shakespear (240 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Priyanka Chopra (5 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/Sandbox (1,168 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/sandbox (152 revisions deleted)

User:Victoriaearle/van Eyck sandbox (85 revisions deleted)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Floquenbeam. That's a little overwhelming, and knocked me back for a couple of days. Then I remembered two years ago in September I was totally slammed at work, felt overwhelmed and threw as much overboard as I could, which was probably not the worst decision I've made in my life. Probably some of these should be reinstated (if only for attribution purposes because I copy text into mainspace and attribute to sandboxes that are now redlinked or gone).

It's a bit of mess though - I can't even remember what User:Victoriaearle with its 301 deleted revisions can possibly be and right now I have User:Victoriaearle/sandbox (with a lower case "s") but there's one that was deleted and lost 152 edits.

Would you mind helping me with this? Maybe one a week or so until it's sorted? If so, I'm thinking it would be safe to reinstate User:Victoriaearle/Sandbox (upper case "S") and I'll figure out what's there before moving on the next. Victoria (tk) 17:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victoriaearle/Sandbox is now blue. Ping me when you want to undelete another. This isn't really a lot of work for me, so if the "one a week or so" is for your benefit, it's fine, but if it's for my benefit, don't worry about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution purposes is irrelevant, provided you were the only one editing the sandboxes, since the edit is still attributed to you. (Technically it might mean the copyright will expire a few days later than it should, if you waited a few days to copy the material from the sandbox to mainspace, but it's not likely any of your edits will still remain untouched 70 years after your death, nor that you'll be in a position to care if they are.) The only time it's necessary for attribution is if a lot of people have been working in the sandbox and you need to be clear who was responsible for what when it's transferred to mainspace. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iri, for clearing that up. When I was copying from a sandbox to the Van Gogh article it did occur to me that I work that way, but a lot of the sandboxes I've copied from to articles are gone. Floquenbeam, I'd like to sort through what's in the two you've reinstated, see what's there, and then decide which of the others need to be brought back. I'd forgotten until the Ezra RfC, when I wanted notes to refer to, that what I do, because I won't spend money on books for Wikipedia, is order sometimes-hard-to-find scholarly books through interlibrary loan and then for three weeks work like a madwoman capturing notes. I should probably have those notes, but I have to look at the articles and decide which of the sandboxes really have to be reinstated to keep the notes. If that makes any sense? Anyway, I'll ping you back when I'm not feeling quite so overwhelmed. Victoria (tk) 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full scale assault on Ghent

Totally up for a Ghent Altarpiece makeover if you are. We had it more or less written a few years ago, but it needs polish. We should really finish it off...interested? Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gather the assault weapons. It's in very good shape, though you've done most of the work there. I can't remember why we gave up, except that it's a monster. Yes, of course I'm interested. Will start picking my way through there during the week. Deal? Victoria (tk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember. All those levels! All those panels and registers and outside/inside and each has measurements, iconography, descriptions, backstories. Yes, definitely needs siege engines. Thanks btw for edits to Jane Austen. Victoria (tk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for your work there. I can really only wonder and watch. Ceoil (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it's not me, it's all in the sourcing. Sources are wonderful things. They point the way. Victoria (tk) 17:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) On my computer/monitor, the beautiful image atop the page squeezes the text of the lede into a column that is literally two words wide, cowering beside the margin, in fear for its life...[I reduced the zoom from 125% to 100 and the column expanded to five words in width, which is better, but...] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. I'm working on a laptop and the lines vary from a spotcheck of one with 15 to another with 11 words. Will try to fix - somehow, sometime. I'm a very slow assaulter (assaultee??). Victoria (tk) 23:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Baccalaureate

Hello,

While editing the article International Baccalaureate, I have noticed that when you edited it on 28 June 2010 (see history), you added 5 references to specific pages of a book by Peterson (notes 9 to 13), but you forgot, as far as I can tell, to add a full-fledged reference to that book. Could you please do so?

Thanks. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@JP.Martin-Flatin: perhaps it's the one in note #10? Looks like "Peterson, Alexander Duncan Campbell (2003). Schools Across Frontiers: The Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges"? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty tps after edit conflict Lingzhi, I just hit an edit conflict with you as I was trying to post: "My apologies for butting in, Victoria, but I managed to find the relevant Peterson book details (Schools across Frontiers) so have added it to the article and hopefully dealt with this." SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty of what? Of doing a good deed? For shame! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you - for updating the article, for looking for and finding sources. Those pages fell of my watchlist quite a long time ago. Victoria (tk) 20:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent

I have taken down the heavy artillery and retreated. Not something I could do without you, so taking a long term view. In other news, rain in Ireland, and Ling is defiantly a good guy; we have worked together in the past on stuff (and see above). Otherwise, grey skys, especially over Munster. Also, my god man, please vote for Hillary and reason, though watching the GOP implode is fun indeed. I still believe in the enlightenment, and evidence based argument, and as such would not vote GOP, now or ever. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I"ve been GOP all my life and would never switch, but I also would never dream of voting for Trump. The lunatic fringe of the party vomited that garbage all over our faces brcause they all voted together, while the sane vote was split between half a dozen candidates...BTW thanks for the kind words. I thought I was gonna need a note fom my mother... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we need to take down the heavy artillery, retreat, and wait for a few months to re-start our campaign on the Ghent. Vincent almost killed me, to be honest. Well, not quite, but it was exhausting. Re Ling, sorry I was short, cranky, whatever during the weekend, (and no, no note from mother needed). I came down with a flu bug the next day, which explains crankiness (maybe). Thanks both. Victoria (tk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a small favor {oh, oops)

Hello Victoria. I have a small favor to ask.. Apparently you have access to Taylor & Francis, and apparently I do not. Would it be inconvenient for you to access one article and email it to me? Here it is:

Brennan, Lance, Les Heathcote, and Anton Lucas. "The causation of famine: A comparative analysis of Lombok and Bengal 1891‐1974." South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 7.1 (1984): 1-26.

Thanks & Sorry for the trouble...

Oh, oops, apparently WP does not offer their history articles..... so you almost certainly cannot access it. Thanks and sorry for confusion... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling, I got approved but I've only filled in a form, so I wouldn't have been able to help yet anyway. Apologies for the belated reply. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pink

Victoria, I am not always good with words. But I note the pink ribbon above, and so if you or anyone you care for is encountering physical difficulties, please know that you have my prayers. Also, remember that I have often said that you are more important that Wikipedia, so if you need to walk away from Wikipedia editing, then do so, and do so with a world of blessings at your back. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ling. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For V

[11]; [12]...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks M. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENA

this is worth putting on a pot of coffe for [13]. Also per Ling and Modernist. Ive been enjoying diddling on the Austin page, but man does it need work. Storming Ghent might be easier. I have about 7000 men. You? Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to watch that vid yet, but looking forward to it. Austen needs a lot of work, but I have one library book left that needs to go back in a few days so will try to make some headway there today. It is harder than Ghent. She's a major writer, the amount of reading is daunting, yet the biographical info skimpy. Makes for difficulty in knowing how to balance the biography page. I needed to give it some thought. My thoughts are Austen before Ghent, with periods when I have to be gone for various reasons. Victoria (tk) 16:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tune

Frank & Walters. Cork band so the audio quality is pretty low. Subst Michael for Victoria. We care and will always be shouting for you. PS, that good looking keyboard player is a new addition, but what the hell is he doing....cant hear any keyboards. My tax dollars! BTY, Franks are god like in Cork, maybe the best band out of here, so cold critical analysis will not be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks. Wouldn't dare utter a peep of cold critical analysis. Victoria (tk) 16:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A wise decision. Ceoil (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Victoriaearle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciation (Memling) for TFA

Hi Victoria. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Annunciation (Memling) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 22, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 22, 2016. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I've reverted this because it was both exciting and disappointing at that same time - especially since I haven't logged in for two weeks.. I haven't the energy to investigate what happened, but would have liked to see this run on that date (special date for me). That said, I'll be out until January (I fell and broke a rib, but not dead, not gone, just can't edit) so I wouldn't have been able to work on the blurb. Still, I'm keeping this for posterity. An almost TFA. Thanks and Happy Holidays. Victoria (tk) 04:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, sorry to hear about your broken rib and best wishes for your recovery! What happened was discussed on Chris' talk: Annunciation is on 25 March, and we would get "errors" for claiming Mary was pregnant only a few days, sorry about that. Hoping we'll live to 2018. - Today is another Marian feast, I was fascinated by this image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen the discussion on Chris's talk; in this instance I agree with Gerda; because the Annunciation is so closely tied to Lady Day in the liturgical calendar, running it at Christmas is certain to annoy significant numbers of readers who will assume that it's been selected on an "all Christian feast days are interchangeable" principle. (We wouldn't run a nativity scene at Easter.) ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't seen the discussion on Chris's talk; have now. I didn't know that van Gogh has been scheduled (nor do I know when it's running), but imo that's the strongest argument for not running the Memling. I've never heard of Lady Day - ignorant American here. Anyway, thanks for the explanations. I'll drop back into my hole. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Day is nine months before Christmas, so even readers who know nothing of the liturgical calendar but are aware that the Annunciation relates to Jesus's conception would presumably figure out the date connection. (It's one of the most important liturgical dates in the Catholic and Orthodox churches as well as the CofE and its Episcopalian cousins, so a sizeable chunk of the world will spot the date relevance.) ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't quibble any more though I'm not totally convinced. The article spins out the fact that the conception does in fact result in a birth which presumably occurred in December. Regardless, I think your Hope is much more important. Victoria (tk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh is 15 December (easy link on the Main page: "Archive", below the TFA, shows the full month, archive and plan). - Even Bach composed for Annunciation, the one day with concert music in Leipzig during Lent, for example Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, number one in many respects, not only the number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to find easy links when it's not possible to move, otherwise I would have been able to. Thanks for doing that work for me. Victoria (tk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the connection between the Annunciation and Lady Day, myself, being Canadian. I had originally considered the painting and van Gogh articles to be sufficiently dissimilar, but Gerda and Iridescent convinced me that the Annunciation would do well in March. We do have a painting of the Christ Child for Christmas, however, in POTD.

Sorry to hear about the broken rib. Best wishes for your recovery! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The broken rib sucks, but nothing to do but wait. I thought the Annuniciation a good choice (which is saying a lot from someone who usually runs from TFA) and as it happens I'd probably oppose it in March. As a person who doesn't practice religion, I wouldn't have written it or sent it through FAC, if I'd known it's making a point about a specific date, so I'll have to be careful about that in the future. I agree re dissimilarity w/ van Gogh. But it's vastly more important that Hope run in January. Anyway, thanks for what you do and for the small amount of complaining (basically I was confused and had been happy for a few moments). We're all aware how much work is involved with not a lot of appreciation. Victoria (tk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying in the not-able-to-move condition. No matter what the article Annunciation (Memling) says, the title relates it to the feast. If a painting was named Christmas (Great Painter), we'd not show it for Easter. If I can improve your happiness, let me know how, please. Best wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would make me happier would be to bring scheduling complaints to the appropriate pages, to invite interested parties and stakeholders, and to keep in mind that this is a secular encyclopedia. Victoria (tk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this encyclopedia showed Annunciation as a feast on the Main page under On this day, I thought there was nothing to discuss. I confess I didn't even look at contributors. Next time I will. Looking forward to seeing Memling's work in March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I put a reminder up on the appropriate page, for a start to a bit more happiness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: this is a secular encyclopedia. I will strongly disagree with running it in March unless we can without-a-doubt prove that's the day she became pregnant, with the light that came through the window??!!?? Please don't presume and please remove that request. If you wish to promote Ceoil's articles, that's fine. But I am very clear that going forward we must be quite vigilant in terms of what types of myths are perpetuated on the internet. Victoria (tk) 14:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I would have reacted the same way if it was a Jewish or Hindu occasion and I had known, or - as Iridescent compared - a country's day of independence. It has not really to do with religion. - It's a great article, but I guess I better unwatch it. Do with it as you please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I wrote above: I truly believe it makes the process easier if complaints are brought to the proper venue, perhaps dropping a polite note on the page of the person affected, and discuss before placing TFAR requests that someone might not want. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at Modernist's talk page.
Message added 07:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Gogh

Thank you for what you did to make the article Vincent van Gogh what it is! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not much, but you're welcome. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

It could have been worse. I was delighted to see it there I have to say, though wasn't around, alas. Sorry to hear you are unwell. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. Sadly no Christmas cards from me this year but it was nice to end the year with VVG done and displayed. Victoria (tk) 05:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas card

	Nollaig shona duit
	Despite protest, here is a x-mass card anyways, early as I expect to be preoccupied for the next few days. I'm equally ba humb about the whole thing, but this is well deserved. Ceoil (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's lovely, almost too lovely to put a response underneath. Enjoy the holidays! Victoria (tk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Ealdgyth. I like the idea of saturnalia - here's wishing the same to you and your family. Stay warm! Victoria (tk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod! Happy Holidays to you too. Victoria (tk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure

Your recent post to Talk:Hemingway: caring, civility, and truth still live. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was an interesting question and I knew where to find the answer without having to move or plow through books. Thanks, though. Happy Holidays. Victoria (tk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent and four editors in the news

Congratulations to Modernist, Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and John - the BBC and NPR both have news stories on the most edited Wikipedia articles of 2016 that mention Vincent van Gogh and the four editors who worked to get it to featured status - congrats! Modernist is quoted in the BBC story and here's a link to the NPR story. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing reaction to us all just doing our thing. Nice and nice to be quoted in the media...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Modernist says it well. I am a little amazed at all of this. Holiday wishes to you and yours to both of you! Victoria (tk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch, Modernist, and Victoriaearle: I'm on holiday from work and therefore not really sure what account I should be using here, but that's alright. Like I said over on Modernist's talk page, I've been pushing to highlight featured articles and their authors wherever I can to put a human face on the effort that goes into these pieces. So you can imagine how incredibly happy I was to see van Gogh picked up by so many outlets, even ones that didn't use the quotes. :-) Thanks again! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool!...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff Manor Public Library

Would you mind taking another look at Briarcliff Manor Public Library? I am planning to take it to FAC again relatively soon, and I appreciate your past feedback. Thank you, $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 09:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ɱ I took a brief look and see that some of the issues I opposed over on your first try are still there. The prose needs some smoothing and weeding out and from the very quick look that I took the issue of the building is still confusing - library, community center, school are in adjacent sentences that appear to span a period from the late 1890s to the present because the highway ramps are still mentioned. Some of the material that seems to have questionable encyclopedic value, i.,e open seven days a week except for Sundays in August, is also still present. And I question whether it needs three maps. But others might not agree with me and I've not been reviewing lately. Thanks for stopping by. Happy Holidays. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the issues you opposed over had been resolved, and in general I don't think you should expect all issues you take to be resolved (if that's what you're implying; I may be reading into it). I explain out the different homes for the library pretty well now, and even include photos of those locations to better identify. If you know a better way to describe them, while keeping the entrance ramp bit, please let me know. As well, I disagree with the encyclopedic value of operating days. I mentioned that a great many articles, including that of the Supreme Court lists operating days and even hours! There is no guideline written specifically for libraries, and if this passes FAC this time, it would be the first library to make FA. As you can tell, there aren't good guidelines here, but I don't think removing operating days benefits anyone. I'm also surprised you bring up the maps - this is a tool that merges two or more maps into one space, and thus it doesn't waste any space on the page (even though for Wikipedia, page space shouldn't be a big issue). The tool is used across a wide variety of articles; consensus is that it's only helpful and has very little/no detriments involved. Thank you for your further input.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Victoriaearle!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw^(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, this is lovely - thanks so much for it. Best wishes for a wonderful holiday season and New Year. Victoria (tk) 13:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Modernist; back atcha! Best wishes for the holiday season and the year ahead. Victoria (tk) 13:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

	Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2017! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch! Happy to see you around - best wishes to you and yours for 2017. Victoria (tk) 18:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Happy New Year! Victoria (tk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time (short story collection) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the In Our Time (short story collection) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks so much. I have a soft spot for that one. I've tweaked the blurb a little, if that's ok. That volume of stories has the most torturous publication history of any I've read (or written) about, but it launched a career so it's important to get it right. I'm still only semi-active, but I should be able to keep an eye on it. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, good to see you at TFA again. I actually wrote the blurb for this a long time ago, but then the TFA was pulled, so I'm hazy on some of the details. I just touched it up a bit yesterday. But some of your edits don't look right to me. For instance, the article starts off "In Our Time is Ernest Hemingway's first collection of short stories, published in 1925 by Boni & Liveright, New York.". That implies that it wasn't published in 1924, but your change ("publication") says it was. Publishing requires a publisher; who was the publisher in 1924? Also, "a modernist approach" isn't going to mean much to the broad readership (10M hits a day) of the Main Page; I went with "spare language, oblique depiction of emotion, suppression of supporting structure, and symbolism" (and that's also a bit elevated for TFA, but it comes closer to what we want). Was what I had inaccurate? We can run any of this by the folks at WT:FAC if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, I'm on my way out to an appointment, but wanted to hack at it quickly. Yes, it's correct as written now. In 1925 Boni & Liveright published a volume that included 14 short stories and a number of vignettes (interchapters). The vignettes had been published the previous year in Paris by Bill Bird's Three Mountains Press (it's a redirect; we don't have an article for it). I don't think we need a committee to write it. I took some of it from the blurb for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 27, 2013, which is quite good and didn't attract any complaints. Hope this helps. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.s, Yes, Dank I remember well the reason it didn't go last year; I was right out of surgery and unable to write the blurb, which is tricky for this. I'm on my way out the door and will get back to it later - we have plenty of time. I've tweaked a little more to reflect that there were two - the one with the upper case title is different from the one with the lower case, but it contains all the material in in our time. Later and best. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pps, Dank and Mike Christie if you all think it's too high brow for TFA, feel free to choose another. But this article was written to run to commemorate WWI, so it would be nice to see it go. Up to you all. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've never pulled a TFA for being too high brow, I'm sure it will be fine. Thanks for your work on this. I now remember regretting that you couldn't help with this one, because I was having a hard time with it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to understand. The work started with six vignettes published in a magazine, those plus 12 more vignettes were published in the Paris edition; those plus 14 stories (well two of the vignettes became stories), were published the next year in New York. But it's all the same work, building on itself. I've tweaked slightly more and moved the style - Iceberg theory - down a little. I don't think the blurb needs to mention the first six vignettes published in the Little Review, but, because there are images of two different books, we do need to mention both the 1924 edition and the 1925 edition. Anyway, I'm off. Back later. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realized this one was going to be difficult but with the two of you on it I'm sure it'll be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. Victoria, when you get back, it's current 932 characters; it has to be at least 1000 or the columns in the Main Page can become lopsided. Can you add something? - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank I've rewritten following the lead and tweaking a little. I get 1171 characters, if that's ok. If more needs to be done, I'll get to it in the next day or so, if that's okay? I haven't checked for TFA formats, etc, so I'm sure it still needs work, but it includes the basic information it should have. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1171 is great. Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Hemingway's first collection of short stories with "a tortured publication history. Hemingway was in his early to mid-twenties when he wrote the pieces that make up the collection, some of which are considered among his best."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It wasn't the easiest article to write and took many years. I don't see that sentence in the article? Victoriaearle (tk) 13:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is from the FAC. - The Bach FAC could have included that I expanded the article when a friend died whose funeral I couldn't attend because another dear person had heart surgery. The self-therapy worked, and I need to let it go now. - If we arrive at a wording for the cantata we can agree on, it can be a model for 50 other Bach chorale cantatas and - for the general sections - 200 other Bach cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it was tortured for me to figure out the publication history. I have had situations when I've been mid-FAC and something has happened in real life that was difficult, so I understand. One of your sources explains why Simeon is happy to face death after the incident at the Presentation and I wondered if that was something that might be worth spinning out in the article. Unfortunately I'm unable to help and I'd encourage you to seek help from the others who have commented. Something came up today that'll probably keep me away for a little while and I may not be posting replies (or even editing) for some time. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Take care! - (The spinning out might be better in his article, or Nunc dimittis, - just a thought for later.) - I came to translate that "depart" as "let go". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January tune

Its been a unusually rubbish Jan in Cork; plague, pestilence, fires, rain - at least your not John Snow [14] Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do smalltalk about as well as he does, just not the best at socializing, and always dour. Thanks though, made me smile. I'm in need of working on some pages with pretty pictures so don't be surprised to see some of "your" articles growing. Feel free to hack back anything I add. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

np, small talk is beyond me also, especially after what happened to Ygritte. <weaps silently> Where was I, oh yeah...dinner parties are dark and full of terrors. Anyway, the van Eyck is coming on nicely; great additions. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ygrette was a great loss. Yes, as soon as some adminly type opens my JvE sandbox, we'll have lots more. In the meantime, I have two more files re Canon van der Paele to parse, and add to that article. Nice to see your Madonna at FAC. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas

I slept over your FAC questions, and simplified the first sentence. If you have time, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was posting there as you posted here. If you think it's best to link cantata to Bach cantata, then I won't quibble, but it's an unfamiliar term and to find its meaning a reader will have to click through two articles. Typically when that happens, the original article is lost. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The peace-and-joy piece

Thank you for offering help. Let's take all the time in the world, for me to learn more English, for you more music, if you like. When Bach was appointed Thomaskantor, he had to supply a cantata every Sunday and feast day (and they had a lot of those, like 3 days Christmas and several Saint's days), but there was no request in his contract that it had to be a new work, he could have taken them from the Thomasschule's library. It was his decision to compose new cantatas for all these occasions = first cycle. The second year, he could have used the same again, but no, he decided to produce new works once more, under harder restrictions: every one a chorale cantata, based on one chorale = second cycle = chorale cantata cycle. Mit Fried und Freud is the second to last of those. So much for background in my words. Can you translate that to article prose? - Now real life for me, off ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult for me to understand this comment and the article, and yes, I have real life too. But I do understand the comments and can try to address some of them. You'll have to come behind me and fix all my mistakes, because I'm not working from sources or knowledge but instead guessing and that's rarely the best way to write. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try ;) - the canticle has four verses, Luther made one stanza from each verse, - there's also the article about the hymn to check if it says the same. - There are sources that might help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For after you return: The difficult to parse thing (movement 3) - please look at it in this ref. The lines from Luther's second stanza are bold, once two lines together, otherwise single lines within new text, so what made sense in the original becomes expanded to a different sense in the combination. - I can't word that. Bach could set it to music, using the hymn tune for the quoted lines, above a continuous bass to provide unity. Admirable! - I won't send a thank-you click for every edit: thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that my injury isn't yet healed, I had to be out today, and I tire very easily. So editing isn't easy at the moment. What throws me here is the word "comment". You use the word "expand" above; I think that would make more sense to add. I do have to stop and I have appointments for the next two days, but I'm willing to help with the copyediting when / if I can. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, to heal and to edit. That movement 3 strikes me as unusual: after movement 2 supplied a paraphrase of the text, it appears unchanged but cut up and the parts wrapped within commentary. I don't know anything quite like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry: when I hit "save" in that edit I had forgotten that I was in an older version. I restored to the version before my terrible mistake, and then tried to add to it what Wehwalt had added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the irony of the peace and joy header, where as the general approach is more wear and tare. At some stage stitch runs dry. Eg. why batting innocence here, while passively aggressively inferring infoboxes on my FAC there. There are reasons Tim retired. Lack of love bombing wasn't one of them. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note the irony that the mere mentioning of Hope in a question is regarded as something passively aggressive, whatever that term may mean, - I didn't meet it before Wikipedia. I repeat that I'm sorry to have reverted to an earlier version by mistake, inadvertently, - are there other better words? I am ashamed that happened, I really should have checked after the edit, but removing one item from the Bibliography seemed like such an easy thing, - I had forgotten (because I had worked on the other article) that I was in an earlier version. I also was a bit in a rush to go out. - I like what Victoria and you did for the article and had no intention to revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'whatever that term may mean', and twisting the subject to "Hope". Nice try, and irony noted. You fought tooth and nail, and again with the infobox SPA on my FAC - hinted but not said - thats what passive aggressive means. But the here inscear gloss! Post truth! Shucks! Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to which I assume you refer was

* "The smallest extant work", - how small is it? ~~Dimensions anywhere?~~ I found them now (searching for the word), but miss them in the body, and think they are much easier to find here.

which links to Hope (painting), so how do I twist the subject? I miss the dimensions in the body. Put them there, not only in an image caption, and I will be happy with that point of the review. Thank you for the image arrangement, now more to my liking, btw. I will look in more detail once I wrote an article and added the missing pieces to FP (Poulenc) (got to 80, but there are more than hundred more). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? None of this is salient, except in that it happens to prove my point. Further evidence of tunnel vision. Self-awareness someother day, eh. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all circular and I'm much too exhausted and dispirited to deal with it. Gerda Arendt as the nominator or the Bach FAC, my suggestion is that you now address Bencherlite's points directly with him. Many of my edits were made in response to those points which I thought good and relevant, but that's going a bit beyond lending a hand, and it's time now for you to take control of the article and the FAC if you want it promoted and to make TFA for your preferred date. Keep in mind that promotion is based on a reading of consensus, not !vote counting. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victoria. I began expansion of another piece of the same type, Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit, BWV 111, composed for yesterday. If you have a bit of time, please check just the section "History and words", where I tried to implement what I got from the other discussion, and let me know if it is clear to a lay reader, or what could be improved. - I don't care about the other's date, actually not even if it gets promoted. I know it's not !vote, but am concerned about an oppose from the man who stands for FA quality for me. I understand (but may be wrong) that he has no more time to deal with it, and accept that. I would not want to ping him, after he expressed that I didn't appreciate his help enough. Every time I thanked him I meant it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I'm fairly appalled to see these comments on my page and am having difficulty formulating a reply. All I can say is this: Wikipedia is a collaborative project; collaboration requires clear communication. My page is not the place to complain about a fellow editor. It's neither collegial nor polite. My advice is to engage with Bencherlite, (yes, I'm pinging, b/c I'm deeply embarrassed this has happened) at the appropriate place. As for not caring about promotion, my takeaway is that I wasted energy/time/effort I couldn't afford. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I misunderstood, again. I don't complain, and certainly not about a fellow editor, here or elsewhere. I just observed that my "thank you" to Wehwalt has been interpreted differently from a simple thank you, and feel helpless how to avoid such a thing next time, and how to react. I said that it was not intended, and clarified the point in question: that there is not only one way of writing nunc dimittis, and that goes for italics and capitalization. I asked if we could have peace about that, in clear communication at the appropriate place, - what else do you recommend to do? - I am sorry that you think you wasted your time, - I think improving an article is the main goal. Wehwalt supported the work that is mainly improved by you. Thank you again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few links that might provide guidance. Writing a piece that's "finished" involves addressing what are called "Higher, Lower Order Concerns". See this handout; it's for students, but still it might be helpful, [15]. It's always important to be aware of the relationship between author and audience. See this handout, [16]. The author (and to a lesser extent the audience) has a purpose; the purpose (also sometimes called the rhetorical mode) for Wikipedia articles is always informative. See this handout, [17]. The process of reviewing involves a different set of reader expectations, because it's meant to be a critique. My advice is to study these handouts and see if they are helpful. Then read the article, keeping the points raised at the review in mind. Finally engage the reviewers as collaborators, helpers if you will, and always assume good faith. The existence of a lower case vs. upper case letter on a single word falls squarely into the lower order concerns and is something easily taken care of, best left to the last, and not really worth mentioning, imo. I hope this helps and apologies for putting on my teaching hat. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it helps, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ugg. Victoria, break ties; this is too circular. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]