User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 18

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
	... about about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy,; the frustration of; trying to conduct business; with non-transparent,; seemingly arbitrary; controlling systems ...;

In Our Time[edit]

Congratulations. It looks good! SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah and thanks. I had to be offline yesterday, which is always best during TFA. I seemed to have gone well. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

For the sake of my own sanity, as I respect your opinion obv, can I take it that I didn't mess up the van der Weyden too much. I'm not sure if your a Spinal Tap fan, but to the me the painting is none more van der Weyden. Too much van der Weyden, if you ask me.Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. This is how I see our collabs. Northern Orange bastard, but whateves. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's all good now. I made a mistake, pulled up the wrong file on my computer which was where my confusion came in. Otherwise I would have fixed it myself and not even mentioned. Thanks for the tunes! And thanks again for copyedits to Prophets of Deceit. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

np Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Thank you for popping to FAC recently, it's always good to see you there. There seem very few people prepared to oppose at FAC these days, strangely, and it is good to have that critical eye if we are going to maintain standards. And it makes it easier for the coordinators as well. And don't worry if anyone gets a little touchy about it (happens to me quite a bit!), the coordinators can always step in. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro1 - it always feels like I'm putting myself in front of a firing squad. But I've not looked at the queue in a long time, spent a little time there over the past few days, and made a few reviews. Obviously I'd prefer to be wowed instead of seeing issues, but if the queue's to be knocked down then comments have to be made. Thanks for the message. Very nice of you. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Met's Annunication[edit]

(Follow-up from User talk:Ceoil#File:Rosary Bead.2C South Netherlandish.2C 1500-10.jpg) I uploaded the Met's file to File:The Annunciation MET DT712.jpg but didn't want to replace the current image since the article and image are both already featured... Anyway, I'll leave you to it. If you instead meant another Annunciation besides Memling's, just drop a line. czar 03:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi czar, thanks, that's lovely. Yes, it's FA because I brought it through FAC and the crucifixion too (with Ceoil), along with others. I'll update the Annunciation when I get a chance - out for the next few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Prophets of Deceit[edit]

On 25 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prophets of Deceit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the authors of Prophets of Deceit warned that a time might come when Americans become susceptible to psychological manipulation by a political agitator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prophets of Deceit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prophets of Deceit), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets[edit]

Fantastic work on this. Very enjoyable read, and quite timely. May I ce a bit, once I free myself from the despair it has inspired? ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, of course, have at it. Sources are linked as is the book, if you have questions (I'm not around much for a few more days). Victoriaearle (tk) 00:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triptychs[edit]

Hi Victoria and Ceoil. Do you remember which triptychs that you've written about are held at the Met in New York? Since they are instituting a CC license for their photographs of PD works, that means pictures of the triptychs in their settings may be free too (instead of us having to digitally cut out the frames/settings). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I think it's only Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych that's FA. I would be wonderful to have the frame for that. There are others that aren't multipanel works, i.,e Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine (Memling) & that I haven't brought through FAC yet. Can we have frames for those too? Victoriaearle (tk) 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, yes. But I don't see a version with the frame on their website. If there is such a version for another painting, it should be fine.

I'm getting the Last Judgement diptych right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out someone's already uploaded it. Enjoy! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we are Chris! Its fantastic news, and are making the most of it - allows articles of 3d objects that would have shied away from before. Very good news for POTD also. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Chris, and thanks Ceoil for doing the honors. That's seriously exciting to see. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that it is. I've already got a couple of 3D works of art in my FPC queue, and I uploaded three more works (1, 2, 3) that already have articles. Sadly, none of them are in good enough shape to take before FPC at the moment. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nice Crisco. The articles will get there eventually. You know how this place is, one step forward, sometimes two backward. But we get there eventually. Having access to 3D art is startling and exciting. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2[edit]

While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. I am also somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, so next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. Please also accept my condolences on the loss of your father-in-law. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks My Core Competency is Competency, unlike your comprehensive comments, I only posted a small partial review without taking time to fully consolidate comments so as to convey in a general fashion the issues I felt needed to be addressed. I doubt I'll be reviewing at FAC again, but very much appreciate your message. I think your subject knowledge is invaluable and I do hope you continue to contribute there. Best, Victoriaearle (tk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences[edit]

Condolences, plus regret for your recent experiences. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ling. While you're here (because I'm too lazy to post to two pages), about this question: I've been working on this offline, pulling in a few sources from other articles, so I'd prefer not right now. But to say I'm working at the pace of snail is an overstatement, and I might not get back to it. It's up to whatever you and Ceoil decide, but my preference would be to hold off. That said, I just might never get back to it, so I wouldn't put much weight in my preference. Take care, Victoriaearle (tk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distrust this Particular Flavor[edit]

This thoroughly researched exploration of Hemingway’s military adventurism fails to deliver a convincing conclusion. Reynolds gamely connects the author’s interactions with Soviet operatives in the Spanish Civil War to his fears of persecution during the post-WWII American Red Scare... The book is filled with admissions that “no one is likely to ever know” the extent of Hemingway’s involvement with the Soviets and overly puffed-up martial language, such as describing combat coverage as “rid[ing] to the sound of the guns.” Publishers Weekly — Neonorange (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that one yet. I did read a few others a couple of days ago, pretty much saying the same thing, but PW carries some weight. One or two of the scholarly journals might put out a review too. We had a similar situation recently for Van Gogh - new book published, lots of media hype followed by talk page requests to change the ear cutting incident per the recently published book. Our policy is to wait. In the meantime, I'm trying to take a small break - hope to be able to get back soon. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabeau of Bavaria1.jpg[edit]

You asked in 2012 to keep File:Isabeau of Bavaria1.jpg "here for now pls". I do not see a reaon why this should not be moved to Commons. Are there any reason for this? (t) Josve05a (c) 12:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

I hope you are finding time to relax and recover. I've ordered some of the books you suggested and W,S,S,S and follow the Hemingway talk page. — Neonorange (Phil)

Thanks Phil, I'll be out for a while but trying to relax! Thanks for pitching in with EH. Victoriaearle (tk) 11:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years![edit]

I imagine you reading, - thank you for all you do here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not good for much more than reading these days. Thanks Gerda. Victoriaearle (tk) 11:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is good, and I should do more.Thank you for your contributions derived from reading, as today's Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin!

Yes, there was some reading involved. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended wikibreak & availability notice[edit]

An FYI that I'm on an extended wikibreak for health related reason, duration unknown. Victoriaearle (tk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh blast. You have been a true friend to me, over years, through thick and thin. I have always enjoyed our chats, and hearing your view both on wiki matters and on stuff in general. Long may that continue.[1]. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better; and all the best from another of your many friends here...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all best wishes! Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, just a note to say it was nice to see you editing again briefly, and thanks for posting about the TFA issue. That discussion has had partial success. Anyway, please enjoy the rest of your break, and I hope all is well health-wise. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Hi, I see you are one of the regular writers of art-related FAs. I have recently been working on Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, an interesting topic because of the image itself, and the history of the portrait (stolen by the Nazis and the subject of a long law suit before restitution and sale for $135 million). Would you have the time or inclination to pay a visit to the new peer review for any comments? Many thanks if you are able to have a read through. Thank you, and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Bounder, thanks for asking. It's a lovely article. I might take a look at it, but can't make any promises. If I don't get to it, good luck with it. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon[edit]

I'll miss your kind presence. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very indeed sorry to see you go. All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you all the best, and hope to see you again...Modernist (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What they said, and good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing above. I am deeply saddened that I've not taken the time to become friends or collaborate with you over the years. Here's hoping you'll return one day so both of these things can be achieved. Best wishes. Cassianto ^Talk 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kindness and help. The best I can offer is—you've got mail. Neonorange, aka Bird of Happiness 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see you back soon, Victoria. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't quite follow ...[edit]

I didn't quite follow what you were saying today, and now I see you've retired again. Just in case I contributed to some confusion, let me try to clear it up. I said that I thought Sarah was concerned about potential sexism because I know that that's something Sarah cares about on Wikipedia, and because I know that TFA can be faulted on that score; we've had many male coords and no female coords. (And she acknowledged that I read that right, that she's concerned about it.) I said that I didn't think you were interested in the job ... well, it's complicated. If there are two people being nominated, that's a horse race, and people sometimes feel compelled to jump in and vote one way or another ... and from my past experiences of talking with you, I thought there was a chance that you wouldn't be comfortable with that. I also suspected this was an honor you hadn't asked for, based on our conversation earlier in the day. If I said anything that was offensive, please let me know. You're in our thoughts (John's and mine). - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag back on my page because the only meaningful edits I've made since April or May were wholesale reverted with an edit summary to see other similar articles. Those similar articles would be the ones I wrote. I can't put together a page in a single day, but I started on an expansion with some small edits to organization and lead. All gone in one fell swoop. I won't fight. I have other things that require my energy.

Re conversation: I wrote you an email which in retrospect was a mistake. I'm a private and shy person, a woman of a certain age as they say, and instead of posting my concerns about reruns, instead I thanked you for a kind remark and mentioned my concerns in an email, something I never do. Here's the email in its entirety for the whole world to read:

Hi Dank, I felt bad about not responding to your comment to me on Ceoil's page and decided to send email to thank you privately for welcoming me back. It does mean a lot but I didn't really know what to say. I've been faced with a number of intractable health problems for the past two years or longer, which all came to a head in June when I had extensive surgery and the possibility of a cancer recurrence (I'm a cancer survivor). Happily no new cancers and I'm well on my way to recovery, but I'm sure you can understand that in face of that situation it was necessary to step away from Wikipedia.

I'm beginning to feel better and am considering taking up editing again on a limited basis. But Wikipedia can be a tough place sometimes, so I'm a little wary. Anyway, this is a lot of information (perhaps too much), but I don't want people to think I left because I was disillusioned; I left out of necessity. In the meantime, I just wanted you to know I appreciate your kind words.

Also, I might post regarding the TFA re-runs. I'm not opposed to the idea in theory, but my concern is one of resource allocation. Given my situation, I would have to decide what's a better allocation of limited volunteer time: work on new content or rewrite existing content? Personally I'd prefer to work on new content if and when I can get there, but that might not be the case for everyone. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I was complaining. I'm mulling over some thoughts in my head, trying to decide how best to be there while mitigating pressure. If any of this makes?

Again, thanks for the kindness and apologies for not replying openly.
Victoria

After sending the email and before reading your reply (and that's the extent of the conversation), I went out for an errand. On my return I found that Sarah mentioned my name as possible TFA coord and you said I wasn't interested. If I were healthy I would be interested, but beyond that it was my place to make that decision. Beyond that, though, the issue here is the process. I can't find the links but the process was questioned in 2012 and again in 2014. Given that we are under a certain pressure not only to produce featured articles (not easy), provide up to seven or eight reviews for every nomination we make, tend our existing articles, and perhaps stop producing content to rewrite older FAs that need sprucing up for TFA re-runs, I feel something has to give. But also, given the information in my email, I might think differently if I were in good health.

You mention a horserace. Well, yes, maybe. Is that a problem? Am I not high enough on WP:WBFAN? And keep in mind, those articles were written under very difficult personal circumstances, while I raised a family, saw my kids through high school and college, and all the while my health deteriorated. So perhaps I'm worthy, but the issue is this: who decides? What is the process? That's what Sarah is asking. I don't think she's saying we need women for the sake of having women, she's reminding the men in the room that there are women who are capable. As it happens, I'm not really able to accept so it's all moot.

Apologies to everyone for the rant who might have read this. I had thought that I might get a little longer than 24 hours before having edits blind reverted. That's the issue that bugs me more than anything. I promised myself I wouldn't fight in this place ever again, and if editing here or proving my worth involves friction or conflict it's necessary to my well being to remove myself. I'll try again another time, but not soon. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining, that clears it up. I'm sad that you think I was faulting your abilities or trying to keep you from speaking for yourself. I don't do that in general, and I especially wouldn't do that to you. I don't want to press the matter, but let's talk about it sometime. I'm really not trying to exclude you from anything ... there are lots of FA-related tasks, and as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to participate in any way you enjoy participating. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank this is really important: the issue is the process. The email had zero to do with the process. I didn't even know what was happening when the email was sent. I don't need to be involved in FA related tasks. I just want to write in peace. Which is really difficult. And I don't want pressure to produce. Process is everything and we need to be focusing on that. Are we losing editors because of pressure to review (in my case, yes), are we losing editors because of FAC leaderboards, (in my case, yes), are we losing editors because pressure to keep old articles TFA ready (in my case, yes). Let's focus on the process. I need to step away now. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, ping me any time. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things[edit]

I took my eye off the ball and didnt notice the gremlin factor. Now I do. All is well is County Cork otherwise. No hurricanes, threats from North Korea, or right wing racist populist movements in the horizon. English confusion over Brexit looming to the east, however. Those guys again. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classy [2] Just as they givit, they taked away. Apart from being treated like a child, as if I should be dazzeled by a ball thrown in the air, I don't like the low integrity, and it confirms absolutely why I think we cant trust that re-runs will be correctly handled. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One year you couldn't run it because there had been too many art articles; in fact, if I remember correctly you'd specifically asked to swap the Madonna for the goat, [3], but they wouldn't. Then you were told at some point it couldn't run this year? Or was it last year? And now it's been offered and deleted? This is problematic at the deepest level. If Raul ever played games like this, there would have been hell to pay. And look at what happened to him. And to Sandy. And to Karanacs. And to Uchucha. And to Gimmetoo. We're barreling swiftly in the same direction. Personally I'm not impressed at what happened above. But, like Iri, I'm basically out of the game now. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the game *is* the game. I glad I'm not the only one seeing the mind play here. This shucks 'I have to ask my supervisor' bullshit especially goads, and precisely makes my point about accountability re scheduling 10 year old pages laden with, god knows what. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The posts to the James Joyce page, and then to your page, are what brought it to my attention. I'm familiar enough with modernist articles to doubt the viability of some of the older ones, yet you were asked to rewrite it. I think that's beyond our purview when someone like you, to such a greater extent than I am, engages in producing new content. I've noticed similar notifications on other pages and I've noticed some editors posting replies in apparent consternation, so there is a problem. The point I was trying to make above is the lack of process. Processes are important for all kinds of reasons, least of which knowing when to punt and who to punt to. We don't know who's running the show and apparently that question can't be answered. So I guess, we the community, get to decide! Sorry, but I'm exhausted and have to shove off now. I've only briefly glanced at the TFA talk page. Will take a look there when next I surface. Be well and thanks so much for stopping by. I miss having visitors on my talk. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm a friend rather than visitor. I grew uneasy over the The Garden of Earthly Delights, when I was basically asked to say - "its up to current standards", so we can do our thing. That approach has all sorts of implications if taken to a logical conclusion and is unadulterated grandfathering. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a friend, who is visiting. I noticed that Hemingway is on the list of re-runs for no reason except it's a Big Page with lots of page views. I've not been tending <cough - had other rather important things in my life to deal with> and it needs a full rewrite. I always thought this was a volunteer project and we had no deadlines. Good luck to the poor schmuck who has to get through the thousands of pages of sources to bring Hemingway back to where it should be just to satisfy a re-run whim. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I'd forgotten about Earthly Delights, that's another on the list of discussions popping up on my watch. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings[edit]

Every year I swear I'll make a card, and every year I don't. So I'll have to wish you a manual Merry Christmas again, and all the best for the New Year. I hope you're doing okay. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and All That[edit]

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon[edit]

And so forth, I dont really have words for someone that's been such a great friend over years. You are missed. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen[edit]

I won't be able to do anything, I'm afraid. I'd leave it a few weeks. Actually no editing there now for some days. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. I'm frustrated about Austen because the research and the reading is mostly done, but I had to stop editing before I had a chance to finish the writing. As you say, it's best to leave it and not get bothered. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Austen. There are problematic edits mixed with some that might be okay. So some reverting or rewriting is needed, but perhaps not all. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I'll leave you for today with this early c. 1410 face-palm. It sort of sums up a lot of things. The Jane Austin and Mark E Smith articles have more in common that you might think, and note the guy in the right corner is seemingly thinking...this sh** again, "come come nuclear bomb". Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the person on the left has pulled his cowl over his head and gone into full hiding. Another headless one! Thanks for the tune. Glad to see you back. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise always nice to see you drop in. The Memling went down a treat bty. I have been pondering Ghmyrtle‎‎'s claim that the issue with me is competence, a claim that hit home, but on balance, given the low quality of his own FALL ouput I'm going to let it go. Or at least try. Its hard to not to respond to such a fundamental attack on character, from somebody that had spent that day reverting obvious WIP. Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why that upset you. The issue is this: well-written articles don't appear suddenly. However it's done, whether in main space or in a sandbox, there has to be a lot of editing, sorting out what's there, what's important, where to move things to build a good structure, how to expand, blah, blah. All the stuff you know. I haven't actually looked at the article history, but I know your approach and competence isn't an issue. If it were, you wouldn't have a long string of stars on your user page. Working on a page like, recent death, lots of people editing, is hard. There's one I'd like to work up, but what's there is so much crap that I'd tear it down and start from scratch. The resulting uproar isn't worth my limited amount of energy, so I decided to wait. My advice would be to wait until MES is out of the spotlight and come back to it later. It's certainly not worth being blocked for. Especially these days when there seems to be a strong trend towards looking only at block logs and ignore body of work. Unsolicited advice, fwiw. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it doesnt look good - I made a simple cut and past edit today, suggested by the wife on talk, a week ago mind you, where it was agreed upon by the by the motley crew, a week ago, but not actually actioned. When I implements today, the edit was minutes later followed by [4], which can only be read as imitatory. I did tear that page down and start from scratch, but was fought against inch by inch, and then baby admins swarmed in mentioning blocks from years ago, as if ergo. Dunno, I just cant connect with or find any respect for these people and suicide my admin is seeming more and more the way to go out. Re your own activity here, you do realise over the years we have a fair few articles that would only ever need polish to get through. Ghent Altarpiece, Miraflores Altarpiece, Durán Madonna and what have you. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. First, I make little fiddly mistakes all the time and it often takes more than one edit to get it right. You make spelling mistakes. So? Does it affect the final product? Is it worth watching over your shoulder to fix every single mistake? It pisses you off (as it would me) and it's being done purposely. My advice is to let that page go for a while and let things settle. As for gunning for an indef, I'm conflicted. I don't know whether you read the comment I left on Tony1's page, but it seems to me that if the current crop of admins awards the work he's done here over the years with an indef block, then he has every right to be upset and walk, and truthfully I feel somewhat the same about what's happened to you. In his case it came out of the blue, just wham, indef. Your case is slightly different. BUT - if this issue is because you're making spelling mistakes - then it's a deeper and more malicious situation than I'd realized. Re work to polish - it's a sore spot. I've been fighting some intractable health issues for months (years) and watching articles degrade that I put lots and time an effort into building. I can't even tend these days, let alone polish. Plus all my research, notes, etc., isn't at hand and I don't even have the energy to retrieve it all. So all I can do is sit on the sidelines and bitch. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria, and yes what happened to Tony1, no disprespect to those involved, is indicative of how things are evolving here. The way Eric was hounded and baited, and the current obsession with sticking an infobox on anything that might even resemble something that might appear on Schrod's or Cassianto's watchlist, for the lutz, is more of the same thing. We chat elsewhere, so wasn't hinting at future work - you have more important priorities, but it is always nice to see you here and get your perspective. Even if its occasional dropping in, dont be a stranger. Ceoil. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm around, lurking mostly, but not gone gone. I have used up my wiki time for the day so I'm off. Good luck with things and as you always tell me, don't get ground down. It's not worth it. There are more important things in life than this place and its endless disputes. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the net effect of the events leading up to my block, and the discussions of me, is that I now feel disenfranchised, and to be honest like a super pissed bitch from hell. If I had the buttons to delete the main page, I would. To hell with these people. In other news, we had snow during the week, and are all delight Gerry Adams finally retired. I don't think Gen Kelly will survive, and his fall seems rather poetic. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is always open for bitching. My response time is sometimes slow, but I do check messages. I understand feeling disenfranchised and I've been a little alarmed at some of the things I've noticed in recent months while lurking. It does occur to me that we can all make our voices heard at the ballot box, so to speak. I haven't frequented RfA for years but am thinking it might be important to start showing up there. Snow is nice, isn't it? It's snowing outside right now. Well, I like it. Not everyone agrees with me. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: making our voices heard in the ballot box - that’s not the lesson I got from the last election. But I do get that it’s the best we can do, short of taking the law into our own hands (which for the record I do not condone). Sorry - just thinking aloud here, with some anger and much wistfulness. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't don't remember where I was going with that remark, but probably something to do with how we choose admins here, i.e. !voting (hence ballot box). If I had the energy I'd write a long screed - my views that most? many? admins pass RfA because a cadre of regular voters show up, chime in, and it seems to be a reciprocal process. There's more to be said, but maybe on another day. We all need to show up at our local polling stations too :). Victoriaearle (tk) 16:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, I checked the RfA page regularly and voiced an opinion if I had one. Applications are few now, and my opinion is only so much pissing in the wind, so I keep my mouth shut unless I see something awful. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's my attitude too. I do look at candidates, but my feeling is that there's a dedicated cadre who always show up to !vote and my voice either isn't wanted, needed, or required. So I don't say anything. But that's not always the best for the project. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recs[edit]

Just to say, if you haven’t ever read Joe Hill’s Locke and Key, you are missing out. Apologies if I have already recommended this to you. It is worth two recs, as is most of Hill’s work, barring The Fireman. Let me know if you like. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to reply on your page re graphic novels. Circumstances being what they are, I tend to go for fat books these days. But sometimes I'll look at the graphic versions online. Thanks for telling me about the The Fireman - have had it in my hand more than once, and for some reason put it back on the shelf. I have been thinking seriously about diving in Cronin's trilogy. I'd stayed away because it seemed dark, but darkness suits me now. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cronin trilogy is good - but more than a bit humourless, despite that, and I never did finish the third one. Locke and Key is terrific, with great illustrations and a bunch of tiny internal Easter eggs, which some people (like me) like; if you’d rather do a novel, I’d recommend any of his *except* The Fireman (which is basically a less-good rework of The Stand); Horns is my personal favourite, but ‘’Strange Weather’’, four short novellas, is plenty good. I still like L&K best, but everyone has personal preferences. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can also buy them all online, and binge the short works à la Netflix. It’s more satisfying than it sounds, and totally worth it in this case. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely will take a look and maybe even report back. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SPI[edit]

Because I don't want to clog up the SPI page: yes, it is abundantly clear that Ceoil isn't a sock. Nothing came up on the original CheckUser, his writing style is basically 100% different, and his area of focus is too. I guessed that is why he removed the tags. Tags are not usually removed, especially when placed by a CheckUser, but Ceoil is a content contributor who doesn't spend much time in the project space areas of Wikipedia and probably doesn't know how removing them can make people suspicious or cause CUs to not be happy. Tags can be removed, but that's normally if they are placed by someone other than a clerk, CheckUser, or admin (who are really the only people who are supposed to place them anyway). Just wanted to follow up. No one here is looking to railroad him. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, thanks for stopping by. A couple of things: if it's abundantly clear that Ceoil isn't a sock, why is the case report marked as open? I'd think it could summarily be closed as unnecessary. Having once made a terrible decision to open to an SPI report, I don't think any blame should be pointed toward the editor who opened it. Mistakes happen, we move on, and that editor noticed the DCGeist & DocKino accounts. As an aside, I was initially surprised to see them tagged as socks, but took a closer look yesterday and based on time cards and various other things, am fairly convinced at this point. Surprised still, but convinced. One other observation and please don't take offense: my feathers get a little ruffled at the "y is a content contributor so doesn't know what x the admin knows" path we tend to follow. We're all editors with various levels of investment, some of us wear different hats, but I've never thought it constructive to assume that content creators know little about the project space or admins know little about content creation. I'm not an admin, but after 8 years watching project space I'm not clueless either. This goes, too, to a discussion upthread re participating in RfAs, but I'm getting off track. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping on the other page. I do not have your page watchlisted so I did not see your reply. Sorry about that. The SPI remained open because Bbb23 wanted Ceoil to answer his questions before it was closed. Re: your statement above about the way I framed this; that was essentially what Ceoil himself said at the SPI to defend himself (he doesn’t work in these areas, so it is not unreasonable to assume he doesn’t know how they work.) That’s not looking down on someone, that’s examining the totality of the situation to see if there was a good faith explanation for the events that occurred. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not pinging, sometimes it takes more energy than it's worth. Yes, I agree in terms of framing. I was thinking of myself having lived through many iterations the ItsLassieTime situation, so in that case I'm well aware of how the pages are treated. Most importantly, though, I'd hoped the SPI could be closed before the current drama blew up - which in my view was inevitable. Anyway, what's done is done and thanks for stopping by. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni - adding ping. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

x-mass[edit]

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've watched your very prolific year in 2018, and been incredibly impressed! Best wishes to you and Liz for Christmas and for a happy happy 2019. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia[edit]

		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 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth! Victoriaearle (tk) 02:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod and the same to you. I'm always impressed with your annual Christmas cards! Victoriaearle (tk) 02:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I've got an old one as POTD tomorrow, as it happens (not my doing). Hope you are well! Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, will take a look tomorrow! Well enough today, which is a present, of sorts. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Modernist. Sending you good wishes for the holidays and the year ahead. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austral season's greetings[edit]

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, Cas! That looks delicious. Thanks so much! Good wishes to you and your family for the holidays. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting discussion for [[Visconti of Milan]][edit]

An article that you have been involved with (Visconti of Milan) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Visconti di Modrone). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Visconti of Milan#Visconti di Modrone branch members. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

Huh? I was just trying to thread comments to make the section easier to read. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your edit in good faith. Just trying to keep the page readable. I mean no harm. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO there's no reason to resection or refactor. Obviously I ran into an edit conflict and chose to leave the threading at is was. Had I wanted to put my own comment elsewhere, I would have. Waiting for eleven minutes before receiving a reply before reverting is what it is. I'm not going to argue, but none of this is necessary. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eye roll, just trying to be nice and keep things tidy. Moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping for this discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim for your note. I probably overreacted but seeing that sort of thing on TFA is a pet peeve. Now that I'm not able to edit I have a much greater appreciation for the massive amount of volunteer time that goes into getting an article on the front page - researching, writing, reviewing, keeping the FAC & TFA processes running, blurb writing, scheduling, bookkeeping, etc. Showcasing our best work is nice, should be a day to elicit new voices and hear from ip editors. Vandalism doesn't bother me, but having established editors impose preferred stylistic changes without waiting for 24 hours seems unnecessary. Because it's not something I want to deal with I've not been enthusiastic about having the few articles I have left run because I anticipate that type of situation, yet it makes me feel guilty. Anyway, sorry, this got longer than I expected. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tune[edit]

Leaving this here. Ceoil (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Victoriaearle (tk) 18:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Good to see you back to writing, interest in music and support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! A bit early to call it a trend but always hoping to get back eventually. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just go the pace you want. I think of Magdalen reading, - peacefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been doing a lot of that! The bookshelves are overflowing but it keeps me sane. Thanks for the thoughts. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard refs[edit]

Thanks for your recent editing and trimming on the George Washington article. Just an FYI - in this recent edit you removed an Sfn cite (Flexner|1969) within the text without removing the corresponding full reference:

* {{cite book |last=Flexner |first=James Thomas |authormask=2|title=George Washington and the New Nation (1783–1793) |publisher= Little, Brown |year=1969 |isbn=978-0-3162-8600-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r3UcMQAACAAJ |ref=harv}}.

When this happens the full ref gets stranded and a Harv warning pops up. To fix the "Harv warning" just remove the stranded full cite in the Bibliography/References section. I went ahead and did so but thought you'd want to know for future reference. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only logged in users with the script installed see the error message, so it's not much of issue for the casual reader or for an editor without the script. Generally when I work on a section like that I wait until the work is finished - for lots of reasons, the source might be re-added, people might not agree, etc. - before tidying the ref section, and I wasn't finished yet. But thanks for the message; as it happens I had forgotten that I'd trimmed back stuff that included refs, but hadn't gotten to point to check whether those refs were only used in that section. Best, Victoriaearle (tk) 18:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks - I didn't know about the logged-in users/script installed aspect. Do you know which script that is? (I admit it, I am *so* not a Wiki-coder. I install scripts and forget they're there.) The Harvard nomenclature is messy for many, so I've been keeping an eye on the article. If it ever gets submitted to FA again, I'd like for at least all the Harvard cites to be clean. Thanks for the reply and welcome back. Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's this one: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. It was developed exactly to do what you're doing, but if I remember correctly, to check at the end of a article cycle or even during FAC. I don't think the GW article is ready yet, but without someone keeping an eye on the refs I suspect they could get messy fairly quickly. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU. Why I could see the errors/warnings and other editors couldn't came up from time to time and I had no idea why. You are awesome, thanks so much. Shearonink (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! It was an off-hand remark, but happy it was helpful for you. Thanks so much for the message below. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankseverso[edit]

	The Thankseverso Award
	Thankseverso for putting me out of my misery of not knowing why I could see certain errors and others couldn't. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GW[edit]

Hi. Hope you are well. One of the other articles I mentioned is George Washington's political evolution. I have it in the back of my mind to see how it might fare at FAC, but I have some concerns about it and am struggling to attract comment on it. GAN is, well, GAN, a PR was a bust, and it's not attracting much interest at MILHIST ACR. If you have the time and inclination (and only if), I would welcome any comments you may see fit to drop on the article TP. Even a first impression on a quick scan through will help allay some of those concerns I have. But only if you have the time and inclination. Factotem (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here that often (and lately much more that I should be) so I'm slow. I've skimmed as far as "Political awakening". It's a good read. My knee-jerk reaction is why not simply retitle it "George Washington"? It seems to be the summary article that article should be. Anyway, I'll read through and make comments. Nothing jumps out at me at a cursory reading. Victoria (tk) 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not let me distract you. You've already given me the feedback I was looking for. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant as a compliment! I'm not feeling great today and I should stay away because my general crankiness comes through. My sense is the biography would be greatly improved if the sections were written as you've written them in the Evolution article. I don't really see anything that can be trimmed out of your article, because the evolution was a slow accretion of events, beginning with the excursion to Fort LeBoeuf, the fiasco at Jumonville Glen and Fort Necessity, the friction with Mackay, the relationship with Braddock (who, off the top of my head might have ignored Washington's advice not to cross the river at Turkey Creek) and the subsequent defeat. That's where my knowledge lies, but none of it can be left out, imo, and presumably that's true throughout. I'll read through the rest in the next few days. Victoria (tk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crikey! I think I did not express myself well. I'm sorry. I certainly took your reply as a compliment. When I finished the article, I thought to myself, "this is the GW article that should have been". The one review at ACR pointed out that it read more like a biography. I would be pleased as punch if the article was actually the biography, but I suspect any attempt I make on the WP cursus honorum for this article will fail because there is already a biography article, however shoddy that one currently is. I would be delighted to receive whatever feedback you would like to offer. It has been a pleasure to cross paths with you. I will leave you in peace now. Factotem (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I've not read the ACR review yet and haven't even made my way back to that article but I will. Before I saw it, I'd been wondering whether we can revert the existing bio back to an earlier version, but I've looked through the article history and it's been bloated for quite a long time. What you've written is a better alternative, and there is precedent for substituting one version with another via an RFC, particularly in the face of overediting, but it's always a fight. Thinking about all of this, and will follow up. In the meantime I see the slavery article is coming along nicely. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need to clarify something: when I finished the article, I realised, with some small concern, that it is the GW article that should have been, after the fact. I did not set out to write an alternative to the main article. At the moment I think, naively perhaps, the only salvation for the main article is to let it flounder at FAC, as I'm convinced it will, and then see if failure makes people more receptive to input. Yes, the slavery article still feels like I'm trying to cram cats into a sack right now, but it's beginning to take shape. Working my way through Wiencek at the moment – he does seem to have quite a different take to the others in some fairly key places – and I will have Thompson's book in my browser at the end of the month. Keep well. Factotem (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I think I agree with you. Thompson's book looks interesting. The veracity of all of this relies on having access to sources, which I don't and don't want to spend even more money on sources for Wikipedia. I put in an application to the TWL, but for some resaon it's been denied. On a related note, apparently Martha didn't free her dower slaves, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the slavery article. And I haven't dug around for good sources to back up that claim. Victoria (tk) 14:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting to the section in Wiencek that discusses Martha and the Custis heirs, so hopefully I'll soon see if and how that fits into the narrative. Spent most of the day researching Washington's mid-1790s schemes. The basic narrative is there now, but still need to review to make sure I've captured the nuance of it all. Factotem (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please don't go[edit]

please don't go

I am so sorry that my post on Talk:George Washington appeared to be rude and/or insensitive. When I post about my Harvard cite "fixes" on that talkpage it's just to let people know why I changed things. Your edits are fine. I actually don't much like the Harvard nomenclature, it is easy to use for the reader but not at all intuitive for most editors (including *me* most of all). In the future I won't include any editing history links since I can see why that was perceived as finger-pointing/rude/etc

Your contributions are welcome, we need more editors at the GW article, please don't go. Shearonink (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're very sweet and you're doing a stellar job with the refs. Re editing main space, I didn't mean that to come across as cranky or that I'm leaving (though I am forcing myself to disengage because it's a frustrating and unpleasant situation). The page is so big it won't load and then I forget to tidy the refs. When I saw your message today, and noted part of it had been posted earlier, I thought someone should give you the courtesy of a reply, but really didn't mean to be snippy. You're right to point out the issues because the refs get forgotten in the midst of all the rest of conflict. Victoria (tk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries you're fine with me. And yeah it is a beast of an article (lol...in so many ways) and who knew someone who's been dead for over 200 years could be so controversial?... It's just so nice to see someone new around GW that I hope you'll stick around. Honestly, I don't even have it on my Watchlist anymore, I only look in a couple times a week to keep an eye on any ref issues that pop up, I really don't edit it otherwise - mainly because of the tiffs that erupt about twice a day plus the general atmosphere. Thanks for replying. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eva: The Flower of the South[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I hope you are doing well. I have been thinking about working on literature articles, and I recently did a rather large revision on the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. I find it to be such a bizarre yet interesting slice of American history (one that I obviously do not support). I was wondering if you could provide any comments on how the article could be improved.

I believe that I have located all of the available sources on the book. The sources cover the historical background, the publication history, and scholarly analysis, although I could not find any critical reviews even when looking through newspapers printed around the publication period. The article is currently nominated for a GAN and I requested a copy-edit at the GOCE. I always find it helpful to get another person to look over the prose (as I am still trying to improve in that department).

I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I was just wondering since I noticed your comments on The Hate U Give article. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, I'm more than a bit slow these days, but I'll take a look. Off the top of my head I'd suggest adding a section about the genre - Beecher-Stowe's Tom books and the reactionary anti-Tom literature - or renaming and expanding the current "Background" section. Sources should exist because a fair amount has been written about Beecher-Stowe, but it's definitely a tricky area to pin down. The best thing is to rely on the best scholarly sources that can be found. I'll dig around a bit and let you know what I find. Victoria (tk) 13:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I had created a "Historical context" subsection in the "Background" section as a way to provide this type of information and keep it separate from the book's publication history. When adding this information, I was uncertain about how much I should add about the Anti-Tom literary trend, the abolitionist movement, and slavery in the U.S. in general. I always had trouble with determining the scope of a background section as I was never quite sure what would be too little information or far too much. I agree that more information would be best and I will look into it further. I will start by looking through the sources already included in the article to see if there is more information to extract and then I will open up my search elsewhere. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more background information. It is still not perfect by a long shot, but I am working toward improving it. I have removed the GAN on the article for now. I think a GOCE would be helpful to make sure there is a solid foundation for further work. I will most likely pursue a peer review when I have the time. I just never have much luck with the peer review process as I never really get much in the way of comments. This will probably take me a while though as it is quite a lot of work and I am very inexperienced with literature articles. Just thought you would like an update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at some of the sources and there's not a lot to work from, and almost all in relation to Stowe's work. If you don't mind waiting, I'll post some general comments to the talk page there in lieu of a PR. Basically it's best to lead with the article topic, Cozans' Little Eva, and remark tangentially about Stowe. Wait until all the work has been done before having it copyedited. I'll post some prose suggestions as well. Victoria (tk) 20:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Sorry for all of the questions. I am pretty bad at this ><. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba, give me a chance to get there, read the article and fully evaluate it. I've been evaluating sources and searching for others. When I'm able I will post a full review. Remember, there's no deadline. Per this, yes, I mentioned Beecher-Stowe, off the top of my head as I said, without first delving into what's available. What I meant is that the anti-abolitionist reactionary literature is just that, and differs from Stowe's work, so I'd hoped there was more about that specific genre. But as it happens, hardly anything has been written about Cozans, so I think the sourcing that's available is skimpy and working with so few sources makes it difficult to flesh out. As is stands now the first two paras of the currently titled "Historical context" section is about Beecher-Stowe's work but the topic of the article is Cozans', so he needs to lead. Also, I still think those issues go to genre or themes, i.e., abolition/anti-abolition, etc. But I'm mulling it over, which I have a tendency to do before diving in. If any of that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 01:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will no longer edit the article. I was honestly trying to follow your suggestions. I am in no rush with this article. I find that statement to be unfair. I have ideas on what I would like to do with the article in the future, but the article quality is obviously the most important part. From what I have read, critics focused on Little Eva's role as an educator and the book's representation of slave education. It may be helpful to further explore how slavery is represented in children's literature at the time and get further background on other proslavery children's literature. Either way, I will take a step back from the article. It is somewhat discouraging, but I already knew my contributions to the article were a mess before messaging you. I probably chose a harder topic to start my work with literature articles, but I genuinely found the subject matter to be interesting (I obviously do not support the book's message though). Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your help. I am just weird ><. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The no deadline remark refers to me. I get here when I can, but I'm gone more often than not. It wasn't directed at you and I apologize if you took it wrong. Literature articles are difficult, but that's not the problem with this. The problem is the paucity of sources and trying to stitch them together. I have thoughts about Eva's teaching the slaves to read (and why they won't learn, prefer listening to her) but it's OR and I've not found anything to bear them out. Personally I think it's a parody. It is an interesting slice of American children's literature, but also difficult to develop because it's in reaction to another work and you can't let that work overwhelm the topic at hand (though it has many many more sources). If that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 03:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.s - there's no need to quit working on it. The best articles here are edited to death. And then edited some more. And then again. Ad nauseam. Until we get it right. Victoria (tk) 03:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Apologies for taking it too personally. I appreciate your help and I hope that I am not forcing you or rushing you to help. That makes sense to me. Balance is definitely important because I do not want to turn the article into an extended historical background on Anti-Tom literature and plantation literature with only a little bit on the actual book. I can definitely see this as a parody, but it is hard to say since there is just not a lot of coverage (scholarly or otherwise). I will keep working on it in the future, but I will probably taking a break from it so I can come back to it with a fresh perspective and spot on awkward points that I may be overlooking or reading over if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made so minor edits to the article's structure when comparing it to other children's literature articles. I hope that is not an issue. I always find it helpful to look to FAs as guidelines/models. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to inform you that I will no longer be working on the above article. I have left a copy-edit request at the GOCE as I believe a thorough copy-edit will leave a solid foundation for others to expand upon. I genuinely wanted to improve the article (which is why I reached out to you to get your advice), but I do not feel qualified enough to proceed. I was honestly proud of my work on it (and I understood that it was far from perfect), and I was trying to be better about collaborating with other editors and learning from constructive criticism. However, I am now honestly embarrassed by it. I am tempted to just reverted the article back to its original state, but I will leave it up for now. I have decided to take a wikibreak until next year. I just wanted to inform you about this. Feel free to delete this thread from your talk page if you would like. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I honestly don't know how to respond to any of this (including the email you sent). You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I stand by that opinion and stand by the assessment that a copy edit won't address structural issues, but it's frankly up to you. There's no reason to delete this thread, is there? At any rate enjoy your wiki break. Victoria (tk) 20:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a little confused by some of your suggestions as I have already said in my above comments. No offense meant to you, but I honestly found the process to be discouraging/disheartening as a whole. I honestly wanted to use the article as an opportunity to grow as an editor and to address the critiques that I have been given in the past. I will most likely not do any more work with literature articles and will just do work on my own as I have done in the past. I would have appreciated a response to my email, but it does not matter at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are several tags at the top of this page indicating very clearly that I'm not always available. Either here, on email, anywhere. Not even to my immediate family members, if that's anyone's business. On some days when I'm bored to tears I lurk. Occasionally I reply, against my better judgment. Today is one of those days. I can't apologize for a discouraging/disheartening process because as someone who maybe spent too many years standing at the front of the class in countless college writing/lit classes, this is how it's done! There are basic conventions to follow, i.e stay focussed on the topic at hand, use literary present tense, never stack quotes one after the next (that includes quotes separated by introductory clauses such as "Professor Blah of the University of such-and-such wrote, ....), and so forth. These are the basics and I have no idea how to respond without mentioning the basics. Re email, there wasn't any reason to take this issue to email and I do wiki business here. That's a longstanding rule I have. Nor do I ever talk about other editors behind their backs. Victoria (tk) 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnecessary overreaction. I'd be lying if I told you that work was the best I'd ever seen. Check the top of my page for my previous username, it might give a clue about lying. There's nothing wrong with doing some work and having someone steer that effort. Victoria (tk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would like this thread to be deleted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editor[edit]

Hi! I see that you've been posting at User talk:Elisa.rolle, no doubt with only the best intentions. However, that editor is now banned, and per WP:SBAN: "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal ...". If she were to reply to any of your questions she would most probably lose her talk-page access; admittedly, that may not make much difference at the moment, but it could be useful to her if she ever decides to attempt an unban request. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, several of us (Valereee, Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Victoriaearle, and myself) have formed a mentoring collaboration with a view to asking that Elisa be unblocked. The first step is a tutorial that Victoria is conducting on Elisa's talk page. So far, it has been working out well. When that's done, we intend to present a mentoring plan to AN. See User:Valereee/ER and User talk:SlimVirgin#ER for details. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I don't really know what to say, but not being a member of management I'll take Justlettersandnumbers' comment as a warning and stop. Two questions are outstanding, but not a huge big deal in the grand scheme of life so I'll put an archive box around the discussion and if the admin corp wants me to I'll move it all to her archives, and if I'm to be punished, then so be it. If I can be given a bit of time to mull things over, I'd appreciate it. Then I'll post to the talk at User:Valereee/ER with my assessment/recommendation. For whatever it's worth, doing something like that is time-consuming and, in my case, exhausting. But it's also illuminating and helpful. At the end of the day if an editor can be taught how to be a productive member of the community, particularly with the help of others, it's a win. If, however, the rules, etc., etc., trump all then that's that. I don't want to be a rule-breaker. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle I have been watching and reading the tutorial as you have gone through it. I totally agree with you that teaching editors how to be productive is beneficial, but totally understand given the statement above why you would stop the mentoring program. To my mind, our goals are to prevent problems, not punish them, but that often goes awry in wikiworld. As another non-admin, my opinion means nada, but I wanted to make sure that you know I appreciate your efforts more than I can express. SusunW (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unjust to sanction someone for trying to mentor an editor, banned or otherwise. Particularly given that this is being done entirely with a view towards a successful appeal at some point. I will add that, as an alternative, you may choose to continue this exercise via off-wiki methods (e-mail for example) or just use commons.wiki as Elisa is not banned there (and it'd be more transparent). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that option, but it would be less convenient for me. This would have been the last day because I was essentially done. I've moved the thread to her archives and will move on. Thanks Susun; I'd like to think all of our opinions matter, but we know that's not really the reality on en.wp. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, my post here was not any sort of warning to you, but a suggestion that you avoid actions that might possibly cause more trouble for Elisa.rolle. I see that she has now violated her ban, so I expect she will soon lose talk-page access. Sorry to have troubled you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Victoria, thanks for all the effort you put into it. I was watching it with interest, and it was clearly an enormous amount of work for you. I think it was very fruitful, and I was looking forward to Elisa's responses to the last two examples. I hope you'll remain part of the collaboration going forward. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers we've never interacted as far as I know, but I just want to get this clear. You're telling me that because of my actions I've caused trouble for Elisa? Because of my actions I've caused her to break her ban? Because of my actions, I've caused her to lose talk page access? Because of my actions she's now violated her ban? Yet, my actions are the result of a long AN thread, I'm not an admin, (despite which I do have a head on my shoulders, there is a brain in that head that occasionally works), and I wouldn't have done something like that without either cause or permission. This was an enormous amount of work, I honestly don't have a horse in the race, didn't need to step up to try to help, and really really resent being told on my own talk page that "that you avoid actions that might possibly cause more trouble for Elisa.rolle.". If a character reference is needed, Moonriddengirl knows who I am and what I can do and might vouch for me.

I'm taking a few days off. I suggest the admin corps put their heads together and work this out because the proles get nervous when this kind of stuff lands on their pages. Yes, Sarah, it was a lot of work. Let's just leave it - the last questions aren't that important. Victoria (tk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have spent over a month with the community highly disrupted by knee-jerk reactions touting WP:IAR as justification when a community member, and then several others, were effected by bans and desyops. But when a group of us come together and agree to take a measured mentoring approach to avoid making a hasty decision and to show the community in a transparent fashion what we are doing to work with an editor and calmly address issues, it's not okay? Even though it was explained on numerous talk pages including the ANI wherein the editor was banned? Instead of being helpful, making suggestions or improvements or even being grateful for the dramaless approach, accusations fly about mentoring causing the editor to violate their ban. This wikilogic is absolutely incomprehensible. I retreat again. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers I see you've recently come off an editing break of about two weeks, which means you may not have been aware of discussions that happened while you were gone. I'm going to AGF that maybe you just happened upon the discussion at ER's page, thought it looked like an editor in good standing offering to make edits on behalf of a banned editor, and decided you'd help make sure the editor in good standing understood the repercussions of what you thought she was doing. What you happened upon was a tutorial; no edits -- none, not one -- were being made on behalf of a banned editor. None. What you happened upon was a discussion on the talk page of a banned editor of what kinds of edits in a particular case should be made. These discussions were being conducted as a way to check the banned editor's understanding of WP's policies. I'm hoping this helps with this situation. --valereee (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over it, so let's let it go. My first warning ever, so that was interesting. I've posted to User talk:Valereee/ER and leave it all to you. Pinging SlimVirgin, Valereee, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl and handing over to you all now. I'm not sure the pings work from the subpage. Victoria (tk) 22:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was opposed to her unblock (and meh about the ban) but I don't agree with JLN, that she shall lose her t/p access. IMO, the mentoring (or whatever VE/Sarah calls it) shall be allowed to proceed as long as it does not actively harm the encyclopedia. ∯WBG^converse 08:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience of this editor and no opinion on the block/ban (other than my comments on the AN thread), but I also disagree with JLN. I'd consider this kind of "here's which policies you violated, do you understand now what the issue was?" discussion to fall squarely into the territory of being assisted with drafting an appeal, something for which we've always allowed blocked/banned editors to continue to use their talkpage unless they're doing so disruptively. ‑ Iridescent 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a decade in and no warnings until yesterday. JL&N admits it's an unsuccessful warning, yet I stopped. I immediately marked the discussion as closed on Elisa's page, moved it to archives, and blanked her page, so I don't understand why unsuccessful.
A bit of rant here: in my view there has to be a paradigm shift. I have no doubt the Framban is only the first, that if/when things calm down there will be others, and it's incumbent on us as a community to come to terms with what the office and T&S considers toxic and harassment. Anyone who knows me, is aware that I'm sorta overly meek, though I do speak my mind. Also some people who have been around a while will remember that back in the day I was involved in copyvio issues, Iri might remember the serial plagiarist whose work I scrubbed (and I hesitate more than I can express per BEANS to even mention any of that stuff to avoid a recurrence of the shit that hit my page back then). I did work with Moonriddengirl to an extent, she might remember me (though with her Maggie hat on she's busy and that was a long time ago), and it was from her that I learned to soften my hardline stance, that it's better to have someone tackle their own work rather than boot them off the project and have the CCIs linger. Finding the diffs for those discussions would be hard, because those they happened at least five years ago, probably a lot longer. After some skirmishes to do with copyvio in subsequent years I eventually decided to stay away from it, though I see it every day and it drives me nuts, but the conflict in that area is more than I can deal with.
Those are the thoughts I brought to the Elisa situation: 1., let's try being nicer to each other, even people who break our policies; 2. let's try teaching/mentoring instead of warning, yelling, blocking and reaching for the ban hammer. I think she learned, at least something, so in that sense the effort wasn't wasted. But still, ending it like this has left a very bad taste. In the least I would have wanted the opportunity to post a final message to her page because it's the polite thing to do. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Why I am quoting bible passages? I'm an atheist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am too, but it made me laugh and took the wind out of my sails, so thanks for it. Victoria (tk) 22:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thank you for the time you put in to tutoring and mentoring other editors. "No good deed goes unpunished." :-) – Levivich 21:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Levivich. I was a bit shaky earlier so saved it for later. Very nice, excellent blend! Victoria (tk) 00:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campin nativity detail.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Campin nativity detail.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fram Situation[edit]

I like your questions to Jan. Thoughtful and pertinent. Thanks for doing the research and putting them together. SilkTork (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, that's very kind of you to say. Too much information overload, fatigue, and feeling anxious about posting so publicly made it all come a bit mangled, but I'm thinking we have DR processes - which, admittedly aren't perfect but do exist - and wondered whether T & S followed or suggested standard DR to any of the parties involved. Re the noticeboards, the Harvard report is worth taking a look at. I don't agree with all their claims or findings, wonder about their numbers (I'm a humanities person and have trouble parsing x percent report harassment, when in fact it's a percentage of respondents, a percentage from enwp, etc., but I failed stats and think we need a statistician to take a look at the numbers). It's true that our reporting system isn't perfect but some boards, such as WP:CCI is good and should be used more. I've worked with editors re close-paraphrasing, copyvio issues and they are most difficult situations I've ever encountered here; now I stay well away. Those situations almost always require more eyes, not in the sense of getting wiki-friends to circle the wagons, but punting to others who have experience. Sorry, this got long! Victoria (tk) 13:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with that Harvard report. It appears to me they were paid to look at Wikipedia from the wrong end of the telescope. I am proud of what the Wikipedia community have created. I often relate it to other community systems, and find the Wikipedia community fairer and more proactive than most. My feeling is that other communities can learn a lot from studying the Wikipedia community with our emphasis on assume good faith, record keeping, openness and honesty, consensus, self-determination, etc. It appears to me that the Foundation find the community problematic and are looking for external ways to fix it. No community on Earth is perfect, and nobody makes claims that our community is. But we are self aware, self-reflective, and progressive. The community has developed over the years, and gets better all the time. Yes there are problems, but it's not as though we are not aware of them, and are not taking steps all the time to fix them. Ask an external company to survey the problems in our community and that organisation will ask the wrong questions and get the wrong answers. If the Foundation feels there is a problem with the Wikipedia community, the best people to speak to are the Wikipedia community, and to do it right here on Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to go through the Harvard report sentence by sentence to check its sourcing. I started but didn't get far; what I found seemed odd. I think much of it is based on this 2015 Harassment Survey which also needs to be looked at carefully. Though I haven't done the scutwork to prove, I get the sense the methodology is not so much to discover the state of the Wikipedia environment but rather to prove its toxicity. Hence leading questions, then the Harvard report with its findings, and I suspect there will be grab for noticeboards. Circumventing local governance in the Fram situation only underscores their belief that we can't police our problems - or to be more precise, the problems they perceive we have and we refuse to mitigate. Yes, I'm proud of the community too. Like all of us there are times when I'm frustrated, irritated or annoyed, but that's the nature of things. This is a place to create, filled with creative people, and for the most part we've managed a good balance that allows creative temperaments freedom to produce/contribute, without pay, and somehow we populate the main page every single day. I wonder what will happen when that house of cards tumbles? Victoria (tk) 20:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That 2015 Harassment survey was a textbook example of how effectively surveys can be played with, to generate random nonsensical statistics. See the talk-page of the survey and this blog. ∯WBG^converse 09:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, thanks for that! Another huge page to plow through. I've been fairly inactive for a few years so maybe I missed all of this, or it wasn't well advertised on enwp. Apparently also mentioned in this New York Times article from April. Which interestingly "mentions partial blocks" (bans?),

Partial blocks are active on five Wikipedias, including those in Italian and Arabic, and foundation staff members expect it to be introduced to English-language Wikipedia this year. The foundation is also in the early stages of a private reporting system where users could report harassment, Ms. Lo said.

Victoria (tk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of Partial Blocks was fairly well-discussed among the community and they indeed, lend a ear to us. Detailed information about the project may be seen over this page and there is a draft RFC, that would soon go live. If you are interested in technical details, the master phabricator task is T190350. ∯WBG^converse 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I liked the comment you struck, not the striking! I am always amazed that after 14 years I am still meeting incredible people who’ve been here all along. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg. With all due respect Jehochman, you are rather the most comical, and conceited figure in all of this. Whose side are you on just now - it seems to change minute to minute, on the filmiest, it seems, of rational, or secret evidence. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really needed to follow me here to leave such a comment? You can come to my talk page and ask me as many politely worded quests as you like and I will give you thorough answers. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil's my good wiki friend, so no fights on my page, please. You're both welcome here. Jehochman I haven't been very active for a while, am a pure content non-admin editor and tend to get overlooked. I struck because I hadn't seen Dennis Brown's proposal and there should only be a single proposal. He's got more experience and a higher profile than I. Had I seen it, I wouldn't have posted there. Apologies to everyone. Victoria (tk) 02:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the good work you’ve done. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vic. I've stayed away from commented on WP:FRAM, except to now note the delicious irony of the above JH posting given the shared hubris and sleuthing that lead to the very, very similar "Trust us we know what we are doing and you don't" blocking of User:!!. But whatever. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get it all. I made a mistake, nothing new there. I've just read what Risker wrote and can not agree with her more. There's an enormous amount at stake here, but my comment wasn't going to make an iota of difference, although I had some hope that maybe the higher ups didn't know about NYB's suggestion and thought it should be mentioned. And, honestly, how I feel about all of this. Anyway, who I am I to get involved with all of this shit? Like seriously. I just keep thinking that ENA wouldn't have been what it is without Fram's suggestions that you solicited, and I'm forever grateful to him for those. And I'm so so proud of the work you and I have done together in the past decade. Anyway, putting the computer away again - maybe for a long time now. Victoria (tk) 03:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Victoriaearle; I'm glad that what I wrote resonated with you. I just wound up writing an entire rant on my talk page - I started off by trying to address a simple question, but kind of got carried away - and I completely understand the urge to just log off and take a long break. And I really did think highly of what you wrote on Katherine's talk page. Risker (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Risker. I made of hash of things and ended up unstriking. I've always envied the ease with which you articulate difficult issues - that's not a rant. Yes, computer is going away now! Victoria (tk) 04:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the reams of commentary I mentioned that prior fiasco. I hope !! is well and happy with their new account if they have one. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman in all honesty I would have preferred not to have struck my comment but I don't like stepping on toes and it seemed that's what I'd done. That said, the issue/s you found were well-known to anyone such as myself who keeps DYK talk on watch, and they're issues that are problematic for the project's reputation, particularly in academia. More importantly, in my view what T & S did by not providing an explanation was to open the door to speculation which put an editor at risk. This needs to said, and it's not defensible. Anyway, I'm tired and now upset for putting myself forward and then making a stupid mistake by not keeping an eye on the page. Victoria (tk) 03:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Beaton[edit]

Why do you write that Beaton's book is out of copyright? It was published in the UK, crown copyright does not apply, Beaton died in 1980. This means it will be out of copyright in 2051. Or am I missing smth? Sorry for this intrusion, but I thought this might be important.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god and thanks so much for pointing out! It does sort of prove my point though about how easy it is to screw up so don't ever ever copy at all. Anyway, huge thanks for stopping by. I changed my post and will address that issue later. No apologies at all for the intrusion - it's welcome, but needed. Victoria (tk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I've understood the Hirtle chart correctly, and assuming copyright was renewed, it will be out of copyright in the US (which is what matters for enwiki purposes) in 2025, i.e. 95 years after publication. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It begs the question of why it's on archives.org? Still, I made not one but two big mistakes with the entire project watching! Not my best day, to say the least. Hopefully the soup I'm cooking will turn out better. Victoria (tk) 17:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt about archive.org, you can check who uploaded it. If it's an institution you're familiar with, there's more chance of it being okay. In this case, it was uploaded by an account called "Public Resource"—possibly the Indian government? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be public.resource.org, registered in California, which makes government information available online. It looks as though it uploaded that book on behalf of the Public Library of India. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. @SlimVirgin:: If it were published in the US, it were indeed out of copyright in the US on 1 January 2026. However, since by 1990 it was still copyrightable in the US, the copyright was restored according to URAA, and will stay until 2051. Btw if anybody needs info on a specific copyright issue, you can ask me or any other Commons admin directly (though we may of course be wrong, especially in complicated situations).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, I'm looking at the Hirtle chart: "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad → Works Published Abroad Before 1978 → 1924 through 1977 → Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal) → Copyright term in the United States: 95 years after publication date." That applies (see footnote 9) to "works first published abroad and not subsequently published in the US within 30 days of the original foreign publication. Works that were simultaneously published abroad and in the US are treated as if they are American publications." And that would still mean 95 years after publication. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, my mistake. Everything published before 1977 is indeed publication date + 95 in the US.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's easily done. It emphasizes the point Victoria is making that the best way to stay safe is to avoid any copying, no matter the apparent status of the text. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally never copy texts (except for - very occasionally - quotes), and I think this is indeed the best practice. The problem is usually images. For any user who potentially might have copyright issues or feels they do not understand copyright rules I would advise to stay clear of uploading any images, or at least asking experienced users before uploading.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point. I learned early on from working on articles about modernist literature, that images I wanted to include in articles were still under copyright. It's a difficult area to understand.Victoria (tk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 8 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 8, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth! Victoria (tk) 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents, an "Intimate, moving and respectful diptych portrait of Albrecht Dürer's parents. The Dürer family went through many hardships but remained close and Albrecht Dürer the Elder and Barbara Holfer were proud of their exceptionally talented son."! - Good to see you, also! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! A bit belated, I'm in & out. Victoria (tk) 03:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

david cooper[edit]

Victoria, no need for you to do any research, I only pinged you because you'd brought the other discussion to our attention and I thought that meant you were already familiar with it! --valereee (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry valereee, I must not have been careful with my wording. I am familiar with it but it's been a few weeks since I looked at the sources and I just need to glance at them again, not to research. There's little I can do today, but will post there momentarily. In future I'll be more careful about raising issues because I know I can't be here every day. Victoria (tk) 12:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! I just wanted to make sure you didn't go to any trouble! --valereee (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Murasaki - Mitsuoki (crop).jpg[edit]

The file File:Murasaki - Mitsuoki (crop).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh![edit]

I'd leave it. Hope you are ok - don't let the moors get you down. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little maudlin. Despite NYB's advice I was fine working on the moors, but I need more time & space & peace than I used to and it was a hectic page. So, I suppose in that sense it got me down, but I thought we were making progress and would have liked to be able to pull Eric back in. To see him leave does bother me. Thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 02:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.s - none of my business but Cambrai Madonna is a good model, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.p.s - I decided to be brave and put it back, [5]. It needs to be said but it's not a truth people necessarily want to hear. Victoria (tk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Talk:Our Lady of Vladimir/GA1 is one thing I have on hand now - interesting. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. I have that article on my watch, somehow. I'm thinking maybe since I worked on Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin. Victoria (tk) 03:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, don't get yourself down. You had a well written statement.

I don't disagree with a lot what you said, except for the part about me. I mean, I could've learned a lot about content editing from Eric; without a doubt. I just think the opportunity for me to have ever done so was lost at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games due to his hostility towards me.
You're still a friend in my book, and I agree with the remaining things you said. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, to be honest none of this really makes sense to me and we've not interacted (though I'm not around a lot so that doesn't really mean much). I had a reply to the above but first took a quick look at your contribs to see what's what (like, maybe I've missed something really important) randomly starting at the beginning of 2019. User talk:MJL/Archive 8 is an interesting read and more interesting is that there's archiving within the archives so a lot is gone from there and it's hard to follow. I note that you've been mentored. Are you still in touch with Swarm? Also I note that you've corresponded via email with GorillaWarfare so I'm wondering whether she should recuse?

Basically those discussions lessened some of my confusion re why show up at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games? Why the submit the AE I note Cassianto mentions at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games? (That was news to me). Is that the AE that got Eric blocked for a month? And I've been wondering, why open the arb case? But it's really self-evident now and so I tossed the initial response.

Re the matter at hand I'll say this: according to Google scholar Celia Haddon's work has been cited 14 times - that's fairly extensive given it's an obscure topic - and almost all of those since 2009. The Jstor page noted on that page, link, is interesting and definitely scholarly, but of course very few of us had access to Jstor in 2009. We did have access to libraries and still do; every single library in the US subscribes to the Interlibrary loan system and I suspect the same is true in the UK. Furthermore, Haddon's books about cats seems to be a red herring given that they all appear to have been published after much more recently, and let's face it books about cats sell a lot better than those about obscure historical topics. Regardless, challenging Haddon seems odd.

Still all of this is really moot, because it's not really about Cotswold Olimpick Games (an article I'd written a review for but the FAC closed before I posted it, so I'm quite familiar with the page). It's about something else that I really don't understand, but it kind of reminds me of Counting coup, a Native American practice in which young warriors/braves would swoop in and touch an enemy. It's kinda a point-scoring system and I suspect something like that's going on here.

I have a question and you don't have to answer it: what exactly do you want to get out of your Wikipedia experience? What do you want to achieve here? Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No, that case was rejected on that occasion. It was, however, a nightmare I can't wake up from ([6]), he says...and this is the second. Generally, when one's actions put one in a bad place, one stops doing them, no?! ——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I literally added this to my userpage today because apparently I haven't been clear enough about my preferred choice of pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] I'll break my response into pieces:
(0) I've seen you around. We probably haven't interacted.
(1) User talk:MJL/Archive 8 is a special archive within my archives. As mentioned in Archive 10, I made Archive 8 by just moving my talk page after getting done with my Wikibreak. I wanted to start fresh. (2) If GorillaWarfare even remembers me from the one email exchange I had with here, I'll be more than impressed. I emailed her in her capacity as an arbitrator/check user. It was a question about alternate accounts, and she informed me of the answer.
(3) Swarm is still my mentor, but he has not logged in for a few days.
(4) Despite the visible choice made by Eric to willfully ignore the editing restriction, my AE report was closed as no action. I think that even a 24 hour block then would have paid off dividends in ensuring his understanding that he needed to comply with all his sanctions. People acted like I was making a big deal of it at the time, but those sanctions took a month to implement. If he disagreed with them (or any of the uninvolved admins did as well), they were all free to file an ARCA.
(5) Eric would go on from there to violate his sanctions in other areas twice:
(5)(a) For violating his GGTF T-BAN, he was blocked for a month here.
(5)(b) After that month block, he was then found to have ignored his civility sanctions in this thread.
(6) Eric has not once stated he intends to abide by his editing restrictions nor has Eric ever apologized for his behavior.
(7)(I) As I stated in this thread, I found the article randomly. I revealed there that, yes I knew who wrote the article, but I still chose to contribute anyways.
(7)(II) I have never been placed under any editing restrictions. I have a clean block record, more than 15 thousand edits, and my only negative history was asking for a user's sanctions to be enforced.
(7)(III) I wanted to contribute my time to Cotswold Olimpick Games, and that was what I did. You said it yourself, I could've learned a lot about content creation from Eric. I didn't go there to knock him down a peg or anything. I stumbled across a featured article, reviewed the state of its sourcing, and posted my concerns on the article talk page.
(8) I am not now, nor have I ever been, Eric's enemy. I did not expect to be treated as such just for expressing my newbie concerns about an article's sourcing. It doesn't matter if Eric was right or wrong in that thread, what matters is that he chose to insult me regardless. (9) In brutal honesty, the AE report I had filed should not be news to you. It was in my case request under the previous discussions heading.
(10) If I was point scoring, as you say, then apparently I chose the wrong article talk page and circumstances to do so. (a) Eric was unblocked at the time, so he could freely respond to me. (b) If I was trying to carry on a 2 month old dispute with Eric (a fourth of the time I have been on the project for), then Talk:Moors murders would obviously be the place to do it.
(11) As I told Nick on my talk page, if you want to discuss the merits of Haddon's work; please do it at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games. That's a content, not conduct, issue.
(12) Interesting question; I want to help people write a good encyclopedia. The thing I want to get out of it is the satisfaction of playing my part and a job well done.
(13) The thing I am desperately trying to achieve here is to get the community to recognize the simple fact that Eric is not worth our time. He can write great articles, but we don't need him. I'll freely admit: no one will be able to replace him. However, at the end of the day, he has chosen to act the way he acts.

I had liked your statement because it was sincere even if disagreeable at times. It at least recognizes that I, as a human being, have the capacity to learn and grow from my experiences. That is more than I can say for some other statements made in that case page.
Regards, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So my original response would been something along the lines of this: You write The thing I am desperately trying to achieve here is to get the community to recognize the simple fact that Eric is not worth our time. He can write great articles, but we don't need him. Now here's a hypothetical for you - imagine a family gathering, Thanksgiving or something like that and all the family goes to a certain relative's house, let's say an aunt, grandmother, god-mother, something along those lines. She's a bit cranky, doesn't suffer fools, but is hands down the best cook in the family and has been since forever. At the dinner table would you consider it polite to say "she's not worth our time, we don't need her"? Or another hypothetical, imagine a church or community event, same thing, the perennially-cranky outspoken probably not-fashionable decades-older-than-you church/community member who does - fill in the blank. Is it right for the church/community to eject her for whatever that social infraction might have been? Maybe the answer is yes, maybe no, but generally tolerance goes a long way to building community strength. I get that it might be cool to hang with buds and make fun and decide to be the person to act, but sometimes those types of actions don't really pan out very well. You probably don't really understand what I'm trying to get at, and that's okay - just chalk me up to a cranky elderly lady. But please don't try to eject me from any community I choose to be part of. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, I need to specify: this is a volunteer project to write an online encyclopedia; not a loving family at thanksgiving. It only functions properly if people want to come back to it.
To answer your question: in that specific situation, I would not say that to a family member. If she was making other people in my family feel bad, then I would respectfully approach her about the situation. I'd inform her that the people she loves are being hurt by her words. Ideally, she understand what that means and try to be a bit better. If she insists on cussing out folks in my family and treating them like dirt, then I'll find a solution that works.
For example, in real life my dad is emotionally abusive to me and would rant about how terrible my mom is for hours on end. He'd yell and insult people if he didn't get his way. If I host a family gathering, I don't always invite him. There's no reason to be kind and accepting of people like that in your life.
Eric has his own reasons for being cruel to other people in his life.. or just simply abrasive. I'm bringing up my dad to explain that even when someone you love is cruel, if they hurt other people in your life then you can't accept that from them.
Maybe Eric 's not such a bad guy to you or any of his friends. I do know that more than a few people have been hurt by things Eric has said and did. We, as a community, should not tolerate people who break people down like that (unintentional or otherwise). It's hurting this project, and Eric doesn't seem to want to change for it. We can't make him change, but we can set standards for ourselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, okay, yeah, that's a pretty good answer and I commend you for your bravery in being so forthright. Re being yelled at, yeah, I get it, been there, done that. Like you, I hate being yelled at but my reaction is always to run for the hills. You answered my other question too, whether the not having any need for him is a unilateral or group decision. Group decisions make me nervous for obvious reasons, and I don't agree this is right way to go, because you never ever know what's going on with the person behind the screen (and you're right to say this isn't a family gathering, it's a stupid example but all that came to mind at the moment), so I tend be a bit Pollyanna-ish and think that maybe there's a reason or good explanation for whatever's happening. But generally my best defense is to stay out of the fray. Sadly, I haven't followed my own rules recently and here I am. Anyway, I don't agree with the RfAr but we can agree to disagree. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give up, Victoria. Mentor or no mentor, MJL is always right and the decades of combined experience telling him otherwise are always wrong. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will. For some reason I just wanted to try to understand. I don't buy that this is toxic environment and I've seen Eric be incredibly generous with his time and helping new editors. But this past week, this past summer - it is beginning to feel very toxic around here. I blame it all on the not-very-well-named T & S. Victoria (tk) 16:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) If my uncle told someone to "f off", I would ask him to leave the Thanksgiving dinner table. If he said as much to two or three different family members, I would not invite him back next year. I don't call that "cranky" or "grumpy", I call it "abusive". Sure, my uncle's feelings would be hurt if he wasn't invited to Thanksgiving, but he should have thought of that before he told someone to f off. One shouldn't ignore bullying out of concern for the feelings of the bully. – Levivich 17:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothetical scenario was that it was an aunt and more importantly she was the cook and the host. So it's a slightly different dynamic. But I already said it was a stupid example. I'm trying to get at something here, but it's not really translating well. There are cultural issues, too, that might need to be taken into consideration. But whatevs, I give up. I'm exhausted beyond belief. So I'll be the abusive cook to get out the kitchen. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.s Levivich, while we're talking about bullying, impolite behavior, harassment, etc., I thought your "I'm rolling my eyes" comment about me was really belittling and demeaning. If that's what you thought, you should have said it to my face instead of posting in a place I'd see it. It was making fun of me with a buddy behind my back. Is that cool in your book? Victoria (tk) 17:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I don't think of you as abusive in the least. Second, making fun of you with a buddy behind your back is never cool. I never imagined my comment at Talk:Moors murders#Page protection ("To be blunt, it's making me roll my eyes that we are waiting for people to get books from the library before we can fix errors sourced to online sources (i.e., waiting for FAR before the page is unprotected or changes are allowed, if that's indeed what we're waiting for).") would have made you feel belittled or demeaned. To be clear, that was in no way directed at you. That was directed at El_C (courtesy ping since I'm talking smack), specifically at the week-long page protection he put on–that's what I was rolling my eyes at, not at you. There's nothing wrong with getting books from the library, or even waiting on making changes to the stuff sourced to offline sources while others acquire the offline sources. I was objecting to waiting for that process to finish before being able to fix straightforward errors (such as changing "1997" to "1996", a small error but one that we've known about for days, that we've served to thousands of readers, but that still remains) that were sourced to online sources and easily verifiable. In no way was that intended to be a slight towards you at all; only towards El_C.

And not to nitpick, but although I have nothing but good feelings towards both of them, I don't think ether El_C or EEng would publicly admit to being my "buddy," and I don't think of an article talk page–where you're already active–as being "behind your back". Now, may I ask you a question: When EC referred to MJL as "some clown" in a conversation with another editor, was that cool in your book? – Levivich 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ether El C – so that's why there's always that funny smell about him!
I don't think ... EEng would publicly admit to being my "buddy" – Not since you broke off our engagement, but we'll always have Paris.

E Eng 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: As I argued at the EC Arbitration request, all of that is besides the point and is a distraction from EC having been penalized right after being baited and not taking the bait. I raised that point also on MJL's talk page — they did not address it my satisfaction (which is to say, at all), so I gave up discussing it with them; nor did the Committee members who accepted the request address that point, either, even after it being raised by multiple other editors, as well. All that is deeply troubling to me — as I already stated but is worth reiterating: being penalized for doing something right is just not right. There is an injustice here and it stems from the particular impetus that lead to the filing of the Arbitration case. I want that point sharpened and pointed. El_C 20:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: My apologies again that you feel I did not address your point to any degree of satisfaction. It doesn't help that I really don't think I get what the word impetus means.
Maybe I can put it in another way...
Here is evidence that Eric knows what he has been blocked for: [7]
Things you'll see in that diff: a clear articulation of what the one month block was for. What does it lack? Eric caring to any degree.
Follow up evidence: [8][9][10][11][12][13]
Analysis: Eric mocking, berating, and criticizing David Eppstein. He prefaces his comments with And at the risk of yet another block, let me be even more blunt. and asking If you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? - to me that's a form of belittling. To you, it might not be. Regardless, it is certainly not a disengagement from the conversation as required by sanctions.
David Eppstein is not a party for the simple reason that if he was; people would be focusing their pitchforks onto him as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you all are a loquacious group! Except for Levivich's cup of coffee a couple of weeks ago, I'd not interacted with any you. It feels like a whole new cohort came on board while I was off languishing and devouring books. Anyway, thanks Levivich for the explanation - I read it totally wrong. But that just proves some sort of a point, either that I'm really really overly thin-skinned (I am) or that it's easy to misread intent and nuances in meaning in this medium, or maybe a combination of both.

Re the clown comment, no not cool, you know it, we all know it. But there's this edit that no one has acknowledged, so I see it as a bark being worse than bite situation and the encyclopedia benefited from the new source which might (depending, I suppose on stance) ameliorate the clown comment. Certainly clown does not equal an arb case to El C's point.

Furthermore, in my view, there was very much a whiff of pile on, lots of people flocking to Moors murder (plus I don't know David Eppstein so not following that thread at all), and then the Cotswold Olympick Games, and it all seemed just a wee bit premeditated. I could be totally wrong of course. A couple three years ago I had a serious problem with my watchlist not loading and had to dump all 2000 or so watched pages and start from scratch; neither of those pages were re-added so I've not been following what's going on. I just happened to see an edit summary on someone's talk page (or maybe it was section header) that seemed provocative. Regardless, there seems to be a bit more animosity against someone for not reacting than is warranted, and if the expected reaction isn't forthcoming then it's easy to wind it up. That is not cool. For some reason I'm reminded of when Mattisse was around.

Anyway, I'm not around tomorrow, so apologies if I don't keep replying. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have 77,637 pages on your watchlist — so close to 77,777! El_C 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I'd go for the 77,777! Watchlists sort of annoy me, and I'm always pruning, trying to keep it down. I also think it's the best way to stay out of the fray - not that it did me any good this time! Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to see this thread, and thought I'd add my cranky-old-lady perspective, based on long experience and a role within this community that periodically requires me to delve into ancient history, particularly contentious ancient history. I know it is difficult for newer editors to believe, but the Wikipedia of 2019 is infinitely less hostile than the Wikipedia of 10-12 years ago. It is a much nicer place to be, and interactions are generally significantly less aggressive. Having said that, society writ large, and our own internal climate, has become less forgiving of many of the aggressive behaviours that were not only commonplace, but routine, in the past. I'm not an admin who spends a lot of time carrying out civility monitoring or blocking people for being nasty, but one of my recent specialized activities took me to some pages where there were very contentious discussions more than a decade ago, and frankly it makes even the nastiest comments and statements on recent contentious discussions look like a walk in the park; I would have been tempted to block at least 30 accounts - and they included administrators, arbitrators, bureaucrats, and some of the "leading editors" of the day. So yeah, there's still unpleasantness out there, but we must keep in mind that the current status reflects that community standards have changed faster than users have moderated their behaviour. Which, I suppose, is pretty similar to just about everything else around here: it's exactly why FAs from 10 years ago which have barely been modified are no longer "up to snuff" as FAs, why RFA expectations are in a constant state of flux, and why it's almost impossible to recruit good quality candidates for Arbcom. Risker (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker! Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I agree and that's why in the midst of all of this I was reminded of Mattisse (and ILT and others) and just blurted that out. Things have gotten better, FA sourcing is more stringent (though we really do need to have a big FAR drive in my opinion), I missed the "easy" RFA days altogether. Change is never fast, easy or painless, particularly in an environment like this, but I remember bringing students through here in 2009/10 and deliberately steering them in certain directions. Still Indian Camp (incidentally GA reviewed by Mattisse) was a project that began in a classroom, so was Edmund Evans (same GA reviewer and incidentally plagiarized by students in successive semesters) and in retrospect I still think more good than bad came from efforts like that. But maybe age is making the "good old days" look better than they were. Dunno. Btw - since you're here: re your comment at the arb noticeboard I've always thought content creators represent a deep pool of talent that's never been tapped for the committee. The bottle neck is RfA and & pure content creator doesn't stand much of a chance of passing, but does understand the the dynamics of most the content disputes that give rise to many cases. Not that an idea like that will go anywhere but thought I'd mention it. Best, Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I can say that while I do recognize that Wikipedia in 2019 is many times better than the Wikipedia of before my arrival... it really doesn't say much. We're just so far from where we should be. The things I have experienced in the last week should never happen to anyone. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I love the Thanksgiving dinner simile. It is apt for collaborative Wikipedia work. Most families that continue a multiple generational holiday tradition have, one way or another, worked out how to have huge disagreements without being being disagreeable. Mostly by learning where the sticking point is for each individual. Those who don't usually opt out on their own—no bureaucracy required. Rather than calling the police, go out for dinner at Ted's, in several groups, if necessary. — Neonorange (Phil) 00:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit Norman Rockwell but the point I wanted to get at is that Thanksgiving (for lots of folks), graduations, weddings, funerals, community/church events are all social events that, for whatever reason, problem children & difficult relatives etc are included & social mores & manners seem to have unspoken rules for ignoring their infractions. I could be wrong though and maybe more of our social fabric is fraying than I've been aware of. Age, ya know! Thanks, btw, Neonorange, for stopping by & thanks for the tending the articles I never get to anymore. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are! El_C 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the EC pantomime at AE[edit]

Hi Victoria, hope you're well. This is a great statement which I'm sure many people can resonate with. I've noticed a decline of personal thanks on talk pages of late, aided and abetted by the very cold and generic "thanks" button which carries many different nuances, so I thought I'd drop by and say it personally. People just don't seem to talk to one another nowadays. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 08:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass, I appreciate it. I absolutely loathe arb cases and posting anything over there, so I was conflicted but in the end that's what came out without giving it much thought. Johnbod's nudge helped too. Couldn't agree with you more re the notifications/thanks - I abhor the system. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, thank you, Victoria, and you, Cassianto, for the personal note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too Gerda. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2019[edit]

Per Ceoil's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, the best course would be that for me to suck it up and shut up, but it's happened before; in fact the exception is Ealdgyth's notification (see up page). In my view, the atmosphere on Wikipedia is very divisive at the moment and we should be acknowledging productive editor collaborations, because they rarely happen. Ceoil and I had a good run at collaborations (sadly, not something I'm capable of or will be in the future) and I'm proud of the work we achieved. His page is not my page; he and I are two separate editors. He received this notification from Wehwalt. You complimented him ("Great work") and invited him to edit the blurb. "Per Ceoil's talk page" is ... just ... well whatever. And now I'm making a fuss, which embarrasses me. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intimate that you fall towards reservedness rather than assertiveness. I'm diplomatically challenged, shall we generously say. I could detail all the precise reasons you should have been notified (co-nom at FA, significant contributor, etc), but I'm certain you know those. Hence your upset. I could lambast Wehwalt and Dank for the oversight, but, hmm, white-knighting much. Instead, what I'll do, despite it feeling entirely inadequate, is read the article tomorrow (I should be in bed, it's past mid-night – so technically, later today). That's one more read that you and Ceoil receive for an article you've both poured your efforts into. Thank you for your work, lest that too be overlooked, as the notification was. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr rnddude for the offer, but it's not worth your effort. It was a difficult article; difficult FAC, a full 50/50 collab. But it's not worth the fuss. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my only comment is that yes, like FAR, it might be an idea that all nominators are notified, as an improvement idea for, let’s be honest, volunteers of a thankless role. That said, Dan is not a scheduler, he has taken on the role of condensing often long and complex leads down to the word limit. And with considerable skill.

anyways, Victoria, am late to the party, but to say that your comments on the arb case brought against Eric resonated, and were very elegantly stated. Yet re MJL, and competence in general, we ‘’’are’’’ the encyclopedia anybody can edit, one undergoing a fundamental crisis of how to balance quality control mechanisms with editor and article growth rate metrics. I remember, when I turned up here first, being schooled, to varying degrees of kindness and tact, by Marksell and Death2, I think successfully with regard content at least, haha.

Maybe I was just lucky, but my staying here was in large part because they put in the time and effort, and I wanted to repay and impress...a feat that was daunting and time consuming to say the least. The complicating factor here is that Eric has traditionally been very encouraging towards new editors, which is seemingly being lost, dunno. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get it. I should shut the fuck up. But but, there's this. I'm not always here and you know why. If you're saying that I'm beating up on MJL, it's too bad my efforts above come across that way. I showed up later than you and the people to pitch in to show me the ropes were Awadewit, Yllosubmarine, Malleus, Modernist, your buddy whose name I can't remember (Lithoderm?) who taught me how to upload images, Johnbod, Sandy & Karanacs, and then of course there's you & the many collabs we've had. And now here we are, me a cranky old lady simply wanting a calendar reminder. Somehow I thought we had templates for that? Anyway, seriously, I'm so so sorry & brought it to your page & offended you & embarrassed myself. Apologies, too, to anyone else I've offended. Victoria (tk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(tk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your plea for dismissal was very moving and articulated a point of view that is evidently widely present but unrepresented and silent. Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offering, so to speak[edit]

Consider this proof that I read the article instead of skimming through, rather than a critique. And having read it, I should note it was near effortless to do. I did expend some slight effort in not getting (too) distracted by the accompanying artwork. Overall, it's a damn good article.

Provenance

On their return the Adornes brothers funded ... - I can't help escape the feeling that a comma "," should be placed after return.

Figures

The representation of Christ in the guise of a Seraph with three pairs of wings, is an unusually fantastical element for van Eyck's normally reserved sensibility - Odd comma placement? I'm guessing its there because of cite 20, but it doesn't appear to belong.

Landscape

Turin-Milan Hours - is currently wikilinked at second mention in prose, instead of first.

Attribution

... usually one of the most important factor in attributing ... - Factor should be plural, should it not?

Ludwig von Baldass - *snickers*

There are three possibilities; the panels are van Eyck originals; they were completed by workshop members after his death from one of his underdrawings; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of Eyckian motifs - Perhaps there's a reason for this punctuation, but I would have expected the first semicolon ";" to be a colon ":", and the following semicolons to be commas ",".

I enjoyed the read, though its on a subject I know little about. I have Ceoil and Attic Salt to thank for what little I do know about Netherlandish art with their article on Gothic boxwood miniatures. I had the distinct temptation of being cheeky and putting "per Victoria's talk page" on Ceoil's usertalk. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr rnddude for taking the time for this! I'll make some tweaks before it runs. When it comes to comma usage I'm a bit dyslexic and sometimes the AmEng & BrEng punctuation rules get tangled. And there are always the inevitable typos. Another set of eyes is always helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree[edit]

Hello Victoriaearle,

Having read your post(s) at the EC arb discussion, I just wanted to say thank you. I thought you were not only eloquent, but accurate. Personally, considering how everything was handled behind closed doors, I'll have a tough time having faith in, or even believing in, Arbcom again. Using the "privacy policy" as a shield is shameful, but I suspect that T&S is now pulling their strings. In looking at these past few weeks, I have to say I don't believe it bodes well for the project. But then again it seems they (WMF) are much more interested in "Movements" and "harmonization sprints" (whatever that is) than they are in the "projects" that fund their little vacations. — Ched (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ched I meant to reply to this instead of hitting the thanks button and then didn't get back for a while. I've not been following a thing since you posted this, so I need to catch up to see what's happening. Re Eric, yes, I have issues with how that was handled but there are only so many battles in life that can fought. Unfortunately. Thanks for stopping by, long time no see. Hope all is well. Best, Victoria (tk) 20:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my best. hugs. — Ched (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I hit 'rollback' instead of thank on one of your comments. I have a script to block that option out but it did not. Sorry. Jbh ^Talk 17:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. Thanks for stopping by and explaining. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 4, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. Very exciting! Looking forward to it. Victoria (tk) 20:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for what you and Ceoil did for the article! - I haven't yet taken a person to FA but would like to try for Jessye Norman, a towering grande dame. I didn't write the article, thanks go mostly to 4meter4. Any help welcome, prose finding refs, formatting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! And thanks, too, to Ceoil and everyone else. I missed it, but it's still there and well so I assume no problems. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very rewarding collaboration. I remember it like we were detectives...van Eyck is enigmatic and elusive at the best of times, and then throw in the two versions. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish I still had energy for work like that, but I don't so I can't have regrets. I am happy we did as much as we did during those years. Victoria (tk) 00:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All that is right[edit]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I felt that you truly deserved this for your help and tutorial to Elisa. Real going the extra mile :) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I enjoyed it. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you again for your comments about the Jill Valentine article. I am still trying to grow as a writer and an editor and learn how to better respond constructive feedback. I am actually quite proud of the work put into the article, and a large part of it is from your suggestions. I also wanted to apologize for being a pain in general. I do have a great deal of respect for you as an editor. I am sure you do not need me to tell you this, but your work on here is very much valued. As someone who has taken a few years of Japanese-language classes and is currently trying to jump back into my language studies, your work on the Murasaki Shikibu article is my personal favorite. Anyway, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47 thanks, this is nice. I like the Murasaki work too, but the The Diary of Lady Murasaki has been sitting unfinished for years. One of these days I'll get the sources to finish it. You should be proud of the work on the Jill FAC; it's coming along nicely. I've always been proud of the ones that came out of FAC a much better article than before. It's one of the reasons that FAC is rewarding. To be honest, I'm not great at constructive criticism either so you're not alone in that category. Best, Victoria (tk) 21:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Hi Victoria, you said you'd be willing to scan some of the source pages. I wouldn't mind seeing them if you can do it without much work for yourself. It's mostly Topping I'm looking for. I have Staff although it's Staff 2013; I don't know how much difference that will make. I'm interested in the points tagged on 14 August as failed verification. Perhaps I should list the page numbers I want to look at. However, please do this only if you can without a huge amount of trouble. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be Topping pages 10, 13, 22, 34–39, 72–75, 82–85, 90–92, 95–96, 107, 120–124, 223. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, whatever you are able to scan for Sarah I'd be keen to take a look at too, but please don't go to any additional trouble. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To save Victoria the trouble I'll be happy to do it this afternoon, assuming that won't be interpreted as yet more bullying on my part. E Eng 09:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have Triptothecottage's email address I've sent the scans to him/her, and no doubt he'll be happy to pass them on to whoever else wants them. E Eng 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm actually really bad at scanning, but I gave it a try and was just logging in to report back. So, thanks EEng, that's really kind of you. I always forget to adjust the resolution setting so I had to break into two files and the first is <cough> large. You've probably done a better job than I have. Also I forgot to mention that I transcribed some it and pasted to my sandbox a few days ago, but that's really labor intensive. P.s EEng, no, I wouldn't interpret it as bullying. It's nice. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.s EEng I wanted to do this a., to share sources, and b., to get more sets of eyes. I don't like divisiveness and "he said, she said" situations and I'm willing to accept that others might not see what I'm seeing. Also, I get why you wouldn't want to use Topping, but doesn't everything that's known about the case originate with Hindley and Brady? Victoria (tk) 21:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Lee (2010) notes, the early efforts of the police were not particularly adept, and Benfield, in pursuit of a promotion, inflated his own role in events in subsequent accounts. And, as EEng has pointed out somewhere in the thousands of bytes of conversation over the last few months, Topping made his name for his single-minded pursuit of the case, including suggesting Brady and Hindley be forcibly hypnotised to assist with locating the later body. It is reasonable to expect his account would be similarly distorted. And yes, I know I’ve used Benfield to “verify” some points, so I’d welcome those being closely examined as well. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triptothecottage, can you say what you mean by "similarly distorted"? I'd have thought a single-minded pursuit of that case would be viewed as an honourable thing. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Topping's an honorable source, but rather a reliable source. E Eng 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I’m not impugning Topping’s honour, whatever that might mean. But even honourable people are subject to biases, and if we don’t recognise, assess and deal with these, then we are not doing our jobs. One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of Topping’s perspective becoming the slant of our supposedly neutral article. For example, the 15 August version said Smith became "reviled by the people of Manchester", despite having been instrumental in bringing Brady and Hindley to justice, cited to Topping. Now I read this and hear alarm bells, and sure enough as I flick through the Topping pages EEng has kindly sent, I find such gems as David Smith, young, naïve and impressionable (22) and Ian Brady’s background was... nowhere near as tough or as cruel as David Smith’s (23). These are the characterisations of a police chief trying to defend his badly behaved star witness, and, as one who rather enjoys the police memoir genre in my leisure reading, I am familiar with this kind of unsubtle “good guy bad guy” storytelling. But our article, by policy, needs to be more neutral than that, and when better sources are available, we ought to use them. In that case, I was fortunate to have Bingham’s scholarly assessment of the public reaction to Brady’s testimony; not every aspect of this case has been subject to the same scrutiny, but many have. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triptothecottage, thanks for the reply. Topping is an excellent primary source. Like all primary sources, his book has to be used with care by editors familiar with the secondary sources. What rings alarm bells for you over Smith being "reviled by the people of Manchester", despite being instrumental, etc? Also, Smith was young and impressionable (he was 17 when he witnessed the murder), and he does seem to have had a more deprived childhood than Brady. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such evaluations should come from sources not personally involved in the case. At p223 Topping says, "To those politicians and journalists who criticized the Moors search, who talked scathingly about searching for a needle in a haystack and complained about the cost of the search, to them I would like to say: look at Mrs Reade. We could never bring her daughter back [etc etc]. I believe the Moors inquiry team have many things to be proud of [etc etc]". Then he goes on to congratulate his team for their thorough search for Kilbride and so on. You can't blame Topping for being somewhat self-serving in places -- it's inevitable and understandable -- but there's no way we should be using him as a fact source except with "great caution", as they say. E Eng 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. At some point we should transfer this thread to Talk:MM.[reply]

I agree with transferring to article talk; a lot of the points made here a very informed and cogent, and as they cover issues that may arise again in the future, would be good to have for the record. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the above (less some preliminaries) to Talk:MM [14]; further comments should be made there. E Eng 21:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its a discussion worth preserving. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it's my talk and if someone comes here to request sources I'll reply here. Fwiw, I finally sent the pages SV requested tonight - after all this time. I did mean to post replies to the above, haven't been ignoring, simply haven't gotten to it (yes, I know, I'm slow), but I'll let it go. I don't completely agree with all the points above though, fwiw. Also, Ceoil this is true. I have limits. Victoria (tk) 00:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not okay. It's my page, it isn't indexed and I'm aware of that when I make a decision about what to post here and what to post on a publicly available page. The next time you all decide to move a thread from here to a public page please give me a reasonable amount of time to chime in. Does the entire world need to know that I can't freaking scan a book?? Not happy about having this done. Victoria (tk) 00:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Ceoil, will send scans to you too. Delete if you don't want them. Logging off now.Victoria (tk)[reply]

No one objected between EEng suggesting it on 3 October and Ceoil replying on 12 October. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable. But I've trimmed the talk page discussion because the first few comments aren't really relevant to Topping anyway. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was why do you need angst on your talk when you are mainly a peacekeeper in a rather fraught and political discussion. As such EE's offer seemed best. If i was Victoria in this situation, bombarded with woe, i would be pretty fed up and want to move on. Agree with EE on this one, like if we do just that. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the fraught and political discussion because it's been made clear again and again that my opinion is meaningless. It's better to have that dumped here than on a public page. I use my own name & am sensitive, like. I had meant to respond earlier & haven't gotten to it. Stuff happens. But I won't join the fray there. Not cross with you, btw, and yeah, want to move on. Victoria (tk) 01:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, that it all is now washing up here is a mark of how you are respected here. Miserable as that honor might seem, you did the research, earned respect, and made bridges. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would prefer that my posts not be copied to that talk page. If I'd wanted to post there, I would have done it. There's nothing useful to the article in those posts, and being told that "further comments should be made there" crosses the line. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this: (and I don't want this moved), before I replied I was curious to see whether there would be a reply to this question, because from what I've read, not only in the sources I've scanned but in others and from memory of living there at the time was that Smith was very much reviled. Plus the sources are clear re Brady & Smith's backgrounds; one was born to a single mother, fostered to a family who was by all accounts quite loving (perhaps not, but we only have the sources we have), moved from city-center Glasgow to the new council houses, had food, clothing, etc., & became a serial killer. The other lived in deep poverty in late 50s, early 60s Manchester, basically lived on the streets, was arrested for knifing someone at age 11, other offenses along the way, got a girl pregnant as a teen, and yet was the one to pick up the phone to call the police. But, and this is important, these are issues that our article doesn't address, so saying the one source is completely unreliable seems odd, when everything we know about the murders comes from the murderers and police documents. For whomever is interested or can see it, here's an interesting article about how primary documents can be misinterpreted, no matter who does the interpreting, [15]. According to that's authors logic, all the sources have some bias, which is basically true. If it were me, I'd add a background section explaining where the information came from, as I've done with other biographies, or maybe even a historiography section, because there have been reinterpretations over the years and even since Malleus & PoD took it to FAC. Plus I'd split out the sections re Brady & Hindley's backgrounds into daughter articles. But I've made some of these suggestions before. Anyway, looking at my contribs, I've only been editing briefly where I had to; i.e, previous commitments (a TFA, a mentoring project) since this discussion was started & the question re moving was posed, so it's not as is if I've been lallygagging around. I honestly just haven't gotten to it. Victoria (tk) 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I'd add a background section explaining where the information came from, as I've done with other biographies, or maybe even a historiography section, because there have been reinterpretations over the years and even since Malleus & PoD took it to FAC. Plus I'd split out the sections re Brady & Hindley's backgrounds into daughter articles. Both of these suggestions make a lot of sense.

I'm still not sure you understand what I'm getting at with Topping, though. I'm not saying he's wrong about Smith, for example. I'm not even saying he's completely unreliable. But saying that everything we know about the murders comes from the murderers and police documents is not a good reason to depend on one of those primary sources for our objective article. There are secondary sources which have done the job for us of assessing the quality of primary evidence and compiling an overall narrative of the events. That is why we shouldn't be depending on the police chief's characterisations. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that. I mentioned months ago, way back in August, that I'd tried to access those sources with zero luck. I ordered the books from the library to take a look and that's what arrived; now that I've not gotten out of the house for almost two weeks to return them I have serious library fines. In the meantime, I get that you all are using other, maybe better sources. I can't get at those sources. But basically it's a meaningless argument because the article has turned into a wall garden, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I get why Ceoil wanted to move conversation away from here, but being pushed away at every turn with a nice pat on the head gets tiring to say the least. Plus, those good suggestion: also made months ago. Victoria (tk) 02:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Victoria and Sarah. I made an error of judgement. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, thanks for saying that and for trying to remove it from the other page. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you'd think I might not want the discussion here, and I did need a nudge. I'd just finished making the scans late the night before (and reading the sources) so I would have posted soon. Sorry that you got sucked in, both of you. Victoria (tk) 19:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pfff, of all the actors here, you come out as the most integral. Re the move...doh. I didnt look before I leaped. My bad, End of story. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no talk[edit]

Well, its only been several weeks, but feel like I've been a stranger on this talk. All is well here; its a bit drizzely, the feared hard Brexit doesnt seem as likely, and there ~~are~~ was some attractive candidates up for arbcom elect. I see you and Sarah are doing excellent work in mentoring and tutoring. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. I've been out for the usual reasons and have to attend a funeral next week so dunno when I'll get back here. Haven't really been keeping up but did poke my head in for a moment this evening, so your timing is good. Ping btw. Hope all is well with you & Kafka Liz! Victoria (tk) 22:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All is well for us; we have been going to scenic health spas and stuff, which I love, to my surprise (think isolation chamber) but its been a bit rainy here for my liking; although at least we dont get the weather extremes ye have. I have the usual gripes about wiki, but am trying for a softer, more conciliatory persona. If I succeed, and only focus on the editors that are worthwhile to my mind, I expect not to have an overdue massive hearth attack, and perhaps live 10 years longer thn the internet clock of doom suggests. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health spas sounds nice; rainy not so nice. That said, we've had cold cold and snow, so rain wouldn't be terrible. I've been forced to separate, divorce, (???) from Wikipedia for a short time, so can't really add much on that front. Though I have seen the arb candidate list and will vote this year. Hoping to get back here by xmas maybe? Or the new year. Had a small setback in the health dept, but nothing serious. Only annoying. Victoria (tk) 00:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know that I care. Be well and looking forward to chatting soon. At heart, I am an auld, curtain twitching, gossip, and as you are especially bringt, and insightful, well....Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, sharing links with the especially well informed Martin Evans is bout the only thing on wiki that gives me joy. My only achievement in the last few weeks has been having my mind split open by Captin Beefeheart drums. Ceoil (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies for belated reply! I haven't really been online (though I did manage to chose a couple of candidates for the arbitration committee). Hoping to get back here sooner than later. At the rate I'm going all my articles are deteriorating at an alarming rate; it's downright scary to see what happens if an editor isn't around to tend to FAs. Oh well, it is what it is. Hope all is well on your side of the ocean. Victoria (tk) 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: ooh, I see the Beaune will be TFA during Christmas week. Very exciting! Though I am slow on the uptake these days. Victoria (tk) 22:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All is well on this side of the ocean.[16] I upvoted 6 candidates, and downvoted none, this time around. Yes, see Beaune. Of course am watching your articles also (friends are for); so only midely worried... a run through should be enough. Ceoil (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to know you're watching. A run through might do it, but I haven't been able to manage even that much. Might give it try, though, in tiny bits. Re Beaune: I changed the top image here because the colors seemed odd and it had gotten even bigger, taking up a full screen on my laptop so that I had to scroll to see any text. I probably should have taken it to talk or sought consensus or somesuch, but couldn't. So punting it to you. I don't look forward to a fight re image sizes on Dec. 28th when I'll have visitors and a full house. Well, basically if that happens I might just ignore it. Anyway, glad to hear all is well on your side of the water. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that I appreciate, but hopefully will never fully comprehend, the physical difficulties you are coping with. But as always its great to see you look up to breath air and chat; frankly I feel honoured. Ceoil (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This. I agree, to avoid a war. Maybe shrink down a bit for the day, something like your goat? I might fiddle with it a bit and will try to run through before the day but no promises. Plus, I have a different computer now and none of the formatting on those articles looks the same as it did when I worked on them.

I'm okay, had a setback for a bit, and life got a little busy for a month or so - it's easier to step away during those times than stack up too much work for myself. Right now I'm in full on humbug, grinch mode. In case you're interested :). Victoria (tk) 21:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have made steps to minimize the likelihood of collateral damage on Beaune. Anyways I'm all all bout humbug, get than entirely; its always great to see you around, and appreciate that your last few posts were straight talking. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, thanks. Do you think the ones that are set to 300px should be decreased temporarily? I really don't want to deal with image size wars or info box wars, or other stupid MoS formatting wars on the day. Won't be in the mood for it. How's that for straight talking? Victoria (tk) 22:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPS request[edit]

I need access to some old notes and am hoping they might have been stashed in a sandbox before I have to start tearing out my hair and hope I haven't lost all my material from a computer that crashed a year or so ago. If any admin talk page stalkers see this, I'd like to have these two sandboxes undeleted, if at all possible.

Huge thanks in advance! Victoria (tk) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks Favonian!! The notes I'd hoped to find are right there at the top of the page. Whew! Victoria (tk) 18:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit notes for Beaune Altarpiece[edit]

Hello, Victoriaearle! I hope you are well.

I'm the lead coordinator at GOCE (until the end of the year) and thought I would take the time to go over what I would have done in a copy edit of Beaune Altarpiece. I've left detailed notes on the article talk page. I haven't changed the article itself except to add alt text for the images. Read it at your leisure. I found the article to be well written, and only found minor issues. Some of it is very nit-picky stuff; please receive it constructively. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm actually gone for the rest of the year, but I'm one of two co-nominators so I'm sure it'll get done. I must have quite the reputation if in our first ever communication I'm asked to receive criticism constructively :). Victoria (tk) 21:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No, it's because my notes were so long (50 notes, 2,200 words). Please take care of yourself, and best wishes for the new year. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with both the Beaune blurb as it stands now, and the recent copy editing activity by yourself. Dunno if I mentioned already, but have resized the lead image to avoid inevitable strife. Note also, a certain recently privatized Irish telecommunications co. has been spotty recently, and dead altogether for the last 36 hours, hence the silence. Also Boris. So you can imagine my crankiness level. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I burned out on it and then this long thread landed. Can't do work on it atm and unclear whether the powers that be expect us to get all this done by the 28th?? Yes. Boris. Not a surprise, but still. Crankiness abounds. Victoria (tk) 20:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am about to get blocked, beligerant as usual, but a good hill to die on. All well here otherwise. Unusually clement for December. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a steep hill. Steeper than I can climb. Glad to hear about the clement weather. We have snow in the forecast. But it's December, so I suppose that's to be expected. Victoria (tk) 02:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, now that Ceoil is blocked, I will work on that list. Some of it is useful; all of it is nitpicking that could have been left for mainpage day. It is clear that Reidgreg is a competent copy editor (which I doubt can be said for most of GOCE, unless it has significantly changed), but that kind of nitpicking on one of our better FAs (there are some real doozies being promoted daily, where prose is below GA level) reveals a purpose that would be better employed at FAC and FAR or on the more deficient FAs. TFAs do not have to be perfect, your posts at TFAR are spot on, and with the TFA process attempting to take on something they call "mainpage readiness", the result has been a demise in reviewing at both FAC and FAR. TFA is feeding a negative cycle; now the GOCE is feeding it in another way. Mainpage day is a good day for recruiting new participants in FAC and FAR.

I will work on the uncontroversial in the list. Should you have time to indicate which copyediting suggestions are debateable (per source-text integrity), I'll be sure to leave those alone. If you do not have time, I will just approach the list conservatively. Stay well, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my out to an appointment but before I go I need to vent. First thanks so much for jumping in. The issue for me is that this simple request resulted in more time on talk pages than working on the article - a serious problem for someone with extremely limited time here. Slimvirgin tried to jump in and we got these types of replies - she's now involved in a MOS cite thread I've been pinged to and can't get to. (But pinging her so we can bring all the issues together). Every time I tried to work on the article I lost edits to edit conflicts, and added an inuse template here and here. The second time I lost about an hour's worth of work, and I don't have that type of time, and I lost it to the addition of these alt descriptions which aren't required and not how I would have written them. The minute I removed the template to make my way into the kitchen - you know that place where women go to put food on the table for the family?? - this huge thread landed which just made me want to cry. Aside from having carve out bits of time when I'm well enough to get here to edit, I feel that way too much time has had to be spent on talk pages, on edit conflicts, on conflict in general, just for what?? Anyway, this is a huge vent, so sorry, but I wanted to put it all in one place. I'm more than happy to pitch in later if/when I can because I don't want to make work for others and because I know the literature, I know why we made some of the choices we did. Will check back later I suppose. Victoria (tk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a dreadful situation; knowing how much I hate edit conflicts and lost work, I can begin to imagine how you feel. The unfortunate thing is the extreme time sink. I have my eyes on multiple truly deficient FAs, and wonder why we don't see editors like this GOCE person involved there instead. Hang in there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On good days, which are rare these days, an hour is the most I can give to Wikipedia but it's really best to stay away. I have tried to answer some of those points, but would rather have spent the time on the article. You are a saint for jumping in. As is Sarah and Yomangani and everyone else who has helped. If I didn't think this article is such a good choice for Christmas week I would have asked that we not have to do so much work in advance. As it is, I'm not terribly happy, but it's good to see that old collaborative spirit again. Victoria (tk) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s all try to have a blessèd holiday. I already burnt the blonde brownies; hope I don’t screw the beef tenderloin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a big pot of spaghetti sauce this afternoon; kids start arriving tomorrow (well, they're adults now!) and I'm just looking forward to having the family together for the next week. After tomorrow when I go to the airport for a pickup, I really really want to be out of here until the holidays are over. Haven't even started the meal-planning yet or the shopping, but it'll all get done. I've had to give up chocolate, so blonde brownies sound really good! Victoria (tk) 21:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your TFA day is the 28th (April Fools' Day in Venezuela :), I think you're in very good shape. The loose ends can be tied up over the next week easily. I will remember to watch, as this has been so unnecessarily painful.

I have no family this year :( But I am hosting a party at my house for 200 this Friday … more intimidating than cooking for family, since I Don't Do Food! Chocolate abounds, though. You take care; I feel like the issues have settled down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done now, the rest will be done on TFA day or someone else will come along before then. Thanks again so much for your help. I couldn't host 200! The thought would make me break out in hives. Good luck with that. I'm seriously impressed. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had help in past years, but this year I am alone and losing sleep over how I will handle it, as I have too much to do alone. No hives yet, but I am sure losing sleep for worry. Burning $200 worth of tenderloin is not out of the question for me ! I just looked at the blurb (which is gorgeous), and left a query … because I'mADork. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to bail & wasn't able to reply. Hope all went well and the meat survived. So sorry you're alone, though it's a lot of work having family in the house. Have a great holiday season. Victoria (tk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging Sarah (I got the ping wrong and mentioned the location issue in the post above). Victoria (tk) 15:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod! Victoria (tk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat! Victoria (tk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia![edit]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much & for all your hard work! Victoria (tk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

What a nice surprise and thanks so much Shearonink. Hopefully we can get to Martha Washington this year! Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings![edit]

Faithful friends who are dear to us

... gather near to us once more.

May your heart be light

and your troubles out of sight,

now and in the New Year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, this is lovely. Made me tear up. Thanks so much. I hope your roast wasn't overly roasted and that your party went well and that your Christmas Day was nice and calm. Many good wishes for the year to come. It's great to see you popping up on my watchlist again! Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Thought I'd take this opportunity to send you a long overdue thanks for all your help with my FAC this year. Wishing you and all your loved ones a happy and healthy holiday season and 2020. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Homeostasis07. Glad it all worked out in the end. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist, so good to see you around again! Best wishes for the holidays and the year ahead. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Forward to 2020

missing Brian ...

Thank you for Beaune Altarpiece, a large "polyptych altarpiece painted by Rogier van der Weyden c. 1445–50. The work was comissioned by Nicolas Rolin and his wife Guigone de Salins as the centerpiece for a hospice at Beaune in France, a region then undergoing decimation from bubonic plague. Patients were not expected to survive their stay; the work served a dual function; comforting the dying with its choice of saints Sebastian and Anthony (both of whom were associated with assisting those suffering from plague), while its exterior Last Judgment panels acts as moralising reminders of the pitfals of sin. - Rolin undertook the commission well aware of his age and mortality, and "having put aside human cares [and] thinking of my own salvation..." set aside large parts of his fortune to care for the dying. Afer his death, de Salins carried on the project, and is buried before the alterpiece's origional position in the church."! - I noticed on my watch list that it wasn't all peace about the nom for this beautiful work, but am sad to see you "retired". Take all the time of rest you need, but don't leave is wompletely without your knowledge, skill and kindness, Bad enough having to miss Brian, Peter Schreier, ... too many in 2019 who died. Best wishes for your health and happiness in 2020! - Would you know a painting to illustrate Angels' Carol? It could be almost abstract, radiance and light. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, thanks so much. Sometimes some of your silent thank yous make me laugh so thanks for making me smile when I don't particularly feel like smiling. Yes, I'm trying to take time & rest now and will continue to for as long as I need. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that makes me smile now ;) - I do hope that you give me reasons to click thank-you from time to time. If you feel like reading, Clara Schumann might be for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my thanks, Victoria, for this carefully presented article and all the interesting detail it includes. I'm really pleased to see it has resurfaced on today's main page. Despite your retirement notice, you seem to have become more active in recent months which, I hope, indicates your health has been improving. May I also take this opportunity of wishing you all the best for the New Year.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ipigott, that's very kind of you. The retired seems to be necessary to limit my activity here, but I hope to be able to get back to work in 2020. At least that's my New Year's resolution! Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beaune Altarpiece fracas[edit]

I didn't have much of an opportunity to follow up at the talk page there and I think the comments I have to offer are better kept off a working talk page but do have want to explain to Gog the Mild and Reidgreg why I behaved so badly over this situation.

To be clear, the issue of being furious, mentioned here, is that I'm was and still am to some large extent furious at myself. Furious for a spectacular lack of self-control, furious for letting myself be pulled into a situation I knew I couldn't handle, furious at Wikipedia which should be about fun and not pressure, and furious at myself for devolving into a two-year-old who badly needed a timeout. I owe both of you, and really everyone else who had to watch, a sincere, heartfelt apology. I'm not proud of how I acted <she says, hanging her head>.

When asked to hold off bringing in GOCE, it wasn't because of WP:OWN issues, though by the end it certainly came across that way, but because I knew I'd need a lot of time to get through that article, and I knew it was beyond my capability. (If any of you need explanations I blurted out the personal issues here). I was still going through the article when Reidgreg showed up, we edit conflicted here, and his comments landed shortly after, which felt like an immense amount of pressure.

I like to get a lot of comments like that, I appreciate the time spent looking at the article and writing them up and they're incredibly valuable in terms of article improvement, but we weren't at FAC, I hadn't chosen the timing as I do when I go to FAC (which I've not been able to do for a number of years), I'm still unclear whether each article selected for TFA is expected to confirm to GOCE scrutiny before it goes to the main page. Given that I have to work very slowly, had run out of steam at the very beginning of the process, there was little to no chance I could get through that many comments. Which made me feel bad, and yet I tried because I'm a perfectionist. The end result wasn't pretty. So I apologize.

If I could ask anything of anyone, it would be please to be very clear on the relevant pages (FAC talk, TFA talk, anywhere else), what the process is and how the workflow is expected to go. I've been mostly inactive for some time and apparently need reminders, but probably others do as well.

There are some specifics we could go back and forth on but it's not necessary (nor, honestly, is this entire screed) but some things to be aware of that make that page what it is, whether good or bad: these articles Ceoil and I have collaborated on are written by two people who live in different countries, speak different English, have access to different sources, have vastly different editing styles, suffer from varying degrees of dyslexia (the left/right issue is my fault), and yet we make them work. Yes, they're not perfect but that we even get through FAC is a minor miracle, so issues such as American/English variations on punctuation often needs someone who's familiar with out peculiar styles to sort us out, which was what I was trying to get at in that long long thread there.

Anyway, this is meant to clear the air before the new year. Again, enormous apologies to all, and thanks to all who helped. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria. Thank you for this detailed explanation. It wasn't necessary, but it is appreciated. Re WP:OWN, you may somehow be so virtuous that you approach true Wikipedianhood, but I certainly get twitchy about half of the comments I get during FACs, much less after them. And most folk reckon that I am fairly phlegmatic. And, with hindsight, I can see how you felt a bit team-tagged by us - which certainly wasn't our intention. We are having an off-Wiki chat to try and prevent doing that over any other articles. I have had several TFAs over the past eight months and have another on the 1st; they are stressful enough without additional RL stress factors. So, good grief woman, you don't need to apologise so much. We understand. These things happen. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but it means so much to us all that sometimes it isn't.

If the procedure around copy editing of TFAs is unclear, it is because the process is currently being developed; even whether or not it adds value is up for grabs. How it works is running a bit ahead of me and I suspect that I don't always consider the effects on the FA's nominators closely enough. My hope is that it will (soon) settle down and become a normal, understood, accepted and low drama part of the process.

The nice things I said about the Beaune Altarpiece were all meant. I have managed a few FAs, but I wish that any of them were half as good as that. I note that it has picked up 35,000 views in too days. I hope that they all felt as impressed and uplifted by it as I did. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks for the reply. It's a bit of navel gazing that makes me uncomfortable, but devolving into a screaming two-year-old makes me even more uncomfortable. So, yes, the apologies are needed and I need to reflect a bit before I bring myself back here because obviously the pressure is more than I can take. I've not taken a look at page views (I hardly ever do), but that is nice news.

RE TFA day - my first was a vital article that went live the same moment pending changes went live, so that was stressful! The thing is this, with time we all learn to ignore TFA day. The reality is that the work we do here is like building sandcastles - it's very very difficult to keep them perfect and they're not meant to be perfect. What we want, and what I'm particularly interested in, is creating stable versions for vital and important articles. That way we can always go back in history and get back to the stable version, the good version, and that is of value. The stuff that happens on TFA day is best ignored and it's important to allow others, whether registered users or unregistered, to edit the articles and to make comments. That's one of the functions of achieving FA status.

In my experience off-Wiki chats aren't always the best path (they used to be severely frowned on) because these are decisions that the community makes as a whole and are supposed to be achieved through consensus building. This is a raucous and messy place; it's meant to be that way. Discussions usually achieve the best results when lots of people chime in, fwiw.

Many thanks for the barnstar! Victoria (tk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four days after TFA I go through the mass diff, reverting the vast majority of edits and keeping the odd helpful one. I suppose that we all do. Much to my surprise, no one has ever objected to me reverting their edit.

Off-Wiki. Thanks for the warning. Mostly I want to get any arse-kicking or blowing-off of steam to happen off stage before we bring back some outline thoughts for the community to kick around. If there is not a pretty broad consensus for what we do, it ain't going to happen anyway; so attempting to duck the consensus building process would be a bit of a mug's game.

A happy new year to you, and I hope that things improve for you on various fronts. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, the reference to off-Wiki communications being frowned upon in the FA process hails to my tenure, because I despised it, and no FAC business was conducted back-channel. In whatever process you are working on developing, I do hope you will consider that this drive to perfect the mainpage TFA has seriously had a detrimental impact on the overall FA pool, via the demise of FAR. We have now at least several thousand deficient FAs, because misguided efforts have created the illusion that the FA pool is in better shape than it is. You can count on me to vigorously oppose any concerted effort to clean up ONLY TFAs, if that effort does not encompass the whole pool of FAs and the problem of a moribund FAR. Combing through TFAs to make them perfect is a well-intended effort, but has specifically led to a much bigger problem now that needs to be addressed (that no one cares any more about the deteriorating quality of FAs that have already run at TFA). I strongly urge you to focus efforts in improving FAC and FAR, rather than having resources that could be put to use there diverted to yet another process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia. It seems to have been repeated a number of times that there is a "drive to perfect the mainpage TFA". If there is, I am unaware of it. "Combing through TFAs to make them perfect is a well-intended effort" I am not sure that it is, and if there is such an effort, can I be excused from it? Having looked, I fail to see any resources which have been diverted from "improving FAC and FAR". Would you care to indicate some? "You can count on me to vigorously oppose any concerted effort to clean up ONLY TFAs, if that effort does not encompass the whole pool of FAs and the problem of a moribund FAR." My way of looking at this is that you intend to oppose any inititiative to improve any aspect of the FA situation unless it encompasses all of its myriad processes. That would seem to me to be a surefire way to a) ensure that no aspect is improved and b) drive away volunteers who may be happy working in some areas, but object to an attempt to dragoon them into working on aspects which they would rather not. So far as I can tell, thee and me have similar or identical objectives; we may or may not differ on what we consider the best ways to achieve them. I am more than happy to discuss this further, but perhaps not on Victoria's talk page? A very happy New Year to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, re reverting changes made on TFA day: that's a practice I've seen lots of editors follow and I've never seen anyone complain about it. It's possible I've done it myself, but honestly can't remember. Generally my practice is to split the difference: take the good edits (i.e spelling, grammar, etc, some formatting); ignore edits that are inconsequential (i.e inevitably the column width for refs is inevitably changed and that doesn't bother me); revert and discuss controversial edits (i.e image size & info boxes, but a lot of that seems to be dying down).

The biggest issue, at least for me, is that it's impossible to tend & steward articles beyond a certain number (like maybe five!). I worked on a vital article for the Core Contest a number of years ago, didn't have the sources nor the expertise I needed to bring it to FA, didn't bother to take it to GA, tried to tend it for a few years (but it gets a lot of edits). Now there's very little correlation between the text and the sources, which is problematic. There's another article I worked on, planned to bring to FAC but needed a couple more sources, abandoned to work on something else, and that page also has deteriorated badly.

I don't know what the solution is because to some extent we're all invested in the research and writing we do, but the hardest thing to accept about Wikipedia is that it's ephemeral. It's a concept I've fully embraced but I've been forced into it.

Re conversations re TFA etc., I don't mind if you all have it here. Then I'll know the process the next time! <sorry, that's was meant to be a joke> Victoria (tk) 22:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, did I come across like a mother bear biting an intruder ? Sorry :) I go into mother-bear protect mode with our good FA writers, and I always bristle (always have) at any mention of anything off-Wiki, always a strong believer in on-Wiki transparency. If people are improving only TFAs, they are discouraging participation at FAR, which is sorely needed. I don't agree with initiatives like WP:QAI, which IMO brought us to the sorry state of affairs we are in. It would be wonderful to see the likes of Reidgreg (not sure if that is his name) reviewing the truly troublesome 2,000 + FAs. I think any attempt ala QAI to clean up TFAs on mainpage day are counterproductive: we WANT people to see things in articles they can fix, to encourage them to join up! If there is an on-Wiki discussion of any proposal, please feel free to ping me in! I don't trust off-Wiki collaborations, sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Victoria dear. When I saw your despair, I drug myself back in to FAC to see what was going on. And I think dialogue has been productive, and I see that many of the issues that have plagued the process for several years now are turning around. Good can come out of bad things after all. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I do think that good comes out bad. I knew I had a limit but I hadn't tested it; now I know it's a hard limit. Re FAC, yes, discussion is good. There are reasons I've stopped opposing, but haven't had the energy to add a comment. Will try to, but am about to drop back into my comfy hole. New rule: when in the kitchen put the computer away! Victoria (tk) 22:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, and it's all good. You straightened me out on a couple things, BTW, and I'm working with a few other editors to refine an overlooked MOS section. I eventually inferred the 'mother bear' phenomenon, and I'm cool with that, too. I have some reservations about the whole TFA thing, but have a bit more reading to do before I'll comment on that. Plus I'm dead tired. Hope this is in time to wish you a Happy New Year in your time zones. – 22:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidgreg (talk • contribs)

Hi Victoria. Reading this, I've taken the liberty of watching all "THE" FAs. I don't mean ALL THE FAs, but if I used a different word it could be read improperly. I mean all of the 26 FAs. I expect they're already watched, by Ceoil among others, but every little bit. One of the suggestions for FAC-Talk should be an FA-watchlisting drive, perhaps, but I won't make it because I'm not a leader (lol).

Happy 2020, hopefully. (I've been in pain 2 out of the 4 days, so eh. Disclaimer: not related to "age". Is my disclaimer attempting to address ageism, or ageist itself? I'm not sure!) I don't have the energy to make Wiki-box-cards, though I copied Sandy's and changed the colors when I returned one to her. Outriggr (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You better make the suggestion, because I can't! I recently unwatched every medical FA except TS. I hope your pain remits ... did I hear mention of age? As of two weeks from now, the taxpayers are paying my health care ... neener, neener !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've completely misunderstood, I'm pretty sure he's in the same boat. /me waves to everyone and wishes everyone well for 2020 Risker (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Riggr for adding that particular set of FAs to your watchlist. The worst of the damage has been contained so far, but I foresee quite a bit of clean up ahead in 2020. Happy New Year btw, to you and to Risker. I didn't get out Wiki-box-cards either. Thanks to all for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 21:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

		The Special Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar, just because. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time[edit]

FAC[edit]

FAC[edit]

Met's Annunication[edit]

DYK for Prophets of Deceit[edit]

Prophets[edit]

Triptychs[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2[edit]

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Condolences[edit]

Distrust this Particular Flavor[edit]

File:Isabeau of Bavaria1.jpg[edit]

Best wishes[edit]

Precious five years![edit]

Extended wikibreak & availability notice[edit]

Peer review[edit]

Get well soon[edit]

Didn't quite follow ...[edit]

Things[edit]

Season's greetings[edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Merry Christmas and All That[edit]

Get well soon[edit]

Jane Austen[edit]

Image[edit]

Recs[edit]

Re: SPI[edit]

x-mass[edit]

Happy Saturnalia[edit]

Best wishes[edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Austral season's greetings[edit]

Spliting discussion for [[Visconti of Milan]][edit]

Huh?[edit]

Tune[edit]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Harvard refs[edit]

Thankseverso[edit]

GW[edit]

please don't go[edit]

Little Eva: The Flower of the South[edit]

Banned editor[edit]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

File:Campin nativity detail.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

The Fram Situation[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Recommended reading, in the context[edit]

Cecil Beaton[edit]

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents scheduled for TFA[edit]

david cooper[edit]

Proposed deletion of File:Murasaki - Mitsuoki (crop).jpg[edit]

Oh![edit]

Your comments at the EC pantomime at AE[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2019[edit]

I wasn't offering, so to speak[edit]

I agree[edit]

Sorry[edit]

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) scheduled for TFA[edit]

All that is right[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Sources[edit]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Long time no talk[edit]

TPS request[edit]

Copy edit notes for Beaune Altarpiece[edit]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Io Saturnalia![edit]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Season's Greetings![edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

TFA[edit]

Beaune Altarpiece fracas[edit]

In appreciation[edit]