Victoria: From the sublime to the swamp—I've found copyright violations in the Early life and career section of the Toni Morrison article. The copied material is from a book published in 2006. Several of the sentences in the section at TM were in the article before 2006, but most of the section at TM was added later than 2006. I confirmed the rest of the section was added after 2006 (an explanation is on the TM talk page). If you are not around or busy, no problem. But, I'd be thankful if you can take a look at the article talk page (I reverted all the edits ever made by a new editor). Enjoy the turkey season! Phil— Neonorange ( talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Actually I saw that how you expanded Empress Shoshi's article. It has been a time that I and some other users are discussing about the articles of Japanese empresses. Do you have any knowledge in this field? Actually Empress Shoshi's name Fujiwara no Akiko. But how did you choose the name Shoshi? Is it her posthumous name? Do you have any source to show posthumous names for all empresses? I really tried to expand articles about other Japanese empresses which are stubs but unfortunately I couldn't, because I don't know Japanese and I can't use the information from Japanese Wiki. I'll be very happy if you expand Japanese empresses articles as you did with Shoshi. Keivan.f Talk 12:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I owe you an apology for abondaning ship and leaving you to tend the FAC alone. Not cool, and sorry. This Bee Gees tune wont make it all better, [1], but who the hell doesnt like the Bee Gees. Ceoil ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
... that your newfound interest in me has something to do with this? Rationalobserver ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
My second guess was this edit, which you've confirmed is what sparked your interest. Do you realize that Sarah defended me against the last round of sock-puppet allegations? You are making a mistake here, but I sure hope it's being made in good-faith, and it's not some kind of tactic to drive me away from "your territory", or in retaliation for disagreeing with SV. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You made a mistake about me, and now you are putting me through stressful stuff just like ILT did to you. You are continuing the cycle of abuse. As I said before, I think this is good-faith, so I sympathize, but did you see that Copyright clerk agreed with me and suggested you had made a mistake, and the material you chose as evidence "does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation".? Rationalobserver ( talk) 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Im sorry that things got so heated over at the SPI case, but in my opinion I feel RO is right about what she says when it comes to the Rose-Baley Party article. You are a great editor Victoria but given all that has happened I would just wait a week or so for things to cool down. Remember the SPI case you launched almost caused an innocent editor to quit Wikipedia and it took the efforts of editors to get her to stay. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, might I suggest you behave rationally and also let Victoria alone? A "new" user shows up, yet behaves in ways that are not consistent with never having edited WP before. The SPI now has a note that you disclosed your previous account to ArbCom, which is fine. There also does not seem to be any dispute that there are concerns with close paraphrasing in some of your work. I think Victoria was well justified in filing an SPI. I do not see what Montana did as a "vicious comment". Given the damage ILT has done here, and the time spent to clean that up, the concern was warranted. I also know what it is like to be accused of being a sock (as my first edit here got me accused). That said, let's deescalate. If you (or anyone else) want(s) to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page. If I were a police officer I might say "move along, nothing to see here folks". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, I appreciate you pinging me on the above situation, and I want you to know that I happen to agree with your position that there is a WP:DUCK here, so feel free to give me a heads up any time you think you have another related problem. I also want to note that I find Dennis Brown to be a respected user and when he popped out of retirement to comment that he's seeing what you see, that is worth noting and says good things about you and your credibility. I guess for now we focus on behavior and take drama to ANI. But a pat on the back to you for having the courage to raise this issue. If it wasn't ILT, it's a twin with a shockingly similar behavioral profile. In either case, don't go into a sock drawer alone. Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoriaearle. This is a courtesy notice that a user has now mentioned you by name at the ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ceoil. Best wishes, -- Diannaa ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, I feel responsible for escalating the SPI report by my inept sock hunting that I'm clearly not experience at. It was presumptuous of me to think I was in any way qualified to add to that SPI. I've added some problems/suggestions for improvement to Talk:Rose-Baley Party. Aside from the close paraphrasing concerns, there are more basic problems the GA reviewer missed. Like the link to Edward Fitzgerald Beale is clearly the wrong man and so is the image of him. The article is in category:Trains, the lede image is misleading and misdated: it's c. 1886, not 1866 and not relevant to article content. I'm still hung up on the single source issue; I see constantly rewriting material from a single source as bordering OR/SYN, if not already there. And the book was written by a man interested in his own family history; many of the party were his relatives. I hope the editor doesn't take my pointing out these problems in the wrong way, but it doesn't meet the standards of a GA: I liked your statement that you have no doubts about your competence in FA/GA evaluations. I see that you are widely admired and your reputation insures that no editors doubt your judgment. EChastain ( talk)
Voceditenore, I'm leaving comments here because it's rude to ignore your messages to me. RO requests I leave Rose-Baley talk alone so I stopped by your page and decided it best not to post directly beneath RO. Re the tag, I said here I wouldn't object to removing and I'd planned to find a neutral admin to do so. You're absolutely right to point out about the close paraphrasing tag - I've edited that page and am aware of that. In fact that's what I was looking for, but the mistake I made was to grab the wrong tag on a template search, and here we are. I see it's been taken down, so that's good.
Moving forward, just so you know, I worked my way through more than one section but decided to only post one at a time. In the meantime things blew up a bit, re interaction ban, etc., which caused a chilling effect, but my question is this: why is any single editor or any single article exempt? The aggregate of the edits is concerning, not a few words found in a few sentences, just to be clear. Do you have a suggestion as how to handle that? Victoria ( tk) 20:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for a GA review if an editor believes that it needs to be checked more carefully against the criteria. There's no reason to be "appalled" by the suggestion or to take it as some kind of personal accusation. My distinct impression from your and Echastain's comments on the RB tallk page was that you both felt it might fall short of the GA criteria irrespective of the close paraphrasing issue. Your comment...
Echastain's query to the original reviewer...
That was followed by her lengthy exposition on how they were not applied properly. Higher up on your talk page she states quite explicitly...
If I'm wrong about your and/or Echastain's opinions in that respect, all the better. If I'm right, but neither of you feel it's appropriate to ask for a review, that's fine too. It was simply a suggestion for how you could address any remaining concerns. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I hate to see you going to rough times - though we all hit them now and again here on wikipedia. I actually came to your talkpage to ask if you might help me out with some copyediting of this article that I have been working on. Might be a good way to a to unstress and feel appreciated again? I certainly would appreciate it in any case. If you're not up for it I fully understand, and wish you the best. I hope to talk to you later at some point. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend that you not retire. If I can hang around the 'pedia, after all the bumps & bruises I've taken over the years? then anybody can. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope you're not leaving, you're too valuable. Have a break and come back refreshed Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by you, - I am so sorry to see what you had to tell us now. I should have asked sooner if you agreed to nominate her for TFA. Will do and think of you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 14:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
When I need Wikipedia help, I feel most comfortable in asking you. — Neonorange ( talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Look, I was really upset that you continued to accuse me after apologizing, and it came as a shock after I thought we would be okay moving forward. I.e., I acted irrationally when my feelings were hurt, and I said some things that I do not agree with today. All I wanted was some temporary space, which I've gotten, so thanks. Please forget what I said about the IB, including the Rose-Baley Party. If you still want to edit there please do so. I would greatly appreciate any help you are willing to offer me, and I sincerely hope we can move forward and put this behind us. I'm sorry I overreacted and lost my cool. I'll do better in the future. I think you are a valuable editor, and I sincerely hope you find your motivation to continue here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the naivete I've shown, it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone watching to wonder whether I've been living in a cave for the past six months or longer. The anser to that, yep, I have been living in a cave for real-life reasons. Last year I pruned lots of pages from my watchlist, including AN/I, AN, and all arb related pages, all wiki projects, etc. etc., and now I'm not up on the latest wiki- developments. Which can be seen either as a detriment or not. The thing is: after a while I realized I liked living in a cave. This place is overly addicting (the internet in general is overly addicting, imo), and focusing exclusively on content, staying blissfully unaware of all the drama swirling about, with a tiny watchlist (watchlists are evil because they beg for, well "watching" and then often "action"), and disengaging completely for a few days each week is as good way as any to cope.
Time is a severe issue for me, and this place (because it's so addicting) can be a time-suck. Equally, when working on content, interruptions are deadly. Two of our best policies are WP:DISENGAGE and WP:NORUSH. There is no deadline! There is no reason for a certain article to be finished at a certain date. There's no reason to have to drop everything to respond to a watchlist comment. If more people were willing to disengage and just sit back, let things settle down, this would be a calmer place. Instead, disputes go on and on and suck out any fun that could be garnered from this place. When it's not fun, it's not worth staying, imo.
The WP culture of hat collecting, which promotes work work work for such and such (adminship, green blobs, bronze stars, etc) prevents an attitude of disengaging or building content slowly. Hat-collecting isn't really healthy and is at odds with WP:NORUSH. I like to work slowly on articles that catch my interest, and there are plenty that will never get reviewed, because it's simply hard to find adequate sourcing for some articles. A topic that leans on only a few sources is more apt to be skewed. For reviewed articles we have to be mindful of quality assurance. FAs (and to some extent this is now true of GAs) will at some point be run on the main page, so they should be best we can produce, production or print-ready, and scrutinized. For any page to get to that point WP:NORUSH is a fundamental policy to follow.
This is a collaborative writing project with people from all over the globe working together to create a product. Each person brings his/her own viewpoint and strengths and when it really works well it's truly amazing. The more collaborative the better as far as I'm concerned. Because this is a global community, and for lots of other reasons, whenever someone is kind enough to take time to give advice, that's a benefit. Karanac's post about how to evaluate a source should be written up as an essay; it's truly wonderful (except she missed the bit about "juvenile" books, which we ran into on another article).
An "interaction ban" is at odds with the fundamental collaborative nature of this project, and usually, I thought, only imposed at the arb level. But I did notice another thread on AN/I about an interaction ban, so maybe has become more common during my stint in the cave; common enough to warrant its own WP acronym, IB.
So, now that I've made everyone read this far: let's get to the crux of the matter. Your message, Rationalobserver contains the acronym "IB" in the section heading. The person whose page this landed on, (me), immediately becomes defensive. To continue the defensiveness: no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations. See how quickly this can devolve? Not good, and not a place I want to be. And that's why I probably won't be around much. But let's continue. No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that. Instead we had a week or more of unending whatnot, a handful of blocks, the AN/I thread from hell, a couple of editors gone, and here we are.
Moving forward: in the spirit of collaboration I had left some links that might be helpful. The Huntington Library has images: here is Rose, fourth down, here are images of the Colorado river in Arizona and of a Mojave warrior, taken in the 1860s. They have a good biography of Rose here, which includes what happened after.
Writing an essay is probably not disengaging - the irony doesn't escape me. But I was afraid saying nothing would be misinterpreted. So I made it an essay. Moni would be proud of me. Victoria ( tk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to help Rational observer to just drop it all and move on in a different mindset and focus more on articles and improving her writing instead of commenting on people but she's not just interested. How can you really get through to such an individual? There might have been flaws in her work but beneath all of this she does at least seem interested in content building, and ultimately that's what really matters. Yet every piece of advice or action is perceived as an attack or taken in a hostile way... Montanabw, Victoria, myself, Rational observer etc, aren't we all here ultimately for the same thing beneath all of this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Dead horse? No, you've certainly not cleared the air with people here, just 24 hours ago many editors were attempting to have you banned. This really needs to be sorted out. You were doing very well at one point and I began to help you and then you said what you thought to Eric and things since then have got even worse. Your comments at the Coffee report the other day worsened the situation further and came across as petty. You can't possibly continue to edit without the support and good faith among at least some of the editors here. Featured articles are a product of such an environment, there needs to be that mutual understanding and trust there. A collegial atmosphere where people don't accuse others of opposing to get one over in revenge for their buddies... Are you interested in producing FAs or not? That can't be achieved by just pretending nothing has happened and shunning people like myself. I was willing to give the article a thorough read and review but am not sure it's worth it given that you seem to be continuing to dig a hole for yourself to the point you're begging to be banned before it is finished. I'm trying to offer a way out and to change, I care about content ultimately, and I think that you can learn from it and achieve something on here. If you didn't bother at all with content I most certainly would not waste a moment in trying to help you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You know where to find me ... be well !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"at which the English king will inherits the French crown after the death of her husband Charles VI" ... not sure what that was supposed to be. Otherwise, the lead looks fine. Looking forward to TFA day. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to fit in the image of Baronne de Rothschild at this time. But believe me I tired, which I suppose is good enough. Suggestions welcome. To compensate, here is 15th c fatalism married with 20th century minimilism: [9]. Ceoil ( talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for giving us this "interesting story", precious again, thanks extended to those you kindly mentioned in the nomination, Ceoil, Wehwalt and Tim riley (who I think watch this beautiful page). This will be the last TFA of a woman in women's history month. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand what it is you want to add, so can I ask why you are not willing to write it and add it yourself? Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It;s a peer review RO, Victoria only needs to comment! Thankyou for your input at the peer review Victoria. Irataba is now at FAC, I hope you'll appreciate that a lot of hard work and effort has gone into addressing criticism to improve this here. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
to be archived
|
---|
Per this comment I wondered if we could discuss our issues in hopes of moving forward in a positive way. We've never even had a proper discussion, and often I've felt that you were talking past me without really acknowledging my replies. For example, can you please explain why two or three times you encouraged me to upload pictures from the Huntington Library, but when I told you it wasn't safe you didn't acknowledge me? That seemed like a possible sabotage attempt. I think that we need to talk this out and achieve some closure without lost of others piling it on. Can we do this? Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm also confused because the last time that I tried to talk with you and iron this out you seemed to take the position that it was all my fault, and you had no intention of helping me with the Rose-Baley Party article where the drama began: "No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that." So why, may I ask, are you determined to be part of the Irataba FAC process, but RBP sat at peer review for 30 days and you didn't want to help, even though you claimed you could fix the paraphrasing there in a matter of "a couple of hours"? That seems inconsistent with someone who sincerely wants to help. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to make a point about comprehending Wikipedia conventions. I used to play basketball, in fact I was pretty darn good, and had there been a WNBA all those years ago I would have went pro. One of my favorite players was Larry Bird, and in the early-1980s I attended a b-ball clinic hosted by the Celtics that featured him. He taught us his philosophy of the game, and one major point was about passing, which I loved to do as a player. Bird said that when you pass the ball it is solely your responsibility that the person you are passing to gets the pass. He didn't accept any excuses by passers for dropped balls, even if an easy pass was missed. It's idealistic, but as an educator I take that approach to teaching. I would never excuse poor marks from a class by suggesting the students weren't smart enough. I take the blame, and the buck stops with me. I feel that some of the things you've tried to explain to me were a bit too complicated for my limited background in the relevant polices, but all misunderstands have been categorically blamed on me and my lack of comprehension skills. There have also been a few things that you were quite wrong about, but I haven't ever seen you acknowledge that, except that I am not ILT, which was painfully obvious to many people who looked at the SPI. I am not an idiot, in fact my intelligence is well above average, but I admit that some of these Wikipedia concepts have alluded me thus far, and I have made some mistakes with applying advice and getting along with the different cliques here. But Irataba is the first article I ever wrote, and I think for a beginner it's pretty good – I fully acknowledge that without the help of several more experienced and talented people if wouldn't be that great, but this is a collaborative project, so I take pride in the teamwork. Before me, there was no Irataba article on Wikipedia, and I am proud to have started it. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you see why I might be paranoid about your newfound desire to help me, when you and at least two others who are involved in the FAC were trying to get me banned at SPI just 6 weeks ago? Can you see how this might look like you and your friends are trying to make my life difficult? Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Some specific examples:
There are many, many more examples, and the diffs are not hard to find. In fact, looking at your peer review it would seem that you and the FAC reviewer are of completely different minds about what to include and what to focus on, and they would absolutely disagree with your approach to writing the article. It also looks like this might be a two-way attack where you suggest we add stuff that they later oppose and demand we remove, causing further exhaustion. I'm not accusing you here, really, but if we are going to talk this out let's not leave things unsaid. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I see that you've expressed an interest and knowledge of Arizona tribes, but which pages had you edited prior to February 15? Because I don't see any evidence that you've ever edited a single page to do with Native Americans prior to your accusing me of being a sock. Can I expect your presence at any and all Mohave articles I improve in the future? Are you willing to allow me to work on stuff without your help, or have you gone from "I don't want to help anymore" to "you have no choice but to accept my help wherever you go" without any interim discussion with me? I wish you had just asked if I would accept an Irataba peer review, because I would have, but the way you came in at the last minute with piles of concerns looked like an attempt to exhaust me at the end of an already long and in-depth peer review. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Victoria, years ago I received a short email by a Wikipedian which to share I don't think reveals too private matters and may help you:
IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, Hopefully you remember talking to me once or twice in the distant past, and that I'm not a complete stranger. I know it's been a long time, but I noticed your name recently and wanted to stop in and say hi. "Hi". :) ... Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched : ? 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is another really good source for Oatman. It is a critical analysis of the relation between Oatman and Stratton, who published and sensationalized her account.[ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5668184&fileId=S0361233300006311] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the help |
Hi Victoria, I just wanted to thank you for your critical thinking, superior research skills and keen overview which has led to significant improvements of the article on Irataba. Maybe our next FA will be Sarah Winnemucca? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
tender compassion
Thank you, not only for your admirable articles such as
Bal des Ardents, but for showing your self in a great user name and the meditative
Magdalen picture, for asking a
question with tenderness and for
counseling with compassion, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Three years ago, you were the 91st recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Just so you are aware: [13]. Montanabw (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
What brought all this on Victoria? I've always thought that you're a great editor, and I said so when RO was complaining that one time and said that you usually know what you're talking about. We can't afford to lose you, or any editor who produces content period. I do hope this isn't related to RO and the request for her to be unblocked. If she directs anything at you again it'll be obvious anyway. While I do think you also gave her a pretty hard time over her content, even if a lot of it was valid criticism, I do think there's a way to move forward and deal with your differences. I don't like seeing people who have the potential to write good content on here blocked or retired period. That's why I'm often willing to ignore how some people behave at times and try to bring the best out of them. If this is related to a serious health issue (as mentioned on April 10) rather than the trivia of wiki stuff, I genuinely hope you recover from it and will return to edit in the future. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the wikicup at the time of the Irataba FAC. I've never been involved in the wikicup, it wouldn't motivate me, but I can see it motivates RO. Perhaps some notable background info was missing but it was near FA quality and Maunus admitted that himself. I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC myself if I didn't think it was a worthy candidate, and it wasn't just me who supported it but other respected editors here. And yes, I checked a lot of the sources and content myself during the PR and they were fine. And no, I did not blame reviewers for its defects, I'm always respectful of people who bother to review FAs, even if I disagree with many of their points. In fact I warned RO at the FAC myself to stop making snide remarks towards Montana and respond more constructively. I also think it's BS that Irataba was rushed, the peer review was kept open for an entire month, most are not kept open two weeks, and in that time we received an extraordinary amount of input, during which the article considerably improved. I'd not have rushed taking any article to FAC that I didn't think was near the line. Let's be frank. RO behaved appallingly over the gender gap and civility disputes and can often alarmingly seem to turn on people like that. I saw how Cassianto and Eric were treated, and at the time I thought RO was another of those dickheads who turn up at forums/Eric's talk page looking to cause trouble and contribute absolutely nothing towards content. RO also really irritated me by the removal of some of the posts directed towards her, particularly on her talk page, including my own constructive advice to her to keep away from commenting on people. It wasn't until I actually started reading her work that I saw any value in her whatsoever. Some of the content I've read is better written and more neatly organized than a lot of articles being passed for GA with often sloppy prose. I think she's more capable than people let on, to the point that I consider her a valuable editor when she fully puts her mind to it. And she's interested in a topic which badly needs editors producing half decent articles over. As I once said on my talk page in response to RO, Victoria is a highly respected editor here and usually knows what she is talking about. A lot of her criticism was valid, and I think RO learned a lot from some of the points. You may well be right that she has done nothing wrong at all and RO's articles needed that level of criticism, but I know how I would personally react to that level of criticism on TFA day for instance, and I don't think Eric, Cassianto and many others here would take it lightly either. I don't think this is really worth it. It's not a big deal. If RO so much as takes one more swipe at Victoria, Montana or whoever or does this again she'll be blocked quicker than I can say Gordon Bennett. In the meantime let's allow her to produce content and at least give her one chance to improve content. If she can't go a few weeks without pissing somebody off and getting personal then she'll be blocked and likely banned at some point. Victoria, as a content producing editor, you know that you are much welcome here, so I hope you return as soon as possible and get on with doing just that as we all should. If your eye is partly the reason I wish you a speedy recovery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he said that, but Maunus also said after he had finished something along the lines of it being largely a fine article and Rational observer should be praised for her work on it and tolerance of criticism. Here "RO did really quality work, they were extremely positive and open to constructive criticism and help and had fewer ownership issues than most editors I have ever collaborated with. The article is excellent. That is what matters." Well, I only looked in google books and newspapers for Bramshill House, The Tower House and Castell Coch, I must be doing something right... Yes, I'm aware GabeMC is many of the editors who think RO is a sock of. I'd be surprised if it was Gabe though, he worked almost solely on late 60s music articles, which RO doesn't appear to edit.And to my knowledge Gabe didn't have a habit of getting into disputes with people and quietly went about promoting Hendrix and and other 60s rock articles. If RO was Gabe, then for a start they'd undoubtedly be a fine editor, which few of you seem to agree that RO is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"it's someone who said he was a man now saying he is a woman". It happens.. ;-) In a wiki context though, I agree that it's deceiving. I think a few people think that there's also a few female editors on here who pretend to be male.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
All I can do is apologize. I didn't know what to do with the many sources I'd saved to, and then a few days ago stripped off, Jstor, so I posted them on the talk there - again not as criticism but to share, collaborate, do what we do here. I did undo the post, but it's in history if you or anyone else is interested.
Re retirement tag: it's been there for a while. I did edit during the weekend so have obviously been in and out. Without going into unnecessary detail, for RL reasons editing is a little difficult these days; and again without going into unnecessary detail, I'm having a crisis of WP faith so to speak. Hence the tag. Thanks. Victoria ( tk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, you seem like a decent person and you write articles, so I'm glad you're not gone. I just saw the LTA page for ItsLassieTime and I had no idea how abusive she was to you; I'm sorry that happened :( I also notice the comments about GabeMc above and I don't believe for a second that he and Rationalobserver are the same -- just a few seconds looking at their writing styles is enough. ekips39❦ talk 06:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I just came to your user page to discuss something with you and then I saw that you have retired. You're a good user and have created articles with high quality. I wish you come back one day. Good luck. Keivan.f Talk 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty exciting, though the text is hedged and not really inspiring ('greatest discoveries in early drawing ever' - Comic Book Guy anyone). Attributed to the workshop, but dated c. 1440. Wow. Ceoil ( talk) 68:96, 79 April 3001 (UTC)
![]() |
Madonna on a Crescent Moon in Hortus Conclusus |
For you Hafspajen ( talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
Cheers for the copyedits, the article sort of needed them. Anything strange? We voted in favour of same sex marriage equality here today, which was nice. Funny, the whole business was illegal until just 1993. Country has come a long way, although its really just demographics and generation change. Still, go us! Ceoil ( talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, the patient, sensitive, and, dare I say it, nurturing, approach to the shotgun question is an inspiration. From now, when I edit, I will read my writing twice, revise, read your words, and only then consider hitting the [Save] button. — Neonorange ( talk) 02:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Dear Victoria you deserve this barnstar for having used your critical instincts to point out ways to improve Irataba, in this way triggering the process that eventually lead to its current, well deserved status as a Featured Article. Sometimes pointing out the flaws is a tough job, but someone has got to do it - and you for one are not afraid of getting your hands dirty fixing the flaws you point out. Though in this case it wasn't necessary, since a capable team was able to work it out. Thanks! ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
Just popping my head round the door (virtual door; virtual head) to say hello (see section heading for confirmation). Hope you have been keeping well. Belle ( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball/archive1 now live—normally I wouldn't nominate something so soon after writing it, but given how glacial FAC is likely to move over the summer with so many reviewers either on vacation or studying for exams, I want to get it up and running soon enough to give it a shot at the 1 August deadline. – iridescent 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I belive I am on record in observing your rockingness. To reitterate, thanks for the inlines and edits, againt today. Ceoil ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Goya seems almost there, prob enough that I could have two FACs on the go; looking forward to the monming of the Annunciation. Will be available for responding. Ceoil ( talk) 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no button to press for "you're welcome". Clearly the WMF staff are ignorant about manners amiright? Also good timing, I just got here (too?). But I don't have any plans. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I need guidance on this one - its a bit short and looks unfinished but expanding it at this stage would be to pad it out - very little about him is known and he has been neglected in art history, at least by writers working in English. Ceoil ( talk) 09:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(Replying here to avoid going off on a huge tangent at FAC.)
Etty had the misfortune to be born 20 years too early. He's horribly tacky if you judge him as a member of the traditional English School or by the standards of anything post-1870-ish, but if you view him as the first Pre-Raphaelite (or joint-first if you count Géricault, but he was a bit foreign so needs to be viewed with suspicion), it all falls into place. All the elements of the reaction against Academical standards are there; the obsession with realistic depiction of humans and animals, the fascination with authenticity in settings, the insistence on forcing morality into everything, the primary colours; all that's missing is the language-of-flowers pretentiousness. Bear in mind also that I'm overrepresenting the nude history paintings as there's been more written about them so they're easier to cover in Wikipedia terms—he was actually remarkably varied (he introduced the still-life to the anglosphere), and some of his works like
Mlle Rachel,
Hero Expiring or
The World Before the Flood look strikingly modern. He had the misfortune to be going through his "churning out derivative crap" phase in the 1840s, just when the people who ended up setting the tone for British art were students, so acquired a reputation as a dull hack which he still hasn't really shaken off; he then died just before the PRB started really making an impact so wasn't around to claim the credit for all the things they ripped off from him. (I usually give the example of Millais as the most obvious stealer of his ideas, but one can draw direct lines back to Etty from Ford Madox Brown, William Dyce, and
virtually anything in Lady Lever.) –
iridescent
00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that I seem to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you can help me to do so; I'm obviously missing something key in your message. The only alternative understanding that I seem to come up with is "it's a trainwreck, we should all walk away", but I'm not sure that really changes things. The discussion won't close until the last 'crat sings. Risker ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I got turned around, I forgot this had been through TFAR. It's fine. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the "almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting" gracing the day, precious again, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for something to nominate at FPC and thought I'd try pilfering some classic Japanese stuff from the Tale of Genji, but they are all really tiny. I don't know if any of these help; you've probably already seen and rejected them, but I thought I'd offer them just in case; at worst you have some pretty Japanese pics decorating your talk page. Belle ( talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, nice to see your article on the main page. It looks good (the article and the blurb). Sarah (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda, Richmond Bridge is very definitely a road article, it just does a good job of disguising itself as an article on Palladian architecture and the funding of 18th-century public works. As regards the others, "road" and "railway" are virtually interchangeable terms in the early 19th-century UK; the whole "broad avenue" idea was a Napoleonic concept that was looked on with great suspicion (for good historical reasons, the English were very wary of anything that looked like it might be intended for the movement of troops), and the road network of England (and even more so Ireland and Scotland) was for the most part just a bunch of glorified dirt tracks which would have been recognisable to the Romans, and which the early railway network largely paralleled (as they tended to follow the same level ground along the river valleys). If you look at a map of England (the Scottish, Welsh and Irish railway networks have had the guts ripped out of them), you can see the main railway lines following the main roads even today. ‑ iridescent 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you notcied Csldigicol - from the MMoA - have been made available The Renaissance in the North - WOW!!!!
fascinating article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Congrats on your latest FA. (What is that, 100 or so? If only people were more interested in counting things on wikipedia, we might know!) Outriggr ( talk) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |
Victoria: From the sublime to the swamp—I've found copyright violations in the Early life and career section of the Toni Morrison article. The copied material is from a book published in 2006. Several of the sentences in the section at TM were in the article before 2006, but most of the section at TM was added later than 2006. I confirmed the rest of the section was added after 2006 (an explanation is on the TM talk page). If you are not around or busy, no problem. But, I'd be thankful if you can take a look at the article talk page (I reverted all the edits ever made by a new editor). Enjoy the turkey season! Phil— Neonorange ( talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Actually I saw that how you expanded Empress Shoshi's article. It has been a time that I and some other users are discussing about the articles of Japanese empresses. Do you have any knowledge in this field? Actually Empress Shoshi's name Fujiwara no Akiko. But how did you choose the name Shoshi? Is it her posthumous name? Do you have any source to show posthumous names for all empresses? I really tried to expand articles about other Japanese empresses which are stubs but unfortunately I couldn't, because I don't know Japanese and I can't use the information from Japanese Wiki. I'll be very happy if you expand Japanese empresses articles as you did with Shoshi. Keivan.f Talk 12:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I owe you an apology for abondaning ship and leaving you to tend the FAC alone. Not cool, and sorry. This Bee Gees tune wont make it all better, [1], but who the hell doesnt like the Bee Gees. Ceoil ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
... that your newfound interest in me has something to do with this? Rationalobserver ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
My second guess was this edit, which you've confirmed is what sparked your interest. Do you realize that Sarah defended me against the last round of sock-puppet allegations? You are making a mistake here, but I sure hope it's being made in good-faith, and it's not some kind of tactic to drive me away from "your territory", or in retaliation for disagreeing with SV. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You made a mistake about me, and now you are putting me through stressful stuff just like ILT did to you. You are continuing the cycle of abuse. As I said before, I think this is good-faith, so I sympathize, but did you see that Copyright clerk agreed with me and suggested you had made a mistake, and the material you chose as evidence "does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation".? Rationalobserver ( talk) 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Im sorry that things got so heated over at the SPI case, but in my opinion I feel RO is right about what she says when it comes to the Rose-Baley Party article. You are a great editor Victoria but given all that has happened I would just wait a week or so for things to cool down. Remember the SPI case you launched almost caused an innocent editor to quit Wikipedia and it took the efforts of editors to get her to stay. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, might I suggest you behave rationally and also let Victoria alone? A "new" user shows up, yet behaves in ways that are not consistent with never having edited WP before. The SPI now has a note that you disclosed your previous account to ArbCom, which is fine. There also does not seem to be any dispute that there are concerns with close paraphrasing in some of your work. I think Victoria was well justified in filing an SPI. I do not see what Montana did as a "vicious comment". Given the damage ILT has done here, and the time spent to clean that up, the concern was warranted. I also know what it is like to be accused of being a sock (as my first edit here got me accused). That said, let's deescalate. If you (or anyone else) want(s) to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page. If I were a police officer I might say "move along, nothing to see here folks". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, I appreciate you pinging me on the above situation, and I want you to know that I happen to agree with your position that there is a WP:DUCK here, so feel free to give me a heads up any time you think you have another related problem. I also want to note that I find Dennis Brown to be a respected user and when he popped out of retirement to comment that he's seeing what you see, that is worth noting and says good things about you and your credibility. I guess for now we focus on behavior and take drama to ANI. But a pat on the back to you for having the courage to raise this issue. If it wasn't ILT, it's a twin with a shockingly similar behavioral profile. In either case, don't go into a sock drawer alone. Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoriaearle. This is a courtesy notice that a user has now mentioned you by name at the ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ceoil. Best wishes, -- Diannaa ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, I feel responsible for escalating the SPI report by my inept sock hunting that I'm clearly not experience at. It was presumptuous of me to think I was in any way qualified to add to that SPI. I've added some problems/suggestions for improvement to Talk:Rose-Baley Party. Aside from the close paraphrasing concerns, there are more basic problems the GA reviewer missed. Like the link to Edward Fitzgerald Beale is clearly the wrong man and so is the image of him. The article is in category:Trains, the lede image is misleading and misdated: it's c. 1886, not 1866 and not relevant to article content. I'm still hung up on the single source issue; I see constantly rewriting material from a single source as bordering OR/SYN, if not already there. And the book was written by a man interested in his own family history; many of the party were his relatives. I hope the editor doesn't take my pointing out these problems in the wrong way, but it doesn't meet the standards of a GA: I liked your statement that you have no doubts about your competence in FA/GA evaluations. I see that you are widely admired and your reputation insures that no editors doubt your judgment. EChastain ( talk)
Voceditenore, I'm leaving comments here because it's rude to ignore your messages to me. RO requests I leave Rose-Baley talk alone so I stopped by your page and decided it best not to post directly beneath RO. Re the tag, I said here I wouldn't object to removing and I'd planned to find a neutral admin to do so. You're absolutely right to point out about the close paraphrasing tag - I've edited that page and am aware of that. In fact that's what I was looking for, but the mistake I made was to grab the wrong tag on a template search, and here we are. I see it's been taken down, so that's good.
Moving forward, just so you know, I worked my way through more than one section but decided to only post one at a time. In the meantime things blew up a bit, re interaction ban, etc., which caused a chilling effect, but my question is this: why is any single editor or any single article exempt? The aggregate of the edits is concerning, not a few words found in a few sentences, just to be clear. Do you have a suggestion as how to handle that? Victoria ( tk) 20:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for a GA review if an editor believes that it needs to be checked more carefully against the criteria. There's no reason to be "appalled" by the suggestion or to take it as some kind of personal accusation. My distinct impression from your and Echastain's comments on the RB tallk page was that you both felt it might fall short of the GA criteria irrespective of the close paraphrasing issue. Your comment...
Echastain's query to the original reviewer...
That was followed by her lengthy exposition on how they were not applied properly. Higher up on your talk page she states quite explicitly...
If I'm wrong about your and/or Echastain's opinions in that respect, all the better. If I'm right, but neither of you feel it's appropriate to ask for a review, that's fine too. It was simply a suggestion for how you could address any remaining concerns. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I hate to see you going to rough times - though we all hit them now and again here on wikipedia. I actually came to your talkpage to ask if you might help me out with some copyediting of this article that I have been working on. Might be a good way to a to unstress and feel appreciated again? I certainly would appreciate it in any case. If you're not up for it I fully understand, and wish you the best. I hope to talk to you later at some point. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend that you not retire. If I can hang around the 'pedia, after all the bumps & bruises I've taken over the years? then anybody can. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope you're not leaving, you're too valuable. Have a break and come back refreshed Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by you, - I am so sorry to see what you had to tell us now. I should have asked sooner if you agreed to nominate her for TFA. Will do and think of you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 14:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
When I need Wikipedia help, I feel most comfortable in asking you. — Neonorange ( talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Look, I was really upset that you continued to accuse me after apologizing, and it came as a shock after I thought we would be okay moving forward. I.e., I acted irrationally when my feelings were hurt, and I said some things that I do not agree with today. All I wanted was some temporary space, which I've gotten, so thanks. Please forget what I said about the IB, including the Rose-Baley Party. If you still want to edit there please do so. I would greatly appreciate any help you are willing to offer me, and I sincerely hope we can move forward and put this behind us. I'm sorry I overreacted and lost my cool. I'll do better in the future. I think you are a valuable editor, and I sincerely hope you find your motivation to continue here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the naivete I've shown, it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone watching to wonder whether I've been living in a cave for the past six months or longer. The anser to that, yep, I have been living in a cave for real-life reasons. Last year I pruned lots of pages from my watchlist, including AN/I, AN, and all arb related pages, all wiki projects, etc. etc., and now I'm not up on the latest wiki- developments. Which can be seen either as a detriment or not. The thing is: after a while I realized I liked living in a cave. This place is overly addicting (the internet in general is overly addicting, imo), and focusing exclusively on content, staying blissfully unaware of all the drama swirling about, with a tiny watchlist (watchlists are evil because they beg for, well "watching" and then often "action"), and disengaging completely for a few days each week is as good way as any to cope.
Time is a severe issue for me, and this place (because it's so addicting) can be a time-suck. Equally, when working on content, interruptions are deadly. Two of our best policies are WP:DISENGAGE and WP:NORUSH. There is no deadline! There is no reason for a certain article to be finished at a certain date. There's no reason to have to drop everything to respond to a watchlist comment. If more people were willing to disengage and just sit back, let things settle down, this would be a calmer place. Instead, disputes go on and on and suck out any fun that could be garnered from this place. When it's not fun, it's not worth staying, imo.
The WP culture of hat collecting, which promotes work work work for such and such (adminship, green blobs, bronze stars, etc) prevents an attitude of disengaging or building content slowly. Hat-collecting isn't really healthy and is at odds with WP:NORUSH. I like to work slowly on articles that catch my interest, and there are plenty that will never get reviewed, because it's simply hard to find adequate sourcing for some articles. A topic that leans on only a few sources is more apt to be skewed. For reviewed articles we have to be mindful of quality assurance. FAs (and to some extent this is now true of GAs) will at some point be run on the main page, so they should be best we can produce, production or print-ready, and scrutinized. For any page to get to that point WP:NORUSH is a fundamental policy to follow.
This is a collaborative writing project with people from all over the globe working together to create a product. Each person brings his/her own viewpoint and strengths and when it really works well it's truly amazing. The more collaborative the better as far as I'm concerned. Because this is a global community, and for lots of other reasons, whenever someone is kind enough to take time to give advice, that's a benefit. Karanac's post about how to evaluate a source should be written up as an essay; it's truly wonderful (except she missed the bit about "juvenile" books, which we ran into on another article).
An "interaction ban" is at odds with the fundamental collaborative nature of this project, and usually, I thought, only imposed at the arb level. But I did notice another thread on AN/I about an interaction ban, so maybe has become more common during my stint in the cave; common enough to warrant its own WP acronym, IB.
So, now that I've made everyone read this far: let's get to the crux of the matter. Your message, Rationalobserver contains the acronym "IB" in the section heading. The person whose page this landed on, (me), immediately becomes defensive. To continue the defensiveness: no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations. See how quickly this can devolve? Not good, and not a place I want to be. And that's why I probably won't be around much. But let's continue. No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that. Instead we had a week or more of unending whatnot, a handful of blocks, the AN/I thread from hell, a couple of editors gone, and here we are.
Moving forward: in the spirit of collaboration I had left some links that might be helpful. The Huntington Library has images: here is Rose, fourth down, here are images of the Colorado river in Arizona and of a Mojave warrior, taken in the 1860s. They have a good biography of Rose here, which includes what happened after.
Writing an essay is probably not disengaging - the irony doesn't escape me. But I was afraid saying nothing would be misinterpreted. So I made it an essay. Moni would be proud of me. Victoria ( tk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to help Rational observer to just drop it all and move on in a different mindset and focus more on articles and improving her writing instead of commenting on people but she's not just interested. How can you really get through to such an individual? There might have been flaws in her work but beneath all of this she does at least seem interested in content building, and ultimately that's what really matters. Yet every piece of advice or action is perceived as an attack or taken in a hostile way... Montanabw, Victoria, myself, Rational observer etc, aren't we all here ultimately for the same thing beneath all of this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Dead horse? No, you've certainly not cleared the air with people here, just 24 hours ago many editors were attempting to have you banned. This really needs to be sorted out. You were doing very well at one point and I began to help you and then you said what you thought to Eric and things since then have got even worse. Your comments at the Coffee report the other day worsened the situation further and came across as petty. You can't possibly continue to edit without the support and good faith among at least some of the editors here. Featured articles are a product of such an environment, there needs to be that mutual understanding and trust there. A collegial atmosphere where people don't accuse others of opposing to get one over in revenge for their buddies... Are you interested in producing FAs or not? That can't be achieved by just pretending nothing has happened and shunning people like myself. I was willing to give the article a thorough read and review but am not sure it's worth it given that you seem to be continuing to dig a hole for yourself to the point you're begging to be banned before it is finished. I'm trying to offer a way out and to change, I care about content ultimately, and I think that you can learn from it and achieve something on here. If you didn't bother at all with content I most certainly would not waste a moment in trying to help you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You know where to find me ... be well !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"at which the English king will inherits the French crown after the death of her husband Charles VI" ... not sure what that was supposed to be. Otherwise, the lead looks fine. Looking forward to TFA day. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to fit in the image of Baronne de Rothschild at this time. But believe me I tired, which I suppose is good enough. Suggestions welcome. To compensate, here is 15th c fatalism married with 20th century minimilism: [9]. Ceoil ( talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for giving us this "interesting story", precious again, thanks extended to those you kindly mentioned in the nomination, Ceoil, Wehwalt and Tim riley (who I think watch this beautiful page). This will be the last TFA of a woman in women's history month. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand what it is you want to add, so can I ask why you are not willing to write it and add it yourself? Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It;s a peer review RO, Victoria only needs to comment! Thankyou for your input at the peer review Victoria. Irataba is now at FAC, I hope you'll appreciate that a lot of hard work and effort has gone into addressing criticism to improve this here. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
to be archived
|
---|
Per this comment I wondered if we could discuss our issues in hopes of moving forward in a positive way. We've never even had a proper discussion, and often I've felt that you were talking past me without really acknowledging my replies. For example, can you please explain why two or three times you encouraged me to upload pictures from the Huntington Library, but when I told you it wasn't safe you didn't acknowledge me? That seemed like a possible sabotage attempt. I think that we need to talk this out and achieve some closure without lost of others piling it on. Can we do this? Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm also confused because the last time that I tried to talk with you and iron this out you seemed to take the position that it was all my fault, and you had no intention of helping me with the Rose-Baley Party article where the drama began: "No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that." So why, may I ask, are you determined to be part of the Irataba FAC process, but RBP sat at peer review for 30 days and you didn't want to help, even though you claimed you could fix the paraphrasing there in a matter of "a couple of hours"? That seems inconsistent with someone who sincerely wants to help. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to make a point about comprehending Wikipedia conventions. I used to play basketball, in fact I was pretty darn good, and had there been a WNBA all those years ago I would have went pro. One of my favorite players was Larry Bird, and in the early-1980s I attended a b-ball clinic hosted by the Celtics that featured him. He taught us his philosophy of the game, and one major point was about passing, which I loved to do as a player. Bird said that when you pass the ball it is solely your responsibility that the person you are passing to gets the pass. He didn't accept any excuses by passers for dropped balls, even if an easy pass was missed. It's idealistic, but as an educator I take that approach to teaching. I would never excuse poor marks from a class by suggesting the students weren't smart enough. I take the blame, and the buck stops with me. I feel that some of the things you've tried to explain to me were a bit too complicated for my limited background in the relevant polices, but all misunderstands have been categorically blamed on me and my lack of comprehension skills. There have also been a few things that you were quite wrong about, but I haven't ever seen you acknowledge that, except that I am not ILT, which was painfully obvious to many people who looked at the SPI. I am not an idiot, in fact my intelligence is well above average, but I admit that some of these Wikipedia concepts have alluded me thus far, and I have made some mistakes with applying advice and getting along with the different cliques here. But Irataba is the first article I ever wrote, and I think for a beginner it's pretty good – I fully acknowledge that without the help of several more experienced and talented people if wouldn't be that great, but this is a collaborative project, so I take pride in the teamwork. Before me, there was no Irataba article on Wikipedia, and I am proud to have started it. Rationalobserver ( talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you see why I might be paranoid about your newfound desire to help me, when you and at least two others who are involved in the FAC were trying to get me banned at SPI just 6 weeks ago? Can you see how this might look like you and your friends are trying to make my life difficult? Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Some specific examples:
There are many, many more examples, and the diffs are not hard to find. In fact, looking at your peer review it would seem that you and the FAC reviewer are of completely different minds about what to include and what to focus on, and they would absolutely disagree with your approach to writing the article. It also looks like this might be a two-way attack where you suggest we add stuff that they later oppose and demand we remove, causing further exhaustion. I'm not accusing you here, really, but if we are going to talk this out let's not leave things unsaid. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I see that you've expressed an interest and knowledge of Arizona tribes, but which pages had you edited prior to February 15? Because I don't see any evidence that you've ever edited a single page to do with Native Americans prior to your accusing me of being a sock. Can I expect your presence at any and all Mohave articles I improve in the future? Are you willing to allow me to work on stuff without your help, or have you gone from "I don't want to help anymore" to "you have no choice but to accept my help wherever you go" without any interim discussion with me? I wish you had just asked if I would accept an Irataba peer review, because I would have, but the way you came in at the last minute with piles of concerns looked like an attempt to exhaust me at the end of an already long and in-depth peer review. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Victoria, years ago I received a short email by a Wikipedian which to share I don't think reveals too private matters and may help you:
IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, Hopefully you remember talking to me once or twice in the distant past, and that I'm not a complete stranger. I know it's been a long time, but I noticed your name recently and wanted to stop in and say hi. "Hi". :) ... Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched : ? 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is another really good source for Oatman. It is a critical analysis of the relation between Oatman and Stratton, who published and sensationalized her account.[ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5668184&fileId=S0361233300006311] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the help |
Hi Victoria, I just wanted to thank you for your critical thinking, superior research skills and keen overview which has led to significant improvements of the article on Irataba. Maybe our next FA will be Sarah Winnemucca? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
tender compassion
Thank you, not only for your admirable articles such as
Bal des Ardents, but for showing your self in a great user name and the meditative
Magdalen picture, for asking a
question with tenderness and for
counseling with compassion, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Three years ago, you were the 91st recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Just so you are aware: [13]. Montanabw (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
What brought all this on Victoria? I've always thought that you're a great editor, and I said so when RO was complaining that one time and said that you usually know what you're talking about. We can't afford to lose you, or any editor who produces content period. I do hope this isn't related to RO and the request for her to be unblocked. If she directs anything at you again it'll be obvious anyway. While I do think you also gave her a pretty hard time over her content, even if a lot of it was valid criticism, I do think there's a way to move forward and deal with your differences. I don't like seeing people who have the potential to write good content on here blocked or retired period. That's why I'm often willing to ignore how some people behave at times and try to bring the best out of them. If this is related to a serious health issue (as mentioned on April 10) rather than the trivia of wiki stuff, I genuinely hope you recover from it and will return to edit in the future. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the wikicup at the time of the Irataba FAC. I've never been involved in the wikicup, it wouldn't motivate me, but I can see it motivates RO. Perhaps some notable background info was missing but it was near FA quality and Maunus admitted that himself. I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC myself if I didn't think it was a worthy candidate, and it wasn't just me who supported it but other respected editors here. And yes, I checked a lot of the sources and content myself during the PR and they were fine. And no, I did not blame reviewers for its defects, I'm always respectful of people who bother to review FAs, even if I disagree with many of their points. In fact I warned RO at the FAC myself to stop making snide remarks towards Montana and respond more constructively. I also think it's BS that Irataba was rushed, the peer review was kept open for an entire month, most are not kept open two weeks, and in that time we received an extraordinary amount of input, during which the article considerably improved. I'd not have rushed taking any article to FAC that I didn't think was near the line. Let's be frank. RO behaved appallingly over the gender gap and civility disputes and can often alarmingly seem to turn on people like that. I saw how Cassianto and Eric were treated, and at the time I thought RO was another of those dickheads who turn up at forums/Eric's talk page looking to cause trouble and contribute absolutely nothing towards content. RO also really irritated me by the removal of some of the posts directed towards her, particularly on her talk page, including my own constructive advice to her to keep away from commenting on people. It wasn't until I actually started reading her work that I saw any value in her whatsoever. Some of the content I've read is better written and more neatly organized than a lot of articles being passed for GA with often sloppy prose. I think she's more capable than people let on, to the point that I consider her a valuable editor when she fully puts her mind to it. And she's interested in a topic which badly needs editors producing half decent articles over. As I once said on my talk page in response to RO, Victoria is a highly respected editor here and usually knows what she is talking about. A lot of her criticism was valid, and I think RO learned a lot from some of the points. You may well be right that she has done nothing wrong at all and RO's articles needed that level of criticism, but I know how I would personally react to that level of criticism on TFA day for instance, and I don't think Eric, Cassianto and many others here would take it lightly either. I don't think this is really worth it. It's not a big deal. If RO so much as takes one more swipe at Victoria, Montana or whoever or does this again she'll be blocked quicker than I can say Gordon Bennett. In the meantime let's allow her to produce content and at least give her one chance to improve content. If she can't go a few weeks without pissing somebody off and getting personal then she'll be blocked and likely banned at some point. Victoria, as a content producing editor, you know that you are much welcome here, so I hope you return as soon as possible and get on with doing just that as we all should. If your eye is partly the reason I wish you a speedy recovery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he said that, but Maunus also said after he had finished something along the lines of it being largely a fine article and Rational observer should be praised for her work on it and tolerance of criticism. Here "RO did really quality work, they were extremely positive and open to constructive criticism and help and had fewer ownership issues than most editors I have ever collaborated with. The article is excellent. That is what matters." Well, I only looked in google books and newspapers for Bramshill House, The Tower House and Castell Coch, I must be doing something right... Yes, I'm aware GabeMC is many of the editors who think RO is a sock of. I'd be surprised if it was Gabe though, he worked almost solely on late 60s music articles, which RO doesn't appear to edit.And to my knowledge Gabe didn't have a habit of getting into disputes with people and quietly went about promoting Hendrix and and other 60s rock articles. If RO was Gabe, then for a start they'd undoubtedly be a fine editor, which few of you seem to agree that RO is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"it's someone who said he was a man now saying he is a woman". It happens.. ;-) In a wiki context though, I agree that it's deceiving. I think a few people think that there's also a few female editors on here who pretend to be male.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
All I can do is apologize. I didn't know what to do with the many sources I'd saved to, and then a few days ago stripped off, Jstor, so I posted them on the talk there - again not as criticism but to share, collaborate, do what we do here. I did undo the post, but it's in history if you or anyone else is interested.
Re retirement tag: it's been there for a while. I did edit during the weekend so have obviously been in and out. Without going into unnecessary detail, for RL reasons editing is a little difficult these days; and again without going into unnecessary detail, I'm having a crisis of WP faith so to speak. Hence the tag. Thanks. Victoria ( tk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, you seem like a decent person and you write articles, so I'm glad you're not gone. I just saw the LTA page for ItsLassieTime and I had no idea how abusive she was to you; I'm sorry that happened :( I also notice the comments about GabeMc above and I don't believe for a second that he and Rationalobserver are the same -- just a few seconds looking at their writing styles is enough. ekips39❦ talk 06:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I just came to your user page to discuss something with you and then I saw that you have retired. You're a good user and have created articles with high quality. I wish you come back one day. Good luck. Keivan.f Talk 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty exciting, though the text is hedged and not really inspiring ('greatest discoveries in early drawing ever' - Comic Book Guy anyone). Attributed to the workshop, but dated c. 1440. Wow. Ceoil ( talk) 68:96, 79 April 3001 (UTC)
![]() |
Madonna on a Crescent Moon in Hortus Conclusus |
For you Hafspajen ( talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
Cheers for the copyedits, the article sort of needed them. Anything strange? We voted in favour of same sex marriage equality here today, which was nice. Funny, the whole business was illegal until just 1993. Country has come a long way, although its really just demographics and generation change. Still, go us! Ceoil ( talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, the patient, sensitive, and, dare I say it, nurturing, approach to the shotgun question is an inspiration. From now, when I edit, I will read my writing twice, revise, read your words, and only then consider hitting the [Save] button. — Neonorange ( talk) 02:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Dear Victoria you deserve this barnstar for having used your critical instincts to point out ways to improve Irataba, in this way triggering the process that eventually lead to its current, well deserved status as a Featured Article. Sometimes pointing out the flaws is a tough job, but someone has got to do it - and you for one are not afraid of getting your hands dirty fixing the flaws you point out. Though in this case it wasn't necessary, since a capable team was able to work it out. Thanks! ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
Just popping my head round the door (virtual door; virtual head) to say hello (see section heading for confirmation). Hope you have been keeping well. Belle ( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball/archive1 now live—normally I wouldn't nominate something so soon after writing it, but given how glacial FAC is likely to move over the summer with so many reviewers either on vacation or studying for exams, I want to get it up and running soon enough to give it a shot at the 1 August deadline. – iridescent 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I belive I am on record in observing your rockingness. To reitterate, thanks for the inlines and edits, againt today. Ceoil ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Goya seems almost there, prob enough that I could have two FACs on the go; looking forward to the monming of the Annunciation. Will be available for responding. Ceoil ( talk) 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no button to press for "you're welcome". Clearly the WMF staff are ignorant about manners amiright? Also good timing, I just got here (too?). But I don't have any plans. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I need guidance on this one - its a bit short and looks unfinished but expanding it at this stage would be to pad it out - very little about him is known and he has been neglected in art history, at least by writers working in English. Ceoil ( talk) 09:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(Replying here to avoid going off on a huge tangent at FAC.)
Etty had the misfortune to be born 20 years too early. He's horribly tacky if you judge him as a member of the traditional English School or by the standards of anything post-1870-ish, but if you view him as the first Pre-Raphaelite (or joint-first if you count Géricault, but he was a bit foreign so needs to be viewed with suspicion), it all falls into place. All the elements of the reaction against Academical standards are there; the obsession with realistic depiction of humans and animals, the fascination with authenticity in settings, the insistence on forcing morality into everything, the primary colours; all that's missing is the language-of-flowers pretentiousness. Bear in mind also that I'm overrepresenting the nude history paintings as there's been more written about them so they're easier to cover in Wikipedia terms—he was actually remarkably varied (he introduced the still-life to the anglosphere), and some of his works like
Mlle Rachel,
Hero Expiring or
The World Before the Flood look strikingly modern. He had the misfortune to be going through his "churning out derivative crap" phase in the 1840s, just when the people who ended up setting the tone for British art were students, so acquired a reputation as a dull hack which he still hasn't really shaken off; he then died just before the PRB started really making an impact so wasn't around to claim the credit for all the things they ripped off from him. (I usually give the example of Millais as the most obvious stealer of his ideas, but one can draw direct lines back to Etty from Ford Madox Brown, William Dyce, and
virtually anything in Lady Lever.) –
iridescent
00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that I seem to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you can help me to do so; I'm obviously missing something key in your message. The only alternative understanding that I seem to come up with is "it's a trainwreck, we should all walk away", but I'm not sure that really changes things. The discussion won't close until the last 'crat sings. Risker ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I got turned around, I forgot this had been through TFAR. It's fine. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the "almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting" gracing the day, precious again, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for something to nominate at FPC and thought I'd try pilfering some classic Japanese stuff from the Tale of Genji, but they are all really tiny. I don't know if any of these help; you've probably already seen and rejected them, but I thought I'd offer them just in case; at worst you have some pretty Japanese pics decorating your talk page. Belle ( talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, nice to see your article on the main page. It looks good (the article and the blurb). Sarah (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda, Richmond Bridge is very definitely a road article, it just does a good job of disguising itself as an article on Palladian architecture and the funding of 18th-century public works. As regards the others, "road" and "railway" are virtually interchangeable terms in the early 19th-century UK; the whole "broad avenue" idea was a Napoleonic concept that was looked on with great suspicion (for good historical reasons, the English were very wary of anything that looked like it might be intended for the movement of troops), and the road network of England (and even more so Ireland and Scotland) was for the most part just a bunch of glorified dirt tracks which would have been recognisable to the Romans, and which the early railway network largely paralleled (as they tended to follow the same level ground along the river valleys). If you look at a map of England (the Scottish, Welsh and Irish railway networks have had the guts ripped out of them), you can see the main railway lines following the main roads even today. ‑ iridescent 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you notcied Csldigicol - from the MMoA - have been made available The Renaissance in the North - WOW!!!!
fascinating article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Congrats on your latest FA. (What is that, 100 or so? If only people were more interested in counting things on wikipedia, we might know!) Outriggr ( talk) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |