Congratulations. It looks good! SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Condolences, plus regret for your recent experiences. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Five years! |
---|
I imagine you reading, - thank you for all you do here! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
An FYI that I'm on an extended wikibreak for health related reason, duration unknown. Victoriaearle ( tk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
I'll miss your kind presence. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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) |
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TonyBallioni - adding ping. Victoriaearle ( tk) 16:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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)
Huh? I was just trying to thread comments to make the section easier to read. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Leaving this here. Ceoil ( talk) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
Good to see you back to writing, interest in music and support! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
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:
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)
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) |
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the time you put in to tutoring and mentoring other editors. "No good deed goes unpunished." :-) – Leviv ich 21:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Victoria ( tk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)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.
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)
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
I came to thank you, Victoria, for the great work I remember you did when Kafka was FAC! His writing about unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent controlling systems fits the case around the ban of Fram all too well. My language question in the context is the term "toxic behaviour" on which it seems based. It is a little better than the 2014 Wikimania speech term "incredibly toxic personalities" which I hated but I don't know how it is defined (if at all), and (almost regardless) if we should ever apply it to users who made great contributions to this project, or to any users. What would you say? (Discussions many places already, sorry, Iridescent for example, where Bish remembered the latter phrase), and Nishidani explained well that it is vague intentionally.)
I also came to say that Irische Legende is mentioned on DYK, an opera based on Keats, - thank you for all your work around poets and poetry! I always see Magdalen reading when I think of you. Best wishes, health and all! My focus is Vespro della Beata Vergine, help always welcome, and I will tell you when we get to FAC. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?! —— SerialNumber 54129 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? – Leviv ich 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
impetusmeans.
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.
You have 77,637 pages on your watchlist
— so close to 77,777!
El_C 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Per Ceoil's talk page. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
( tk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
On their return the Adornes brothers funded ...- I can't help escape the feeling that a comma "," should be placed after return.
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.
Turin-Milan Hours- is currently wikilinked at second mention in prose, instead of first.
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
completely unreliable. But saying that
everything we know about the murders comes from the murderers and police documentsis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Repinging Sarah (I got the ping wrong and mentioned the location issue in the post above). Victoria ( tk) 15:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
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) |
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | |
|
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) |
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. |
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
Congratulations. It looks good! SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Condolences, plus regret for your recent experiences. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Five years! |
---|
I imagine you reading, - thank you for all you do here! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
An FYI that I'm on an extended wikibreak for health related reason, duration unknown. Victoriaearle ( tk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
I'll miss your kind presence. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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) |
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TonyBallioni - adding ping. Victoriaearle ( tk) 16:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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)
Huh? I was just trying to thread comments to make the section easier to read. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Leaving this here. Ceoil ( talk) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
Good to see you back to writing, interest in music and support! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
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:
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)
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) |
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the time you put in to tutoring and mentoring other editors. "No good deed goes unpunished." :-) – Leviv ich 21:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Victoria ( tk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)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.
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)
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
I came to thank you, Victoria, for the great work I remember you did when Kafka was FAC! His writing about unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent controlling systems fits the case around the ban of Fram all too well. My language question in the context is the term "toxic behaviour" on which it seems based. It is a little better than the 2014 Wikimania speech term "incredibly toxic personalities" which I hated but I don't know how it is defined (if at all), and (almost regardless) if we should ever apply it to users who made great contributions to this project, or to any users. What would you say? (Discussions many places already, sorry, Iridescent for example, where Bish remembered the latter phrase), and Nishidani explained well that it is vague intentionally.)
I also came to say that Irische Legende is mentioned on DYK, an opera based on Keats, - thank you for all your work around poets and poetry! I always see Magdalen reading when I think of you. Best wishes, health and all! My focus is Vespro della Beata Vergine, help always welcome, and I will tell you when we get to FAC. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?! —— SerialNumber 54129 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? – Leviv ich 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
impetusmeans.
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.
You have 77,637 pages on your watchlist
— so close to 77,777!
El_C 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Per Ceoil's talk page. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
( tk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
On their return the Adornes brothers funded ...- I can't help escape the feeling that a comma "," should be placed after return.
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.
Turin-Milan Hours- is currently wikilinked at second mention in prose, instead of first.
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
completely unreliable. But saying that
everything we know about the murders comes from the murderers and police documentsis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Repinging Sarah (I got the ping wrong and mentioned the location issue in the post above). Victoria ( tk) 15:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
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) |
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | |
|
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) |
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. |
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |