Welcome!'
Hello, Victoriagirl/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Acebrock 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello there!
I have noticed your recent substantive edits to the Stephen Leacock article. I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated this article as one for future expansion for the Canada collaboration, as I think there is sufficient material out there to make this a solid overall article, perhaps even enough for Feature Article status. If you are interested in helping out, please add your vote to the nomination.
Cheers! Captmondo 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, that article is still severily lacking content though. Jolly good show. Zombiebaron 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice some of your edits on the details of publiscation release. Could you when adding details of 1st editions not remove the information that the edition is hardback, thanks. Also you might be interested to know of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate which give overall guidance on the content & structure of articles on Novels. There is other information at the project as well. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
for instance
does that help or confuse more. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thnks for you message, my intention by putting these options was rather more to see if these as "forms of words" reflected your own understanding of what should be proposed as a guide, ie. something we can put to the project as a whole, or should I just propose it and see where it takes us. My thinking was if you come from a trade background you might have extra thoughts on it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You showed support for the selection of a
Canada Collaboration.
This month George-Étienne Cartier was selected for improvement. We hope you can contribute. |
Hi Victoriagirl, thanks for the corrections in the infobox to Oryx and Crake! There are so many editions its very confusing. You give September 2003 as date for the first edition, but the Nan A. Talese edition gives May 2003. As far as I can tell, Bloomsbury (0747562598) and McClelland & Stewart (0771008686) published it simultaneously. Confusing... -- Jottce 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Be Bold, they say. Why not just make it redirect to Sinclair Ross ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw your response to my post on the The Hours (novel) talk page, and I thought I'd just give a shout out to a fellow Canadian CanLit fangirl (if you don't object to the characterisation).-- Anchoress 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the original and i would like suggestions for cleanup, I did not write the article, it was in the wrong place and I put it there anew WayneRay 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic
I got rid of the material quoted directly from her web site and added some from other sources. You may want to consider changing your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article as it now exists at Magie Dominic.
Thanks for helping to fix Concordia University's article name. 132.205.64.80 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried cleaning up the article to the best of my abilities (mostly removing fluff and arranging info in a better way) , as you can see it is still woefully inadequate as an article, if you can help out it would be greatly appreciated. Short of speedy deleting the article I have no idea what step to take next, I can't write the article from scratch as I have no knowledge of the subject matter nor can I find much information on the web about her. Plus comments on the user's page go unanswered.← Σc o Phreek→ 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you applied a wikify tag to the Chantal Renaud article. Can you tell me what specifically needs to be wikified? I don't see anything in there that needs to be done. Metros232 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ho Hum. You are quite correct to vote Ms Tardif's entry for deletion. It is rather gauche and naive to claim 'highest honors' (whatever they are) from a correspondence school in an article about oneself - liable to make one only an object of fun. As indeed she is becoming. If the prose style with which she defends herself is anything to go by, her novels are destined for scant readership, and a good thing too, I say. Cheers. Lgh 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was placed by Cheryl Kaye Tardif at the beginning of this talk page; I have taken the liberty of moving it here, which I feel is more appropriate: Lgh.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Please remove post below titled 'tardif dyskinesia?' Acknowleding that you did not post it, however. A warning will be sent also to the user involved. Thank you.( Cherylktardif 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)). Moved by Lgh 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
People seem to be getting quite stressed about this. Would you like me to look for a random admin to give an opinion and smooth ruffled feathers? I know Lgh a bit on Wiki, so I'm probably not the right person to do this. JackyR | Talk 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
summary Pretty much all you need to know is in this section, although User talk:Cherylktardif is excellent background.
(General back story at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif - Talk:Cheryl Kaye Tardif - User_talk:Victoriagirl#Cheryl_Kaye_Tardif - User_talk:Lgh#Cheryl_Kaye_Tardif - User:Ecophreek#Whale_Song_.28novel.29)
appendix Rephrasing of some points by CKT (formatted as appendix by JackyR | Talk 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
outcome Determine whether there is actually a problem here: if so, find a remedy, or help CKT find her way through the processes if she wishes to; if not, say so and we can all get on with our lives.
parties User:Victoriagirl, User:Cherylktardif, User:Lgh and to some extent User:JackyR (I'm posting this request for mediation, and have made other attempts to help the parties in this case). JackyR | Talk 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I was out of town taking care of business. ← Σc o Phreek→ 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I am very, very disappointed that this vanity article, which is quite plainly that - written by the person praising her own self-published work, has been kept by Wikipedia. It really cheapens the whole deal for me. I have self-published several book and have had two published by bona fide publishers which have sold thousands of copies. At the moment I am just about to have my first screenplay filmed. I thus qualify for a Wikipedia entry, if Tardif is anything to go by! Yet I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to do that. J'ai vu a ta 'user page' que vous aimez bien la litterature et les langues - moi aussi! Actuellement j'ecris deux livres a meme fois - un roman et encore un screenplay; j'espere etre directeur des filmes en avenir. Toutes les meilleurs, Lgh 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! I simply noticed the strange POV pushing, but then noticed that 9 of User:Uberall's first 10 edits were to Karen Connelly or Talk:Karen Connelly which is suspiciously unusual behavior ... I suspect the subsequent edits, inserting the word "major" or "minor" into a mix of well known "international" writers and various Canadian writers unlikely to be well-known outside Canada was simply an attempt to cover the tracks by making what was really an attack solely directed at the Karen Connelly article look as though it just happenend to be part of a broader more 'objective' scheme. I suspect Uberall is a sockpuppet for User:AnthonyHead who made a similar edit, along with wanting to highlight details of the controversy over the Governor General's Award. (BTW User:Alice of Wonderland also looks like a sockpuppet for the other 'side'). I've added the page to my watchlist so if there's anymore trouble I can help out. Stumps 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See User:Tyrenius/Sockpuppets of Anthony Head and User:Anthony Head. Tyrenius 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Victoriagirl, sorry you are the meat in an otherwise trivial sandwich. I have apologised to Ms Tardif for the tone of my writing but not for its content. Wikipedia is a forum for debate. If she wishes to delete whatever she likes she can do so - I will not. I am adamant that her kind of article, 'vanity article by self', should not be in Wikipedia. I will continue to say so. It is nothing personal against Ms Tardif; I will speak out against this kind of article wherever I see it, as I feel it debases the notion of an encyclopedia. Lgh 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at a dispute you've been involved in, and I would like to see an end to the dispute so that everyone can get on with something more positive and enjoyable. There are always disputes on wiki and the thing to do is to minimise them a.s.a.p. or they escalate and drag on forever. And that's no fun. Everyone involved is a new user, and it does take time to learn things the wiki way. It's a quirky system, but it seems to get there in the end. The first thing to accept it that there is a certain degree of arbitrariness, and inconsistency may be apparent. It is not necessarily considered valid that because X is accepted over there, then X should be accepted here as well (or not accepted for that matter). Things tend to be a bit localised. Nor is that a 100% rule either. Are you feeling as if you've just dropped down the hole into Wonderland with Alice? Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki.
Then we have the rules. Well, actually there are no rules on wiki. There are three non-negotiable policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY for writing articles. There are other policies and there are guidelines, but primarily there is collective common sense, known as consensus. Wiki is a living evolving entity, so sometimes the written "laws" are out of date to a greater or lesser degree. There is only one real way to find out what's what, and that is by participating and becoming part of the wiki community. Then you not only learn how it's done, you can immediately participate on deciding how it's done. And as for all those rules, it's a good idea to check out WP:LAWYER before you start beating someone over the head with them in great detail.
New users, who act in good faith, are allowed latitude to compensate for the difficulties and mistakes that are bound to ensue. There are various rights and wrongs in this dispute, but not major wrongs. If you want to know how to be uncivil properly, check this out for a good example. Nevertheless, for anyone who wants satisfaction, I will issue a formal warning. It is a generic warning. If it applies to you in whole or part, then take in what it says. If it doesn't, then ignore it, as it will be for someone else.
Please be WP:CIVIL to other users and remember to WP:AGF (assume good faith), even when you don't feel like it, unless you have evidence to the contrary, which a third party will agree with. Remember also WP:NPA (no personal attacks). Criticise the edit, not the editor. When dealing with living subjects for articles and in article talk pages, it is essential to act with caution in line with BLP, particularly in regard to negative statements about that person. If you are an editor and there is an article about you (or you plan to start one), read WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY first, and don't be surprised if other editors are short with you, or if it ends up being proposed for deletion. However, if you see someone editing an article about themselves, you might like to be tactful, rather than throwing the book at them. Editors in such a circumstance can sometimes make valuable accurate edits (as here), and may remove negative material about themselves which is not verified.
The best thing now is to start afresh and draw a line under all this. In fact I have drawn a line, as you can see. Below it you will see a link to an archive for you. If you click on it, it will open the archive. I suggest you cut and paste the line and everything above it into the archive. It is accessible whenever needed, but will no longer be prominently on display. It would be an affirmation of good faith to get it out of the way. What will be left will be anything below the line.
If you need any assistance, leave a message at the bottom of my talk page.
Welcome!'
Hello, Victoriagirl/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Acebrock 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello there!
I have noticed your recent substantive edits to the Stephen Leacock article. I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated this article as one for future expansion for the Canada collaboration, as I think there is sufficient material out there to make this a solid overall article, perhaps even enough for Feature Article status. If you are interested in helping out, please add your vote to the nomination.
Cheers! Captmondo 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, that article is still severily lacking content though. Jolly good show. Zombiebaron 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice some of your edits on the details of publiscation release. Could you when adding details of 1st editions not remove the information that the edition is hardback, thanks. Also you might be interested to know of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate which give overall guidance on the content & structure of articles on Novels. There is other information at the project as well. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
for instance
does that help or confuse more. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thnks for you message, my intention by putting these options was rather more to see if these as "forms of words" reflected your own understanding of what should be proposed as a guide, ie. something we can put to the project as a whole, or should I just propose it and see where it takes us. My thinking was if you come from a trade background you might have extra thoughts on it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You showed support for the selection of a
Canada Collaboration.
This month George-Étienne Cartier was selected for improvement. We hope you can contribute. |
Hi Victoriagirl, thanks for the corrections in the infobox to Oryx and Crake! There are so many editions its very confusing. You give September 2003 as date for the first edition, but the Nan A. Talese edition gives May 2003. As far as I can tell, Bloomsbury (0747562598) and McClelland & Stewart (0771008686) published it simultaneously. Confusing... -- Jottce 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Be Bold, they say. Why not just make it redirect to Sinclair Ross ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw your response to my post on the The Hours (novel) talk page, and I thought I'd just give a shout out to a fellow Canadian CanLit fangirl (if you don't object to the characterisation).-- Anchoress 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the original and i would like suggestions for cleanup, I did not write the article, it was in the wrong place and I put it there anew WayneRay 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic
I got rid of the material quoted directly from her web site and added some from other sources. You may want to consider changing your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article as it now exists at Magie Dominic.
Thanks for helping to fix Concordia University's article name. 132.205.64.80 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried cleaning up the article to the best of my abilities (mostly removing fluff and arranging info in a better way) , as you can see it is still woefully inadequate as an article, if you can help out it would be greatly appreciated. Short of speedy deleting the article I have no idea what step to take next, I can't write the article from scratch as I have no knowledge of the subject matter nor can I find much information on the web about her. Plus comments on the user's page go unanswered.← Σc o Phreek→ 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you applied a wikify tag to the Chantal Renaud article. Can you tell me what specifically needs to be wikified? I don't see anything in there that needs to be done. Metros232 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ho Hum. You are quite correct to vote Ms Tardif's entry for deletion. It is rather gauche and naive to claim 'highest honors' (whatever they are) from a correspondence school in an article about oneself - liable to make one only an object of fun. As indeed she is becoming. If the prose style with which she defends herself is anything to go by, her novels are destined for scant readership, and a good thing too, I say. Cheers. Lgh 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was placed by Cheryl Kaye Tardif at the beginning of this talk page; I have taken the liberty of moving it here, which I feel is more appropriate: Lgh.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Please remove post below titled 'tardif dyskinesia?' Acknowleding that you did not post it, however. A warning will be sent also to the user involved. Thank you.( Cherylktardif 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)). Moved by Lgh 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
People seem to be getting quite stressed about this. Would you like me to look for a random admin to give an opinion and smooth ruffled feathers? I know Lgh a bit on Wiki, so I'm probably not the right person to do this. JackyR | Talk 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
summary Pretty much all you need to know is in this section, although User talk:Cherylktardif is excellent background.
(General back story at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif - Talk:Cheryl Kaye Tardif - User_talk:Victoriagirl#Cheryl_Kaye_Tardif - User_talk:Lgh#Cheryl_Kaye_Tardif - User:Ecophreek#Whale_Song_.28novel.29)
appendix Rephrasing of some points by CKT (formatted as appendix by JackyR | Talk 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
outcome Determine whether there is actually a problem here: if so, find a remedy, or help CKT find her way through the processes if she wishes to; if not, say so and we can all get on with our lives.
parties User:Victoriagirl, User:Cherylktardif, User:Lgh and to some extent User:JackyR (I'm posting this request for mediation, and have made other attempts to help the parties in this case). JackyR | Talk 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I was out of town taking care of business. ← Σc o Phreek→ 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I am very, very disappointed that this vanity article, which is quite plainly that - written by the person praising her own self-published work, has been kept by Wikipedia. It really cheapens the whole deal for me. I have self-published several book and have had two published by bona fide publishers which have sold thousands of copies. At the moment I am just about to have my first screenplay filmed. I thus qualify for a Wikipedia entry, if Tardif is anything to go by! Yet I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to do that. J'ai vu a ta 'user page' que vous aimez bien la litterature et les langues - moi aussi! Actuellement j'ecris deux livres a meme fois - un roman et encore un screenplay; j'espere etre directeur des filmes en avenir. Toutes les meilleurs, Lgh 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! I simply noticed the strange POV pushing, but then noticed that 9 of User:Uberall's first 10 edits were to Karen Connelly or Talk:Karen Connelly which is suspiciously unusual behavior ... I suspect the subsequent edits, inserting the word "major" or "minor" into a mix of well known "international" writers and various Canadian writers unlikely to be well-known outside Canada was simply an attempt to cover the tracks by making what was really an attack solely directed at the Karen Connelly article look as though it just happenend to be part of a broader more 'objective' scheme. I suspect Uberall is a sockpuppet for User:AnthonyHead who made a similar edit, along with wanting to highlight details of the controversy over the Governor General's Award. (BTW User:Alice of Wonderland also looks like a sockpuppet for the other 'side'). I've added the page to my watchlist so if there's anymore trouble I can help out. Stumps 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See User:Tyrenius/Sockpuppets of Anthony Head and User:Anthony Head. Tyrenius 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Victoriagirl, sorry you are the meat in an otherwise trivial sandwich. I have apologised to Ms Tardif for the tone of my writing but not for its content. Wikipedia is a forum for debate. If she wishes to delete whatever she likes she can do so - I will not. I am adamant that her kind of article, 'vanity article by self', should not be in Wikipedia. I will continue to say so. It is nothing personal against Ms Tardif; I will speak out against this kind of article wherever I see it, as I feel it debases the notion of an encyclopedia. Lgh 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at a dispute you've been involved in, and I would like to see an end to the dispute so that everyone can get on with something more positive and enjoyable. There are always disputes on wiki and the thing to do is to minimise them a.s.a.p. or they escalate and drag on forever. And that's no fun. Everyone involved is a new user, and it does take time to learn things the wiki way. It's a quirky system, but it seems to get there in the end. The first thing to accept it that there is a certain degree of arbitrariness, and inconsistency may be apparent. It is not necessarily considered valid that because X is accepted over there, then X should be accepted here as well (or not accepted for that matter). Things tend to be a bit localised. Nor is that a 100% rule either. Are you feeling as if you've just dropped down the hole into Wonderland with Alice? Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki.
Then we have the rules. Well, actually there are no rules on wiki. There are three non-negotiable policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY for writing articles. There are other policies and there are guidelines, but primarily there is collective common sense, known as consensus. Wiki is a living evolving entity, so sometimes the written "laws" are out of date to a greater or lesser degree. There is only one real way to find out what's what, and that is by participating and becoming part of the wiki community. Then you not only learn how it's done, you can immediately participate on deciding how it's done. And as for all those rules, it's a good idea to check out WP:LAWYER before you start beating someone over the head with them in great detail.
New users, who act in good faith, are allowed latitude to compensate for the difficulties and mistakes that are bound to ensue. There are various rights and wrongs in this dispute, but not major wrongs. If you want to know how to be uncivil properly, check this out for a good example. Nevertheless, for anyone who wants satisfaction, I will issue a formal warning. It is a generic warning. If it applies to you in whole or part, then take in what it says. If it doesn't, then ignore it, as it will be for someone else.
Please be WP:CIVIL to other users and remember to WP:AGF (assume good faith), even when you don't feel like it, unless you have evidence to the contrary, which a third party will agree with. Remember also WP:NPA (no personal attacks). Criticise the edit, not the editor. When dealing with living subjects for articles and in article talk pages, it is essential to act with caution in line with BLP, particularly in regard to negative statements about that person. If you are an editor and there is an article about you (or you plan to start one), read WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY first, and don't be surprised if other editors are short with you, or if it ends up being proposed for deletion. However, if you see someone editing an article about themselves, you might like to be tactful, rather than throwing the book at them. Editors in such a circumstance can sometimes make valuable accurate edits (as here), and may remove negative material about themselves which is not verified.
The best thing now is to start afresh and draw a line under all this. In fact I have drawn a line, as you can see. Below it you will see a link to an archive for you. If you click on it, it will open the archive. I suggest you cut and paste the line and everything above it into the archive. It is accessible whenever needed, but will no longer be prominently on display. It would be an affirmation of good faith to get it out of the way. What will be left will be anything below the line.
If you need any assistance, leave a message at the bottom of my talk page.