User talk:Elisa.rolle/Archive 2

Blocked?
This is weird. User:Elisa.rolle is blocked, but her talk page is still active (which is a Good Thing). What is going on, Elisa? Are you appealing your block, because I will support you. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BeenAroundAWhile, not appealing cause I'm pretty sure that someone would find a reason to block me again. Not worth the hassle, and I have always found the appealing process discouraging and discomforting. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could we at least have a discussion (not sure where) about unblocking Elisa? I know what the policy is, and I know the block log is lengthy, but at the end of the day she can improve the encyclopedia in ways I can't, and she's got more time on her hands to do so than I have - and for me that makes her a net positive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the editor isn't interested in being unblocked, then no, we can't have such a discussion. I think, if you want to pursue an unblock here, you first need to have a discussion with Elisa, not with me. I see not much chance of it succeeding, with 5 indefinite blocks by four different users so far, but that shouldn't stop you from trying of course. Fram (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 you have your answer. As I said not worth trying and even if you succeed there will be always someone saying 3,4,5 indef blocks (even if 1 or 2 of them are questionable?) Then block her again for whatever reason they coukd think. As I said discomforting and discouraging Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Morley mosaics
Ritchie333, SusunW, page watchers, at Morley College in London there are some mosaics celebrating the achievements of significant women: Caroline Martineau, Emma Cons, Eva Hubback, Lilian Baylis, Annie McCall, Hester Thrale, Jude Kelly, Margaret Mellor, Mary Seacole, Margaret Mallett, Natalie Bell, Octavia Hill, Violette Szabo, Heather Rabbatts. I think the memorial itself is worthy of a page, and the red link to be filled. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomson Beattie for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomson Beattie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thomson Beattie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of William Alfred Gaskell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Alfred Gaskell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/William Alfred Gaskell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of John Hugo Ross for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hugo Ross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Hugo Ross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas Francis McCaffry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Francis McCaffry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thomas Francis McCaffry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mabel Fortune Driscoll for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mabel Fortune Driscoll is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mabel Fortune Driscoll until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph Fynney for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Fynney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joseph Fynney until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 21:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Algernon Henry Barkworth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algernon Henry Barkworth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Algernon Henry Barkworth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ellen Glasgow
Ritchie333, BeenAroundAWhile, PamD, David Eppstein. this sentence: "Her two eldest sisters, Emily (1865-1913) and Anne (b. 1857) were born before the American Civil War; her eldest brothers, Cary (1864-1911) and Arthur (1865-1955) were born during the conflict." is wrong, Cary Glasgow was a woman, so not a brother but a sister, and she died of breast cancer in 1911. See Ellen Glasgow: A Biography, By Susan Goodman. Can someone take care of the mistake? Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to more neutral language, but from my quick search for sources, I can't find anything more detailed than just cursory mentions that she was born into a large aristocratic family. Hopefully somebody knowing more about this can get a more detailed source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How could a sister born in 1865 be born "before the Civil War", which lasted from 1861 to 1865? Cullen328  Let's discuss it
 * This was added in May 2018 and was never sourced. I've removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333: I was not asking to remove the info just to correct it. I gave a source to check it. Cary in particular is important in Glasgow's life cause when she was diagnosised with breast cancer Ellen took her home and AV Bennett, a nurse, went living with them. Bennett in the end became Ellen's companion and the ma in beneficiary of her will. Everything is in the source I gave. Anyway do as you like. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was the one who did the removal. My reply appeared on the same line as Cullen's for some reason. –dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

William Winston Seaton
David Eppstein, can you add this image to the article of Sarah Weston Seaton's husband, William Winston Seaton? Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also expanded the part of the article about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hilda Käkikoski
David Eppstein, can you add this image to the article of Hilda Käkikoski? Hilda is the last women sitting on the right, her partner Fanny is the 4th standing from the left. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein, thank you for adding the image, but I picked this one since there is also Fanny Pajula who is mentioned in the personal life section of the article. Can you specify that in the didascalia? Fanny is the 4 top left. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. "Didascalia"? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein, didascalia = what is written under the photo :-) --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, it wasn't confusing, just a new word to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimmie Daniels
MassiveEartha, thank you for the infobox, but you put as date of birth 1808. The correct one is 1908. Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know, I didn't notice the typo. MassiveEartha (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, thank you. But sincerely I'm way happier now. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Doris Brabham Hatt
David Eppstein, someone replaced the second portrait with the first one... I'm not sure I like this change, the new portrait is sort of "gaunt", and Hatt seems ill. Can you have a look and give your opinion? if you agree with me, I created the article, and I like better the second image. BTW the first picture is dated 1930, mine was 1910, so for sure mine was Public Domain in the US (before 1923) meanwhile the first one is not sure (the uploader says they are the copyright holder... I found it difficult to believe considering this is a photo dated 1930... or they are the heir of Hatt, or this is just someone uploading a photo with the wrong copyright claim)). Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They're both usable photos of the subject, and one might reasonably prefer the 1930 one because of the 1910 one being so soft, but I find the copyright issue persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwen Farrar
David Eppstein, I'm not sure this edit summary is in line with the wikipedia policies "I have changed Gwen's year of birth to match her birth certificate which I have in my possession. I have deleted the incorrect information about her owning Chicheley Hall. Her family rented it. I am writing a biography of Gwen Farrar and Norah Blaney to be published in October 2019 by Tollington Press", but in any case the change was done in a wrong way and they removed the link to the Wikimedia file. Can you please restore it? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks
I owe you thanks for this archived page in your sandbox, which I was able to cite in Marty Robinson (gay activist); I previously found what may be your LJ, but was unable to cite your book on gay lives because of where it was published. Thanks for your work. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



Hello
Hi Elisa. I like to work with you regarding the issues raised during your unblock request and discussed at the administrator's noticeboard. I've put back the talk header above so we can find the archives, and because I like decorations on talk pages I've brought you a pretty picture. Before we start there a few things I need to tell you, that I'd like you to read carefully, and then we'll decide whether or not to continue.
 * First, about myself: it's easy to see a lot about me from my page. I like to read, I like to write and I like quiet spaces. I dislike conflict, I'm fairly shy (sometimes very shy, sometimes not so much). I can't always be here so don't expect immediate replies or a very fast pace. We'll take this slowly, if that's okay?
 * Actually that is what I told from the beginning, I want, and I need to take this slowly. If I have to help with the CCI log I will, but in small steps it that is possible. One of the point I was raised, from the very beginning, was to slow down, so yes, I want and I need to slow down. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Second, the process: what I'll do is ask you a few questions based on articles you've written (I might also use a few I've written as examples) and then you answer. So it's a discussion, not something that should make you nervous, we'll hang out on comfy chairs drinking our coffee or tea (I'm a coffee person) but no alcohol. If you don't want to answer a question you can ignore it, think about it for a few days, skip it, tell me you don't understand, whatever and we'll move on. I believe very strongly in There is no deadline - nothing should ever be rushed. As you answer questions I'll get an idea of others to ask, so it's sort of an organic process, if that makes sense. Either of us can stop if we decide we want to.
 * Coffee here too, I don't drink alcohol at all, never have and I suppose never will. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Some rules:
 * I'm repeating there is no deadline because I'm strict about it.
 * Sometimes I'm gone for days at a time, so if you don't hear from me, don't worry! If, for some reason, I can't get back at all I'll make an effort to leave a message.
 * There's no guarantee this will result in anything at all (except, perhaps improving writing skills). I'm apparently working against consensus and I'll stop if I'm told to. I'm not an administrator, don't make decisions, and have only a small voice in process discussions.
 * I have this page on watch, so there's no need to use notifications or pings or anything.
 * Preferably this would between you and I, but because it's a user talk page anyone can stop by so I can't make promises.
 * To talk page stalkers: questions, additions, advice, complaints, etc. can be posted at my talk page or at the dedicated subpage I've set up, User:Victoriaearle/Tutorial.
 * Elise, I'd like you read through all of this carefully, think about it and decide whether you want to continue. My advice would be to think about it for 24 hours but you don't have to wait that long if you don't want to.
 * When you are ready please ask away what you need. Please consider I'm on Rome Time zone, so +1 from London, +6 from New York, +9 from Los Angeles (to give you an idea). So yes, it could be the answer will be delayed, if it's the middle of the night here. Moreover I have a full time job so that is also to be considered, my time is mostly related to when it's dinner time here. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Whew, that's enough for now. Victoria (tk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the replies. You're ahead of me in time and like you I often don't get here until dinner time, so I might often post when it's the middle of the night for you. Don't feel any need to get back quickly. Apologies by the way about the alcohol comment; it was meant to be a small joke. Sometimes I'm not very good at making jokes :)
 * I'm making a dedicated section for each question. The first one is below. Tomorrow I have an appointment and won't be here until my evening at the earliest. Victoria (tk) 21:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bright young things
Bright young things is an article on my watchlist. You made quite a few edits there, which drew my attention. When you started editing there, it looked like this. Can you tell me in your own words whether you think it's improved and if so, why? Victoria (tk) 21:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reading "Bright Young People: The Lost Generation of London's Jazz Age". I usually check names people on the net, especially cause I'm a "visual" person and I like to have a photo to associate with the person I'm reading about. I found that Wikipedia page, but it was sort of "poor". There were few names, way less than what I was reading about, and then I was founding all these connections between them, and all these appearing as fictional characters in some other book. So I thought these info I was finding could be useful, or interesting, for someone else too. And I implemented the list below, including the references and the photos. So now people have a starting point to a) browse the single name (as before but improved with more names) or b) have a feeling of who they were and how they interacted already on the page. So the improvement is having added more details and points of curiosity (the fictional characters for example) stimulating people to explore more. BTW I bought more books to do so, for example The Brideshead Generation, Evelyin Waugh and His Friends, by Humphrey Carpenter, and Dictionary of Real People and Places in Fiction by M.C. Rintoul Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, thanks. I have a few comments about lists in general, but first I'd like to take a look at those books so I'll get back to this. Below we can talk about some of specific articles on the list. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Lady Pamela Smith
I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the articles linked in the list. Lady Pamela Smith is an article you created on 24, January 2018, article history is here. I've not looked at every sentence in the article but there a few things that jump out at me. Specifically the lead says,

The third paragraph is from Beaton's book:

I'm interested in three of the sources used in the passages quoted above, the Guardian 1928 article, the New York Times obituary, and Cecil Beaton's The Book of Beauty. Speaking specifically about those three sources and passages, do you think the article reflects our policies as written in WP:V and WP:RS? Also, in your own words, why do you think that article satisfy our WP:Notability guidelines? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * why do you think that article satisfy our WP:Notability guidelines? In general it's really difficult to prove notability for a society woman. They did a work that was almost always confined in their home, being hosts to important men and facilitating their relationships. So yes, most of the time, you cannot prove the notability of a society woman. But in this case she made "public" her work, she collaborated with news magazine, she was part of professional institution (for fashion, but still professional institution) and when she died she was noteworthy enough to have an obituary on the New York Time that was not a paid notice. In the end, but that is the least of my points, an expert (English) admin of Wikipedia once told me that if you have an entry in the peerage, you are worthy enough (maybe he was slighlty impartial...) Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * do you think the article reflects our policies as written in WP:V [Verifiability] and WP:RS [Reliable sources]? they are three completely different sources. Starting with the New York Times obituary: yes, I think it's verified and reliable. It's an enough recent article (1982) to be subjected to the more modern rules of journalism. The other two, the Guardian 1928 article, the New York Times obituary, and Cecil Beaton's The Book of Beauty, are somehow of the same trend, if not the same type: the Guardian is a society page article; it was biased since usually who wrote those articles were lesser journalists that most of the time embelled what they were writing. But society pages are now, most of the time and unfortunately, the only place where you can find info about the society women. The fact that the article is on the Guardian is giving maybe more reliability to it. Anyway that specific article was necessary just to "prove" she was part of the Bright Young Things. The Book of Beauty is something completely different because I read the whole book and yes, it's totally biased. Beaton included his friends, or who he liked. So it's not reliable on the description, but to me was important not what he said, but that she was included. Beaton was a high society attendant; he was a snob and he was a party goes; therefore if a woman was included in The Book of Beauty it means she was a notable figure of the society of Beaton's time. Did I wrote a profile for all the women with an entry in the peerage? no of course. Did I try to write an entry for all the women included in The Book of Beauty? yes, I tried. The inclusion in that book meant she was "society" notable for her time. Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * These are really very nice answers. Thank you for them. In my view you demonstrate a good knowledge of RS here. I wasn't certain about Burke's Peerage but I believe what you wrote is correct. It is a Tertiary source and is mentioned in WP:No original research, here, so personally I tend to avoid sources like that or minimize them, for lots of reasons that we can discuss later. I wondered about the Guardian piece and thought it might be for the reason you explain. It's a judgment call whether or not to use it; personally I wouldn't because it occurs right at the top, doesn't seem to verify the subject, and might be open to challenge. Your depiction of Beaton made me laugh! I'll discuss that and the NYT piece in a moment.First the issue of notability: you've raised a really good point about women, women's work, society women. Isabella Stewart Gardner comes to mind. I've re-written Helen Clay Frick (the previous version was a copyvio) but the frustration for me is that although she provided an enormous service to the international art community in the form of the library of photographs she took between World War I and World War II to the point that the Monuments Men took full advantage of her collection to repatriate art post-WWII, very few good secondary sources have been written about her, so I abandoned that article. A different example is Dorothy Shakespear (she pre-dates the Bright young things set); she didn't volunteer, her notability is mostly tied to her husband, and even mentioning that article here risks a notability challenge. BUT — there are plenty of secondary sources who discuss to Dorothy's life (including Humphrey Carpenter whom you mention above); and Dorothy was vorticist artist in her own right, so it squeaks by. My rule of thumb is to try to avoid unnecessary discussions, so I avoid anything that might end up at Afd and stick only to topics where I can find good secondary sources.Regarding WP:Verifiability that I asked about (sorry, I didn't write it out above) I have two comments. Lady Pamela Smith's article includes full passages from Beaton. This is technically okay because the book is out not out of copyright, so that would be considered plagiarism . My rule of thumb and a best practice to follow is this: never ever copy anything from anywhere. Ever. 1., it's too easy to make mistakes — i.e mistakenly copying from a source still under copyright; 2., in academia it's considered lazy — better to summarize (here is a link explaining summarizing) with one or two carefully selected quotes attributed directly to the author. Also the citation goes only to the book, but it's a big book, so page numbers should be supplied.The New York Times article has different issues.The source says: Lady Hartwell, "known for her political salon and one of Britain's museum leaders, died yesterday in Westminster Hospital in London. She was 67 years old.She was the wife of Lord Hartwell, chairman and editor in chief of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph of London".Our article says: She was known for her political salon and was one of Britain's museum leaders; our article says "On 7 January 1936 Lady Pamela Smith married Michael Berry, Baron Hartwell chairman and editor in chief of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph of London.The bolded bits show the overlap in language. Even though these are short phrases only a few words long, this is an issue where Close paraphrasing needs to be taken into consideration. It's really best to reword because words tend to stick in our brains. A trick I follow is to take notes on a notepad which forces me to leave out words or rephrase, or take notes here in a sandbox but let them simmer for a day, a week, longer, so when I get back I've forgotten the words I've read in the source and it's easier to rewrite. Usually summarizing & paraphrasing (which is very difficult to learn) result in shorter articles, which is what we want here because Wikipedia is essentially a reference work.
 * Your answers were fairly good so I pivoted today and went more into lecture/explanation mode, though it's a long post. My question today is this: Can you explain how to fix the mistakes I pointed out regarding copying & close paraphrasing? Also, do you think the article needs that much detail? In other words, can it be rewritten as a short summary, maybe even a stub? If so, explain to me how that could be done, and I'll do the work for you in main space. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I made a mistake about Beaton's book - pointed out to me here so I've revised my post. This very much proves the point though - because it's available on Archives.org I assumed it was out of copyright. Which is a huge mistake! The book was published in 1933, so it's still in copyright. Victoria (tk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, can it be rewritten as a short summary, maybe even a stub? Sorry if I start from the end. I hate stub. So can it be rewritten? Yes. Maybe even a stub? please no. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, do you think the article needs that much detail? The quote from Beaton can be easily removed without much damage. It can just says: "In 1930, she was included in The Book of Beauty by Cecil Beaton with her sister, lady Eleanor." The quote can be removed without issue. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how to fix the mistakes I pointed out regarding copying & close paraphrasing? This sentence can be rewritten from "She was known for her political salon and was one of Britain's museum leaders." to "Through her role as a society host, she facilitated relationship among politicians. Moreover she was also on the board of two musuems, The Victoria and Albert Museum and the British Museum. This other, "Lady Pamela Smith married Michael Berry, Baron Hartwell chairman and editor in chief of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph of London" like this "Lady Pamela Smith married Michael Berry, Baron Hartwell, known for his involvement with The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, both of London" Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Elisa, I'm sorry, I made a huge mistake about Beaton so I revised my post above as you were replying and we edit conflicted. Can you see the changes I've made? And respond re the Beaton material too? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I made the same mistake in the past, and that is the reason why I removed all the PD notices where I used the book and was careful to make it clear it was a "quote" (please let me know if you find some articles I missed). Moreover, I did not use the images from the book, even if I tried to profile all the women in it, but instead I used the Bassano's portraits that are in PD (hosted at the National Portrait Gallery but with a CC0 notice and most of the time already available on Commons.) Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW "The Book of Beauty" is under "English" copyright, and the cut off is, if I remember correctly, 1944. Therefore "The Book of Beauty" has a CC4 licence (Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial licence ) see here: but I know Wikipedia does not accept CC4. But probably that is the reason why it was uploaded on Archive.com, it's just wrong the PD notice. It's not PD (CC0) but CC4. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm making soup and editing Wikipedia at the same time. There's a lesson to be learned from that (i.e no multi-tasking!). I'm logging off now and coming back later. But wanted to acknowledge that you did in fact use quotation marks, so I've struck a bit in my post above. Back later. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you don't want to stub down articles, but to me a stub is what Lady Pamela's article looks like now. It took an hour, and in that time I worked out close paraphrasing and removed the long Beaton quote, among other things. The issue with close paraphrasing is that when the source is skimpy it's difficult to reword. If the source is many paragraphs or even pages long, then rewording is easy, but it's not at all easy when there's little information to work from. A good editorial decision is to give up some of the detail, eliminate as many words as possible, shuffle things around a bit, give it your own take, and rewrite. Does that make sense?

Tomorrow I'll switch gears and move on to some other articles, but I want to keep this section open. I have a vague idea about the Bright Young Things list, but need to mull it over a bit more before posting. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that is not a stub for me (or at least it's not the stub I saw other editors doing), so thank you. the article is more than fine now. Elisa.rolle (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it and I think it's a fine practice to follow. When I begin an article, don't have enough material to expand, or don't have time to keep working on it, I often do that type of thing. There are a few of these types of stubs I've created littered around the project, see for instance this fantastic woman - there too many sources for her, not enough time & energy to read them, but we have the stub. Victoria (tk) 15:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Alice Curtice Moyer
Here's a more open-ended question: you created Alice Curtice Moyer on 30 January, 2018. Spend some time looking at the article, the sources, the references, etc. And then, based on the discussion we've been having, tell me whether you see anything that should be changed? Victoria (tk) 15:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry Victoria, my previous answer was born by the fact that it's 40 degrees celsius here and I do not have air conditioning and was coming out from a day work that started at 5.30 am. So I remembered what you said, no deadline, and I will have a look to the whole articles, but tomorrow. I have to decompress, and recharge. Tomorrow and sunday I'm off so I will have time to do it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! I forgot about the heat, but I have a family member who is going through it so it's concerning. Get some rest, don't rush, try to cool down! Victoria (tk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Alice Curtice Moyer Wing (1866 - August 16, 1937) was an American writer and suffragist. Her book A Romance of the Road is a manifesto of the suffragist argument. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia: Alice Curtice Moyer Wing was born in 1866 '''in Du Quoin, Illinois. While still a baby the family moved to Southwest Missouri, where they were pioneers in Dallas County.''' In A Romance of the Road, Alice described her parents as "a sturdy young father who cleared and tilled the soil, making what use he could of this Eastern education by teaching the district school in the winter, and ... a pretty young mother, who was never too busy to put on a clean collar (of her own crocheting) when he was expected from the field." (quote) The Romance of the Road was a bright, entertaining, good book, full of practical knowledge and everyday events which were made so heartfelt and interesting that one felt the better for having read it. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia: Moyer was the eldest of six children; five were born in Missouri; they lived on the homestead until she was fifteen, when her parents moved into the county seat so their children could have a better education, but the teaching was meagre and the instruction of her father aided her more than her schooling. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia: '''Life on the homestead taught her resourcefulness, and how to endure discomforts, for they were pioneer children and faced many hardships. Her father, Charles L. Curtice, was a New Yorker by birth, but was in the Sixth Illinois Cavalry, during the Civil War, and had a service of four years and seven months to his credit. Her mother was Nancy Elizabeth Tinsley, of Tennessee, whose father, of English ancestry, was a Virginian.''' Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia: Through her father she was '''related to the Wing family: his mother was Miriam Wing, of Hoosick, New York. Through a daughter of Rev. Stephen Bachelder (or Bachelor), Deborah (wife of Rev. John Wing), she can trace her ancestry back to the famous preacher and reformer, who was vicar of Whersvell, Hants, England, before coming to America. By reason of her ancestral connection from the Rev. Stephen Bachelder (or Bachelor), she was eligible for membership in the Colonial Dames of America, and through David Wing, a Quaker of Providence, who served in the War of the Revolution as an enlisted soldier in Col. John Blair's regiment, Albany County Militia, she was eligible for membership in the''' Daughters of the American Revolution. Moyer shares ancestral claims on the Rev. Bachelor with Daniel Webster, J. G. Whittier and other writers. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia: In the early 1900s, the "Wing Family of America" held a reunion which brought many of the estimated 100,000 relatives to the family camp fires. Tuner C. Wing, president of the Gorman Paint Company, of which firm Moyer was secretary and treasurer, was a prominent St. Louis member of the Wing Family and in 1915 Moyer married him. Sir Arthur Wing Pinero, the playwright, was a member of the English branch of the Wing family. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Source: "Women's Leader Dies - 17 Aug 1937, Tue • Page 5". The St. Louis Star and Times: 5. 1937. Wikipedia: While her children, Selma Van Buskirk and Charles Curtice Moyer, were quite small, it became necessary for Moyer to support her family at the death of her first husband, Alberson Moyer. '''She took the surest way into the business world for a woman, that of stenographer, and came to St. Louis from El Paso, Texas, to take up this study. At the end of ten weeks she took a position for a year and a half in that capacity, and then moved to Kansas, where she became correspondent for a manufacturing concern. Always keeping her children with her, she studied with them and sewed for them at night after office hours. In addition to this she wrote stories for a juvenile paper, and now and then for magazines and newspapers. She said, as Sir Walter Raleigh said of himself,''' "I can toil terribly." It was while in Kansas that Alice began her work in the suffrage movement. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Source: "Women's Leader Dies - 17 Aug 1937, Tue • Page 5". The St. Louis Star and Times: 5. 1937. Wikipedia: '''After five years in Kansas, the threat of a nervous breakdown sent her on the road as a commercial traveler, a position which she held for five years. During this period, her children made their home with their grandparents, who still lived where Moyer spent her girlhood days, in Buffalo, Dallas County. With her health restored by the road work, she again held office positions as correspondent, department manager, district manager, and instructor for traveling forces in Kansas City, Chicago, and Birmingham, moving to St. Louis in February, 1913, to be secretary and treasurer of the Gorman Paint Company.''' Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Wikipedia (this is my version, someone else changed it later): Moyer was selected as the St. Louis member of the State Suffrage Press Committee. While she was campaigning for suffrage she lived in Greenville, Missouri. In the 1920s she commuted from Greenville to St. Louis, Kansas City, and Jefferson City while she worked as chief of the State Industrial Inspection Department under Governor Arthur M. Hyde. She was reappointed in 1925 by Sam A. Baker. She was the first woman to head any state department in Missouri. She '''served until 1927 when the position was abolished in favor of the State Labor Department. During her terms in office, she lobbied against violators of the child labor laws, for the nine-hour law for women, and for reducing the number of industrial accidents. She rode the eastern Missouri Ozarks with her horse, LaBelle, and her later books, most of which in Ozark mountaineer dialect,''' drew from these experiences. Source (PD): Johnson, Anne (1914). Notable women of St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis, Woodward. p. 166. Retrieved 17 August 2017. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Source: "Roadtrip: Greenville Recreation Area & Crossroads Church Cemetery". Missouri Women Women of the Past, Inspiring Women Today. Source: Missouri. Labor and Industrial Inspection Dept (1923). Annual Report. Source: "Women's Leader Dies - 17 Aug 1937, Tue • Page 5". The St. Louis Star and Times: 5. 1937. Wikipedia (this is my version, someone else changed it later): In 1934 she unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination for congress. She remained an active member of the Missouri League of Women Voters and retired from public life the same year. Source: "Women's Leader Dies - 17 Aug 1937, Tue • Page 5". The St. Louis Star and Times: 5. 1937. Wikipedia (this is my version, someone else changed it later): She died on August 16, 1937, and she is buried in the Crossroads Church Cemetery in the Greenville Recreation Area where interpretive panels about her life and work are displayed. Source: "Roadtrip: Greenville Recreation Area & Crossroads Church Cemetery". Missouri Women Women of the Past, Inspiring Women Today. I highlighted in bold all the sentences that are identical to the source. I underlined those sentences that are NOT in Public Domain. My comments:
 * the sentences in Public Domain, while allowed, should be reworded anyway because the English is old-fashioned, there are too many "flowery" details that can be easily removed without removing essential details.
 * the sentences NOT in Public Domain, should be reworded, they are basic facts, and can be reworded, or reduced in details.

Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Elisa, just leaving you a note to acknowledge that I've seen what you've written. Today is one of those days when I'm not able to edit and wanted to let you know. Hopefully will get back here tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was wondering about the 1914 book. Basically copying should be avoided, but you're aware the book is PD, so that's good. Rewrite and then rewrite again, and maybe a third time, in your own words, cut down the detail, because we have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia (dry, informative, to-the-point writing). An interesting trick I've seen writers use to good results is to take a piece of writing, such as Johnson, translate the text in their own words to their native language, and then translate from the native language (I presume that's Italian - if you live in Rome) back to English. It takes more time, but more time is what's needed to re-word passages from PD texts and to weed out close paraphrasing. Also, keep in mind that per Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, there are restrictions about how much to "take" from a PD source or from a specific entry/passage in a PD source. Finally, I also wondered whether you saw this long piece about her? It might be a better choice than Johnson to use, or you can use bits from one source and other bits from another. In my mind writing a Wikipedia articles is about fitting the pieces of a puzzle together, using bits and pieces from various sources.Re the deletions, nothing to worry about. Florence Sellers Coxe Paul was on my list to ask you about. A sentence or so about her can be added to Ida Waugh - I'm happy to do that for you. Oddly my next question will be about Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge. Hélène de Kuegelgen can be shrunk down and merged into that article, which again, I can do before the AfDs end. Will try to get back here again later today or tomorrow with one more question (my last one, I think).  Victoria (tk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Victoria. Yes, I'm not contesting the AfDs. Florence Sellers Coxe Paul I think has reason to standalone, but, I said it again, I'm not contesting it. So yes, maybe add something to the Ida Waugh's page (that btw is as well an article of mine) is good. Her being an original founding member of the Acorn Club and that she donated the Sheraton mirror to the Drexel Institute of Technology, I think are the most important piece of knowledge. As per Hélène de Kuegelgen I would save the tombstone's words. It's the only remaining piece of "news" about her relationship with Dora ("Anime elette - Amiche inseparabili / Trovarono assieme l'eterno riposo / Il 7 Febbraio 1948 / Nell'ultima espressione di un'amicizia / Più forte della morte" (Elected souls - Inseparable friends / They found together the eternal rest / On 7 February 1948 / In the last expression of a friendship / Stronger than death)). Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the donation of the Sheraton mirror is notable; lots of people donate objects, art, etc. for various reasons (often for tax reasons in the US) so it's really a fairly common practice among those who can afford the donations and not terribly notable. Also, in case you missed it, just wanted to point out again [this source about [[Alice Curtice Moyer]] simply because I'm wondering whether you think it's worth using? Victoria (tk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss it, but I'm pretty sure it was not available when I first wrote the article. But yes, now that it's available it's worth using it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge
Since she's mentioned above, I'll move on to this article now. She's an interesting woman, undoubtably notable, had a tragic death, so thanks for creating the article. We discussed above merging Hélène de Kuegelgen to Dora's article, which I think is easily done. A couple of questions and observations. One thing editors should do is decide which information the sources provide is worth reproducing in the Wikipedia article and which information isn't that important. Keep in mind per WP:NOT, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That section tells us to treat "creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This is important to keep in mind, beyond the fact that we avoid listing factoid after factoid, but because the less that's taken from a source the less the chance of close paraphrasing. In my view this article can be reworked to emphasize the important points and some less important points could be deleted. Here's a good secondary source about her that does exactly that. If you had to, which information would you delete? Also, take a look at the sentence about the Formia War Monument and compare to the source. How would you rewrite that sentence? Victoria (tk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Agnes Wright Spring
Similar to above: the important facts are that Agnes Wright Spring was the first female state historian of both the states of Wyoming and Colorado. She was also the Wyoming state librarian. The University of Colorado holds her papers in a collection and their biographical description can be used as an academic secondary source as well as to provide an example of what to include and not include in her article and maybe how best to structure it. There's some close paraphrasing from this source that needs to be eliminated. Are you able to identify those sections? Finally, I'm on the fence in terms of providing a list/collection of an author's titles per WP:NOT and am often annoyed when an article I've written suddenly gains a long list of titles that's unsourced. In the least, in case it's challenged, is there a source for the list of articles/books? Victoria (tk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Message mentioning you
Your attention is called to the message at, which mentions you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I just edit-conflicted with you when I was trying to post above. I'm butting in here, in hopes that Elisa focuses on the work I'm trying to do with her on this page. It's a little unorthodox to for me to use a user talk page in this manner, but getting distracted won't be helpful. Let's just see how things develop and I believe there are other places where discussion is taking place. I hope you understand, and you too, Elisa, that I've answered. Also, Elisa, please don't blank this comment. I will teach you how to archive manually to your archives. But not right this moment :) Victoria (tk) 21:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Good to see your name on my watchlist again. Let me know when I can help, please. I just wrote the 200th woman bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)