User talk:Valereee/ER/Archive 1

ER assessment/recommendation
There's not really a lot to say here. I spent some time asking Elisa some questions, discussion is here. I had a couple of follow up questions/points I wanted to address before posting but I had to stop. I looked at fair number of her articles, definitely more than 30, possibly less than 50.

Here's an assessment, for whatever it's worth:
 * There is a fair amount of close paraphrasing throughout her work. I say "fair amount" because I've seen worse; in fact I've seen much much worse and from editors who should know better. That doesn't make it right, though, and it needs to be addressed. She needs to become very familiar with Close paraphrasing, and should spend some time with the resources at Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL) — it's one of the best if not the best online resource available. Suggested reading is How to paraphrase, Write it in your own words, Quoting, paraphrasing and summarizing. There's a menu bar on the left of the screen for more resources within each unit. Elisa has plenty of material to work with, and I'd suggest strongly she begin with her own articles and start working on eliminating the instances of close paraphrasing. It's a difficult skill to learn, but she's willing and I believe she's capable.
 * She has copied text verbatim from sources but I only found a single sentence taken from a non-PD source (and that was a 1926 source). Technically we're allowed to take from public domain sources but it's a really really bad practice. OWL's resources are this overview that provides a definition of plagiarism, and Safe practices. My recommendation is that Elisa not copy from anything. Ever. Even if it's in the public domain. Moreover, she should go through her articles and rewrite those passages in her own words.
 * In my view, many of her articles contain more cruft/trivia/factoids than are necessary. Including more than is strictly necessary in a given article is a trap and a danger because often the sources from which that material is taken are so skimpy that it's really hard not to avoid close paraphrasing. Furthermore, again only in my view, the notabilty of some of the article topics gets lost. It wasn't until I really dug into the articles that I realized how interesting these women are, but for some reason I got caught first in details that didn't seem overly interesting.
 * Notability is an issue. I told her I'd work on merging material from two articles currently at Afd into others. If I'm still allowed to do so, I will. But my feeling is that instead of writing any new articles, she should concentrate on working up the articles she's already created, cleaning the issues mentioned above, working on copyediting, teasing out the more important details, and finally trimming out some of the less important details to make each article as good as it can be. She's incredibly prolific, so there's more than enough there to work on.
 * This is only my own opinion, but following There is no deadline should be the first lesson. On Wikipedia there's never a rush, no need to hurry, so it's good to take things slowly, think things through, read the sources more than once, take notes, take some more notes, work on the wording, work on the wording again. It's important to know that the writing process consists of three distinct and iterative steps: planning/brainstorming; drafting; revision. Good writers spend 80% of their writing time on revision and that's an important and helpful skill to learn.

Hope this is helpful. It got a little longer than I intended. I'll be available for support if necessary - ping me on my page & if I don't reply sending email is ok. In the meantime, good luck with this. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is incredibly helpful, thank you., , , and , is there anything you want to change about the draft plan before we go live? Perhaps, following Victoria's advice above, we should add that Elisa will begin by working on articles she's already created to remove any close paraphrasing. Also, how do you envisage the unblock request on AN? Any ideas or suggestions welcomed. SarahSV (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Victoria, you've done really great work here and on ER's talk page. I'm impressed with your willingness to help, your patience, your understanding, and your ability to get at the issues. I really think you're uniquely suited to this kind of thing. I've also been impressed with ER's willingness to learn and willingness to work within the system.


 * Sarah/all, I think we're probably going to need to directly address the other concerns brought up at AN (battleground behavior and edit warring) and whether we need to directly address those in tutorial. ER showed no signs of any argumentativeness, but I believe we probably should show it being addressed; it needs to be seen.


 * And as someone has directly asked about it, we probably are going to have to figure out some section on sanctions to put into our mentoring plan. I don't really know how to deal with this; to me it feels like the probability of a second indef/ban for even a tiny misstep by cynics closely watching my every move would be enough of a sword of damocles. And I don't even know how to make a start on the wording for that. But if one person's asked about it, dozens are thinking it, so we need to cover it. --valereee (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that your analysis is spot on, Victoria. From my own experience teaching (I do not teach people English, I teach people for whom English is not their first language, how to write academic material in English), there are huge differences in the way that writing happens in a cultural context. Part of the detail ER gives may simply be cultural, as Italian is a romance language. For example, English, German and Czech speakers tend to tersely and concisely summarize topics with few examples, but Spanish, Romanian and French speakers tend to write with vague language and cite numerous examples to define the point.
 * ER's behavioral pattern is "mirroring". If one reasonably approaches her, she is reasonable. If one hostilely approaches her, she is combative. Plenty of male editors on wp have these characteristics and get away with them, so I am not sure why she should be treated differently than them. On the other hand, I honestly believe part of her reactiveness was based on personal real life stress she was experiencing and as that situation has resolved, her head is in a different place.
 * My big concern in light of what happened yesterday is the question of whether we mentor her on another platform. Not ideal as Victoria said, and it is less transparent, but also we do not want to cause grief for her or any of us. SusunW (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone! I'm sorry I missed everything, but saw the discussion about her violating her ban??? I'm open to moving things offline and I'm impressed with the amount of work everyone's been doing to help Elisa. I agree with Valereee that we're going to have to find wording for sanctions. We may want to ask someone like Tony who does address the detail work involved in those kinds of missteps. Ipigott may have some good suggestions, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

, when you say mentoring on another platform, do you mean now, i.e. before the unblock request? Or are you thinking of afterwards (assuming it succeeds)? SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of both, i.e. before the unblock request and possibly after. If it succeeds, I would assume we could use her talk page again. If it fails the only avenue for continued mentoring would be on another platform where she isn't blocked. SusunW (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean assessment/tutorial, I'm done so no need to move on my account. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Adding, basically my contribution is finished. I would have liked to finish completely and have some closure, but it is what it is. I'm not reliably here and as u|Megalibrarygirl notes, I'm sure there are others willing to help who are equally as capable as I am. I've noticed Elisa's edits since the first day she edited, and wanted to dig into her contribs to see what's what. Plus that was an experiment I enjoyed trying - it works better in person - but it might be useful for other cases up the road. If you all need me, you know where to find me. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , when we take this to AN, do you want to be included in the ongoing mentoring team? I assume that you don't from your comment about your contribution being finished, but I want to make sure to avoid misunderstanding. SarahSV (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have to be available to explain what I've done and my assessment, though I suspect I'll run into a fair amount of opposition. AN isn't my favorite place so the way I feel right now is that I'd like to minimize being there as much as possible. It's not worth having me on the mentoring team; what I did with her in the past week or ten days (sorry I've lost track of time) was really exhausting and I realized it's best not to be jumping into a stressful situation. I've just written the first article in two or three years, and will be fading off again. Sorry to be a wuss. I'm very much available as a resource or for help, but I really can't and won't commit if I know I can't keep the commitment (health issues & all that). Sorry. Victoria (tk) 01:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need to apologize. You've done a fantastic job, and the rest of us can pick up from here. Thanks again for all the time you've spent on this. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria, please don't apologize! You've done yeoman work already. Take care of yourself. I don't think there's any need for you to be at AN; if we can use you as a resource to help us answer questions there, that should be plenty. --valereee (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

1RR
I've added that Elisa agrees to abide by 1RR for 12 months after the unblock. Would that be fair, and would it be sufficient to address battleground/edit-warring concerns? SarahSV (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, as she had already agreed to it. SusunW (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's good, thanks for the replies. SarahSV (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that should deal with the concerns over edit-warring. It's a bright line. --valereee (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

CCI
I added this into the first section; I think it'll be helpful to address this directly, as much opposition was over the amount of work caused for people like Diannaa and Money emoji. Do you think it would be good to run this by them and see if we can get them to sign off on this before we take it to the community? --valereee (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw this page. I would approve an unblock, provided she tell us which pages that contain plagiarization, along with the promise to just not copy from any source, because I believe that her copyright problems originated from misunderstanding of public domain. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

awol next week
I'll be out camping with extremely limited coverage -- possibly just intermittent cell phone -- from the 2nd through the 11th, just fyi. --valereee (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Valereee, should we wait until you're back before going to AN? SarahSV (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if you think it would make a difference whether I'm available or not -- I don't think it would, but I didn't want to just disappear on everyone! --valereee (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it would be good to have the mentoring team available to present the case to AN. From what date would you be available?, , and , can you say whether you'll be around from roughly 12 August to make the case at AN that Elisa should be unblocked? SarahSV (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. After August 22nd, I may be busy in real life. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be home late August 10 and generally available after that, all additional planned travel is in civilized places. --valereee (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm traveling August 5-25. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I'll be ready August 12 or whenever we decide. I'll be back in El Paso, though right now I'm in the very civilized greater Akron area. So if we need to wait for Rosiestep, that's fine, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks everyone for the responses. For now I'm thinking we should aim to do it the week following August 12, unless we decide at that point to wait for Rosie. SarahSV (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the week following August 12 sounds fine. Although I'll be away (at Wikimania in Stockholm), I'll have puter access and if you ping me to follow-up on something, I'll respond as soon as I can. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosie, thanks, that's great. SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good and that will accommodate Susun, too! Just make sure to ping me! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

, any thoughts about moving forward with this? I can make myself available, so let me know how you feel and what your schedule is. SarahSV (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I'm around from here and should be more or less normally busy for the rest of the year. I guess you're saying you'd like me to bring this up wherever, lol? I'm willing to do that. First I do think we should in our mentoring plan address what Golden Ring brought up about a binding agreement/sanctions/contingencies. Golden Ring did us a favor by giving us this feedback. If one person is willing to say it, dozens are thinking it, so let's address it. We should do this in a way that assumes Elise's good faith and treats her with respect, but if its absence is something that is going to bring in even one well-considered early oppose if we don't address it, it's not a kindness to Elise for us to not address it. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to thread that needle, so please can someone help figure out what it should say? Second, how and where should I bring it up? Are we thinking at AN, or an RfC somewhere, or what? --valereee (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: I took a stab at it. Advice much appreciated. --valereee (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good. I was thinking of AN. Perhaps mention GoldenRing as one of the admins? Check with him first. It might be a good idea to wait until this appeal has closed. If you want me to write something, let me know. By pinging you, I didn't mean that I expect you to do all the work. SarahSV (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarah, not at all, I agreed to take the lead. I was just teasing. I'm sorry, mention GR 'as one of the admins'?  And, yeah, I think you're right about waiting for that other appeal to be resolved. --valereee (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC) ETA: if you have something in mind to draft up, I'd be thrilled! --valereee (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a bit -- GR as a helpful independent admin, and a bit to address some of the concerns being expressed at the link above from Sarah. Comments appreciated. --valereee (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Valereee, good to see you back. I've only just noticed GoldenRing's response, so I'll leave a note on his talk too. Are we ready to move forward with this? SarahSV (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Restart
, this seems to have fallen by the wayside. Are we still going ahead with it? Also pinging. SarahSV (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that other appeal still hasn't closed. I've been watching it, but it hasn't had movement in a month today. I'm also wondering about doing this right now. I've been accused of bad judgment due to bad timing over this exact situation, and I'm not eager to confirm those concerns. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, the appeal I had in mind (the one linked above) closed about three weeks ago. Which one are you thinking of? SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Darkfrog one? OMG I'M AN IDIOT. My face is so red. I didn't realize I was looking at an old version all this time. omg. --valereee (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't worry, it's easily done. Can I assume this is a good time to move ahead? If so, let's discuss how to organize it. We need to write an appeal, and I think (although I'm not sure) that Elisa should post an unblock request. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, now that the blocking admin has been unblocked and would be able to contribute at AN, my major concern about the timing issue is resolved. You'd mentioned above that you might have something in mind to write up? I'd be grateful for that. I don't really even know how to start with bringing something to AN. --valereee (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , how about User:SlimVirgin/draft 3? Pinging the others to check we all agree:, , , and . Victoria, I included your tutorial but didn't include you as one of the mentors; if I got that wrong, please let me know.Valereee, re: this part of the mentoring plan: "After someone on the team has checked it [Elisa's edit], they’ll make a small or null edit to let other team members know the addition has been checked." I'm not sure that's realistic. If you and the others want to do that, okay, but I don't want to have to make an edit after every one of hers that I look at. Would it be better to say we'll keep a close watch? SarahSV (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am good with it and concur that we may or may not need to make an edit after each of ER's. I am happy to help in any way that I can, and hopefully my real life $#*% over the last year have come to an end and I'll be more available. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that's great, and thank you for sticking with this. Also, I forgot to ping . GoldenRing, this is about your mention in User:SlimVirgin/draft 3, which is a draft of the AN for Elisa's appeal. Just checking that you're still okay with this. SarahSV (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * SV, I think that writeup looks great. Do you want me to post it? If so, should I tweak it into being from me, or what?


 * The null edit was just to keep us from either wasting time by replicating each others' work or end up with edits going unchecked. I'm not married to the idea; I just was looking for some way for us to both signal each other that a particular edit had been checked and signal the community that we were indeed keeping a a close watch. If there's a better idea, I'm all for it! --valereee (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , should we just say we'll be watching her edits closely? SarahSV (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I think it would be too much of a burden and would end up not being done. Should we say how long the mentorship will last, and how long before she can create more articles? One of the problems was the large number of creations. SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So how will we know that a particular edit needs to be checked or not? I'm not comfortable with assuming someone else has checked, and I don't want to feel like I have to check every edit. It's a waste of time if someone else already has.
 * It's probably a good idea to add how long the mentorship will last. What does everyone think?
 * Right now it says Once the team agrees she understands copyvio, she’ll be free to create articles but maybe we should expand that? --valereee (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, good points above. We could say a mentor will edit the article or talk page to make clear that a check has been made. I'll add something shortly. As for new articles, I would say none for at least six months and then only if the team is assured she understands copyright. Duration of mentorship? Up to 12 months? SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your question about who should post it. I don't mind doing it, but we should make sure first that everyone's on board, so it may not be today. SarahSV (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm good with all of that! --valereee (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I've added up to 12 months' mentorship and at least six months before new articles can be created. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm good with all of that! --valereee (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I've added up to 12 months' mentorship and at least six months before new articles can be created. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm following and am on board with the changes. is on jury duty this week, so probably not able to respond very quickly. SusunW (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to help, too. We are going to watching her contributions page, then? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Me, too. I'm ready to help and I'm watching her contributions page. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks. Yes, we'll be watching her contribs. As for this appeal, I've emailed Elisa to make sure the timing is good for her; no response yet. Do you happen to know whether she needs to post an appeal on her talk page, or can we just go ahead with the AN on her behalf? Neither WP:CBAN nor WP:UNBAN are clear on that point. SarahSV (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've heard from Elisa and the timing is good for her. SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it wouldn't hurt to post an appeal. That will let everyone know that we're working with her and the process has started. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for confirming that you're still on board. The appeal is posted. See WP:AN. SarahSV (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you can put a contributions page on your watchlist? How? I've wished I could do that before but didn't think it was possible. --valereee (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still totally unclear if I can express an opinion on the admin board, as I am not an admin. For now, I haven't, because I'm not. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can totally post there. It's a noticeboard for admins, but all editors are free to express their opinions. --valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't logged in for a day or so and just saw this. Will try to make a post to AN now. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding: not sure whether any of you noticed but there's a request for Elisa to post an unblock request. Has anyone offered to help her with the paperwork, so to say? I know that she works a lot and isn't always available so there might be a lag time. But if so, if anyone needs to be notified, etc., we should probably take care of it or help her as much as possible. I've not been available the past few days but if no one is is available, then I'll do what I can. Victoria (tk) 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I've emailed her. All she has to do now is request an unblock on her talk and accept the conditions, but I'm sure any help you can offer would be welcome. Valereee, we can't add anyone's contribs to our watchlists (at least I don't think we can); I just meant we'd be looking at her contributions. SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Laura Davis Worley
first of all, thank you for what you did. Secondly, I really do not know where to start to review my pages, so maybe I thought to use my watchlist and review those pages which have changes, considering maybe those are the pages under more scrutiny and therefore more important to make safe. The above is the last one in order with changes. Is it a good start? otherwise please let me know which other approach to use. I confirm my pace will be slow, up until december I'm volunteering for a charity event organization that will take place on December 8 and from October 11 to October 20 I will be travelling with limited connection time. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, Elisa! I think that's as good a method as any to start going through your work! From a quick look at Earwig, it also looks like a page that will be an easy fix for you. Welcome back! I'm happy for you. --valereee (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll put the Davis Worley article on watch, but I've also suggested to Elisa that she begin with the articles she and I discussed in this thread. I have those on watch and believe I still have the relevant sources bookmarked. Scrolling through the thread I see that some are now red-linked; we had meant to merge some material from Hélène de Kuegelgen to Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge but I didn't get to it. Because I'm not an admin, can't see deleted pages, but would like to try to retrieve material about Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge. How do we go about doing that? Victoria (tk) 13:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can see it...let me check what I can pull into here. --valereee (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge
Discussion moved to Talk:Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge.

There seems to be consensus to move this, so I've gone ahead. SarahSV (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Miss S.J. Hale's Boarding and Day School for Young Ladies
I'm reading through a blog about feminist/lesbian places, Lost Womyn's Space, and I found an article about the Miss S.J. Hale's Boarding and Day School for Young Ladies. The author of the blog did not investigate much, just said the school was at 922 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that the article in which she read about it was in the Godey's Ladies Book magazine. It was not much hard to find out that Miss S.J. Hale stands for Sarah Josepha Hale (1820-1863) whose mother was Sarah Josepha Hale, the editor of Godey's Ladies Book and for whom a marker stands at 922 Spruce Street. Would it be worthy to add a mention in the Sarah Josepha Hale article that her daughter ran a school at that address? Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Elisa, it looks like the source is reproduced here, but that's basically a blog. I'm sure we can find the original if the information is worth including. Pretty funny that Hale was promoting a school run in her own home by her daughter.
 * It's probably the school was just a boarding house for young girls in a safe house. And I suppose at the time there wasn't much way to connect the address with the editor of the magazine, therefore no one was questioning the free promotion. Anyway Hale's mother was a strong advocate of women education and she is among the promoter of Vassar College. Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For our own info, we can probably trust the blog to have correctly reproduced the text, but it looks like they've found their own illustrations. That photo for Wesleyan, which is illustrating Wesleyan Female College in Cincinnati, is of a building outside Columbus, about 100 miles from Cincinnati. The Columbus Wesleyan Female College is now Ohio Wesleyan. Cincinnati Wesleyan College is a redirect to the Columbus Wesleyan Female College, but I'm not sure it should be. --valereee (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary M. Irwin founder, governor and vice-president of the Colony Club
Maybe Mary M. Irwin is not worthy of an article herself (I was reading about her in relation to her founding of the Hotel Irwin, a women only hotel in NYC aimed to house working girls, but in her obituary in the New York Herald it says she was among the founders, governors and vice-presidents of the Colony Club. Maybe listing her among the Colony_Club? Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that clipping is marked not public? --valereee (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I clipped it from my own personal account (which I paid for), but I thought the clippings were public. I did not opt for any privacy option. Anyway it's on the New York Herald, 07 Jun 1918, Page 9. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've got a subscription, too. I've always thought the clippings I added to articles were viewable by others, even without an account. Does this one come up as public for you? Clipping. It seems to be Irvin, btw. --valereee (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I see it and that is the one. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

some mixed contributions and a little warning
I uploaded these photos on Commons if you want to use them on Wikipedia: I will not add them myself cause I was already told in the past I'm ruining the encyclopedia layout by adding my photos, therefore I do not want incur in the same mistake. But if you think them useful, I uploaded them on Commons. And I did not upload the photos I will use for my own work (my books), the above are places I just passed by and thought useful to record, they are not part of my researches. The warning is that I'm not feeling well, not in a physical way, but in an emotional one. I'm sort of out of strenght, and I do not have a lot of pushing force right now, therefore, If you want to tell me specific things to correct, please do, but right now I have not many will to do things independently, sorry, I hope to go out this mood soon. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're feeling down, Elisa, hope things improve soon! --valereee (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , following on from your post on Talk:Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge, don't feel you need to get bogged down there. If you want to work on it more, or help track down sources, that's great and you're very welcome to do that. But if not, feel free to work on another article on your list. Also, bear in mind that no one expects you to spend ages working on each page. The key thing to fix is any close paraphrasing or poor sourcing, then you can move onto the next. It's up to you. You can always ask here for help. I like your photographs, by the way. SarahSV (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

John Hoyle
, in case you need a suggestion to get started, John Hoyle (died 1692) could use some attention. It's a short article, so it won't take long. Things to check (from your own additions to the article; no need to check anyone else's) are whether there's anything copied that needs to be rewritten and whether the sources are cited correctly. SarahSV (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

, just checking that you saw this. SarahSV (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, will have a look at it now. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

and, re: the discussion on Talk:John Hoyle (died 1692), one way to approach this is to go the earliest version (255 words) and look for anything not similar to the editor's usual writing. Then look to see whether those words are in the current version. If they are, search for them in the cited source or on Google. Two sentences are noticeable:


 * 1. "In Tom Brown's 'Letters of Love and Gallants', there is a letter from Aphra Behn to Hoyle, remonstrating with him on his depraved way of life, and asking him in the name of 'Our past endearments' to clear himself, if possible, of the allegations made against him."
 * The cited source is Bridget G. MacCarthy (1994). The Female Pen: Women Writers and Novelists, 1621–1818, New York University Press, p. 252. If you look that up, you'll find the sentence there. Googling a few words of it returns that source too.


 * 2. "John Hoyle is believed to have written the epitaph on her black marble stone: 'Here lies a proof that wit can never be / Defense enough against mortality.'"


 * The cited source doesn't mention "black marble stone" (scroll to the end of the page). The first version of the article had no source. Google finds the whole sentence in this student essay, which predates the Wikipedia article (again, scroll to the end; the only difference is that "defence" is spelled the British way).

I'm not sure what to suggest at this point about the mentorship. The agreement is that "Elisa will begin editing again with her own articles, using the CCI list as a resource, to address any possible concerns with close paraphrasing. She will make any copyedits that don't represent the addition of more than a sentence, and always with a citation at the end of each addition; these will be checked by the mentoring team against the provided source."

In both the articles we've tried, it seems that identifying the copied material didn't work. The first example (Ohlfsen) was long, so I suggested John Hoyle as a short one. The sticking point seems to be that Elisa has difficulty identifying sentences she added but didn't write herself. Elisa, do you have any suggestions as to how we can make this work better for you, or any thoughts about your understanding of the agreement? It could be that there are misunderstandings underlying this.

Valereee, do you have any thoughts? Also pinging the rest of the team:, and. I see Victoria hasn't edited for a while and she has mentioned health issues in the past, so I won't ping her. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help Elisa to try using a thesaurus to look up similar ways to say things in her own voice? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's a good idea when trying to summarize source material. But the copied text/copyvio has to be identified first, and that's where the problem lies. It isn't being found. I'm wondering what we can do to help Elisa find it for herself. SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have her comb through the history of the article? Then she could look at what she added and see if it was something she added but didn't write on her own. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's good advice. In the case we're discussing, the first version of the article, which Elisa wrote, was 255 words long and it contained the copyvios, some of which remain in the current version. Elisa didn't find them; see this post. I would have thought she would be able to recognize when something was not her own writing. Perhaps she didn't look at the earliest version to identify what she had added. SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At first I thought to let this pass, but recently they told me I have not to. I have already told, but sincerely I'm not in a good time in my life right now, I'm pretty unstable, I'm still grieving from a recent loss in my life. Maybe this is not the right time for me to do this. When I asked to be unblocked, it was just to be able to touch few things to my articles. It was not my intention to be very active. Yes, I know it was me that agree to help removing the copyvio, but maybe I overestimated what I can do right now. Sorry for that, but they told me that I have not to ignore what it make me feel bad, and sincerely this removing copyvio activity is putting me under stress. It looks like I'm under exam, and that I have deadlines, and these are two things that have always created discomfort, even before, and right now they are really stressing me out. Really, really sorry, but it's not something I can control. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of two things: 1) no I didn't look to the earliest version; I believed I had to remove the existing copyvio, therefore was necessary to work to the current version 2) at this point all my articles are at least 1 year old if not more; I do not remember where I found the sentence. Moreover for the "black marble stone" sincerely I do not remember to have ever seen that page, therefore I cannot exclude this is copy from copy from copy (maybe from this one that is 1996-1997 copyright, the one of the student is 2004). But I do not remember that. Sincerely I'm not sure what to propose. I agreed to not create new copyvio, I agree to not create new articles, and I agree to help removing the existing copyvio. But probably I'm not able to identify the existing copyvio. When I went through the Hoyle's article, I bypassed that sentence since it has a source and it was a "citation", so I did not consider that copyvio, it was a XVII century tombstone, I thought it was "safe". Maybe, if the article is short, I can google sentence by sentence and see what it comes out. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm, I'd never thought about looking at the earliest version. I would have queried the first example, but likely not the second, even then, as it's a pretty straightforward way of communicating the information. --valereee (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry about the loss in your personal life, and I can see how this process would be stressful for you. It would be good for us to understand your availability to do this work. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about adding stress to you, . There is no time limit for WP, so you can do it as you have time and the peace of mind to do it. When someone on the team asks you to review something, it is with the understanding that you may or may not be able to right now. I think your proposal to google sentence by sentence works fine for short articles. For longer ones, you may just want to try to edit the entirety. SusunW (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, I'm not sure what and how much I can do. When I went through the Dora Ohlfsen's article, I planned to do it on Saturday, I started in the morning and went it for all the day. I thought it was fine, and yes, after that it was reworked a lot, but not to remove copyvio (I believe) but to improve it with more reliable sources. So my feeling was that for the copyvio part was fine, but then said above it was not fine. That also Dora other than John was not a good work. And therefore now I'm not sure about what I can do, or I'm able to do. As I said, maybe after December 8, when the charity event for which I'm volunteering is over, I will have more time, and less stress. Maybe also my grieving will be less (even if I'm not sure about that cause we are reaching the first anniversary). So, yes, right now, I'm not sure. If you want to give me a third try? Another article to look with the agreement I will do it as soon as I can and feel? Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for explaining how you feel. You've raised several points. Briefly, the Hoyle issue had nothing to do with the tombstone. Also, that there's a citation after a sentence is unrelated to whether the sentence has been copied from that source or some other. And looking at the earliest version you wrote (and your other edits) needs to be done to establish what you added to the article. You can then look to see whether that work remains in the current version. If it does, check anything that doesn't look like your writing.


 * Regarding Hoyle, your latest edits were mostly good. A couple of issues: the book title is Letters of Love and Gallantry (full title Letters of Love and Gallantry and Several Other Subjects. All Written by Ladies). It's written incorrectly in the source, Bridget G. MacCarthy, The Female Pen. This was first published in 1946; the edition you cited (1994) seems to have a few errors in it. And in the letter, Behn wasn't asking Hoyle for an explanation in view of "our past endearments". She just wanted him to clear his name. Part of the letter is here (p. 20).


 * I think speed is part of the problem. Ohlfsen was a big job, even just moving it away from the copying. Every source had to be checked to make sure there was enough distance between the article and sources. Also, it's important to dig deeper to make sure you understand what the sources are saying. Otherwise, there's a danger of repeating their mistakes.


 * As for the rest, I don't like the idea of assigning articles or working with someone who's reluctant. I also don't want to have to point out problems, because that's extra work for me. Looking ahead, what would you like to see happen, ideally? If it's another article you want, you could choose one yourself that you believe may be too close to the sources. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * understand. If it's to remove copyvio and not adding new material, may I work directly on the article without asking it here first? I'm not what and when I will do it, I have an idea to start with the very first articles, but that is just an idea. For now I will just correct the two points in Hoyle. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have to ask here first when you're removing copying. Again, don't focus on copyvio because that's a legal concept. Focus on whether you've copied or very closely paraphrased any text (PD or not), apart from things that can't or don't need to be rephrased. The agreement is that you'll check here first for any "larger additions" of more than a sentence. Use common sense about that. If you're adding new content of more than a sentence, check here first. If you're just fixing copying/close paraphrasing, go ahead and do it. Thanks for making the Hoyle corrections. SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Mentoring agreement
, I wonder if we could change this a little, because it's currently a very tight ship. It says that Elisa "will make any copyedits that don't represent the addition of more than a sentence, and always with a citation at the end of each addition; these will be checked by the mentoring team against the provided source."

Could we change that to something like: "She will make any copyedits that don't represent the addition of more than a few sentences"? That would give her a bit more leeway. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think under our agreement, we can change it as the mentoring team feel it's appropriate. I have no concerns that Elisa would add anything that would represent copyvio. I've seen her working very hard to detect copyvio, which is a lot harder, and it's clear she understands and wants very much to comply. We should probably let others chime in before making the change, but definitely okay by me. --valereee (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm totally on board with that. SusunW (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done. Elisa, that gives you a bit more freedom: you can now expand your articles by a few sentences without checking here first.


 * To summarize our discussions: to find your edits, look at the CCI list or the list of articles you created. If you use the latter, search the page histories for your own edits, focusing on the earliest version. Identify anything in those edits that isn't your own writing, then look to see whether that text remains in the current version. If it does, rewrite or remove it; if a lot needs to be removed, check here first. You can always ask here for advice. SarahSV (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarence Winthrop Bowen
I'm going through this article Clarence Winthrop Bowen. I think some sentences ("was a direct descendant, on his father's side, from the Apostle Eliot", "On his mother's side, he was a great-grand nephew of Benjamin Franklin") are taken from the brother's article, John Eliot Bowen, which is a 2016 article, while mine is a 2017. Which is the correct template to say I'm using someone else article on wikipedia? I'm pretty sure there is one specific template. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Make a null edit (Like a single space after the lede sentence) and say in the edit summary something like "Content copied from John Eliot Bowen on (Insert date here)". To add, if any of you need help with figuring out copyright, I'm available. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 21:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you! --Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Same for Roseland Cottage. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Torcuato Benjumeda
This article should be fine, it's a translation from the Spanish one, and there is the correct template on the talk page. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Charles B. Cluskey
I removed two copyvio from this article and added the National Park Service Templates to the references. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Elisa, I went ahead and rephrased some of the park service content, as I wanted to be able to attribute some of it and put it into quotes. --valereee (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ferruccio Vitale
I removed two copyvio from this article. The funny thing is that, while removing the first copyvio, I rewrote the sentence in a way that it was generating copyvio with another source (and I hadn't read that other source!). Anyway, I hope it's fine now. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nellie O'Donnell
trying to find the date of death of Nellie O'Donnell, I actually found some really nice addition to the article. Hope what I did was fine, if necessary please let me know and I will change it. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Elisa! I see a change from J. M. McCormack > James Michael and the year of their marriage, but I don't see that ref? --valereee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was on find a grave, but I know that is not a reliable source so I wrote to the Reverend Steiner who is maintaining the record asking for an online record if possible. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverend Steiner sent me the photo of the marriage register; I posted it on wikimedia and linked to it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , perfect! I actually don't mind a single bit of info that noncontroversial coming from findagrave -- the expansion of her husband's initials, I mean -- but the marriage register is a much better source! She was an interesting read! --valereee (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)