User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 11

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi, thanks a lot, this was nice to find when I logged in today. I do owe you quite an apology for being so very uncivil during the period I wasn't feeling well - that indeed was one of the most spectacular meltdowns I've had here! But, I'm finally recovered, back in a new guise and back to writing, which as you say, is where my strength lies. From now on, no more talk page conversations for me! At least not for a while! (Though I do have yours and Alf's talk pages on watch, so am aware of what's happening, or not happening with the Am. novel cats, but am blissfully ignoring). Anyway, thanks again. Victoria (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back indeed - and no need for an apology. I also did/said things I shouldn't have, so I'm sorry. As for the categories, I'm now working on category intersection, which may get rid of the gendered/ethnic sub-cats entirely (so, no more American women novelists and American men novelists, etc). I think I posted on Alf's page how to test the prototype if you're interested. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Help request
Not sure if this is up your alley, but this one needs some research and digging. Your help would be welcome! cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sewing_circle (was previously filled with unsourced allegations about lesbians in Hollywood - I stubbed that bit down, but now it just needs some serious research on what a sewing circle is, where did they come from, what did they do, etc - it is clearly the primary topic vs the moniker for lesbians in Hollywood. Just don't have time right now to do deep research, some sources are provided on the talk page.
 * Fragment_Society (stub I created)
 * Sewing circle is vaguely interesting - lots of colonial and frontier history involved, and of course it's a form of crowd sourcing. That said, it needs tons of research because it has such a long tradition and not only in the US - obviously all over the world. Thinking about what a page like that would need makes my head spin! At the moment, too, I have a few too many irons in the fire, prepping for a FAC, and trying to DYK (5 times expansion in 5 days) an already quite long page. And then there's this big page waiting to be finished. But thanks for asking - I'll put them on watch. Victoria (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need lots of research, and it is global... but anyway, even a modest effort would be awesome, even if you don't have time to do the full monty. But it's ok, if you don't have time now, perhaps you could look later, its been a pretty terrible article for years, so, it can wait... cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi VE. I've now started to wade a bit more into territory that is well traveled by you, that of content creation :) I've created a bio of a newly-notable person who has been in the news a fair bit recently, Kristin Beck - I've been able to secure images from her, and got a DYK approved that I will release in a few days once final permission is sorted for all the photos. That said, I'm wondering if you might have time to give it a quick once over and provide any feedback. I'm still waiting to get a copy of the book so I can't expand it significantly until then, but I've tried to pull together the relevant parts from the news stories. Anyway, any suggestions welcome from your side. If you're too busy right now, don't worry about it - I know lots of people make these requests of you. Cheers and thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

what?
Am I reading right that you are considering voting for a merge to fiction writers? This would mean, no more novelist categories, at all, anywhere. Weren't you guys fighting to keep the novelist designation? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I've explained to you many times that I don't come here to fight (and have decided against a long reply). I believed the re-categorization as it was being done would end up with remnants being left in the novels category - which is exactly what's happened. I made a comment, clearly stated it was only a comment, and it's something worth thinking about. But I probably won't go back there now. Victoria (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry, I'm not Obiwan Kenobi or the other editor that you thought might have been me. I've been away and busy, and you can look through my edits and see I've been here awhile. :)

Anyways, do take care and have a wonderful day. Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you! Victoria, for adding both side of the stories. I'm happy that it was finally corrected.— Prashant 03:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm about to revert myself and will explain on the talk page there; please be patient and allow me a few moments to collect my thoughts. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I can understand. I'll be patient. Cheers!— Prashant 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We say "patience is a virtue" - think of it as karma, I suppose. Victoria (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FA Help
Hi! Victoria. Well my article just passed GA review. I want it to take to FA. Would you please, help me in some prose tightening and other things required for FA. Fashion (film) is in a very good position but, I think your constructive work could enhance it a little more. Thank You.— Prashant 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From GA to FA is a big step. I glanced at it briefly and saw prose problems, so suggest asking for a copyedit at GOCE and then take it to peer review. I'm fairly well stacked up at the moment. Victoria (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Do we have any featured articles on poetry collections? I wrote Nyanyi Sunyi yesterday and am trying to find how the contents section should best be written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's The Lucy poems - a collection of sorts. It was a collab with a number of editors. The Cantos were in fairly decent shape at one point, and I know that  did a quite a lot of good work on poetry but he's gone - check his page to see what he has listed there.  brought Emily Dickinson to FA, and I'd expect would have worked on her poetry too, but she's gone - also maybe worth checking her page. That's off the top of my head - will post others as I think of them. A long time ago when  was editing, he did quite a bit of work on poetry articles - but that was when the world was new and inline refing not yet required. But as far as writing and structure, still some of the best articles I've seen here. Victoria (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Interesting, I didn't expect these articles to have in-depth analysis of the individual poems for the contents (I would have thought that such analysis would be saved for articles on the poems themselves). Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the The Lucy poems the individual poem analyses are summaries - all except the first have daughter articles. I imagine that will happen in some decade or another with the Cantos when it's been fully expanded. Ask Ceoil, he worked on both. I've decided to stay away from lit for the time being, as it happens. Apparently I don't know much, and I've found here it's better not to edit or to review in one's area of expertise. Victoria (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, gotcha. Thanks for the response! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Coral Island

 * I don't understand this. What's the apology for? Eric   Corbett  19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother to explain; it should be obvious. You asked for and got a second opinion from someone you trust to know about literature, so let's leave it at that. When the FAC closes, if you don't mind, I'll add info re the contemporary reception. My copy of Humphrey Carpenter's Oxford Companion to Children's Literature has that info - I looked it up this afternoon, before Awadewit weighed in. Victoria (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what you're talking about Victoria, as I never asked for a second opinion from anyone. And if you've got something tasty to add about contemporary reception then please add it now rather than wait until the FAC is finished. All I want is for the article to be the best it can be. Eric   Corbett  22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria is always apologizing for no reason, you can't stop her (earlier today). I suppose it's a sort of counterbalance to gruff buggers like you & me. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's a reason and I'm not only incredibly insulted but spitting mad. That's why I'm trying to ignore. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just not following this I'm afraid. I see now that Drmies invited Wadewitz to the review, and all I can think is that there must be some bad blood between the two of you. Eric   Corbett  23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no bad blood between myself and Wadewitz. That's absurd. Adding: I've unwatched the article and the review. Finished now. What happened here is so glaringly clear to me, I'm very surprised it's not to others. Victoria (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We certainly are finished. Eric   Corbett  00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric, I've gone to bat for you many many many times. That's just not at all necessary. It shouldn't be necessary to have to spell out what you and Drmies have done, nor would I anyway. Victoria (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't live in your world. Just what exactly am I supposed to have done? Eric   Corbett  00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Victoria, thank you for your suggestions which have improved the article. I'm no clairvoyant and I have no idea what Eric or I are supposed to have done wrong. I know Wadewitz as an editor and as a human being, we're both academics at US institutions, and I happen to know this is her field. I'm sorry if I did anything to rub you the wrong way; I didn't do so on purpose. Again, thank you for your help with the article. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies - you have just added insult to injury in a very serious and patronizing manner. I will not pull Wadewitz into this, nor anyone else, but disregarding one person's comments because a., you don't recognize their user name, and b., you don't know whether or not they are qualified - I'm sorry but I'm speechless. Victoria (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone's speechless it should be me. I'm not aware that I disregarded anything (and since I don't think I did, I can't have a motivation for it), though I'll admit that I don't recognize your user name, and I'm not going to speculate. Good day. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to let this drop now, but a word of advice for the next time you go to FAC. First, it doesn't matter whether or not you recognize the reviewer's name; we're quite frankly lucky to have reviewers. Second, coming to the reviewer's page (after a support has been given), and questioning their ability - which is the way it came across - and is a really bad idea. I've struck my support because I can't be objective now - it's not a reflection of the article. As for not knowing or speculating about who I am - that's problematic in itself. Does is matter whether I have a name you recognize, a wiki-reputation? That's how cabals are started and not really a road we want to tread. I've left a few more sources on the talk page there and you have plenty of supports without mine, so you'll do fine. I'm simply sorry this happened, but good luck with it. Victoria (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you, but I've been there before. I didn't question your ability. How that could have come across that way is puzzling. That you were and are miffed, that is clear: you think I preferred someone else over you. The question of your identity and credentials, you are the one who raised it, not me. That I say that I know one person's reputation doesn't mean I have no respect for some other person's reputation, and claiming that my comments could be read that way is wholly unfair. Claiming that your comments were disregarded is unfair as well as untrue, since in the same breath you take credit for article expansion. Well, if the article was expanded, then clearly your comments were not disregarded. And then you come to my talk page and claim that I destroyed your lust for life? Well, sorry, but I'm not the one who did that, and this swinging back and forth from day to day only adds to the confusion. I will say that you seriously hampered my interest in that particular FAC, and with Eric blocked, I'm asking for it to be put on hold. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am absolutely stunned. Victoria (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I urge you not to withdraw. For one I dont think Eric's block is going to last 48 hours not to mind a month. Any hard feelings I'm sencing above I'm sure can be worked through, although I'd drop the "both academics" approcah, its slightly offensive. I know things might seem 'euf' at a point in time, but look, jesus, we are all in this together, and here to help each other at the end of the day (without wanting to sound like a football pundit, haha). Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the remark about "both academics" that I found offensive. Now I feel as though I've tanked their FAC, somehow have something to do with getting Eric blocked, and have basically fucked up. Nice post though - we should all work together, not against each other. Thanks for the reminder. Victoria (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Really?
Drivel? I let a nice message for Eric and acknowledged his contributions to the encyclopedia. AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say you left a patronising and offensive piece of sarcasm on the userpage of someone who's unable to reply, and who (whatever you or I may think of the merits) undoubtedly sees you as part of the cause of that blocking. But your definition of "civility" apparently differs from mine, and your definition of 'classy' undoubtedly does. – iridescent  18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I was being completely serious. I do respect Eric and his content creating abilities. I have said so in the past. Last time we interacted, I thought we were on good terms. Way to assume good faith. AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I had absolutely nothing to do with Eric's block nor is he unable to reply. AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not impress me (and I only noticed the edit summary just now retrieving the diff), followed by a sacharine if this is really the end message to his page that is, yes, offensive. He's on vacation and he doesn't come here, for the most part to talk, but to write. So why, if he's just been indeffed, should he be hanging around? Iridescent is right and much much more articulate than I am, so I leave you in their capable hands. Victoria (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that if you read some of my other comments in that discussion, you will find that I wasn't making it about Eric. My comment was to Eric was sincere and in good faith and you are both wrong. Obviously, I can't force you to believe me, but you can't change my motives no matter how long you insist on assuming bad faith. Regardless, my message was to Eric, not to you, so if it can help him to feel a little better about things, then it really doesn't matter how you interpret it. AutomaticStrikeout ?  19:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Vic, these conflicting diffs are not so much offensive as simply two faced. What I though frankly about Kiefer's difficulties yesterday was, well at least he had the balls to say it to his face, you know, in camera. Plus, jesus christ if I read that somebody said that about me... How Ironholds is not held to account I just do not understand. Well at least we know there is more than one two faced person floating about. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you repeat that long enough, you will change my motives. I was not being two faced. Even during the aforementioned AN discussion about Eric, I was not singling out Eric when I made my remarks. I do have respect for Eric's abilities. I attempted to reach out to Eric to express my support for him and what do I get? An attack at the hands of cowards others who think that they know my motives better than I do. AutomaticStrikeout ?  22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * repeat? What? Man, I'm just pointing out your MO to you, this once, right here. "I attempted to reach" - do you have any idea how offensive an patronising that is? People are not respcetive unless there is mutual earned respect. Espically as you are going on about "these fucking content people" to one audience, and gushing in the next breath to the person you just character assinated. Weak. As a word of advice; you should generally, as a precaution, credit people with more intelligence than you judge that you might have. In case in point all your flapping about these last few days is very transparent and bluffing does you no favours. Know your limitations. If you honestly think youve been so widely misunderstood, then maybe you should consider that you are just not articulate enough to voice so strongly in such emotive "discussions". Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "I am attempted to reach" is not the same as "I attempted to reach out to". I realize that I have expressed some strongly-worded displeasure with some of the content creators (although not in words that your quotation marks imply I used), but I was never trying to be two-faced. As I've already noted several time, I did not specifically target Eric but rather was speaking of a more general group of people. At any rate, all my "flapping about these last few days", as you put it, has been largely an expression of my displeasure with the arrogant mentality displayed by some of our more vocal content creators. However, despite the implication by iridiscent, I was in no way involved with Eric's block and I never even voiced any support for it in the ensuing AN discussion. In retrospect, I can understand why I may have been misunderstood, but think about it from my perspective for a minute. I left a polite (I thought) comment on the talk page of an editor who had just been indefinitely blocked (sure, he has plenty of friends to leave him nice messages, but maybe it means a little more when someone who hasn't been an extremely vocal fan of his comes by to acknowledge all of his contributions). Furthermore, if you read the link I provided in my comment at Eric's page, you would find that I had presented him with what called the "Golden Editor Award" and had spoken very highly of his contributions and how he helped both our readers and fellow editors. I quoted a portion of that comment in my note from earlier today and concluded by saying that Eric's contributions would not be forgotten. How do you think I felt when my well-intentioned tribute was referred to as "drivel"? When I objected to that, an admin got involved and told me that what I had posted was "a patronising and offensive piece of sarcasm", while also wrongly implying that I was somehow involved in Eric's block. At this point, with my motives under attack, I tried to defend myself, but none of you seem to care that you are attacking my integrity while completely misrepresenting my intentions. You have decided to see me as an enemy and have rebuffed my attempt to be kind to one of your friends. Maybe now you understand why I'm so frustrated. Maybe you don't. At any rate, I don't need the stress, which is about all Wikipedia holds for me at this point. AutomaticStrikeout ?  23:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "I did not specifically target Eric "...so admit you were targeting. "I was never trying to be two-faced"; but the fact is you are and have been caught bang to rights. Which is all fine and grand, could live it; but you are so vocal in trying to shut others down you have to understand the exasperation. I think its all there in your "I left a polite (I thought) comment"; given so many are teling you the opposite; maybe you need to be more attentive to others views, reduce the flapping and oh I dont know...listen. You might be a very nice and well intentioned guy, but thats not coming across in this conversation. You blocking what other people are saying, with frankly bullshit and shifting explanations about how "this earlier thing I said was meant to be read as"...and so on and so forth. As a further word of advice; if you dont need the stress, stop being the guy who expresses heavy handed openions in matters that have fuck all to do you with you. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AutomaticStrikeout - we've never interacted before today so please remember whose talk page your posting on and that I'm nicely allowing this to happen. When I read the AN thread I wondered why calling a subset of editors, among other things, "arrogant" differs from calling someone an ass (for which Eric was blocked). Yep, I said your message was drivel because what offended me was this: "but even if this really is the end, your contributions to Wikipedia will not be forgotten". That seemed to me to be grave dancing and jumping the gun. The indef block has been turned back. Did you really think that would stand? And seriously, yes, thanking someone for their contributions is insulting. I realize you don't understand this, but there you go. Also, think about who you're talking to here. Admins or content contributors? It's time now to go on somewhere else please and let Ceoil and me get on with our work.  Victoria (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To make a last point, if you read the threads on Eric's page that lead to the block, well have you ever seen more clear examples of baiting. They got what they were looking for, and those supporting the block on an/i were in my view either indirectly complicit, or just plain uninformed fools. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's that Goya you have of ANI? We should put it here. Of course it was a pile-on, it always is. That's why I didn't read it - well there were other reasons too. And that's why when I got there today the post about arrogant content contributors got to me. But it never changes. Eric got baited, and honestly you have been too lots of times, and then wham. I think the stuff I had to put up with here on my talk about categories was a lot worse but no bad words were said except on my part, so everyone ignored. It's just sharkbait over there for certain people. Victoria (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

New name

 * Indeed, enjoy them Victoria (or should it be VE?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - to both of you. I didn't expect it to be so fast - thought it would take days. Who knew? It's Victoria, btw. Now I have to sort out my archives! Victoria (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess they have been quick to do it. I think Malleus/Eric didn't wait too long either (although they couldn't rename him because of his edit count) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've meant to do it for a long time and knew I was getting close to the edit count cut off. I wanted it to be Victoria only and almost started the usurpation process and in the end decided against that. I really was expecting days though - not hours. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the edit count cutoff? I'm a little below 98k right now. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably above. For some reason I thought 45k, but that was when last I checked a long time ago. I'm getting near that, so decided to do it before it gets to be a hassle. I still have to fix the SUL accounts, but might decide to leave those as they are. Victoria (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well, if I ever wish to change username it will be a somewhat difficult undertaking in the style of Eric Corbett. You will probably want to create and redirect some nearby usernames such as User:Victoria Earle. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know whether User:Victoria Earle can simply be made into a redirect, or do I actually have to create the account to make the redirect? Sounds like a lot of trouble and I don't want another account. Victoria (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'd actually have to create the account, if only to ensure nobody uses it to impersonate you. Heck, I'd create it for you if you want. You wouldn't have to use it. See WP:DOPPELGANGER — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, that would be great! I'm about to log out for the night. It's something I'll not ever get around to doing, but I suppose should be done. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, it's not letting me. If that's the case I think you could get by with just redirecting the page. (Crisco)203.78.118.149 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I've managed to create ... a redlink! This is the sort of thing that I'm never good at, so will let someone else sort it out. I suppose that page will now have to be deleted. I'll check back tomorrow so see what happened to it. But the Victoriaearle might be similar enough or something that it won't work. Will worry about it later. Victoria (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Got it now. It worked. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin has to create the account if it's too similar to an existing one, and it has to be done with Special:CreateAccount when logged in. --Rschen7754 02:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the redirect I just created isn't good enough, then I need one you admins to do it for me. has a redirect, so I assume it's the same process, but I can't do it myself? That makes sense actually - didn't seem logical have to make another acct. Anyway, really am logging out now, so leave a message and I'll find out tomorrow what's happened. Thanks to all of you. Victoria (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That explains it. Doing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TY. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * YW. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you back! You might also consider signing (only) as "Victoriaearle (formerly Truthkeeper88)" for a few weeks. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rough patch the last six months, but good to be back to real editing. I'm kind of hoping to fly under the radar for a while (did this in lieu of a clean start, which never would have worked), but thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep it in mind. I'm hoping people will figure it out. Victoria (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also like your new name (and have archived the PR as requested). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruhrfisch - on both counts. Victoria (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! Now you'll avoid being accused of being a nazi. ;) (I originally registered under my real name, but quickly decided that was not feasible - and I am not going back unless it becomes mandatory) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering who that masked woman was at The Coral Island's FAC review. Eric   Corbett  17:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being egotisical, I assumed the name change was common knowledge, but thought maybe you didn't know. There's really very little to do there, but writing about literature is hard, I can attest to that. The DYK downpage for The Revolutionist is about a 400 word story! Victoria (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is difficult, but then so is writing about settlements or witch trials or motor cars. Eric   Corbett  03:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I wrote above was meant to be a joke, but I guess didn't work. I do think lit is hard, but maybe that's just me. I had a very difficult time with "Big Two-Hearted River". But I've not done witch trials or settlements or motor cars. I realize you have a lot of experience and that you're a very good writer, that you've helped me a lot and given me some tough reviews. And I thank for all of that. Victoria (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria
Honoured to be invited. Shall review with the greatest pleasure. Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, looking forward to it. Victoria (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

PR
As you were kind enough to invite me to PR Isabeau, perhaps I can reciprocate by inviting you to look in at Peer review/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/archive1. I am uneasy about the proportions of the article, and would welcome a steer from other editors. Quite understand if you prefer not, of course. No obligation whatever. Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, I'm trying to ambush (almost literally!) an article to see whether I can expand x 5 for DYK. Not looking good. At any rate, will take a few days to look in your PR but I'd be happy to. I must warn you though - I'm absolutely tone deaf, so useless with articles about music. Victoria (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Points completely taken. I think I'd give this one a miss, if I were you. Editing WP should be a pleasure, not a chore! Best. Tim riley (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've caught a small break in my work schedule and, as I have a tendency to, dove in a bit deep here. I'll be sending Isabeau to FAC in the next day or so, just as RL begins to get more hectic, so unfortunately will have to give this one a miss. Apologies. Victoria (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You may enjoy...
Hi there Victoria. I see you have been working on the Baby Doe article. You may enjoy reading the Granite, Colorado article, since it is related...in a way... And BTW, would you mind if I offer feedback when you have reached a point where you feel you are almost done? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gandydancer, thanks for stopping by. I know you from Moni3's page - I had a name change from Truthkeeper. Sorry, I've gone on a bit of tear with Baby Doe - was cruising around looking for something to catch my interest and stumbled on that. Visited the Matchless on a few school trips as a child and it's a story that sticks. Stupidly I decided to try a five times expansion to DYK it, though it was already fairly long. I think I might just make it - but at this point every word and even every character counts, which I thinks makes for sloppy writing. Still would be nice to see it mainpaged, but I'll never try this again. I've at least one free image at the Denver library to upload and I still have a bit of copyediting and then I'll be done and submit. After that, feel free to tear it back down again. I'm the sort of person who needs sources in hand to do a really good job, and I haven't for this, but might order some from the library and come back to it later. Thanks for stopping by. Btw - this is longwinded way way of saying yes to feedback. Victoria (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice long note! I don't understand what you mean about "DYK"--five times..", etc.  But I do believe that it would make a great article to receive more attention.  What a spunky woman she was!  You mention going to the mine on a field trip--do you live in Colorado?  Did you get a chance to read the Granite article?  Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, to submit to WP:DYK an article has to be either new or the existing article expanded five times. Which I think, I've done. Lived in Colorado as a kid and I think every school kid there goes to Leadville at some point (and the Denver mint) or at least that was the case when I was young. Sorry, haven't had time to look at Granite yet, a bit busy in real life. Will get to as soon as I have a chance. Thanks for the copyedits by the way. Much appreciated. Victoria (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ENA
Re. I do intend to sort, gimme another 2-4 years :) No but, am focusing back on the page, and the inlines are very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly meant to pull them a long time ago b/c I think they're a bit stale and can't even remember now why I put them there. Nice to see activity there again. I've meant to get back to the Ghent after my sprint on Baby Doe, but first want to get Isabeau through FAC. I've decided to scale back a bit and focus only on one page at a time. Or something. Victoria (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like very much to see Isabeau progressed, you stick with that, it will be very deserved, its a great article. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's dragged on too long and the lesson learned there is not to mess with royalty in the future. I knew I was about to get busy IRL and have a seriously overdue book the library wants back (can't imagine why) so may have to bag it. Will decide tonight or tomorrow. Victoria (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any mention of a library sends shivers down my spine. O lord have I done bad there, I measure overdue books in decades. I always mean to return, but, well you know. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a nice addition and interesting to read. Strangely I was just reading about that somewhere else, but now can't remember where. But if I do remember, might add a bit if that's okay. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd been reading about this somewhere - was here on wiki. I know the page is filling up, but this File:Looting of the Churches of Lyon by the Calvinists 1562.jpg struck me. Though it's not Netherlandish. Anyway, would be nice to find a pic of something that was damaged. I'm at least a section behind you and just brainstorming. A bit busy, so can't really edit atm. Victoria (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea. Thinking. Ceoil (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Baby Doe Tabor
The DYK project (nominate) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thanks
"but thanks to Ceoil's encouragement stuck with it". Im a bit of a slave driver I know. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it came across negatively. Was meant to be a compliment. Victoria (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It so did not come accross like that; I was flattered. I'd blush if I wasn't almost 80, you know. We always push each other, its a good thing, long it might continue. Bty, Ive asked Modernist to help on ENA. We've been sitting on it for quite a while. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Eighty-year-old blush too - I least I think. Wouldn't know, not being there yet. Hard not to notice the activity on ENA - that said, I haven't had a chance to even peek. But, yeah, you're right. We have been sitting on that for a long time. Victoria (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafka
I read this in one of the sources, a book I think, but danged if I recall which one. The ref probably got shuffled in all the copyediting. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I could be in that one I sent you - the one about anorexia. I still have it and will look there. Otherwise you'll have to trawl through history. I was scanning through to see where you could easily add in the other, about citizenship, and my cursor was hovering over that ref - I was like, huh?, that's not right. But I've just found out that commenting out doesn't work with visual editor and you don't want to tend a page like that on the main page the same day we implement a new interface. That wouldn't be fun. I'll uncomment it for now. As for the other, the citizenship, I think is easily slipped somewhere without much trouble, but should be mentioned. I've been having difficulty editing the page because it hangs on me, fwiw.  Thanks for the post. Victoria (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll look too. It is an interesting bit. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked in Fichter and it's not there. Here's the edit where it was added and never changed since, I don't know what the edit summary refers to there. Anyway good luck with it. Victoria (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * HEHE. I was just looking at that one. Fichter 1987 one, not 1988 one. It's on page 375 and the direct quote is: ""My body, often quite for years, was shaken again in an unbearable way from this desire for a small, for a certain atrocity, for something repulsive, embarassing and dirty; even among the best things which I experienced here, there was something of it, some slight, bad smell, some sulfure, a bit of hell. This was the drive of the etemal jew, bom and raised without sense, wandering without sense through this senseless dirty world"", perhaps a rewording of the article? Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This which I've linked on the talk because it also verifies the 1918 Czech citizenship mentions that the shyness was so deep as to believe people disliked him. I'd combine it w/ the 1987 Fichter - (thanks for the page number) - and dump the "Repertory" ref. These two sources have quite a bit about his appearance and characteristics: slenderness, big eyes, shyness, etc. so you can probably spin the para out a bit more. I do think it's interesting. Victoria (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That book is in the further reading section, ROFL Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which page verifies the citizenship? Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can get me that Januch page number (I can't find it), that and this should suffice quite well. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was writing. See the bottom of page 12 for the citizenship. Also a nice description of his looks on page 14. Will look in shortly. Victoria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm blind, but I see nothing about citizenship on 12. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we're both blind and I have a migraine. Somehow we're looking at two different books. Have a look here on page 12. . I'm logging out, but will check in on more time in about an hour - otherwise in the morning. Victoria (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, Danke, adding now. Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to get it sorted. Victoria (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Something that might amuse you
Thanks for your recent message on my talk page. I am glad to see that Isabeau is doing well at FAC and I expect it to be promoted before long. A few months ago, I believe you quite enjoyed my article on the fictional Kenneth Widmerpool. Well, I've been working on another, this time real-life, reprobate – Harold Davidson, and I thought you might like to read it. I've just opened a peer review, but don't feel you have to review the article, just enjoy the read. Funny and sad. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I glanced at it; he's definitely a reprobate! Thanks for asking - might take a few days. Victoria (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ENA
This was very helpful and instructive. Am very undecided about the page's structure overall, but had a moment of carlity after your suggestion. Need to work on the timeline. Of course this is a long project that might go for years, but it aint gonna happen unless its a collab with you. For many reasons, mostly because we bounce ideas so well. And working with you is always fun. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 23 June r2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean, in my round of way, is that meta Vic is a very good facet of Vic, and more please. But all the same, would be deligted to have you on board on that page. I think that between us, we could get a major art movement to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided too, that's why I reverted. During the week, I'll read through and think about the structure more. Also, didn't respond the question on your page re section galleries because undecided about those too, but obviously it's a good option. I can't do a lot there because I haven't the knowledge for it, but happy to lend support. Obviously I've gone on a tear on the Dresden, which has totally captivated me, but will slow down a bit now. Otherwise I get sloppy. Victoria (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Revolutionist
Gatoclass 08:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dresden
We are almost there; but can I have the weekend to tweek and add a bit here and there; esp a sect on the outer wings. Have not been able to track down the Giovanni Mazone Virgin and Child. I wonder if it sources spell his surname differently, but not turned anything up there either. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Caught me just as I was logging off. You want the weekend to tweak? How dare you ask that!! No, no, no, we're slave drivers here, didn't you know? Okay - well, I suppose if you must dither and dawdle I'll have to find something else like the huge articles like ENA and Ghent while you're tweaking. I haven't found much about the outer wings and would like to see more on those. Also, need to check a few more sources myself. So, yes. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This Mazone Virgin and Child? Victoria (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Naa, I mean, just let me tweak for just one more weekend before any review like. Meanwhile, carry on as before. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was joking, which never really seems to work here. I'm not in a hurry with this one, I'm enjoying it and it's practically writing itself. Victoria (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked Modernist for help in choosing an image for the Diptych section in ENA. I think we are both unhappy with the crucifixion at that resolution. You might wade in. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking. I lIke the one M suggested, but the crucifixion seems to match what the text says. Will dig around a bit later on to see what I can find. Victoria (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to re-read the text again, but might be interesting to add one that's a fragment. Maybe the Madonna in the Church? Victoria (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Solving disputes
Thank you for what you did on Priyanka Chopra. I was hoping to use similar methods to solve other disputes, but they may not be so easy, and I wanted your advice. There area several Bollywood actresses whose birth dates are in dispute. For example, for Genelia D'Souza it is the year, and for Jacqueline Fernandez it is the month and day. There are many sources claiming each disputed date. It usually results in edit wars, and sometimes a standoff, where the date is removed completely, and we go into protection mode to keep it out while waiting for more definitive proof. How would you handle something like this? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  13:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was just about to post to the Chopra page about disputes, and will in a bit. Regarding disputed dates, or names, or facts, etc., it's best to indicate that the sources differ, and this can sometimes (actually quite often) be done in a note. In the lead write something like "Bollywood actress xxxx was born around 1983", or use "circa 1983" and then add a note with the various sources and what they say. Another tactic, if it's really important, which a birthdate is, would be to give it a sentence or two, or even small section at the beginning of the biography portion of the article, and saying that sources differ and no one knows, and then add various cites at the end. The important thing is to work out the wording on the talk page and try to avoid edit wars and instability. Victoria (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That's what was done at Sudirman, although in that case we stuck with the "official" date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but were there more than just those 2 or 3 sources available? Because in the cases that I am talking about, a Google search reveals thousands of mentions of each date.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the articles in question a bit later. A lot of the google hits might be mirrors of what we're writing. Regardless, then you'd just have to say the date is disputed and find the best of the sources and attribute to those. Victoria (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I'll have a go at it. If I need support I will contact you later, thanks. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need "thousands" of sources unless there are "thousands" of dates; you need at least one for each date (which seems to have been implied from Victoria's post as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So I tried proposing this at Talk:Katrina_Kaif, and it is going nowhere fast. In fact someone is saying that I was advised incorrectly. Could you possibly take a look there? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Also, glad you posted - I meant to leave you a message. I'm trying to get to Chopra to review but have been overly busy with real life in the last week and don't know whether I can get there. Looks like the review is going well though, so that's good. Victoria (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria is FA
Brian's comment about untangling such a complicated and messy life was well made. Very proud for you. Keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Was just about to stop by and thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow there. God what a mess that was to untangle! And the library book can finally be returned. I bet they'll be happy! Victoria (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt. You were into Keef territory there. 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not that old! But yeah, it'll be a pricy article. I needed the book though, so there you go. And I can't complain - the first core contest winnings were used to buy Dhanens and that's helped immensely on a number of pages. Reminds me, I have to tell Cas that. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A jesus, not what I was getting at! Yes Dhanen has been really useful, we have cited her on a fair few pages. I see the core contest is going strong and getting good results, are you watching the progress with Sea? Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, unwatched the core contest. I couldn't do it this time around and didn't want to be tempted. By the way, consider yourself profoundly thanked for Isabeau - you seriously were the driving force. I tend to leave unfinished articles littered around but you pushed me to finish this, so it's one that actually didn't get abandoned. Despite the many times I was tempted. Victoria (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, your quite welcome. I edited the page a few times before you started on it; my feeble formatting changes to an article then in obvious need of expansion! The embarrasment of it when I think of it now. What direction is right to vanish, or is there a quick swallowed by ground option. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I edited myself a few times when I worked on Bal des Ardents and was vaguely interested. But seriously, who knew! The scandal, gossip, assassinations, dauphin this and dauphin that. My head was spinning more than a few times working on it. The sandbox is stuffed and messy, and now that I mention it, can be cleaned out. Yay for that. Anyway, yeah, you saw something there and kept me at it. Victoria (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember it was some ip comment on the talk that said there was so much unsaid in the article that sparked you. Its some achievment though. Wow. Take the rest of the day off Victoria! Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even want to look at the history to see when I started. I think a long time ago, but it's a good feeling to be done. I have a few more I'd like to finish - e.g the Grimms deserve review, but yeah, I'll rest on my laurels. For a few hours. I'm afraid I'm getting a little hooked with ENA, fwiw. Victoria (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * and all that. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't count the number of colons needed for indents so am cheating. Warmest congrats on FA status. You certainly had to work for it, and did so valiantly! Brava! Tim riley (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Crisco and Tim! Victoria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions
Hey Victoriaearle. I'm sorry for having not replied to your questions; frankly with the sheer noise and number of discussions going on, I'm pretty sure I just missed them :/ (ditto some of your pinging of me; I got the one from the survey thread, but not from the VE thread. Very strange). If you want to write them out, I'm happy to address them here; alternately if they already live in a single location, just point me to them and I'll drop you a note here when I've replied. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lovely message; I appreciate the consideration on time :). I'll drop back in when things quieten down a bit, or when we get wider browser support, whichever happens first. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I switched the editor off about an hour ago, and seince then the edit button - in article space- keeps on dissapearing. I can see it for a fraction of a second, then woomp, gone. I have to keep on refreshing, and the get to the bugger before it dissapears. Has this been happening to others I wonder? Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bug report in for it. I'm on a blacklisted browser - in other words nothing has changed for me - so I may have to do work that others can't. For instance I noticed you had "q" in an edit summary, but if it's a question, won't show up. Inlines are a thing of the past. Feedback page w/ bug reports here: VisualEditor/Feedback. It's enormous. Btw - did you get an edit conflict? We were editing at the same time. Would be nice if ECs are a thing of the past. Also, there is a way of turning it off, I think in gadgets. I can find for you if you want while you work - I'm busy being lazy. Victoria (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

 * 768,586 hits
 * Today's featured article/Most viewed
 * WP:TOP25
 * YEE HAW, and THANK YOU for your help on this! Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! Congratulations! Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very impressive. When I saw that google had highlighted the anniversary I knew you'd get a huge surge in page views; same thing happened to Brothers Grimm,, which I still haven't taken to review, and I wasn't even around at that time. Have you told ? It's really good for the Core Contest too. Victoria (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Revolutionist
Hey, just wanted to point out that I really liked the above article. I did some minor tweaks to it; hope you don't mind. Happy Fourth of July! -- Eisfbnore (会話) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mind at all. I wrote it in a hurry for DYK and then didn't get back to tidy, so thanks a lot. I really like it too - I'd never heard of it until I decided to fill in a redlink. Happy Fourth to you too. We have a thunderstorm rolling in just as it's time for the fireworks to go off, so should be interesting! Victoria (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Frames
I just had fun reading the section above; oh dear jesus god do they still make people like that! How self important, the irony is like a pig in the air. Anyhow, back in the real world, was just thinking, as we have read and reseached so much on frames this year, it might make a nice sect of its own. Campell's big book has very good sections on, eh, the hardware if you know what I mean. I think we could flesh this out quickly, maybe in a day or two after the final push on Dresden? Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Frames? Yes, frames are a great idea. Inscribed frames, marbled frames, arched frames, gilded frames, recessed moldings, etc. See how much I know about frames - and all this from a single artist!
 * Funnily, it's a holiday weekend here, I've been a little under the weather too, and having a hard time keeping up with bodies falling, i.e., the conversation above. Victoria (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not very funnily if you ask me ;) To take your mind off, there is a lovely moment in this about 3 minutes in. Always makes me smile; dry German humour at its best. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good. You'll be pleased to hear that Kraftwerk is growing on me in a big way - or I'm in the mood for that type of dry humor today. Anyway, onward. We have articles to write, you and I, content editors that we are!!! I am very pleased with how the Dresden is coming on. Dresden and Kraftwerk - now there's a good combination, she says as her mind begins to unravel .... Victoria (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll make a hipster of you yet. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The hipster article is really funny. I've always been one probably - but I imagine under another guise. Ignoring what's happening above. Ms. Hiptster.
 * No, that was a sly dig; you have understanding and appreciation. I have a commercial disco related litmus test to part the hipsters from the enthusiasts and obsessives. [Today's] Abba fans listen ironically, Bee Gee fans are gobsmacked. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I pinged Modernist. Lets see what happens. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can ask too. I'd think that after so many centuries they'd be in the public domain, but we shall see. Victoria (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the frame is a 3-D work, so even though it is old enough to beout of copyright, photos of it are not automatically free under US law (as photos of free 2-D artworks are). I have several possible solutions and will post them on the article's talk page, as that seems the best central location. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huge thanks Ruhrfisch. I'm replying here for the moment, because I want to think about it, but am very very grateful that you took the time and effort to find a copy on flickr, upload and etc. I don't know whether it makes a difference, but this recently published book shows the painting w/ the frames on the front cover,, and the Metropolitan Museum too show the painting w/ the frames , so it's out there like that. I imagine it would ruin the piece to flatten it for a photograph. Anyway, let's wait for Ceoil and then all of us can put our heads together and discuss on the talk page. Thanks too for taking the time to consult with someone else. Victoria (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed that these solutions are acceptable... I really hope this article passes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do to. But the frames are integral, so we'll see what happens. Victoria (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very glad to help. It is a bit confusing as the paintings and the frame are no longer copyrighted, but photos which show the 3-D frame are copyrighted by the photographer. As long as the photo is properly licensed, it is not a problem to show the frame (which I assume is the case for the book and the Met article using photos of the Dresden Triptych). I found a freely licensed photo on Flickr, so it can be used in the article - the question is how (options spelled out on article's talk page). There are two other nice photos of the Triptych on Flickr that are not freely licensed here and here. We could ask if the photographers would be willing to change the license. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate the help and only wanted to put a personal thanks here. I've replied on the Dresden talk page and am thinking this through. Thanks too for finding the others on flckr - they're quite nice, but quite possibly the same image. We have a number of options to explore and it will take a bit of time. Victoria (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Margaret of Burgundy, Dauphine of France
Hello and congratulations on getting Isabeau of Bavaria to FA status! I am planning to expand the article about her daughter-in-law, Margaret of Bavaria, and nominate it for DYK, but would like it to be featured on the main page the same day Isabeau of Bavaria is featured. Could you please let me know when the date is picked? Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes
Your interest in the Brothers Grimm was made evident at WP:Peer review/Brothers Grimm/archive1. The article on One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes lacks all references, provides little context, and has some of the same problems that prompted you to work on Brothers Grimm for WP:TCC. I just added an image but lack Grimm expertise; perhaps you might be willing to improve One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes in a more substantial way. 67.100.127.10 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the query. There's a ton of work to do in that area - I'd hoped to finish the biography first and then work up a decent article on Grimms' Fairy Tales, and then work through the individual articles. Anyway, the best thing to do there is to trim out the "plot" (which tells the entire story) by at least 50 percent. I'll check and see whether I have anything on that story, and if I do will add when I have time. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic work on the Brothers. Quick comment regarding sources: Nothing links to Simpson, 2000 or Zipes 1984, and the link "Zipes & 1981 163" is broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco - it's one that was unintentionally abandoned that I should finish - it's not quite done. Simpson I think was added by another editor and I'm not surprised the various Zipes' are broken. When I'm able, I'll go tidy! Victoria (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good. I'm working towards getting Amir Hamzah up to at least GA (although there seems to be one more biographical source that I'm missing). He didn't have as much international influence as the Grimms, but he's one of only two National Heroes of Indonesia best known as a poet (Raja Ali Haji is far too early for me). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your doing a lot with Indonesian writers, which is nice to see. The Grimms are hard because it's an issue of comprehensiveness and I need to go through the sourcing there again thoroughly. I threw that together in a three-week sprint and then haven't gotten back, mostly because it's a lot of work. But it's been on my radar. I haven't fixed the broken links yet, but will. Victoria (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, true. Amir and Chairil (the latter's works have actually been translated to English, though I have my doubts about the quality of Raffel's work there) are likely the most source-intensive of the Indonesian poets, as both have been discussed in numerous books and journal articles... though admittedly not as much as the Grimms, Tolstoy, or Hemingway. I don't have any sources on the Grimms here, though I don't doubt Indonesian articles exist, but if you get to the point where you need a PR just ping me and I'll be glad to take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco - the problem with an article like that is the scope and I've been wrestling with what to put in the biography and what to put in the daughter articles. I think the biography is fairly good as is, but when I wrote it I didn't have The Oxford Companion the Childrens Literature and that's an important entry to add. I have that book now (thanks to and the Core Contest), so it's just an issue of swapping out a few sources. I have a ton of sources on themes and folktales and so on, really too many, but I think all that should go to the daughter articles. I'm not sure that I'll PR this or take it to FAC - again, I'm not sure the scope can quite be balanced and not sure how it will fare. And to be honest, though I do send articles to FAC, it's never an experience I enjoy. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. At a glance the current version looks quite balanced (at least to me). As for FAC... yeah, it can be quite a surprise even if we think we've prepared everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - it's always good to have another opinion because I tend to lose perspective. I glanced through it yesterday (fixed the refs) and realized I'd have to bring myself up to speed with the sources, which is a lot of reading. I have an article at FAC right now, but am a little burned out, and have been thinking about taking a break for a few months. Of course whenever I think that it never really happens, but I've been discouraged here for a while. Anyway, I'd thought I'd bring Call of the Wild to review at some point (that's basically ready), and then I'll think about the Grimms. One thing I learned when it had the huge spike in page views,, is that our readers can find a page, whether or not it's mainpaged. That said, it's a core article, so I suppose I should stop being lazy and do something about it. I do appreciate the encouragement. Victoria (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that is quite a nice article (I note, however, that neither Barnes & Noble (2003) source goes anywhere). I'll see if I can stop by the nomination and help out later. I never did pay you back for that PR, even if I haven't developed the themes section at Belenggu as you suggested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of funny about the Call of the Wild refs - that was my building bridges collab with Br'er Rabbit and he did all the refs and the infobox. I don't have the patience for templates. Anyway, I've asked  to hold my back on those and will prob bring her along when I get the energy to FAC that one. It is a nice page. But that's not the one that's currently at FAC. Yeah, I'd wondered about Belenggu, it's still on my watch. Developing themes is a pain, frankly, and the reason it's so hard to write about literature. Victoria (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gave you some comments at the current one. I think Belenggu is far more complex than Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari as the former has so many darned sources about it, and from what I've read they tend to try to find new themes every time instead of building on existing arguments. Siti Akbari, on the other hand, seems to have only had three scholarly works about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Catherine
Have found a lot on Mary's and the donor's clothes, but little on Catherine's, and that dress and her objects are far more interesting. I'm sure they must be well described, still searching. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh if you want to spin that out I have links in my sandbox about her. I can't really edit at the moment (watching a bit is all I can do) but might be able to do something about it tomorrow. I'll take a look then.Victoria (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw from your sandbox edits that you were angling towards a seperate section for the frames and their inscriptions. Have worked this up, and also moved the iconographical bits and pieces into one sect. Can you take a look please becuse I dont thinkink its the cleanest reorg I've ever done. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but I think those were simply notes that I was keeping in one place. At one point, I probably thought we should go that way, but I haven't been keeping up tonight. My internet keeps going down! Victoria (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it! I'd bloated that section up too much and didn't like where it was going, and yes, originally I thought we should have a separate section for the frames but as it happened we didn't have the sources. Now that we've located the sources, and it's developed more, I think it's the only way to go. It's interesting to me how important the frames are, and how they were used to carry a message separate from the images. Anyway, long message to say looks good to me. Victoria (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Phew, frankly. I think a slight re-org of the images is called for, but not decided yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to "phew". Wasn't quite sure what to do there myself and I think this works well. I agree about the images - we now have space for more and was thinking about making a few more crops tomorrow to maybe play around a bit. I don't think either of us expected this page to grow so much at the last minute but it's not the first one where that's happened. Victoria (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work responing to Tim's review. Lots of progress. Ceoil (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked a bit more just now, but not satisfied. I'll try to get back to it later - I have to keep going back to the sources and it's too early in the morning or late at night (can't decide which) for heavy lifting. Btw - meant to say, lots of stuff for ENA left in a sandbox. Might be helpful. I'm hoping too that Modernist (or you) have a go at some of the van Gogh notes. Lots there and eventually I'll clear it all, but until then should be moved into articles. Victoria (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and I need to revisit the edits I made last night re Caterine's gown, not very happy with that. Have been summarising my souces re ENA on scraps of paper...Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll reread Dhanens (or as I'm typing realized I might have the description sandboxed) - but I put back the crown, which is important. Somewhere I read it's obviously more elaborate than Mary's (she only has a small circlet) and that it's significant. Can't remember where though. Will look through notes later. Lost a huge edit re ENA last night so might go to notepaper myself - just thought this was a way to share, but not worthwhile if the edits (and hours of work) are eaten. Victoria (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked there a little. Victoria (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Pesto
I reverted your edits to Pesto because I could not figure out why you would remove several maintenance templates, especially without an explanation. If you feel they don't belong, go ahead and remove them again, but please use an WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain your reasoning. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my reasoning: during the course of my usual wikipedia activities, where I use similar edit summaries, I decided to break to make pesto from the bunch of basil I'd just harvested. Dissatisfied with the usual recipe websites I checked our article, which has about 55,000 views per month, to find it tag bombed, so I removed. There are four courses of action imo for almost three year old tags: tag the section, remove the offending material, search for a source, or remove the tagbombing. The article was quite helpful, I've since the removal made a nice bit of pesto, and if we're to show the world a tagbombed page (personally I think we can do better) then I have no problem with your reversion. I may, however, do some research and try to cite the offending material, and if unable will delete it. Thanks! Victoria (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And presto! Problem solved! Thanks again for reminding not to mess with those tags - it's so much better to get it right, even if it does take us years. Victoria (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Thanks!  I looked for a replacement for the dead link in citation [12], but it appears we are the only source of that title.  Thanks again, —EncMstr (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. The page needs some tidying and food is one of the great underrepresented categories on wikipedia, so it might be an interesting page to work up. I'll keep it on my watch and at some point, hopefully soon, get back there. It does get a significant number of page views. Victoria (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

FL
Hey Victoria, your critical comments are very useful any article. I'm planning to nominate Priyanka Chopra filmography for FLC in few days. A thorough critical eye will help in the prose tightening. If you could put your comments on the talk page. Thanks.— Prashant 04:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Prashant, unfortunately at the moment my editing time is fairly inconsistent so I'd prefer not to commit to doing this. If I get a bit of time and know I can stick to it, then I will. Congrats by the way to you and the others for the Chopra promotion. Victoria (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there Victoria,

First, let me apologize for not letting you know when I responded to you. I saw your note here, and I felt bad that you thought that I hadn't responded to you. Actually I did reply here. I didn't realize that you (as Victoria) were actually TK. :-) ... how you doing? Anyway, my good computer crashed, so I am relegated to a really lousy computer that takes FOREVER to load pages.  Add to that some real life personal/health things, and I haven't been able to be active in the "case".  I am working on resolving these things - but without a doubt I would love to see you offer your point of view on the situation.  I think the more people participate in this "case", the easier it will be for the arbitration committee to understand the full scope of the problem.  The infobox issue is longstanding and spread across MANY areas ... I brought it to Arbcom in hopes of finding a way forward.  I'd like to see some more input from the arbs in the line of questions, and I like to see a fuller discussion beyond the current "composer" group saying "ban him".  Anyway .. I am working on digging up diffs, reading SOOOOO many past discussions, and developing some sort of "evidence" to present. I am very disappointed that User:Nikkimaria has refused to acknowledge the problems; many of which she has been a key part of. Still ... I shall do my best to work with everyone: the community, the committee, and the composer project to find a good way forward which allows everyone an acceptable and enjoyable way to contribute to wikipedia. If you have any suggestions, I am always open to your thoughts .. either on wiki .. or by email. All my best. — Ched : ?  22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ched, what is it you think I should do that I haven't yet tried? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, no I didn't see your response because I don't have your page on watch. To cut the distraction I have a small watchlist with an emphasis on articles rather than user pages. It's interesting that apparently TK had a wiki-reputation of sorts whereas Victoria doesn't - not the first time that issue has come up and gives me a sense of what it's like to be a new editor here. Anyway, re infoboxes, I have a fair amount to say but have decided to stay out of the fray if at all possible, which it may not be. I'm sad to see that one of the very first links (pieces of evidence) points to a comment Ceoil made in response to a snarky comment made to me, at a time when I wasn't editing and unable to respond myself. If I were to post evidence, I'd probably mention that. My sense is that you're shaking the trees here but I've been involved in a limited number of infobox conversations on talk pages, most quite amicable, but there was a point in 2011 when the tenor of the conversations changed and became quite nasty (I'd post diffs to this effect were I to post evidence). Other than that I have little else to offer. I don't dislike infoboxes per se but my personal feeling is that when a society suffers from aliteracy, and an article is about a complicated person with a complicated life or a complicated piece of art (eg., painting, literature, music), it's probably okay to expect that the first few sentences or so of prose be read. Of course this is simply my own personal philosophy and I'm well aware might go against the grain. Still, we don't really know what our readers want. I do know that when Brothers Grimm, unreviewed, not FA, not TFA, garnered in excess of 960,000 views, , there wasn't a hue and cry because the article lacks an infobox (and to be honest I hestitate to post this, because I fear even mentioning is cause enough for someone to add one!) I could, too, defend the reasons for not adding one there, but frankly don't have the energy. Regarding metadata, you saw the posts I added to 's page that were moved against my wishes to elsewhere where she clearly asserts her mind was changed during the Pilgrim at Tinker Creek situation (that can hardly be characterized as a discussion!) which was all about the need for metadata (in fact a search on the page for "metadata" shows 18 results, only one of which is unrelated to the infobox discussion). We lost at least three editors from that single discussion, and in my mind three editors too many. So, arb cases are funny things - depends on who comes out of the woodwork and which patterns emerge.  asked what exactly you wanted to achieve - you responded that you wanted the fighting to stop. Above, here, on my page, you say that  is a key part of the problem, which to me suggests you know what you want. If so, I suggest you answer her question above and perhaps, as a party to the case, post evidence. I don't know what else to say. There's a sick tag at the top of my page for a good reason, (not because I'm a diva - an accusation leveled at me in the past),  and if possible I will avoid becoming involved because the emotional energy required is too great. If I see a need, I'll post evidence, but not seeing it at the moment. Anyway, thanks for stopping by and apologies for the long response. Victoria (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving so much time to my thoughts Victoria. Even if I would ever disagree with you on a particular point or situation, I do honestly think the world of you as a person.  I have been trying to sort through much of the "infobox" situation, and I will offer some "evidence" before the closing date.  Regarding Nikki: I have indeed found diffs which I believe show her to be using very poor judgement, and yet I also find so very much of her efforts to be a benefit to the project.  So I am at odds as to how to present "evidence" in that I would like to guide her in positive ways, without discouraging her from contributing to the project.  Your thoughts are always most welcomed.  I am very sorry to see that you are experiencing health related concerns, and I DO hope they can be quickly resolved.  — Ched :  ?  20:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess my thoughts would be to present your evidence and let the chips fall as they may. We all see things here on a daily basis that we don't like, and what one person finds disturbing is fine to another person, or one of us might dislike or disapprove of one person's actions while not of another's. These things are either ignored, and some of us try to move on to write content, or they get blown up. At this point I don't see a way around sanctions, which astutely mentioned on one of the ANI threads (sorry, will look for the diff later). I believe  mentioned a similar outcome, though I believe he admitted his knowledge to be somewhat out-of-date. In terms of providing  guidance, I have no comment except to say that it's all up to the arbs now and we'll live with whichever conclusion they reach, whether or not we like it. This of course applies to everyone involved. Anyway, that's my advice, though personally I not sure I'm the best person to provide advice. Victoria (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ched: please feel free to discuss on my talk or send me an email with diffs or your concerns. TK/VE: thank you, and now it's my turn to apologize for giving you the SoOBOD (Son of Orange Bar of Doom). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I still have the original (father? mother?) orange bar, and don't mind it going off. Considering this discussion seemingly has become about your actions, I think you should chime in. I had deleted my previous post but changed my mind and put it back. I did mean to stop by your talk last night to notify you of this discussion but had to fade, so I'm glad you're here.  Victoria (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

help
We need to come with FU rational for the images...something similar I suppose to what the alt. music guys are using. I'm a bit pissed of with the whole thing, but Ruhrfisch has shown there is light at the end of the tunnel, not an on coming train. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose that we say that the frames come under FU if...the article discusses them in detail, and that showing them is integral to giving an understanding the work, without them the article would be deminished/compromised. Something like that. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or we could just tool up and go out in a blaze of glory. You have your shooter? Either or is fine. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good at FUs and have tried on the two pictures. My suggestion is to draft it somewhere, sandbox, talk page, and then paste it into the file and see what happens. But, yes, all the sources discuss the frames in detail, and yesterday I was reading Spronk's source about how few of those have survived - they are integral to piece. The two, painting and frames and were meant to be a whole, which I think the article reflects. I just don't know how to translate that to FU language. I'm not too happy about it either. I am happy though to see the "non-barnstar" on Ruhrfisch's page. He deserves it.
 * You caught me in an ec - I'm not feeling well enough to deal with it, so it's up to you. I'm not adverse to going out in a blaze of glory, or I suppose going down. Lot's to be upset about around here at the moment. Victoria (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt just give Ruhrfisch a barnstar, I dont do that stuff. Eew. Shooters it is. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops - meant to type "non-barnstar". I've had an idea - shooters aside (which is a good option as far as I'm concerned right now)! Writing the FUR should maybe be an initiative of the Visual arts wikiproject. A lot of articles are involved because of the frame issue. We probably need more opinions than ours - we're getting a little frustrated. Or least I am. Victoria (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Victoria, I just wanted to say I'm sorry if you're feeling frustrated over the images. I didn't intend to open a big can of squiggly things, just to ensure that the images matched our policies (Speaking of which, I rather agree with Ruhrfisch that some of them may fall under de minimis, which would allow the images to be free... some of them, at least) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghent Altarpiece
Sorry, if this is something I should already know, but what is the issue with the frames? I see the image used on the other Wikipedias. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion here at Dresden Triptych currently at FAC. And on the thread above. I think the Visual arts group (which I'm not a part of) should try to come up with a solution. Victoria (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, now I understand. But we could use this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gand,_san_bavone,_int.,_polittico_dell%27agnello_mistico_02.JPG which at least shows the whole thing. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats a very nice capture you linked Phila, very interesting to look at. It's a pity Adam and Eve are grey scale, not sure how/why that it? Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They are fairly monotone in the original and the lighting (protective I assume) accentuates that. Any idea why we aren't using that one? (I know it is not ideal). Philafrenzy (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No not ideal, I think it imparts sinificanyly less that the old image we had, but at least it is free. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I straightened and cropped it. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Amicable
Thank you for your evidence, and I don't mind at all that it was past a certain date. You start nicely "An example of an amicable and quick discussion about an infobox happened in June 2011". Why didn't you end "An example of an amicable and quick discussion about an infobox happened on 2 August? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda your every where! Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Amicably so ;) - Last week, I saw the Miraflores again, thinking of you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Query to TPS admins
Can someone please block me for a few days? It's not healthy for me to be here and I'm not coping well. Thanks to who ever does it. Don't worry about email - the account has been deleted. Probably best to minimize talk page access too. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have blocked you for three days, with no talk page access (though if you disagree with that you can email me at chris_woodrich@undefinedhotmail.com, or have a friend bug me). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot... Get well soon! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw... well I hope you feel better as well! You really are an inspiration to other editors. Thanks for doing so very, very much. I hope you'll keep on contributing in the long run. -Darouet (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your evidence
I posted your evidence on the talk page diff. If you do not want it there, please forgive me and remove it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

PS I really liked what you wrote and thought it deserved to be read by ArbCom. Please forgive me if that was the wrong thing to do. I don't really know what else to say. I want you to be happy and well and it is clear that that has been increasingly difficult for you here. Stay away from the craziness as long as you need to. If that is forever, I will miss you and your contributions, but please do what is best for you. If you do find in time that you can come back, I will be glad. But, and this is very important, do what is best for you. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ruhrfisch. I didn't really want to respond, but I'm innately polite and seems rude to me not to respond to such a nice message. Don't worry about the evidence - I don't really know what's right or wrong there. I thought this reply meant it was okay to post late but admittedly I did pull the evidence. When I was blocked I thought about it and decided it really goes against the spirit of wikipedia to feel I have to delete something, and being blocked, I secured permission by email to reinstate. But this post simply made me feel again like a liar (a meme I suppose I have to live with having not known enough about this place when I first registered to choose a kenning as self-descriptive.) So I was upset that I felt I needed to give up personal information to justify myself and just wanted to slink away. I think often there's a lack of awareness that there's a person behind the computer screen, a person with feelings, and a person who's maybe having a bad day (or a very long series of bad days!). At this point I'm in complete agreement with who so eloquently asked "why stick aroound?" I love to write and research - it's a nice hobby that gives me pleasure and a sense of satisfaction. But when everything becomes a battle and conflict then there's no pleasure or satisfaction. The infobox situation has gone on for much too long and is an unending source of conflict and disruption - in that sense it's probably good that it's at arbcom. But beyond that, curating or being the steward of an article, I've found, becomes an unbearable chore. The category discussions at Ernest Hemingway were time consuming and unnecessary in my opinion and I've lost interest in curating pages I spent a lot of time writing. I see now that the non-free image recently deleted from Hemingway (that I didn't add) has been re-uploaded and made the lead image. So there's another battle that I don't particularly care to jump into. And for some reason someone tag-bombed the lead there. And that's it in a nutshell - the way of wikipedia is that some editors create but there seems to be an invitation to destroy - and that's what I have a very hard time dealing with. I just have to ask myself, why? What's the point? So I have to take time away and recharge and decide whether I want to come back. One thing I've realized is that a lot of editors leave quietly, more quietly than I - (I have to wrench myself away) - and I have to wonder, how is it any different for the people who leave because they find it intolerable than for those who are banned? Quitting is only a self-imposed ban, giving up something you might really like, but choosing to leave because the environment is too difficult. Anyway, just some musings. Thanks a ton for all the help on the Dresden Triptych - you basically saved us there. I had myself thought of asking google permission for the image but you're the better person to follow up - I honestly have lost the enthusiasm I once had. When and if I can find that naive sense of excitement and enthusiasm, then I'll come back refreshed. Might only take a week, might take months, might never happen. All I know is that for this to really be rewarding, it has to be fun. I'm not sure that sense of fun can be regained once lost. I'll see what happens and report back. In the meantime, take care and thank you so very much for all your help over the years. Victoria (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your reply. I have very little time today, but I did remove the fact tags from the Hemingway article. I will keep an eye on it and any others you would like me to. I will also look into the Hemingway lead image (all the Karsh images were deleted on Commons, so this one is suspect). I will also double check the fair use rationales on the Dresden Triptych pix (in my copious free time ;-) ). Take care and do what is best for you, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't mean for you to have to do that work, was only using it as an example. I've been thinking about all of this quite seriously and am beginning to wonder if we're reaching a tipping point in regards to having the editor base necessary to curate our FAs. Anyway, more random musings - but thanks again. I think what's best for me is to take a break for a while and decide whether or not it's to be a complete retirement or whether I can come back. I just need some down time at this point. Ironically down time for me is to edit wikipedia, but if it's to be a battle zone, then I need to find something a little more staid. Victoria (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope this won't be permanent Victoria.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Afraid it is. I have zero interest in being here any more and this is what's best for me. Victoria (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Best of luck, Victoria. I echo Ruhrfisch's sentiments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dresden Triptych
Promoted!! ;) Trilled I tells ya. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am too. We had a real collab there and a good way to finish - particularly with that piece that really took my fancy. I enjoyed working on it immensely and am happy to see we got it to a nice state, thanks to the reviewers. Thanks for everything. I've had some fun and really learned a lot in the past few years. Victoria (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, I see ;) Hopefully not a flying visit. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd hit this newfangled lovey-dovey "thank you" button for that edit, Victoria. If I wasn't a gruff harridan. Hope you feel better soon. Hugs always, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  02:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Flying visits to clean up after myself but no new content editing until I'm feeling well enough for it. Thanks for the hugs CL! Victoria (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your always welcome back Victoria, if and when you feel up to it. Because Coco Lacoste (who is sussed and funny enough that their word is law) says so, and I happen to think the same. Please come back fighting. tune of the day. Ceoil (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A tiny bit of fight left (well, more like self-defense),, and a single content edit. Better than nothing. But seriously, it's best for me to stay out until feeling better. Victoria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One little edit always becomes 15 and then others for some reason have to jump on the bandwagon to toot their own horn! Why? I really really dislike this place and am on the verge of asking for an indefinite block. Wouldn't have even looked at anything without the TfA notification! And that was necessary!?! Very frustrated. Victoria (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, glad to see you back anytime, Victoria, but put your health first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have to. This place can wait. Thanks for stopping by Ian, and thanks so much for all you do here. Victoria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Above all - take care of yourself and this place comes only when you're up for it...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggested the beauty for TFA, why wait? Please polish the blurb, it's just a placeholder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, Gerda, please. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Gerda, I have no words for this (request?). When I get the energy I'll oppose for lots of reasons that I don't feel like spelling out here. In the meantime you might want to notify the other principal author? Victoria (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

note:
If you ever wish to post, and want to be unblocked - you have my email and I will unblock you with no questions asked. — Ched : ?  04:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Northern Sky
Thanks for the help with this earlier in the week. I needed help and a friend, and it was appreciated. I'm very sorry to see what has happened here on this talk. Disappointed, but not surprised. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on my PS
I put a PS on the bottom of our joint post at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed_decision. The question has arisen if you and Riggr agree with my PS. I assume Riggr will see the question and post on the Proposed decision talk page if needed. Since you can only post here, I will ask you here:

''P.S. This hardly starts to examine how Mabbett achieves his goal via poor behavior. It does not focus on his bullying behavior, his ignoring any argument which he cannot attack, the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors (who are the lifeblood of this project).''

The PPS is all mine. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per 's question, I agree with the PS. It's been amply demonstrated on the pages of the arb case and on other pages where I've witnessed these discussions and is in my view the reasons it's difficult to impossible to discuss these matters elsewhere, which goes to 's question. Only one more thing, in response to assertion that I accused Andy Mabbett of driving away editors: the evidence states editors become discouraged and leave. But - and this is important - I don't wish to engage on that level because frequently in these discussions the concept or the main point of the discussion devolves quickly into a "he said, she said" scenario which is almost always counterproductive. Feel free to copy over, or to link, or to point to this post. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why I'm blocked
I'm writing to explain who I am, what I do, why I've chosen to take a three month self-block and break from Wikipedia, and to add some responses to the infobox case. I don't know how to ping the committee as a whole so will only ping with the hope this gets disseminated to others. This statement, too, is for talk page watchers and collaborators.

I'm a middle-aged woman, employed at an US academic institution, who uses Wikipedia as a teaching tool. I've brought probably thousands of students to Wikipedia and taught them how to edit, how to use sources correctly, and how to avoid copyvio problems. Each semester I've made a conscious effort to bring an article through FAC so my students could follow and watch the experience. Need a piece of writing to explain how to write a description? Have a look at Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych - from that the students come away seeing examples of good writing, good sourcing, collaboration, and they learn about 15th century art in the process - a win-win in my estimation. "Indian Camp" began as an in-class exercise as did "Big Two-Hearted River". Need examples of how not to plagiarize or to avoid close paraphrasing? The copy-vio clean-up I did (with Ruhrfisch) on the The Story of Miss Moppet is a perfect casebook scenario. For children's literature classes I've added content such as Edmund Evans and Brothers Grimm, which students have helped with through in-class brainstorming sessions and feedback. All these students receive a up-close view of the Wikipedia experience, and they learn that hitting the save button on a high profile website is a powerful experience.

However, they've also watched the behind-the-scenes drama and in the manner of computer and internet savvy young people they've at times not been impressed. Many students have told me they refuse to join a community such as this. This year I won't be bringing students to Wikipedia and instead will join the legion of teachers and professors who tell their students to avoid this place and to stop using it for research. I'll find other teaching tools to use in the classroom to substitute for Wikipeda

In November 2011 (about halfway into the time I've been here) a discussion with an editor named became combative ( showed up about an hour into the discussion) and began a period of increased and heightened conflict and factionalism that moved from article to article, morphed into late the 2011 - early 2012 discussion in regards to FA leadership, moved to TFA, and has now landed in an Arbcom case. Since that period the fallout in terms of editors has been enormous as I've watched some, such as, , , , , either stop editing or reduce their time spent editing.

A few editors have been aware of my increased frustration such as and. But no one has done anything about some of the experiences I consider to be suboptimal, which is okay, because after all this is the internet and a thick skin is required. That said, that two editors have called me a liar in a single month with little reaction from the many arbs/admins reading the comments is baffling and discouraging.

I won't bother to defend the comments that elicited the label of liar, because when the veracity of whether the editor who signs as Maria is a woman is called into question, it's gone beyond the realm of viable engagement. I will say this though: I wrote when ill and would hope that as a community we'd have a sense of forgiveness for mistakes not only at the best of times, but also during less good times. However, my sense is the processes for dealing with these situations are broken. I've witnessed editors being blocked for using obscenties but more persistent less obvious personal attacks, though equally if not more incivil, are almost consistently ignored. That I am a liar, I am afraid, is a belief that will eventually stick and so far I've seen only a couple of administrators or arbiters who witnessed those statements react, which in my view sends the message that's it's okay to tell an editor that he/she lies, it's merely an acceptable part of "robust debate".

But it really bothers me. A few years ago I honestly thought the Wikipedia "gender problem" was overblown but now I believe the gender problem here is quite real and quite serious. We have a small percentage of women editing, a smaller percentage still of women in my demographic (ie, not young), and editing here is a particularly difficult uphill battle for some of us. I'm unsure whether women have less stamina for this environment, but I do see more women than men drop off my watchlist, and I suspect some of the aggressive hostility I've witnessed is a factor.

Ultimately the behavioral issues need to be addressed to retain editors such as myself - and I believe I'm an asset to the project. Page view statistics from a sampling of 10 articles I've worked on, and most done for my work, equals about 500,000 per month. I might return because I think this is a fantastic collaborative (writing) project and I've often found great joy being part of this endeavor, but I would like to see some improvement in the editing environment and experience. Perhaps if more editors were willing to step back and take periodic breaks we'd have less conflict, because we all know how addictive this place is, and that, too, adds to the general burn-out factor and is perhaps a cause for poor behavior (it's certainly a trend I've seen in myself).

A couple of comments in regards to the Infobox arb case: 1., In response to, in my view the only issues with infoboxes are behavioral - whether or not a given article has an infobox or not and which parameters to include are content issues - so I wouldn't characterize this as a problem per se with infoboxes but rather with one group of editors who disagrees with another; 2; in response to one of 's recent statements, I'm not sure whether or not we know who has or doesn't have knowledge about metadata and microformats - I'd be willing to bet a few voices have been stifled and that perhaps the knowledge we seek exists with other editors already here on the project

I need to thank some people who have helped, with whom I've collaborated, who have pitched in for reviews and advice:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  , , , , , , , and. This is by no means an exhaustive list (inevitably someone is left out and I apologize to those who have been) and often the behind-the-scenes quiet gnomes who make little noise are those most often overlooked - but thanks to everyone. Also would like to apologize to a few editors such as and  who've posted here gotten no response.

My email is enabled (I have a new account for those of you who have been in contact previously) and my talkpage is open. Victoria (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am still quite busy due to real-life events, but I saw that you pinged me to this conversation via the notification system. I share all of your frustrations and most of your views on the issues leading to them: I am sorry no one has defended you, but I suspect that is because anyone who knows the history and understands the group dynamic that has turned so destructive across so many domains of Wikipedia has either left or been silenced.  I contemplated providing evidence on the Infobox case about the history and membership of that particular group, and how the factionalism that began with the incidents you describe has continued to this day and extends well beyond infoboxes (to any technical issue, and to any issue involving editors who have crossed that particular group), but I decided to remain uninvolved because 1) I did not intend to let that same faction's antics affect my real-life celebrations; and 2) it occurred to me that anyone taking on that group would simply end up blocked on trumped-up charges-- the manner in which a warning shot is sent across the bow. I haven't followed the infobox case closely but I don't believe anyone yet has provided evidence regarding the collusion that exists across many issues of a group of technical-minded editors and their supporters (of socks and of each other), that led to the exit of so many editors, but my position will be like yours ... do what I can to maintain the articles I care about, and hope that the pendulum swings back to where admin factionalism and cabalism is recognized and curtailed.  I'm sorry no one spoke up for you-- I think that anyone who could or would has long since left, reduced their participation, or stopped following the case, as I have.  One troubling aspect of the recurring issues are the couple of admins who, as we say in Spanish, "throws the stone and then hides his hand" thereby escaping (or hoping to escape) detection (which works because so many of us are silenced) ... the ones who come out looking uninvolved and intending to be oh-so-sweetly helpful while being up to their eyeballs in the midst of one side of it every time these issues surface.  I suggest you might have also pinged .   Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to tell you that I agree with you. However the climate here is so toxic and my real life concerns are so pressing that I've out of necessity limited my time spent here. I am utterly appalled at the behaviour of those petty and self-pitying editors who have ceaselessly and endlessly continued these nonsensical and stupid and as I mentioned petty spats. I'm sorry that it's led to all this...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In WW2, troops had a doglatin saying when they were harassed or thrown into porridge or the peter (prison). Fragging wasn't a well-known option then (though some sensible soldiers in my uncle's platoon shot a whacko gung-ho lead-from-behind sergeant in the leg on the eve of battle, to make sure they'd be able to fight intelligently, and not be driven to suicide or make easy targets for the enemy). The saying was Nil illegitimus carborundum, (Never let the bastard(s) grindja down). Learn to laugh at the foibles and tactics of the great carping lunatics who rove the place, quietly remind yourself what mothers told children tyo recite to themselves once (now they hire lawyers) when they saw them home weeping from insults at primary school ('Stick and stones may break my bones/but names will never hurt me'). One should edit nec spe nec metu (without hope or fear), and for the personal pleasure of doing something intelligent in an entropically dumbdowning world. What's that Aussie idiom for nonchalance under fire? 'Give'm the flick pass', which is rhyming slang for 'arse'. Most of these clowns are only significant because they manage to tease people into taking them seriously. I say that as, according to repeated rumours, an 'antisemite' 'intellectually dishonest', 'extremist', 'troll', 'racist' etc.etc. Some of it even got me permabanned. I said nothing, enjoyed the break, did other things, and eventually some decent folks spoke up for me, and I was allowed back. Now, I'll have to try and work out whether the Spanish got Sandy's saying from the Italians (lanciare il sasso e ritirare la mano) or vice perversa. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in email contact with Ottava Rima, and he asked me to pass this message on to you Victoria: "Can you tell Victoria that I liked what she said on her user talk page? She has a new email so I can't contact her anymore.". Eric  Corbett  21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Very sorry to see you go, & that you're not well. The case is getting light shed on some issues that need it, though these things are always a nightmare, even to be on the sides of. It's been great working with you, & I hope you'll be back at some point. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lengthy semi-voluntary wiki-vacations seem to be a necessity for many of those of us who work intensively in this quagmire they call the wiki. It heartens me to see that you are strong enough to go with dignity and ladylike demeanor, and not as I myself tend to do in an uncivilized wiki-rage. Enjoy the real world, it's beautiful this time of year.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Victoria, I'm so sorry. To be honest, I understand completely why you would have them avoid the English Wikipedia. The community has to be one of the most dynamic, yet ultimately immature, spoiled, factional, volatile, and mean-spirited on the seven Wikis. Half of what we get into edit wars about, and almost everything on WP:LAME, has editors of other Wikipedias scratching their head. Not even infoboxes. I was telling the head of Wikimedia Indonesia about our endash–hyphen wars, and her husband (an active English Wikipedian) was saying "Yeah, that's how it is", and she couldn't believe that people would write over 200k of text arguing over something like this. I agree with your wish to stay out of both the frying pan and fire while you're sick, and even afterwards. I just hope that one day, maybe when the drama llama has been put out to pasture, you'll want to come back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all for stopping by. To be clear, I learned recently that saying "gone" means zero edits. Obviously I'm still editing here on my talk and still consider myself part of this community, but to prevent myself from engaging further and digging in more, I choose to be blocked from mainspace where I could honestly be editing content, but can't see that happening without conflict - and it's conflict I'm deciding to withdraw from. So in that sense this isn't a big goodbye statement but a statement about what happens when an editor has had enough of being bullied. Responding to all:
 * , thanks so much for stopping by. I know you've been busy. To clarify, Ruhrfisch, Salvio and Riggr did defend, but in my mind defend something that never should have happened in the first place, and they all took it on the chin to defend.
 * , please don't apologize - we said what we had to say and I see this place in very Darwinian terms: the weak are culled.
 * , yep, you were in on that first blast and have watched this unfold.
 * , you always make me laugh and give a good perspective. That said, Wikipedia shouldn't be the WWI trenches! It's a hobby! And unlike primary school, most of which now have strong anti-bullying progams in place, here we have a real lack of leadership in terms of setting the rules for what's acceptable or not. If blood is visible, (i.e an obscenity), the culprit is blocked, but we have few mechanisms to deal with verbal taunting and here I have a choice whether to stay or go. More to the point though: how do we get good editors, particularly women, to stay if staying is akin to being in the trenches?  Anyway, thanks and yes, I'll enjoy the break (though would have preferred not be forced into this situation) and will try to ignore the sticks and stones. Will probably blank all of this rubbish soon. Thanks for stopping by make me stop with the self-pity. PS: it's a pity we never finished Charles!
 * Sorry for coming over like Danny Glover when Mel Gibson is stuck Shakespearean six fathoms under and drowning in Lethal Weapon 4, after putting paid to 李連杰, and for the life of me I wasn't suggesting you model yourself on Demi Moore in that other moronic movie G.I. Jane.Okay. Take a break, and I promise you I'll drop whatever I'm doing to ensure Charlie's fixed if you decide to come back. This is probably in the wrong section, but damn it if I can stick to them rules. :)   Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks for passing on Ottava's message - I did zap my old email address complete with all content and contacts. Unremitting pain over a period of many months makes a person do strange things. I'll try to track him down on one of the other projects.
 * I'm embarrassed that you've come by so many times to say that to me, but in retrospect I've only started the monthly "retirement" since the Alarbus/Jack Merridew episode which was the genesis for so much to follow. I'm not as sanguine as you in terms of seeing light, but I've never been involved with Arbcom, so wouldn't know. Thanks for everything, I've learned a lot from you. Some time ago I bought a beautiful book about John Berry's Belles Heures, with the thought that I'd work on that article. Maybe if/when I return refreshed I can get that going.
 * , yes, I agree. I think for some of us the environment here, and honestly the work we do (for free), requires breaks before reaching the meltdown stage (which I've reached a few times). I have no problem admitting that I lack the self-control to put down the computer and walk away without a bit of help. And frankly, as I pointed out above, this will be the first semester in about three or four years that I won't be here with students - something almost everyone is unaware I've been doing.
 * thanks for stopping by. I meant to thank you for the Dresden review and then things spiralled a little out of control, so consider yourself thanked for a good review! You've been doing some excellent work here - I'm proud to watch your progress. Victoria (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I am so sorry to see you go, though as I have said I want you to do what it best for you. I apologize because I am an admin, and I feel I should have done something earlier / something more. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been a strong asset here, and you've accomplished an important part of the work that's been done here. However no one - nobody - needs to put up with the nasty and unrelenting belligerence of Davenbelle and his various guises and friends; including the characters that have morphed into that present group...Modernist (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Victoria, I don't recall if we have ever crossed paths before but I would like to thank you for this post. It was very interesting to read and I wish I had more to offer Wikipedia in this realm. Your post is certainly one that I will reflect on now and in the future. NW ( Talk ) 01:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed my name from Truthkeeper88, if that makes a difference. Glad you stopped by to read this screed! Victoria (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria, you are an incredible lady and it's been a pleasure to review your articles and get to know you. Your students are entirely correct; FAC and Wikipedia in general really have become environments filled with nasty people just like any other microcosm in real life. I hope you opt to return, because I suspect that like me, you are here to educate, to write, to share knowledge, and that you have no interest in the melodramatic conflicts between egomaniacs. I want to stress how much I personally appreciate your work. Whenever things get tough, there's always Finding Nemo. All the best.  ceran  thor 02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's mostly true. I'll wait for a few months to decide. Victoria (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to see you go and hope you reconsider. The departure of experienced editors from Wikipedia is a cancer on the project, too little regarded, and often dismissed with flipness. I will miss you if you go and greatly regret your departure.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt, thanks for stopping by and thanks again for your help on Isabeau. I will be gone for a while and decide later whether to return. My sense is that too much of what happens here is about getting too caught up with the community and losing perspective (at least that seems to be my experience) and then becoming frustrated when the community drama interferes with writing. So best to have a long break and decide later. Victoria (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Chapter 1 from my book
I left Wikipedia in 2012, in a rage so all-consuming that I promised myself I would return once I could log on and not pose all my responses to other users in various forms of "fuck all of you so hard". I dislike calling attention to myself, particularly in a medium that enforces anonymity that somehow brings out each user's tendency to call desperate attention to themselves (I wrote Munchausen by Internet after spending a week reading the ArbCom and ANI pages), so I never stated the reasons why I left, and to be honest I was just so angry when I left I couldn't parse all the reasons I had. I still haven't been able to return although I read the article side of Wikipedia frequently and every once in a while feel strong enough to read some of the articles I wrote. Not the big ones. I don't have strength for that. The hideous and incorrect infobox at the top of "Amazing Grace" keeps me from reading anything I wrote with more than 500 hits a day.

So Truthkeeper--sorry for the nostalgia; this is how I came to know you and I dislike to the point of distrust users who switch names--has asked to be blocked and left this long message that I happened to stumble upon by pure chance. Some of her points are worth discussing, which indicates my outlook may be improving after a year or two. I left with the absolute knowledge that nothing I could say or do here would change anything for the better and each word I posted invited my participation in an impotent and counterproductive social system that operated to enforce mediocrity. I dislike mediocrity.

So whimsical me, I decided to write this, then drop the mike so to speak. I don't expect a response, nor a discussion to spawn from it and I'm not un-retiring because I would spend 38 minutes logged in and then tell the first person who overturned one of my edits to go fuck themslves so fucking hard and that tends to be less effective in persuading someone to change their behavior.

1. Wikipedia's ideals vs. their implementation:


 * A couple years ago, I read a passage in an article in the New Yorker, fancy me, and it illustrated my relationship with Wikipedia quite nicely: "I am a deeply broken person and broken institutions fascinate me." (Haggis, Paul. "The Apostate", The New Yorker, February 14-21, 2011. I wrote it on the back of an index card, citing it because that's how much Wikipedia changed my thinking.)


 * This quote succinctly explains both the topics I chose to write about and my interactions here on this site. There's an element in our participation that attracts us to this site in the first place. My departure has much to do with my own personality as it does with the dysfunction here. I'm admitting it if only to show others how to do the same. Pretending your own foibles don't factor in to your dissatisfaction is dishonest. And Moni3 was and remains, if anything, honest always.


 * I wrote about topics in which lofty ideals or standards were clearly laid out by an authority, but people's less important needs or desires eclipsed those ideals to the detriment of many: i.e. Birmingham campaign, Rosewood massacre, Emmett Till, Stonewall riots, Donner Party, all the articles I wrote about the Everglades, and To Kill A Mockingbird. Trying to understand why people in groups could so easily overrun a minority of idealists took me years of study, so to speak, all of which was carried out in my 26,000 edits. It's neither ironic nor coincidental that my exploration of this topic occurred here, where a small minority of idealists is consistently overpowered by mediocrity, neuroses, and bafflingly underhanded behavior.


 * Wikipedia is designed for this dysfunction, despite how clearly its ideals are presented. No single person in control of the site allows for no single leader or philosophy to influence how work gets done or how content is created. Without that direction, users must react en masse to problematic areas like BLP violations or the abuse of content seen in articles under arbitration control. That process can take ponderously long, which seems unreasonably longer on the lightning-fast Internet, whereas a single person's vision and execution of that vision would be in many ways much more efficient and beneficial to the site. And when individual editors with lofty ideals, many of whom participate(d) at FAC, encounter problems with other users, the system of Wikipedia seems completely impotent to assist or even understand that a problem exists. This method of management leaves the Wikipedia system, the "hive mind" if you give Wikipedia Review any authority (which I do not those guys suck seriously), open to abuse and misdirection. One voice at ANI can derail a very serious dispute into mocking both parties and frustrating a minor problem into a major one down the road. ArbCom becomes bogged down with the same personalities in dispute, each of whom seems desperate for the validation of strangers--which includes disparaging other strangers. Much of these problems could be solved by having one strong personality in charge, reinforcing high standards and denigrating low or nonexistent ones. But one person in charge could also influence things unduly with the power corrupting, although the notion that being in charge of Wikipedia is a position of power is deliciously hilarious to me. Others would take it very seriously because their gossamer-thin identities need any kind of foundation, even if that foundation is set on the magical cloud of Who Gets To Be In Charge Of Internet Stuff.


 * At this point in time, it's apparent that the abuse and misdirection exacerbated by anonymous groups on Wikipedia is not as great as the fear of abuse by an individual leader who does not yet exist. A harsh look into a mirror.


 * Honesty demands I insert here my unwavering philosophical devotion to ideals, which has broken me in the past and will again the future. I cannot seem to rid myself of the expectation that people should understand and aspire to meet the highest ideals in whatever society they're in. This itself is tricky: I do not meet the highest ideals of Southern Womanhood. In fact, I fail at it pretty spectacularly. That's because I don't hold these ideals in any esteem. I decided to hold other ideals much higher: leaving a place better than how you found it, leaving someone with something good instead of taking something away, not ripping down someone's support or belief structure even though it seems dumb to me (as long as that support doesn't have a foundation on hurting others). What I hold dear and true is clearly not shared by most of the people I encounter. It's taken me many years and 20 Featured Articles to realize this. What can I say? I'm slow.

2. Wikipedia as a reflection of society:


 * Once I gave a short talk at a Wikipedia meet-up in New York, The talk was basically "Why aren't you writing?" and I stood up for 20 minutes and laid out how easy it was to go to the library and read books, summarize them, then edit Wikipedia. There were some very active users at that conference, some of whom decided to spend their time listening to me, and at the end of my erstwhile speech, a few of them came up and professed to have seen my point. It really *is* easy to write content! I thanked them and left shortly after, spending some time on the subway wondering how the points I raised didn't occur to folks naturally. Do people actually need to be told what I told them?


 * Seriously, go get a book.


 * The system of Wikipedia and all its dysfunction is fairly terrible, particularly when you're at the end of your frustrated rope trying to believe in all those lofty ideals so neatly laid out and then so easily trampled by people who have no idea what they're doing or where they're going. But Wikipedia is, in reality, only a reflection of society itself. Its poor social design and implementation is as efficient as the majority demands. And the horrible truth is that people for the most part demand mediocrity, eschew excellence, and disdain the implementation of ideals and high standards. Much of my ire at Wikpedians is just as valid when directed at people and social systems in general. Granted, the Internet seems to attract more random factors like malleable and multiple online identities, people who do not or cannot hold normal jobs which invites the insanity coefficient, and a hyperaggressive mode of communication that effectively ends all meaningful understanding.


 * Wikipedia didn't invent these things, and it seems not to be able to control them either. It's just people being people. That suck.


 * The horrible truth is that individuals in societies rarely matter--which is probably a good reason why one person in charge doesn't appeal to this site. It's only when you're in a group that your collective concerns become significant enough to notice. Take, for example, the death rates for young men in the Donner Party. They were mostly unmarried and unattached to any particular family. People with families tended to survive because they had others looking out for them. Yet, many editors who were active at FAC expect to be treated with respect because we tend to demand it of others in our real lives. For the most part, being treated respectfully, including getting recognition for hard work and achieving goals, is possible in our one-on-one interactions with others. But the Internet removes the one-on-one aspect of communication and replaces it with groups. Because of the speed in which information is placed and consumed here, individuals have little value. Groups get things done (not article writing, but other stuff deemed as or more important), and others in your group support you and make you feel better for adhering at least to some standard even if that standard isn't society's highest. The structure and purpose of a group of like-minded people is so alluring and necessary to many individuals that a group's set of standards often eclipse a higher authority's. This is why folks will spend more time undercutting the seriousness of ANI complaints--their behavior is reinforced both here and at IRC--than venturing out alone to choose their own ideals. This is why adhering to Wikipedia's highest ideals--the creation and maintenance of high quality content--is deprecated for concentrating on whatever the random goals of a particular group happen to be.

3. Gender and editor retention:


 * Which brings us to chicks and dudes. I left thinking my being a Vagina-American had little to do with my success or defeat, I guess, on Wikipedia, probably because I don't pay much attention to my Vaginaness. I still have some skepticism on this. Some of the strongest personalities I came across here were women and I spent the majority of my time creating content. I cannot speak about male/female participation in other venues, such as AfD, categories, or RfA. The editors I came across--men, women, and the undetermined--were smart, businesslike, and dedicated to improving content. I cannot say if they were more or less frustrated than editors who spent time in other venues. It seemed to me that my frustration was pretty big.


 * And maybe women tend to see a more efficient and cooperative way to accomplish something and cannot seem to function when society stymies that way. Maybe throwing spanners into systems is the way that men deal with problems, part of the way of solving them. Men certainly interact in ways that I would not. Well, many women do too, which is why I'm hesitant to ascribe all of Wikipedia's editor retention problems to the oppression of Those Who Menstruate. Our inability to state exactly what the problem is, or even agree that female editors leaving Wikipedia is a problem (even I can't be sure it is), may indicate that there's a bevvy of insight to be had about the differences in how men and women communicate, specifically online. Whoever decides to write that first paper, please title it "Editors on Wikipedia: Efficient Communication And The Ladyparts That Destroy It". Make me second author.

So in conclusion, thank God, Truthkeeper, your position on the arc of social interaction on Wikipedia is on that part of the graph where your returns have diminished into nothingness. Returning to sociology, all individuals have their places in a cycle of group participation, from families to jobs, clubs, churches, platoons, and people standing on a street corner. You may feel as if you have failed in this society, but look at the imaginary graph in my head. It shows right there at that spot that you are ready to do something else now. Your time here is at a close. People just aren't hard-wired to stay a functional member of a group for extended periods of time. Eventually the limitations of the group become too much to bear and they conflict with your individual values and standards. Take this as a good thing. Were you more enamored of being a part of the group here, you'd probably toss your individuality out the window.

So maybe this will help. Probably not. Per usual, I wrote it more for myself than for anyone else reading it. Carry on, Wikipedia, in all your glorious dysfunction. Also, everyone go fuck yourselves. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't quite comply with that last request. I hate to admit this online, but I'm not sufficiently endowed to manage that trick. That's perhaps why I edit wikipedia?:) Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been trying for two days to compose a dignified, heartfelt response to Victoria's open letter. Instead, let me just point out eruditely that this task can be accomplished through the use of special appliances. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Touché, though the point is not well taken. And there I was feeling smug, thinking up over a plate of Cantonese fried rice an appropriate idiom (perineum, an ugly word (and article) for what the Japanese used to call, 'the ant track'(蟻の道), so perineum periplus?) I assume full responsibility for this lapse in taste. Spirited vulgarity, I was told as a child, is the best way to avoid stress.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh God, what to say down here! that you came here to write chapter one of your book really touched me. You're someone I've missed a lot and I agree with almost everything there. The name change btw - and, no, I don't mind being called Truthkeeper (as long as it's not to mock) - was in an effort to take credit for the work I've done under my own name. I think to some extent, and this goes to your "go the library and read" point, I have been very frustrated at creating (writing?) articles without having a sense of connection to the name in the contribs. If that makes any sense. As for the point about chicks and dudes - yeah, agree there and actually had a long bit about that but couldn't get it right so I trimmed it out. One thing I have to say is that I'm not doing this in rage and I'm really happy that I'm not. I have blanked my page plenty of times in rage, walked away a few times in rage, but this is cool and calculated (well as cool and calculated as can be in this environment) and feels really good. If I feel the itch to start writing again, if I feel I need to get back to editing, then I might come back. But you've made an excellent point about groups and moving on, and truth is, we all know that's hard to do. But also it feels really good when it becomes clear that it's time to move on and try to do it (somewhat) well. All that said, though, the comments from Nishidani and Cynwolfe made me just laugh, hard, and loud, and so with your post and all those above, I'm reminded of all the good potential here too. The last few posts are, hands down, some of the best that have landed on this page and I'm happy to go away laughing. Victoria (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!

On a side note, I'm sorry to see your decision above this to take a hiatus. Regardless of whether you choose someday to return--and obviously, I hope that you do--I hope this award can be a small reminder of the millions of readers your work here has helped, and will continue to help, for years to come. It's very much appreciated, even if it doesn't feel that way sometimes! Cheers and all best, Khazar2 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was a nice surprise! Victoria (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Der Busant
Hi Victoria, hope this finds you well. A couple of editors and I were working on Der Busant, a German poem with wild men, and I was wondering if you had any more information on the literary context than what is already there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Crisco, I wrote about wild men in Bal des Ardents. I don't know the poem but if help yourself to anything from Bal des Ardents if it's useful. One of the books about wild men I couldn't find available on the web, can't remember the author now but the name might start with a B? I do own the Chambers book that has more information about the folklore of wildmen, some of which I added to one of the notes there, but not sure if that's what you need? Maybe I should watch the page develop (if I'm around), and chime in later. Victoria (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll see if there is anything there which could be used to expand the themes section (with attribution, naturally). Get well soon! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it will take a while and by then I may have lost interest in returning! I miss it and I don't miss it. I just popped in to set up auto-archiving because I can't manually! Victoria (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries (I understand the feeling) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)