User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 12

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks Ruhrfisch. I don't really know what to say to this - I don't feel I deserve it. But it's always nice to have a barnstar, both the visible and the invisible type. Victoria (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You definitely deserve it Victoriaearle: you have invested a lot of energy (and health?) helping improve the project. Don't ever doubt your value here, Sadads (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, oh so much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents
I know your not around but I'm going to nom this now for us anyway. I've asked Maralia to look over re a copyedit, re the rest, I know you did a lot of the work and most of the research, so this con-nom I'll take care of. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No grumble grumble pls - am doing what I have to. I think I got some of that material from a Durer biography from the library - will pick it up again in case you need access to the source. This is quite unexpected and very generous - don't really know what to say. But it's a nice article; one I've always liked, so am happy to see you taking it to review. If you need anything (you probably won't) I can lend help here on my talk. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm such a nice guy that I'd forget you while your blocked. But hey, its works good for me in that any faults mentioned in the FAC, I can just shrug my shoulders and claim - Victoria wrote that, nothing to do with me mate. And you can't reply. Cool! This will be fun. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only made 23 edits to the page (and that's hardly worth a co-nom!) so you won't be able to get away with that! But in fairness there were notes I made in the now deleted sandboxes and I did do some of the research - so any wrong facts can be pinned on me. I've been busy in real life this weekend and haven't had the chance to read it yet; will try to get to it tonight, and try to at some point to review the sources. I hope no rush - I've moved very much into slow motion. Victoria (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuses, excuses. Face it, your up to your neck in that article. I expect that this time next week your block will be indefinate, by the time I'm finished. The thingsy ou made me write about Dürer's poor parents. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to the sources this week. I had a quick look through of the article and I think some of the material in the Lotte Brand Philips pdf, which explains the panels were separated and for a long time and not known to be two pieces of a diptych, and how they were identified as companion panels, could be brought at out a bit more. But I have to re-read that pdf to refresh my memory of it (all of that was in my notes), and hopefully will tomorrow get to the library to grab the bio too. Victoria (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See also my comments/queries on the talk page; I suspect you might have some insight into those. Hope you are feeling well. Thanks for your kind words earlier. Always meant to drop you an email but somehow never have. Ceoil is obviously beside himself with loneliness; I can parse only one sentence in four from him lately. You are certainly missed. Maralia (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Maralia (and Ceoil), just checked in after a few days. Have have a horrible week at work and still not feeling well, but I have the answers to most of what's on the talk page there in a pdf I downloaded a long time ago - and should have edited the article then. I've also grabbed an autobiography from the library. Hopefully tomorrow I'll go through the pdf and make notes; can post here. Victoria (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S - I noticed that footnote 29 is Anzelewsky, but that's from Brand Philips & Anzelewsky. That's where all the answers lie. Probably others of those will need to be changed too, but haven't looked closely enough yet. Victoria (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't overdo it on my account—I got antsy this morning and went looking for sources, and consequently found the answers to many of my questions. In any case there's certainly no rush. (FWIW, I read the Brand Philips/Anzelewsky paper today and was wondering about that: we seem to attribute the diptych hypothesis and confirmation thereof to Anzelewsky, but I understood that it was Brand Philips' theory, confirmed by Anzelewsky.) Maralia (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to fix the references, is all. The Brand Philips theory is a bit convoluted in terms of where the mother panel was located when and in terms of identifying it. I had at one point written it all out and simply have to recreate all that. Shouldn't take too much, I hope. I do have a stretch of free time ahead in the next few days, so if I'm feeling okay, will get to it. Sorry about the late response. Tough week. Victoria (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

, this synethesis, I think, needs to be added. That the mother's panel was believed to be lost, that Brand Philips identified the Nuremberg panel as the lost companion panel to the father portrait (and how that was done) and the speculation about why the styles between the two differ. These are rough notes, probably need to be sprinkled throughout and of course turned into brilliant prose! Anyway, pasted in here:
 * Diptych is mentioned 3 times in Imhoff's inventories: 1573/74 (single inventory), 1580, 1588 - each time w/ the mother's panels, which was thought to be lost. p. 5
 * The combined set of arms (Holper & Durer) suggest the father's rosary panel would have formed a diptych with a panel of Barbara p. 5
 * The panels were probably separated sometime between 1588 & 1628 (the father panel was not in the 1628 inventory) - and the father panel was sold to Maximilian of Bavaria sometime during those years. p. 5
 * Brand Philips wondered why the father panel was bought without the companion panel, but thought perhaps because of Imhoff's description of the mother panel: "The mother of Albrecht Durer in oil colors on wood, there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Durer…" p. 6
 * The mother panel was believed to be either a copy; at any rate it is simply less well painted. p. 6
 * For centuries the mother panel was believed to be lost. p 6-7
 * Brand Philips saw a portrait of a woman in Nuremberg and it to believed a Durer: the provenance of the portrait was that it had belonged to 19th cent. His de la Salle collection, sold to Louvre (which bought a number of Durers), then to Munich, then to Nuremberg in 1925 & there attributed to Master W.B. At that time, missing strip on left hand side was documented. p. 7
 * 1937 Nuremberg catalogue places it as a "Nuremberger painter of the circle of Wolgemut, around 1480" p. 7
 * At that time there was no agreement among scholars in regards to the mother panel p. 7
 * Brand Philips thought it might be the companion portrait to panel in the Uffizi because of the compositional similarities and the sizes of the panels (which match taking into account the removal of 3 cm from the mother panel) p. 7
 * Both portraits are busts, both show hands, both figures hold rosaries, both set against same olive green background, both lit from same direction, & etc., p. 7
 * Strip removed from mother panel detracts from the harmony of the two pieces according to Brand Philips p. 10
 * Brand Philips says, "The paired paintings even show remarkable correspondences in their linear construction" - both panels show triangles in the clothing (mother's headdress & fur in father's coat), and lines of mother's headress draped across breast/chest mimic lines of father's coat opening in same area p. 10
 * Brand Philips sees enough similarities in the Berlin drawing (aged Barbara Holper), particularly in nose and eyes,  to be convinced the woman in this panel is Holper at 39. p. 11
 * In this panel Holper would have had 17 (of 18) children p. 11
 * Brand Philips wrote to Anzelewsky in 1977 with her suppositions & in reply Anzelewsky confirmed the theory, writing, "You hit the mark. I am even inclined to believe you found the original." Anzelewsky compared the backs of both panels and found that "not only [are] both backs covered with the same design of masses of dark clouds, but also both backs show a faded but still legible 'No. 19'."
 * 19 is the inventory number from the Imhoff collection which positively identifies it as the panel in that was Imhoff collection with the father's panel. p. 12
 * Having been established as the companion piece to the father panel in the Imhoff collection, the mother panel still hadn't been established as a copy or by Durer. p. 14
 * The mother panel is inferior to the father panel, the headdress "carelessly sketched … betraying an incomplete understanding of perspective", eyeballs are "rendered in curiously clumsy, jagged lines" - all of which points to a copy. p. 15
 * But - Brand Philips believes it improbable that the Imhoffs would have bought both a copy & an original - the two must have been a pair, which the clouds seems to prove. p. 15-16
 * Brand Philips suggests Durer painted his mother's portrait earlier than the father panel and thus it shows an earlier Durer style/technique & that Durer intentionally added the compositional similarities to his father's portrait to mirror the earlier painted mother panel. 17
 * Brand Philip's speculates that Durer's father may have "commissioned" his panel before Albrecht left on his journey years; it might have been a devotional diptych showing the two parents w/ rosaries praying for the safe homecoming of their son & w/ the mother panel previously painted, Albrecht then painted the father panel. p. 17
 * The reason for the two panels and reason for the differences in style & technique is speculation but it is definite that the Nuremberg panel is the companion to the Uffizi panel. p. 18

I don't mind bouncing ideas around - either here or in email. Also, think the structure might needs some tweaking, but will revisit that later. Victoria (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reason I think so highly of you! These are facinating, thank you so much for taking the time to write out. There goes my weekend ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - I've been fascinated by this story since I first read it. No need to ruin your weekend! I've tidied the hastily written notes a little & some bits might be able to copied directly into the article. Victoria (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Am hopelessly distractible. Got sidetracked by Brand Philip, the Ghent altarpiece, etc. and this happened...I blame Ceoil. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Really nice Maralia! That should maybe go to DYK? And maybe this too? I'm enjoying watching this work - and yes I blame it all on Ceoil too. There I thought I wouldn't be doing much here and suddenly a lengthy list of notes appeared! But not as impressive as the new articles! Victoria (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm seems I'm, after all, the root of all evil. Victoria I'll incorporate all the info above but might hold off on advancing the page until you, if you do decided, to come back. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're not at all evil. I see a lot of nice work popping up and that's good. It's what this place is meant to be all about and looks as though you've inspired a few people. I will be back but I'm not on the fast track to recovery so it will be a while. Best for me not to edit when cranky etc. If you don't mind waiting, then I'll help incorporate - I hadn't really realized how many notes I took until I pasted in and hit save, then thought ... oh that's a lot! If you don't mind waiting, that would be nice. I would like to work on it and realized I'm still invested in this place. But I need time. Victoria (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re DYK, its the realm of people like Bonkers the Clown and Prioryman; not sure I really care that much to get involved. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually don't care to be involved with DYK but some pages are worth going there. I think the expansion on Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden) has been amazing, did a great job starting it (and the other van der Weydens), and those are the kinds of pages that deserve to go to DYK and be shown on the main page, if you can figure out the labyrinthine process there. If not, I'll just sit back and watch these pages being created - you know how much I love the Netherlandish art and I'm so happy to see more of it. As I sit around being lazy! Victoria (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources are very "meta" on this one, and its very interesting in that it differentiates between how Campin, van Eyck and Rogier developed their styles. I feel guilty that you and Marali have done so much with Durer for me, but am captivated by van der Weyden, again. Your help here would be nice. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm always captivated by van der Weyden! I'll be happy to help - in a few weeks (or more) probably. I can see the similarities, overlaps with the van Eyck and Campin, but it will take me a while to get up to speed on the sources. Count me in, for sure. And Durer too. Victoria (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I apparently don't know when to stop, I have written brief bios on William W. Clark, Colin Eisler, and Barbara G. Lane. Working on William S. Heckscher now (he is too interesting for a short one). Glad to see we already have articles on fellow Panofsky protégés H. W. Janson, Ursula Hoff, and Walter Horn—but how do we not have a de Tolnay article? I am thoroughly ignorant but even I have heard of Tolnay. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed - these are articles we need to have. I've meant for a long time to write one about Elisabeth Dhanens but haven't gotten to it yet. Btw - I noticed the DYK nom for Lotte Brand Philip,, hasn't been added to the nom page, which goes here or I guess on the date the article was created. I always forget to do that too, the few times I submit there. I'd do it, but ... um .. can't. Victoria (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for pointing out that Brand Philip wasn't transcluded. I added it, but it's technically six days old now, so I asked for advice on WT:DYK.
 * I finally got William S. Heckscher up yesterday. It needs to be fleshed out with information about his career, but at least the framework is there. If nothing else, I seem to have pushed past my inability to create an article in an incomplete state...Maralia (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I lost internet for a day (and was too busy with work to do anything about it) but it looks like this the DYK is now okay? But I tried, but couldn't, to post that it should be okay because the nom page was created in the correct timeframe. Victoria (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have started to incorporate; lots of context and insight you posted here. Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, as you are now basically a consultant on wiki until you feel better :) I have a question for you. Re the illuminated manuscript section in the ENA article; I think the Englebert of Nassau image is really beautiful, but it doesnt really fit; do you have any suggestions. Looking forward to you getting back into that page whenever you are ready again. And yes, if your willing, would like to collab on the van der Weyden. There is a lot of potential there. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to all three! I'll think about an appropriate illuminated ms. image (have a few in mind) and will post here later today (hopefully). Victoria (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'll work away in my inarticulate way, waiting for the heavy to return and polish, make factual and tidy up. Of coures if you want to bitch and critise here, on the ditch, thats fine. Ms consulatant :) Bty the way, read ENA again last night, first time since your last pass, its improved significiantly, I was surprised. I'm hopeful again, though it will be a bear FAC. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You always lay a very strong foundation so I'd argue with the "inarticulate" above. Anyway, didn't mean to set myself up as a sidelined consultant (maybe I need a new template above - where's when he's needed?) but I'm really not yet in any shape to edit. Yes, I read ENA recently myself and was pleasantly surprised. This break has done me a lot of good, not the least of which is regaining perspective on work in progress. Maralia's Brand-Philip page made me want to read more about the Ghent too, so there's plenty of work to be done. And being happy about it is half the battle. Anyway, real work beckons, unfortunately. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no jesus didnt mean to put pressue Vic - last thing I wanted. Whenever, wherever. I really appreciated the help from here re Brand Philp. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

LBP, the Durers, and the altarpiece
Starting a subsection here because we are very talky. I have finally written up a summary of LBP's Durer work; see Lotte Brand Philip. I would be much happier if I could read German (so I could read her 1981 paper too), but I think this will do for a start. Now I need to write a new hook since the first two were found to be problematic. On a related topic: Ceoil and I are determined to find out whether there is any other support for LBP's assertion that the stone canopy in de Noter's 1829 painting of the Ghent altarpiece was in fact painted from life (extant in 1829). I did all manner of research into this yesterday and today. I found the painting LBP refers to online at the Rijksmuseum here, titled "Het Lam Gods van de gebroeders van Eyck in de Sint Bavo te Gent". Later, quite to my surprise, I found another painting by de Noter of the altarpiece: it is described as c. 1840, titled "Albrecht Durer Visiting the Ghent Altarpiece", and can be seen in a book here. The canopies are undeniably very different, which seems to me to make it highly unlikely that either was painted from life. Wish I could get my hands on the Dhanens book. Maralia (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are talky. I have Dhanens - BUT bad news is that after a check-up today have been told to stop all activities. So ... I think though I've been editing a bit around the fringes, I'll have to stop. I have other RL issues to sort out too (i.e, what to do about work) and can't get back here until that's done. I do read German btw - if you send the 1981 paper via email, at some point when I'm feeling better, I can take a stab at it. Victoria (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Heavens, I am concerned about you. Do follow orders and rest up! C and I will muddle along best as we can in the meantime. Take care of yourself; we want you well. Maralia (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking of you too, Victoria -- continue to wish you the best always, and of course look forward to any participation from you at WP wherever or whenever you feel it's right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I think doing something I enjoy for the most part is important too. Cheers. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a lonely wiki without you but glad to hear your putting you wellbeing first. Best wishes and worries as always, and hope that none of the chattiness was intended as pressure - it wasnt, it was just fun and all this stuff is trivial compared to health. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No pressure. I just had some decisions to make. Done now and might help here and there a bit. I do want to sort out my sandboxes while I'm sitting around and can't while blocked ... so ... well, guess I'll have to be unblocked. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Netherlandish miniature gallery
Not a problem for me to look at pics. Not a problem at all. A few below. I'd be tempted to use anything from the Belles Heures but is too French and too early? I have a book about it (a very nice book!) and will have a look. Also I'm tempted to use the one from the Turin-Milan Hours, but we might be a little heavy on van Eycks. I've left out lots of others. Could easily add another row for a greater selection to chose from. Looking at these in thumb, I'm thinking I might dig around a bit more. I like the blue virgin and would like to dig a bit to see whether there's another version of that somewhere on a museum site. Victoria (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * gallery removed

Your the best blocked editor, ever :) Thank you so much. I've gone for the Philip and Iseballa image for the article and with the hot woman reading for my user page. Here is a nice tune (via Riggr) as thanks Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I approve of the ones you chose but because I don't know when to stop and I like doing things like this, I've added a few more. I'm wondering whether we can whittle them down to a short list and fit in a gallery on that page? I've not looked carefully there yet, but the miniatures show so much variation, a gallery might work in that section. I reckon that Johnbod can identify some of the ones I can't, but I might spend some time digging in the BnF and various other places to see what I can find. Nice tune, btw, thanks. Victoria (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking the same thing. I'll expand the section and add a gallery. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Go you! I'll just flit around looking at pictures and decorate my page! Victoria (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, you two! Well, you probably already know this, but as Victoria says she's not sure about the authors of the book of Hours, posting this here just in case. I've read somewhere that, apart from the Master of Mary of Burgundy, Lieven van Lathem, Simon Marmion and Willem Vrelant were involved. The scribe was Nicolas Spierinc (don't remember if it was in a book or an article but I can go through my messy notes and be more specific if you like). Cheers, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, Dead chuffed to see you (semi) back, Victoria.
 * So glad you stopped by! I wanted to thank you for this edit,, fixing something that really bothered me. At some point I'll have to clean up the files and properly identify the various Isabellas and Isabeaus so that won't happen again. Thanks for the info on Mary of Burgundy's Book of Hours - had forgotten I'd seen you editing there. It's one I like a lot. I wouldn't worry about too much about the others, Ceoil asked for an image and I gave him eleven to choose from - typical overkill on my part. Yes, only semi back, still not up to editing, but obviously up to prettifying my page. Take care and laters, Victoria (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, Vic. 'Twas a real pleasure to do that edit – if you get my drift. I had a rummage on Gallica and the BL site afterwards for another portrait of the lady but found nothing.
 * (puts serious hat on) Now, listen: you better do what doctors tell you and put your feet up and take care of yourself. You're an awesome human thing and we all want you in fine fettle again. Nice tune and charming bastard to help you along. Laters, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, FWIW (and so as not to sound sooo un/non scholarly, the article is "The Master of Mary of Burgundy and His Colleagues: The State of Research and Questions of Method" by Anne van Buren. It's on pay-walled garden JSTOR, of course.
 * Yes, that would be the logical thing to do, but when I think about putting my feet up and relaxing involves a bit of tinkering here. Thanks for the tune (what's a woman to do without a bastard or two in her life?); will have a look for the Jstor article and send it on to you when I get around to it. I have searched high and low for Isabeau's pics and I think put as many as I could find in the article. But I'll have my sandbox restored where I have some links stashed. Thanks as always for stopping by. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, been proxying for a blocked editor and incorporated a few from above. Let me know what you think. The diptych section also needs wotk, I cut the van Eyck Madonna, looking around. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like it. The van Eyck Madonna was meant to be temporary until we found something better, so glad that's gone. I see you're moving into the research/scholarship sections: I had quite a few notes in a sandbox I had deleted (because ... well, because lots of reasons .. ). It's called Victorieaearle/Art sandbox or something like that. Some of it may be useful to you, so if a friendly passing admin TPS were to turn it blue again, I wouldn't mind, and you could take directly from the sandbox instead having to redo research already done. Can't at the moment remember what I had, but do remember some work re the rediscovery and the various art historians. Victoria (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Repeating, I really really like the gallery - it works well with the miniatures. I'm wondering whether the portrait section can support a similar gallery? Something to think about. Also, I notice we have the one of van Eyck in the red chaperon twice. Victoria (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gallery removed


 * Good calls, and I was thinking similar, spookily so, if you look at my last edits! Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement now on the manuscript and portraits sections, though outside input would be nice. Re the portraits, its 1:6 male to female, and so ever so slightly uneven. Ahem, we might want to rethink that. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got sidetracked but was responding at the same time you were writing. Outside input is always good. I definitely think the Durer self-portrait should go in, would like to keep van der Weyden's lady but we could swap for a guy, I put the cardinal and the monk up because a lot of patrons were ecclesiastics so thought that might be appropriate. I do like the ones you chose, so, yeah, a hard call. Victoria (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never really fancied eithter the painting nor drawing of craggy old Albergati. What do you think about Anthony, bastard of Burgundy. I know, more mid 14th c, but might do for now. His title includes the word bastard, after all. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's wearing the golden collar. Perfect. Victoria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Victoria, this one time again I'll proxy for a blocked editor. May god help me. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

For you
Hi Victoria, just wanted to say I've dedicated my first poet FA (Amir Hamzah) to you and your awesome work here. Can't really put it on the article anywhere, but I wanted you to know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you Crisco! And congrats on yet another FA - you're doing great work yourself. Victoria (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! (Was looking at the gallery up there... really impressive images I must say). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Request
, I think it's time to be unblocked, when you have a chance. Also, I deleted some subpages that I'd like to have back but can't remember the names - something like Victoriaearle/Art sandbox, Victoriaearle/Medieval sandbox and one that might be called either Victoriaearle/van Eyck sandbox or Victoriaearle/Netherlandish sandbox. If those can be located and turned blue again, I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much for how much you've done, btw. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back :) Delighted to see this, but please promise that you wont over extend yourself. Still, you've been missed. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't overextend. You can leash me! It will take a bit of time to get my sandboxes in order and I don't think I'll be editing a ton. Victoria (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do that. Hehe, I'll be the responsible one for once! Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hold you solely responsible! Victoria (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to unblock you - welcome back! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruhrfisch! And thanks, too, for putting back my sandboxes. Victoria (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I looked at your deleted edits and restored the following: Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Victoriaearle/Art sandbox
 * User:Victoriaearle/van Eyck sandbox
 * User:Victoriaearle/Medieval
 * Your a gentleman Ruhrfisch. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ruhrfisch! There's more than plenty there to keep me occupied for a while and sandbox work isn't at all stressful. Nice to have them back again. Victoria (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is good to see you editing, and to expand on your point just above, there are Queens of France insufficiently chronicled. Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt! I've been telling myself "only ten more minutes, only ten more minutes!" and then my wireless went out on me - so that's a message to stop for the night. I'm enjoying being back but will only be able to be here on and off - which I think is a good thing. I'm moving into the next generation of Burgundian intrigue of sorts, or rather the Burgundian penchant for art, but Isabeau set the standard imo. Victoria (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you
Hi Victoria, just a note to say hi, and that it's really nice to see your name cropping up on my watchlist again. :) I hope you're doing okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi good to hear from you SlimVirgin! I've been watching the improvements on FGM and have been impressed with your energy! I'm not good for much yet, except cleaning the archives and playing in a sandbox. I think I'm still a few months away from serious editing, but brought my students to wikipedia today and their enthusiasm infected me momentarily. Victoria (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really flagging with FGM. I'd like to take it to FAC, but it's such a huge subject and the sources all contradict each other, so even to squeeze out a few sentences I find I'm having to read a huge amount. Currently I'm reading about different kinds of feminism (second wave v. post-colonial, etc), and who said what about it, and how they all fell out over it.


 * I'm feeling even more discouraged about WP than usual at the moment. Not related to FGM; just the general hopeless feeling it has to it. I'm glad you felt that momentary enthusiasm again. It's a nice feeling to rediscover. I find that reality deals it a swift blow. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I might be able to get some images for you - I haven't looked at the page in a while so don't know how it is for images, but know someone who has pictures that might work. I might send you mail about it. It's a tough page - beyond the obvious difficulty of writing about the subject - I can see how much research it requires. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm fairly happy to work on pages without the pressure of FAC. I realized that the small bit of enthusiasm I felt was seeing this place from the other side, not logged in, no watchlist, simply cruising through looking at articles and teaching the basic principles of sourcing and so on (it's a good teaching tool in that regard). Logging in and going through my watch is often fairly depressing and I'm not entirely unhappy that I'm unable to edit much these days. How's that for string of negatives? Btw - I changed my email address but have email enabled so please don't hesitate to send mail any time. Victoria (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Images would be very helpful. I've tried reaching out to people who have images of ceremonies (nothing explicit, just the dancing), but no luck so far on getting releases. I think you're right about not logging in. Seeing WP as a reader is quite pleasant, because it's so impressive in terms of size and spread. I've often found myself wildly grateful as a reader to find that some obscure thing I was curious about does, indeed, have a WP article. It's when I log in and see my watchlist that the sinking feeling returns. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted my watchlist several times, but that never works because I end up losing strange and esoteric pages I run across, want to remember, and have placed on watch. Now I just keep it as small as possible. I do think there's a lot to be said for taking breaks; I do feel better about this place after not editing (much) since August. Now I'm much more inclined to take things slowly (partially because I'm not well enough to really edit seriously) and somehow that brings a nicer feel to the place. If I'm tired or grouchy, I don't even bother to log in anymore. But this place is so addictive, that I'm more than willing to admit that it took a self-block to bring me to that point. It was worth it though, and I'm grateful that Ruhrfisch stepped up to push the block button.
 * Re images: I think it will take some time and arm twisting, but I recently saw a few of shunned women at a shelter, one of which I think would be nice. It will take me a bit of time to try to get it sorted though. I'll send on the details via email a bit later. Victoria (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be wonderful. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Diptych
Victoria, you offered a while back to help with translations of the GNM articles. I have basic German, and have made a stab of sorts at incorporating the page on Barbara's panel. Can you see that I was as correct as I thought I was, and maybe give some guidance as regards to Albrect's article. I realise you are strained around now, so no panic. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From a quick glance this the first part seems to be a synopsis of Brand Philip - except they say Barbara's panel was painted later than Albrecht's whereas she speculates the opposite to be true, so that probably needs to be mentioned. More interesting is the second part with the technical analysis - which is a synopsis of this source:
 * Bartl, Anna. "Ein Original von Albrecht Dürer? Technologische Untersuchung eines in der Forschung umstrittenen Gemäldes". Restauro: Zeitschrift für Kunsttechniken, Restaurierung und Museumsfragen, Volume 105, No 1, 1999. 26–31. ISSN: 0933-4017
 * I wouldn't mind reading Bartl's piece, if it's available, to try to clarify. From what I can tell the panels have both been analyzed and dendrochronical evidence shows them to be from the same tree - but would want to confirm that from another source. Also, he apparently painted on linen – remember our foray into linen with Bouts? – if I'm reading correctly, which was stretched over the panels. (??) Anyway, that's from a quick perusal but I'd need the other source to be certain. Victoria (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: have also just found this link. Haven't read it yet. Victoria (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding more: I'm confused. I haven't received anything so am assuming you've decided not have me work on this anymore. Can you please confirm, because I've made stupid edits like this unsure where I stand in regards to editing the article, which look like petulance. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not been keeping up with my watchlist, and just now saw this. I don't know what Ceoil has said to you, and I've not heard from him in nearly a week, but if he were to make such a foolish decision as to "not have [you] work on this anymore", I would be first in line to knock some sense into him!
 * I have just today received a scan of the relevant catalogue entries from the GNM's Early Dürer exhibit catalogue. This is the by far the most comprehensive source I have seen; it addresses the earlier literature and the results of the 2012 infrared study, and covers all the pertinent points RE diptych origin, purpose, provenance, and influences, with a good background on Dürer's portraiture and contemporary Netherlandish portraits. I was thrilled to get the scan, but as it comes from a $200 book and the author sent it to me himself, I feel I should get his permission before I share it; I am waiting for a reply from him about images, so I don't want to be too presumptuous. It is a proper scan, with page numbers and citations etc, so I will start incorporating relevant information shortly.
 * I haven't been able to find the Bartl paper (C said he thinks he had it, but hasn't been able to locate it since). Is there something else you were waiting on from him that I could perhaps send you? Maralia (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Thanks Vistoria for taking a look, and to be clear your help would very much be appreciated, as you always are. The page is definatly gaining momentum, we have a lot of new sources now I hadn't found, so will be enjoyable to build up. The Early Dürer Cat sound brilliant, and gnm.de link above most espically. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think it was a misunderstanding on my part - I'm a bit distracted these days. I'm seriously impressed that you followed up to get the catalogue entries for the GNM's Early Dürer exhibit. I completely understand the hesitation about wanting to get permission first and seriously no need to send them on! I hadn't seen any of the German sources and would like to see the technological analysis but I think the synposis provided on the website is probably enough. I have a visitor arriving tomorrow and have to be mostly out for the next week so not much I'll be able to do anyway. Sorry about the misunderstanding - it was my fault. Victoria (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: and, I have a bit to time available to work on articles and it's been a long time since I've been able to get to Durer, so would like to do that now. I made some test edits last night in terms of organization (I ended up reverting because there's more I want to do there) but the work that needs to be done is very straightforward and shouldn't take at all long. I've moved the entire article to my sandbox,, so I can play there (I prefer sandbox editing), and maybe we can all put our heads together either on the article talk page or on the sandbox talkpage? If not, I'll just make the changes as I see fit and then you guys can decide to move over to mainspace or reject the changes altogether. Victoria (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead an made a whole bunch of edits - result here. If no one objects, I'll copy over in a few days. We can go in stages and I'll have to work out how my schedule looks but at the moment fairly clear through January (except that thing called Christmas!) and have ENA on the go too. Given a preference, I prefer to bring in Durer a bit later because I think it's the easier to get through FAC. Anyway, thoughts welcome. Victoria (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that it needs reorganization. I've been trying to struggle through a reorg offline myself. I just took a look at yours, and we are thinking along the same lines. I do have one quibble, over this sentence:
 * "Although Brand Philip theorised the clumsiness in the mother panel might have been because Dürer painted it earlier than the other as a youthful attempt at portraiture, with which Albrecht the Elder wished to pair his own portrait, technical examination of the two panels confirm that Barbara's portrait was painted earlier than Albrecht's."
 * the conclusion of that is at odds with my understanding of Kemperdick:
 * "After the identification of its female counterpart, attempts were made to explain the allegedly higher quality of the male portrait by positing a later date of production. But investigations carried out recently in association with the Nuremberg Dürer exhibition have shown beyond doubt that the chronological relationship of the two images is exactly the reverse. The image of the father...was made first…"
 * I am writing a little bit of background, to explain Dürer's experience up till 1490. Also experimenting with different ways to incorporate the findings from the technical study, hoping for better flow; your reorg is definitely a step in the right direction, and I think you should go ahead and put it in. Do you have any suggestions for a new section header for 'Sources'? I've been meaning to change it for a while since we have the duplicate heading Sources under Citations. Maybe Influences? Thanks for your help. Maralia (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops - I didn't know there was an offline rewrite in the works. I was simply playing and flinging sand around in the sandbox so as not to make mainspace edits. I've fixed the mistake I made (I had to find Kemperdink on Amazon and it was incredibly hard to view!). Anyway, I think it's best for me to officially step away from this and leave it to you guys. Sorry for the misunderstandings. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eek; I dont think anybody is suggesting that!, but I've re-orged a bit, and yes section headings is a bit of a bother. I think the problem is that the page was a bit scattered; bits on condition, inscriptions, reverses, sequences of execution and so forth were scattered here and there; and Ive tried tomerge but with limited sucess - and downright appaling spelling. Am finding it very difficult to resolve; help needed - or a handy scape goat! Essjay stikes again!!! Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had here for only one section in my sandbox with the intention of going through the entire page, but that version is now moot. I can't help without access to sources (which frankly has never been an issue) and good communication. Working on it was a reason I requested an unblock but it's gotten away from me, so I really think it's best to let it go now. Or at the least to step away for a while so as to regain perspective. I find sometimes when a page won't mesh it's best to let it cook and return to it with fresh eyes. Victoria (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

ENA
Might be ready for PR. What you think. Ceoil (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think yes. Has a big red ref error though and I don't know how to fix, which is nothing, only mentioning. But, yes, I think it's time for eyes and feedback Victoria (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Found that, and nomed. May god have mercy on us. Just so as we are clear Victoria, any other errors are yout fault and I did warn you this was a terible, dreadful idea. You! Ceoil (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see some good comments there - a lot to think about. Me? Victoria (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, can you run an eye through The Last Judgment (van der Weyden) at some stage; for spelling and that. Attractive tapestry above, by the way. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping an eye on it – it's coming along well! Will probably swing through again tonight when I'll finally get a bit of time. Beaune has always interested me. Thanks re tapestry, I like it too. Victoria (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was editing the IM section while you put up the in use template, but if your doing a major regig, shouldn't cause an ec. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, thought I'd pressed the section edit link. But I'm done now. Next up is to put together something about the iconography and I'm not quite sure where it will go, but will be working in my sandbox for that. Oh, btw - I added a bit re 16th cent. and Bruegel here. Have a look and if it's okay we should copy it back. I'm not crazy about it, but it does extend the period out a bit, which we needed to do. Victoria (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of item credits from Blake poem images
Hey! Welcome back! I really appreciate the clean up to the Songs of Innocence and of Experience poems. Definitely in poor shape overall. I have some students at KSU working on drafting the articles for "Laughing Song" (Songs of Innocence), "Night" (Songs of Innocence), "Spring" (Songs of Innocence), "The Little Boy Lost" (Songs of Innocence) and "The Little Boy Found" (Songs of Innocence) as part of an education project (see their class page at Education_Program:Kansas_State_University/ENGL_340_(Fall,_2013)). If you get in the mood to be starting new articles, it would be great if you left those uncreated (there are still a few more that are atrocious that are already created).

Also, I don't know if you got a chance to check out WP:Blake, it could certainly use some more users that have both quality and some academic standards. Though well intended (I believe), Dmitrismirnov has introduced some problematic source use to a couple articles, and clean up is on my list of to do. Have notified him, and he has subsequently been working mostly on wikisource to good effect.

I also noticed the you removed the reference to The Blake Archive on A Poison Tree, A Lamb and The Tyger. I had been adding those because of the Blake Archive's comparative opportunities, allowing users to see both the record and have access to tools that compare with other copies (instead of an institutional citation which only leads to a catalog record). Also, because the Blake Archive offers annotation, explanatory notes, and the records are often more complete with better explanation of the objects more generally. Can I ask the reasoning behind removing the reference? Isn't it preferable to use academic secondary or tertiary sources? It's good either way, but because of the Blake Archive's centrality in the network of resources on Blake, it seemed like a reliable enough platform (and is much more user friendly then the British Museum record of those objects), Sadads (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I expected to see this message; what I didn't expect to see was the copyedits to Early Netherlandish Painting - a page that someone else has put an enormous amount of effort into and doesn't deserve to be pulled into a dispute.


 * So, yes I removed them and will remove the others. My feeling about it is this: you probably (almost certainly) have a COI. The Blake archives is linked in the external links and in the file descriptions and in my view that's sufficient. If the image is held at the Library of Congress then if that has to be cited, which it doesn't, then it should be cited to the holding institution, not to the Blake archives with yet another link.


 * If you have a relationship with the Blake archives, which I was under the impression you do, or did, which in any way will result in income in the short or long term, then I simply don't see how putting those links in without at the same time cleaning the pages, which are in a sorry state, can be justified. I am sorry if you think this is assuming bad faith, but I do have issues with adding unnecessary links to a series ofages - links that simply are not needed.


 * Please check with Ceoil before continuing with the copyedit of the Netherlandish page - I see some sentences that are moving away from the sources, I have a source sitting right next to me and some extremely heavy lifting went on there. My feeling is that we're not yet ready for a copyedit – there is still writing to be done. Victoria (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: no, asking an unpaid editor to leave articles alone ( "it would be great if you left those uncreated" ) is not how wikipedia works! Seriously – it adds to the class system here, and furthermore it's simply knocked me out, after a very long absence, when I could be spending the rest of the evening cleaning the pages instead of justifying removing problematic links and then just throwing my hands up again. How is that productive for the encyclopedia? Victoria (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I am sorry that I have offended you or rubbed you in the wrong way. I have never intended to dispute with you. Since meeting you via WP:Novels, every communication or contribution I have made in your vicinity has been with the intention to improve Wikipedia. Yes, some of these communications feel like bad faith, because every time I make a contribution in your proximity, you respond as if offended. I am not a bad writer nor a poor contributor to the project here, and recently, each time I reach out for cooperation as members of the community, I do not get a very cooperative response. I remember when we were more collegial and cooperative, and was operating on an assumption that those types of actions should be foundation to our relationship.
 * In response to the concerns about my COI, one thing to be clear: my COI is hardly any different from a variety of other WP:GLAM cooperation. The Archive is a reliable, central academic resource, and I am fairly improving the content of the articles per the standards on Wikipedia. My interest to adding links was simply for WP:Verification of the caption material and adding the free images that have been digitized by the Archive so that they get used more broadly. Moreover, I am not paid for my work with the Archive, I get academic credit for helping improve the quality of information on the content; its of academic interest as a Digital Humanities professional; that is it. The project operates on shoestring resources, and is the most authoritative collection of Blake scans on the web, and one of the few fully annotated collections of copies. I created WP:Blake to facilitate content improvement within and without the materials explored by the Archive. My editing practices are designed to improve access to authoritative secondary and tertiary materials, not create excessive linking. Part of the reason I reached out, was that I wanted some feedback on my approach.
 * Blake coverage here on Wikipedia is devastatingly poor, and I would greatly appreciate any expansion that you might want to contribute. In asking you to refrain from writing particular articles, it was simply as a courtesy to the student volunteers who are operating independent of me on drafts like User:Zrdemars/sandbox (and I realize that he is relying way too much of the Blake Archive's material, and will soon get feedback to that effect, I have a meeting with him on Tuesday). They are learning to edit Wikipedia through these articles, and I am doing my best to create opportunities for them not to be disappointed by a clearly superior article suddenly appearing where theirs should go.
 * I notified Ceoil on the copy edits on the Netherlandish painting article on his talk page, giving an opportunity to respond. I began editing them, because I noticed how robust the "scholarship" section was, and am currently doing research on treatment of historiography in Featured Articles. However, your reversions of the copyedits seems inappropriate, considering that you have reintroduced typos and sentence complications and excessive passive voice, both of which complicate meaning beyond the sentence I had contributed. None of my wording changes should have changed the meaning contributed by the sources, that or the summary that you are expecting from those sources is relying too much on Close paraphrasing. I was trying to improve readability, not create a dispute.
 * I hope you are doing well, and that you return is a sign that health and stress concerns have abated. I hope to see you around more congenially; happy editing! Sadads (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, regarding the edits to Early Netherlandish painting: the passive tense is a tricky business and often misunderstood. The rule I follow on Wikipedia is best explained by here - (oh, and yes, btw, the preceding is a passive construction!). The edit you changed is based on something like this (from a published article - but not the source being used), The almost total lack of documented pictures is obviously the severest hindrance to research, so I felt it the spirit was better encapsulated as written. I didn't see much need for the word "deficit" either - well in fact, to me it seemed quite wrong. But I looked it up and found this definition, the amount by which something, esp. a sum of money, is too small, which I suppose is okay but that I had to look it up goes against 's advice about plain English. (He probably has more about that somewhere else, but linking what I found in a quick search.) "Deficit" is a nice word but imo not appropriate in that sentence, for lots of reasons. So, yes, I reverted. And let's be honest, the page is over 10,000 words long and will need copyediting - we're not there yet. We're still writing, so your edits probably wouldn't have survived anyway.
 * Next, I suppose I will have to put aside my personal feelings, beliefs, philosophies about GLAM projects and student editing in general (except to mention that I disapprove and find them to be disruptive; there are better ways to bring Wikipedia into the classroom but that's an entirely different subject), and simply say that a., no it's not necessary to verify the captions but if you think they really do need verification, I'd use Erdman instead. I have a copy and would be happy to do so. I do see those links as pushing an envelope that probably shouldn't be pushed, but will duck out on that.
 * I've already written more than I wanted but will duck out with these final reminders: 1., you're an administrator and I find it slightly worrisome that you come to my page to complain about my edits, instead of posting to the pages in question, take the opportunity to read the section above and make very pointy "copyedits" about the deficit in grammar there. 2., Sometimes it's best not to mention that someone might be unwell or to tie that with the notion of stress - just a pointer for the future. 3., the Blake pages are in awful shape because we don't have the editors here to work on them and, frankly, who understands Blake? You might, but I don't. And I have two Blake sources within reaching distance so it's not as though I'm unaware of him - "The Tyger" is probably one of my favorite poems, but writing about Blake is simply hard. Anyway, I've said enough. Victoria (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS- Yes, before your message landed here last night, I did mean to go on to the main Songs of Innocence and Experience so thanks for the heads up that a student has a sandbox version that presumably takes precedence. Victoria (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadads you reached out not because you sought "some feedback on my approach" but because you wanted confirmation. You didnt get it, for a few reasons, heavy handedness being a major contributing factor. Your placing of students above editors who actually understand how sources should be used here is a concern, that you might want to rethink. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

and Victoria, I saw the ping, but there is a lot here to sort through, and I'm up to my eyeballs dealing with the bad effects this program is having on medical articles. Long story short, the Education Program is making the internet suck bigtime, and there is a lot of paid staff over there who doesn't or won't care. The place to post about the problems you are encountering with this course is the education noticeboard (which of late has been more of a place for editors to seek employment). Don't expect a lot of help from the regulars there (meaning most of the WMF/WEF or whatever the hell they call themselves these days), although dear old User:Mike Christie and User:Jbmurray are doing their best, and may be able help if you make a concise post describing the problems. I'm sorry I can't be of more help (busy), and I hope you are doing well, Victoria. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, another editor who might help in this realm is User:SlimVirgin. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, pinged the ENB. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sandy. I'm just finishing up a few things here before disappearing mostly for the next few weeks - will be very busy in real life - so won't have a chance to follow up. Also it's something I want to think about seriously so as to be able to articulate the concerns better and my sense that's not done well at this time of year with holidays fast approaching and end-of-semester just around the corner, making too much stress for everyone involved. Better if in a month or so we look at it as a case study of what not to do in terms of student assignments in the humanities (which admittedly pose fewer long term risks than medical articles), how not to alienate long term editors who might have been willing to lend a helping hand, and finally to explore the issue of whether Wikipedia really is a place where students are to be allowed to make intermediary and knowingly subpar contributions with the expectations that others will come along and clean up the mess. Anyway, gotta run, but I'll keep this thread open. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because I understood your timing constraints, I went ahead and put a bland post at ENB, hoping that others will help in the interim. If I don't "see" you before then, happy holidays !  (Or, if the education program chases me outta here before Thanksgiving ... which is about the time all hell breaks loose as students shove their work into the last minute ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy. I don't think I can be around much until after Thanksgiving (and not really looking forward to the cooking this year!) so happy Turkey Day to you! I poked my head over at the ENB, and, well, poked my head out again rapidly! Obviously there's a lot to discuss and I might be interested in becoming involved in some of the discussions but I've not been keeping up at all (didn't even realize we had an Education board (WEF?) now), and I don't think I'll have an opportunity to catch up until mid-Decemeber or so. Victoria (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a great holiday! And do not even think of peeking in to or getting involved at WP:ENB; it will be as bad for your health as it has mine.  If I have retired when you get back, you know where to find me.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it almost certainly wouldn't be good for my health. I have to say, this might be the worst I've seen yet (I peeked at your edits!). Somehow we have to convey the difference between writing essays/papers and writing for an encyclopedia - that's the biggest hurdle. It's not simply about having students write "for" wikipedia, but the students have to be taught encyclopedic style, and because that's not taught in college, this is the kind of stuff that shows up. I feel sorry for the kids, to be honest. Anyway, my opinion for the evening. Best to you too. Victoria (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Admin type question
I re-read Moving a page and notification is not required, though I would imagine it is better to ask in most cases. If it is an issue, you could ask the user who made the move about it (page moves can be undone). Strictly speaking you do not have to clean up redirects, just double redirects. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I read that page too and couldn't quite tell. My biggest concern was making the links match the new page name, but that's now been done. Some of the Hemingway pages have a lot of links (thanks partially to my liberal linking everywhere!). Happy (belated!) Thanksgiving, by the way. Victoria (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the ENB
Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your posts at the Education Noticeboard -- I noticed that you said you were unwatching the page and that your ideas were ignored, so I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your input and will make sure it's included in our discussions. I was particularly interested in your comment that having students use Turnitin or SafeAssignment is best practice; I hadn't heard of that particular approach and like the idea of including a recommendation to do that in the information we send professors, though I understand from other comments I saw that there are some objections in academe to the use of these tools. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I just wanted to poke my nose in to tell you that Mike listens. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I'll try not to ramble too much. apologies for crankiness but I'm dealing with a health issue that's been making life miserable and makes me less than charming. Regarding that particular topic, I simply made a suggestion and didn't want to get into a big back-and-forth about whether or not we have plagiarized content here or the merits of anti-plagiarism detection software. Generally, yes, it's fairly common for students to upload either to Turnitin or SafeAssignment. There has been some movement away from doing so, in particular in the use of Turnitin, because they keep a database of uploads which opened issues about copyright. But my feeling is there isn't a reason to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. If the class supports antiplagiarism software, (which is usually a tool in Blackboard) then the suggestion I made, that students simply copy their WP page to a plaintext or Word file and upload, is sensible. I bailed from the discussion because I have little patience these days for long protracted and circular discussions - unfortunately.
 * My question, and I think the question we as a community should define, is what's the education program's and the newly established WEF's mission. If it's purely a numbers game in terms of bringing in new editors then the request above is probably the right way to go because from a numbers point-of-view five or six or more editors will add content as opposed to a single editor. If, on the other hand, we want to sell WP to the academic community as reliable, then I'd argue having an experienced editor write or help the newer editors write a suite of articles might be a better solution. What's lacking in that particular situation is a real sense of collaboration between the project (the established editors here) and an institution-run editing exercise.
 * I've always felt strongly that the best way to bridge the WP/academia gap is to make this an attractive place for academics to write. But the truth is that it's not. For lots of reasons: one, because we write in an encyclopedic style that's hard to learn, we have rules and policies that we expect editors to follow, but the biggest obstacle, in my mind is that this is pretty rough and tumble place. I asked whether I could have a separate account many years ago so as to separate what to me has become a personal hobby and my professional life. I was told that wouldn't be possible so I've tried workaround solutions. I think my feelings about it all pretty well overflowed here last summer when I'd had enough of Wikipedia in general. But I do believe strongly that bringing students here only works well if the person doing the bringing is well-versed in the community with all our foibles. So the issue becomes how much to out oneself and how to separate hobby from professional life.
 * One final suggestion regarding peer reviews. Most non-Wikipedians have no idea we have a rating system. I teach my students to look for articles with gold stars; I teach them how to find them (go the main page, on the TFA click the little star on the right, which then displays a page of all our FAs (and we can thank Sandy and Raul and others for putting all that together!)) and then I say that generally those pages are reliable. I teach how to edit based on our best practices, and to be honest this is the first semester since 2010 that I've not had an article at FAC for students to watch how the process works. They take as much away from that as they do from writing their own content. We could be pairing students with senior editors on the ground - Sandy and the medical project should be wooed I'd think, the same for the literature and visual arts projects, Milhist, and so on, because the truth is we have lots of subject experts here, working quietly, who I think when asked would be more than willing to help. The best examples of student written projects were 's and I loved watching  help the students. For example if I were to have a student working on say, mid-20th century pulp science fiction magazines, I'd know who to point the student to! That kind of knowledge only comes from being around and hooked in here.
 * So ... I think there's a ton of potential here. What I see is a divide between the Education community and the regular editing community and in my view that might, in the long run, have serious consequences. In terms of specifics, I'd be happy to share in email. But I can tell you that of the thousands of students I've brought Wikipedia in front of, very very few have wanted to edit - which to me is telling. In that sense I'm losing the numbers game and the reason I'm not sure I have a voice in any of these initiatives.
 * Sorry - longer than I wanted. Thanks for reading if you got through it! And thanks for stopping by. Also, as a disclaimer, on a snowy, stormy day when I should be in the kitchen, these are a few preliminary and not very well articulated or organized thoughts. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I just figured out that you're Truthkeeper88 -- hi again! I didn't notice your name change and am very glad to run into you again.  Hope you're enjoying Thanksgiving.
 * I like your comments above and will think about them. One specific question, for now: can you think of a way to incorporate the critical process (which your students see at FAC) into a classroom exercise?  One idea that I'm talking to a professor about is to take an article in the class's topic area and ask the students to critique it, then spend a class going through the article at a FAC level of criticism, including asking the students to contribute their own comments and critiques. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, and apologies for the belated response but I wanted to think about this a bit. I don't really have anything written up in a formal manner (and maybe should do that over the break), but a suggestion would be to use the WP:FA Criteria we have in place - which really is a good page. One thing, though, and the reason I wanted to think about this, is that recently I've changed my philosophy somewhat - a few weeks ago I began to go through an FA in class but we ended up only covering a single section and I've been wondering whether FAs are really the right articles to look at. Those of us who have shepherded articles through FA know how much work is involved, how comprehensive they have to be, and I'm not entirely convinced that's the level we want to be steering students toward, but it depends on the nature of the class excercise. On a separate subject, but maybe related, in my view it's helpful to keep in mind that students have multiple classes, and whatever they do here will inevitably be done at the last minute. Perhaps simply showing them DYK criteria would be a better start? Or even having students write for DYK, submit, review, and have their work published on the main page? (Which is honestly a fairly difficult process for a novice). Then they could get a full sense of wikipedia processes? Anyway this is the direction my thoughts have been taking - maybe we should try to reduce the scale of what we're trying to achieve? I think that say a 10 page traditional paper/essay (about 3000 words) would be equal to something significantly less in WP terms given the steep learning curve for mark-up and the necessity to follow our writing guidelines. This comment, too, resonated with me. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit (the reason I've put off answering too) - but generally, yeah, going through any article using any of our review criteria works fairly well as a classroom exercise. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update:, I really haven't been keeping track of things at all (and wouldn't have been much aware of the education program if I hadn't been told not to edit a suite of articles recently) but I've only this moment realized you're a board member of the WEF. Apologies for spouting off as I have been. Victoria (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think an apology might be needed, but it isn't -- I'm very interested in getting ideas on improving the way classes work. We're going to be looking for funding for education projects, and one thing we're really interested in is data about what actually works in a classroom.
 * I think DYK can work but requires oversight from a teacher who is quite experienced; we've seen mistakes made by students in DYK and I'm doubtful about putting student work through a process that absorbs other editors' time without adding value directly to the encyclopedia. Of course DYK can be motivating, and that can lead to better student work.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm apologizing because to an extent I disagree with the direction the education initiative is taking and I hadn't realized it was so far along. I dislike disagreeing with something that's essentially a fait accompli, but I'll carry on a bit more anyway.
 * The DYK suggestion was a bit of a tangent - I was thinking about review criteria in general and realized that what we have at DYK, when fully implemented, is probably okay (check sourcing, prose, etc.) and then thought that if we are to immerse students here it might not be a bad place to begin. The requirements are fairly simple and yet I think maybe exactly the level of detail we might want. The most difficult part of the job from my perspective is to figuring out how to create a nomination!
 * But I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment - without a teacher who understands the ins and outs here and without having students interact with other editors it won't work, which brings me again to the question about the objective of the education program and to the disagreement. If the objective is to bring students (and by extension teachers) here but to sequester them in a separate area, provide a separate Wikipedia experience, then I can see problems cropping up. By definition this is a crowd sourced project, done mostly with dedication, and I'm afraid much of the community spirit will be broken when we see articles being paid in kind (grades), and student editors and their work treated differently than "regular" editors, which imo sets up a class system. That brings me back to the issue up-page where I was asked not to edit a suite of articles because they've been earmarked for a specific class. What will happen when that kind of issue is scaled up and the content editors who are already here are asked to step aside for students? These are concerns that worry me.
 * In terms of data about what works in a classroom, I tend to teach fairly intuitively and treat this place as any other tool on the internet. I'll often use WP to demonstrate whatever it is I'm teaching at the moment. Because I'm so immersed here, it's easy for me to quickly choose an article and spend a few moments showing what I'm trying to say. Often it sticks; often it doesn't. But seeing the particular topic being discussed demonstrated on the internet does have value and seeing edits made in the classroom has value too. All of that, however, is predicated on being immersed and that's what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Without a full familiarity with all of our policies (frankly including WP:Deadline) on the part of instructors/teachers/professors and students, I have doubts about bringing students here. This statement too is predicated on my experience of offering students the chance to edit here for a number of years and hearing a resounding "no thanks" each semester. I don't think students should have to edit wikipedia articles for lots of reason, but that brings up an entirely different topic. So I guess that's why I was apologizing. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the objective is to bring students (and by extension teachers) here but to sequester them in a separate area, provide a separate Wikipedia experience: I don't think there's unanimity on what the education program is for, but I haven't heard many people arguing for this. The benefits I see from the Education Program include getting additional content, mediated by experts (the instructors), particular in areas (social science, for example) that are underrepresented in Wikipedia today; and exposing students and instructors to Wikipedia so that they understand how it works and how to contribute to it effectively and how to read it critically.  I don't see sequestration as having much value, though there are times when a sandbox can be useful.  I certainly don't see any justification for treating students differently than regular editors.  If an instructor asks me not to edit a certain page for a while, that instructor has a poorly planned class structure.  There have been successful classes run here, and I'd like to figure out what made them successful and then disseminate that knowledge to other instructors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike - I'm up to my eyeballs with work at the moment so a placeholder here for now. I do have some thoughts and bounced this discussion around with my students a bit for their input as well. When I surface in a few days I'll post more here. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry for putting this off for such a long time! I wanted to respond to this statement you made: There have been successful classes run here, and I'd like to figure out what made them successful and then disseminate that knowledge to other instructors. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and, to an extent, yes, have an answer. I considered setting up a sandbox and writing out how running a class here might work well. In my opinion we'd need full community buy-in and support (don't think we're there yet) and I have a few ideas how to give a few nudges in that direction; and then good buy-in from institutions (which I think is more difficult); and finally enthusiasm from students (the hardest component). Anyway, a month has gone by and I've not done anything! I might in the next few weeks, but I'm also at a very low ebb in terms of having any sort of enthusiasm for wikipedia at the moment and might to do better if I'm gone for an extended period. I recently ran a small experiment of sorts - wrote an article in a day (as a student would) to see what that experience was like. It was hard! This coming from an experienced wikipedian! I didn't sandbox, had the sources pretty much at my fingertips, I know how to format, etc., but nonetheless it's time consuming. That made me wonder if writing full articles is really the way we want classes to run (well, I'd already been wondering that and wanted to find out for myself), and looking at some of the work that students produce, my thoughts are no. I still think a slow step up is the way to go, but the biggest impediment is getting instructors on board. Anyway, I don't think there's anything here you don't already know. I did have one of those very rare and very rewarding "wow moments" in the classroom during the fall while using wikipedia as a teaching tool. That's the direction I'll probably continue with myself; and I think I know enough about this place and its workings that I don't necessarily have to be here as an editor anymore to still make those wow moments happen. If you want specifics, I can send via email. I don't think anything I do is particularly innovative but it does seem to have some sort of an effect. Anyway, huge apologies for the late response and a late happy holidays and happy New Year. Victoria (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem about the delay; there was never an obligation to respond, but I was curious to get your input and am very glad now you're written it up. I will pass this along to the other Wiki Education Foundation board members, and to our Executive Director when we have one.  I may ask for more specifics later; just got back from a trip and am a bit pushed for time for a day or so.  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

December 2013
Its "prestique" in CORKENG, please see WP:CORKENG and this is a matter we are willing to go to war over. You and America in general have been told. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah well, sorry wouldn't have known that now, would I? It sounds very fancy and prestigious and we can put it back if you'd prefer. No wars! Btw - we needed that section - I'm trying to decide how much to trim now from the section above (I'd thought of moving some text down) but will have to revisit it later. Can't really concentrate now, except to fix prestique. Victoria (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cork's US embassabor is Furious O'Tool, maybe you take it up with him. Back on planet earth, thinking about the pre 1420 preamble, bear with me. Hope all is well, though I see its not quite. Humouring you anyway. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably not bother Mr. O'Toole with this, but I'll keep in mind that he's the person to turn to when I have complaints about Corkish. Bearing with you re preamble - getting that section right is tricky, and no, unfortunately I'm not a lot of help at the moment. Hopefully can be again soon. But I'm happy with what I've managed to do in the past month, so that's something. Victoria (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also happy with what you've achieved in the past month, to understate. Also you might have noticed Outriggr is ab*ou*t. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Corkish"? You know nothing John Snow. Corkonian, innit. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Corkonian" for the language? Even stranger than I thought! Yes, I have noticed OR/RM about - happily. We're lucky. Victoria (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though he better be carefull this time; I have considerably more admin accounts now than in 2010, and if all goes well, pesants excepting (whoes bright idea was it to let them vote) an arb seat in a few weeks. Wonering how riggr might like me then. Ceoil (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, you're being uncivil, disruptive and, worse yet, misleading: per WP:JACKEEN and WP:CULCHIE it should be "Corkish". It's the policy. I'm determined to ANI you for this. End of, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Go away from me child and dont be annoing. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For weighing in you know where. Still digesting this mediation lark (?!), which ain't easy: there's only so much shit I can stomach at once. Trying to concoct some solid argument atm. This individual – whoever they are – is sinister. Hope you're feeling better, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

PS, Saw your comments at Pound the other day. I've been meaning to write something ever since (the full paid-up members of the infuckbox brigade are spreading like mushrooms after rain!) but couldn't come up with anything decent-ish. But as some Corkonian lord would say, "bear with me".


 * You're welcome. I don't think you have to accept the mediation and there's no reason for it, that's why I dropped the link on the page. The arbs made a recommendation which should be followed. Consensus has to achieved on the page and given that no i***b**x has ever been there, then it should be discussed there on that page imo. I might weigh in, but not terribly interested in those conversations anymore - they do nothing but cause grief and hurt. I wouldn't worry about weighing in at EP either. Some day I might get back to that page, or not. Don't yet have a sense of how long I'll last here. Anyway, doing okay-ish, thanks for asking. Victoria (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Victoria. Dropping by just to say I'm glad (and quite relieved, actually) you haven't chimed in – you've made more than enough and the last thing I want is seeing you stressed and put out by the usual onolatrists. That article's slightly better than a stub, but only just. Take care, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

 * Thanks Brian! And thanks again for all your help and encouragement during the year! Victoria (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ruhrfisch! The tree is lovely and hopefully will have lots of presents under it in the morning! Victoria (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Modernist - for some reason I don't remember hearing this one before but I like it a lot. Victoria (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it's an old recording - it was released only a couple of months ago...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that M, I was beginning to think I'd slipped into senility without fully being aware. It's quite nice - thanks again for it. Victoria (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

 * Thanks Cas for the drink! It knocked me out for a couple of days! Victoria (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nativity (Christus)
 Harrias  talk 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nativity (Christus)
Nice work on the Nativity article, Victoria, and Merry Christmas to you and yours! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a lovely article. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reworking to both of you. I ran out of steam and it's only barely good enough for a DYK. Still needs tons of work. Victoria (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont mind yer man, hes a bit cranky at the best of times, even though I do have a soft spot. Its a lovely article period and show me any article that doesnt need "tons of work". Anyway, if you like fiddles . Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The tons of work means that compositionally it's fairly interesting with outside arch, inside space, outside space and many triangles - all of which somehow need describing in arty type language. Which I don't really know so I expect it to slow going from now. Fiddles? Yes, very nice! Victoria (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He trolling you because he knows it will get a reaction. I'm thinkng he's bright enough to fix himslef so why bother. Ceoil]] (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been overly tired for months and it's catching up with me. I'm starting to make more and more mistakes and to be honest if we weren't at FAC I'd be out on an extended break. The Christus article is only a small page and not worth arguing the small points. I simply don't have the energy. Btw - I tried to get some of Nikki's points on the IR but didn't do very well so had to scratch my replies. Just so you are aware. Victoria (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Belated (eircom related)

 * Very nice! Thanks and back atcha! Victoria (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Hi Victoria, thanks for the card. All the best to you for 2014! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You too SV. Victoria (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

3... 2... 1
Thanks for all the work you do here. Here's wishing all the very best for you and yours. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  00:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks CL. A medieval snowball fight? Very original! I'm impressed. Victoria (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We were trolled
. Which reminds me how laughable it is, with such blatant targeting, when people cry own. There are about 4M articles out there, why is it always ye have to...Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! Yes, I saw that when it first went up and at some point a few days ago wrote a long post on the Nativity talk page but in the end didn't hit save. Something about waiting around to hear from the doc whether I was to spend xmas in hospital so I cranked out an article for DYK to keep my mind occupied but made mistakes. Which were pointed out. My feeling is that if in 2014 the first thing I have to deal with on wiki is whether that page is to become a test case for an infobox (and I have to work on my AGF) then, well, this might be the year I don't have to be around. We have a nice page we've worked on hard at FAC and I'll probably not be working on the Nativity again for a while. As it happens am much too hungover to do anything today. Gotta wonder though about how someone can find that arb page so quickly (it's not one I know exists) - but oops, there goes my AGF again! I'm off to take care of my hangover. Laters! Victoria (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.s - My suggestion is to walk away! No, start running! And don't stop! Victoria (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.p.s - will probably archive this. In about 15 minutes. Victoria (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, he said trying to think of DENY. Shitty, spiteful, thing to do though, shows a real lack of character. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Thanks Sandy, and Happy New Year back to you. Not sure about activity level, I think it's falling off quickly, but one never knows! Victoria (tk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi, thanks! I can't really take credit though, it's a joint page, with doing the lions share. I like your username btw - sort of how I feel right now!  Victoria (tk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Frederick August Wenderoth
Thank you for improving the painter! Please be patient, you know the typical process in translation from de-WP: you have to find the sources. Unfortunately I can't see the Palmquist book, can you? I found Historic camera (now external link), but will leave Wenderoth for my other project to not run into edit conflict. Looking forward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's okay. I noticed some sourcing issues and I meant to post there last night but didn't get to it. I just posted a comment there on the talk. The edit I made was simply to combine the sources - the one named "Oakland" is Driesbach - so all the same. I've explained the reason I tagged. We can keep it to the talk there. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ilya Repin
I received a message from today (on my userpage, which seems a bit strange) about the Repin article. I was under the impression that you had cut out whatever material was problematic. If there are further issues, I have no objection to having all of my additions to that article reverted. I don't want to have a continued problem with this guy, and so I felt it would be better to post here, especially as you were the one to raise the Repin issue. INeverCry  21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not strange at all. The problem with google books is that they only show so many pages at a time and almost all the time when the browser window is closed pages that were viewable in a prior session are blanked. I noted that here in the edit summary. The changes I made can be found in history but those are not all the changes that need to be made. I did document here the issues I'd found. I can't remember whether I rewrote everything or not.
 * Rewriting another person's work is difficult and time-consuming. For lots of reasons I haven't had the time or inclination to get back to it. This edit summary in particular is something that shouldn't have happened, particularly when I left a nice message and helped to steer the page in the direction it needs.


 * Paraphrasing is very difficult. I am aware of that. But it's crucial that we don't take directly from sources. In fact that's one of our pillars. You can find helpful advice as how to rewrite at Close paraphrasing and here's another useful link, . I'd like to see you give this a try on your own. I'm more than happy to look over your shoulder and help, or to answer questions, and to provide guidance.


 * Also, I think calling Ceoil "this guy" is counterproductive. He raised good and legitimate issues on the page that need to be addressed. Hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 22:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was in the middle of a dispute with him over an irrelevant Stalinist detail he tried to sneak into the article without a source, etc. He called me a shitty writer, I called him something, and he then called me a twat. Rather than giving me time to cool down and then return to the article and do some simple rewording, you came along during our dispute to hack the article up, and then hit me on my talk. When someone's obviously pissed off, you don't poke 'em with a stick, hence my revert of you. Now, two months later he comes and posts on my userpage. Is it usual for someone to post on a userpage rather than their talk? That's looks like he's trying to start shit with me. As for calling him "this guy", it's probably better than the other things I'd like to call him. In regard to the article, I don't have any more time and inclination to return to it than you do; if you want to revert the article back to before I touched it, that's ok with me. I think the article is fine now though, except for the lead, which I was already nastily told was badly written. I hope this is the last time I have to say anything to either of you about this, and I really hope I don't see either of you on my talk again, (or my userpage).  INeverCry   00:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words the rules of close parapharasing or plagiarising dont apply to you, and anybody who mentions them is of low character and how *dare* they mention. This is an encyclopedia and it doesnt work like that, that you can just walse off, scott free. I'm not even going to reply re Stalinst detail; you obviously know nothing of the subject you copied from google books. I have to ask, if you are unable to contribute within the bounds of our guidelines, why exactly are you here? Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe to bother low characters...  INeverCry   01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , coming to my page and talking like that isn't really acceptable. For one, you're showing an enormous amount of bad faith, for another you're perpetuating a old dispute here, and third you're using profanity - which isn't necessary. Please have a look at this version of the article before you edited it where, admittedly lacking inline citations, the four references that are there are each from a different source. Which should indicate that POV has been avoided and it's balanced. Then look at this version after you edited, where the vast majority of references are from the same book and include instances of close paraphrasing (which I've demonstrated nicely). If you think I poked you with a stick you're wrong; that wasn't the intention. The intention is to write encyclopedic content according to the pillars, to find the best possible sources, to look at all the angles, and to write the text in the most appropriate manner possible. Coming to my page and asking me to clean up a mess isn't really very polite. I offered to help, I offered guidance, and don't really know how else to respond to you. Victoria (tk) 01:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're so perfect, and innocent, and wonderful. I know it.  INeverCry   01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have anything else to say so I'm archiving this. Just a final thought though - there are reasons that women leave this project. I, for one, really dislike conflict and wish this discussion hadn't happened. I suggest you ask, ,  or  to have a look at the talk page there and give you another opinion. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick August Wenderoth
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ! Delighted to see this. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound
I see we are both editing the bio. I've been thinking a lot recently about him, the contradicitions; the purity of his verse and the terrible man behind it. So dont mind me. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone edited it yesterday so it came up on the watchlist. I think about that page often and well, think it should be finished. I see you've been very very busy. Could be our next big project? With SV? If I can bring myself to it without buckling. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Crisco. What a wonderful surprise to find this morning! Victoria (tk) 14:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Victoria! It was a pleasure working with you once again. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats to you to making this happen. For being tenacious and believing we could get a Big Page through. I honestly had my doubts and am just thrilled beyond words. Lots of people to thank for this. It was truly a collaborative effort, WP at its best imo. Victoria (tk) 14:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And we had the added bonus of drawing out mr Riggr! Between that man and the ever wounderous Cocolacoste we are spoiled by skilled copyeditors. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus! I think I have to go away and be emotional somewhere and come back later to make the rounds. Riggr, who is hands down our best copyeditor, for his work! Liz for her work! And such amazing reviews we had! Okay okay - I'm reduced to exclamation marks now! Victoria (tk) 14:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gentelman offers the lady a handkerchief. Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, needed that! Went for a drive and I've composed myself. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah damnit, your allowed to be happy for one day. Tomorrow though, back to serious business. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I'll be happy for a day, and stop editing too for the rest of the day! Seriously, thanks so much for pulling me in. It's nice to get a worthwhile page like that through. Gives motivation, ya know? Victoria (tk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Huge congratulations! It was a herculean task and you pulled it off. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cocalacoste! still a little speechless, so a lukewarm thanks it best I can do! Victoria (tk) 02:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

 * Thanks Doctor - very kind of you! Victoria (tk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Early Netherlandish painting to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. It's a great piece of work and it would be lovely on the main page, although I know how you feel about TFAs so I won't push my luck just yet! Best wishes (and belated thanks for the Christmas message). BencherliteTalk 10:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bencherlite, thanks for stopping by and planting the idea! Something to think about. To be honest I had hoped to nom the Dresden Triptych for Christmas but hard to compete against Jesus! Best wishes to you too for the New Year. You're doing a wonderful job, by the way, something I think you be told on a daily basis. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I ought to time how long I can go between complaints about TFA - in recent days, there have been complaints at TFAR that I'm running newer articles instead of older articles, and that I'm not running enough new articles... hey ho, all good clean fun. Perhaps Madonna in the Church or the Dresden one for 25th March (the Annunciation)? BencherliteTalk 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that. Either the Madonna or the Dresden would work for a Christian holiday. I'm not against noming Early Netherlandish painting at TFAR, but would want Ceoil to do the honors, and assume if that goes soonish, would probably negate the Madonna at Easter. The good thing though is that Christmas and Easter come around each year. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...something that my sons would certainly change if they could... BencherliteTalk 02:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are still issues around the Dresden Triptych lead image; I would be hoping to hold that still. The Madonna would be nice around that time. ENA should be held until at least Fram is happy; just reading his comments today for the first time. They are all astute. Agree re Bencherlite being an unsung hero, admirably cool and composed under pressure. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Fram's comments are good and came in after I replied above. Agree they need to be worked out, and agree the Dresden lead image is still problematic. I guess that leaves us with the Madonna (which I'm embarrassed to admit I'd forgotten about!). I suppose one of us should do the honors and post to TFAR with a blurb so as to make Bencherlite's job easier. I've only used that page once for a request! Victoria (tk) 00:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and FA is not a magical seal that suddenly protects from talk page suggestion; I think both of us would like to respond before any consideration of main page. 01:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again!
It's nice to see you around, I hope you're well. I took five months off after the category wars and after two weeks am about ready for another five... but here we are... thanks for your edits to Mullins.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see you back! I know what you mean, though, about time off. I happened to be reading about about Pound yesterday, had sources in hand, and kept seeing the comments to the talk page and the edits to Mullins, but I tried to stay away. In the end, I couldn't resist. Thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ezra
I deleted the duplicate peer review and will double check that the correct one is linked from the talk page next. Been pretty busy IRL and thought a wikibreak might help me rekindle my work here. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I gulped when I did that! I took the week off - deep freeze is the only way to describe the weather! - and enjoyed it. If I scale back and take things slowly it seems to help. Or at least I hope. I'm not sure why I'm thinking of finishing EP, but finishing unfinished work might be a symptom of something too. Anyway, glad you were around to fix that mess! Victoria (tk) 01:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked in to do the monthly PR maintenance and am off to update WP:FAS. No rest for the wicked ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thing I made that mistake when you happened to be around! Victoria (tk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Great news! Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm excited! Lost in the reading again. Victoria (tk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have confidence in you. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pound
That's a shame. I've been watching your edits and things were coming along nicely. I hope it wasn't that thing about the boxes, but I assume it was, given the timing. Best to ignore it! SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's mostly that I just suddenly hit a wall. I've been burned out for a while, it's been a harsh winter weather-wise, and I came down with a terrible migraine, and thought "this isn't worth it!" Sorry, that's a bit self-pitying, but it happens. I didn't want people to have to read and review if I can't pull myself off the ground, but since CurlyTurkey has posted a bunch of comments there, I've made a start. Some of the comments I don't quite know what to do about - I can't see some of the sources you used, i.e. I can't find the quote about "I resolved that at 30 …" cited to Levy, (although I seem to remember reading it in one of the many sources recently, the question is where!). I might try to get Carpenter from the library, which is quote heavy. It's not ILL so I should get it fairly quickly and might be able swap out sources. Also, the comment about alt text - I thought using "photograph" is okay, but maybe the policy has changed? I see a few sections too that might need reworking – I'd left the translations to do last and I think that's where I hit a wall, but I can give it a shot this week – the feedback is good and gives a place to start.  I suppose it's best to just try to plow through and see where we are. This is probably the problem with letting an article sit for more than three years, it's hard to get back into it. Anyway, sorry for the sort of desperate message I left and thanks for the encouragment. Victoria (tk) 02:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a break and come back. Wikipedia would be wonderful, were it not for Wikipedians.  Or perhaps I have that backwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think to an extent that's always been true, but I've been struggling for a long time and maybe it's just that I'm finally getting old enough that the cold weather is really bothering me. And it's a hard article to try to get through. I thought I'd feel better about myself if I could finish it, but maybe I'm not capable. I'll take it day by day and see how it plays out. Victoria (tk) 03:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Best of luck, Victoria. If you need the rest, take it. Pound can wait... though I must say I think the article looks quite nice as it is. You all did a fantastic job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On another, perhaps lighter, note, I feel like dedicating this article to you. I know I'm terrible with art articles, but this one's certainly worth writing about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, belated reply (I'm juggling too many RL and WP duties at the moment!). My initial reaction was, "but she had her head cut off!" Anyway, interesting page. I might look in there if I get a chance and you don't mind. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so much Jane's ultimate fate, but that it was an article on the visual arts (which you do so much good work in), and it's something I rarely do well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be tricky and trickier still is the very convoluted family background involved. But she's one of the people who have always fascinated me. Victoria (tk) 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Canadian history classes could have included a bit about this... I don't recall ever learning it in school. I first heard of Jane through Horrible Histories. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stones taught me about her! And at some point in my life I saw a movie and at another point I read a bit about her. But I can never remember the succession details - very complicated. And of course she was badly used for political purposes and well .. went to the headsman. Victoria (tk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Excuse me while I go Google. (BTW, I'll be glad to drop by Pound at FAC... just ping me). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Victoria, maybe you could just take your time with it, do a few things in short bursts then leave it. I've been watching the editing without doing anything myself, because I don't want to restore something that you've removed on purpose, so a copy edit at this point might be more of a nuisance than a help. By the way, if you can't find something I added, just remove it; or if it's important move it to talk and I can look for the source.


 * Re: alt text: when I last checked the only thing required was to add a word to stop the screen readers reading out the caption twice, which apparently they were doing in the absence of alt text (or something like that). Extensive alt text was apparently one of the things editors with sight problems complained about at Wikimedia, so I keep it short nowadays (just one word: photograph, map etc). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've restored at least one section that I thought could be treated elsewhere but have now changed my mind. I suspect that will keep happening as I work through and I agree that getting the content sorted, and the sources, should come before a copyedit. I've moved the quote about when he was 30 to talk - that's one I like, but it needs to be pinned down I suppose. Today I picked up the newest Cambridge Companion (2010) from the library - 500 pages! - so that's both exciting and daunting. Certainly everything we need should be in there somewhere! I ordered Carpenter too, which I think will be helpful. Thanks for your comment re alt text - that was my recollection. Victoria (tk) 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The page has momenum! You did such great work here over so many years, really proud its working out for you Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Victoria, I'm finished with the copy edit for now. I may go back and check a few things, tweak a little, but if I do it will be minor. I didn't check the refs; it was just a run through to check the prose. I think it's reading very nicely! SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely amazed at what you've done! Great job! I need to really comb through the refs carefully and will do that as soon as I can, but I won't have a good chunk of time free for a few more days (well, unless the weather makes a mess of things again and I get stuck in the house!). Victoria (tk) 22:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It was exhausting going through it because preview was so slow. It has been slow for me for a few months, and I really noticed the difference it made. By the time I could see the text I'd lost my train of thought. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is exhausting and I've been having that problem too, so in a few cases tried making some really big edits at once and ended up messing up. That's what happened to that section about Rome. I'll put that back the way it should be when I'm not so tired and can concentrate better. It's just impossible for me to work on it when I'm tired. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi Victoria, I was polishing up our article on the Streatham portrait in preparation for a run at FAC, and was wondering if you could be so kind as to participate in the peer review? No worries if you are too busy. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, is the Pound PR still open? I see discussion's migrated to the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're fast! I was hoping to jump in on Streatham but I can post to the PR instead. Won't be for a few days though - busy week. The Ezra talk page right now is just housecleaning, dusting off and cleaning out the cobwebs so to speak. I haven't closed the PR and prefer to address as much as possible pre-FAC, so, sure, go ahead and post comments. Thanks for asking! Victoria (tk) 15:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll post some comments on the morrow. (Did you know, I actually did a paper for my philosophy class on Pound's ABC of Reading... though to be honest I'm not familiar with his poetry, it being a little out of my field). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cathay (poetry collection)
Victoria, this looks really good! I was wondering, would you mind if I nominated it for DYK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You just caught me as I was logging out. It will grow a lot (I've only sketched in there) but I don't mind if it goes to DYK. Btw - on a separate subject: I just noticed your post to Ceoil's page and wanted to say, that though I didn't get to the Streatham PR, I would have mentioned that her religious beliefs need to be drawn out more. Also, I'm wondering whether the damage to the face was a result of an iconoclastic attack? I think those scratches are interesting. I might try to get to that page still, but needed to back off for a day, and Pound is waiting! Thanks so much, btw, for the excellent review. Victoria (tk) 01:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I will see about expanding the reference to Protestantism and Catholicism, at least another sentence or two in the second paragraph (just enough for context, as I don't want to overwhelm the article with the [admittedly complex] issues). One of the sources mentions the attacker may have been Catholic, so I'll mention that. Have a good night! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the vandal was Catholic - which makes sense - then that will pull it all together, imo. Complicated? That period! Nah, not at all! Thanks, yeah, sometimes off-Wiki time is very nice! Victoria (tk) 01:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Olga's home?
Hi Victoria and stalkers. Seeing as I cannot read Italian, and am unfamiliar with Olga Rudge's tale, could you verify that File:Home of Olga Rudge, Venice.jpg is really of the place she lived? Odd how it only says "Pound" there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the article. She bought a house in Venice in the 1920s, lived there until the war, and again after the war. After his release from St. Elizabeths he and Olga eventually settled there and I believe that's where he died. Victoria (tk) 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which also explains why Pound's name is so dominant. Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

TFA
I'm working up a blurb if you want to take a look. We are short on points, I notice. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just noticed. Sorry didn't help, not that I'm much of blurb writer! Very happy, though to see this there. I made a little tweak. Victoria (tk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ENA
I reliase you've moved to Florida as it were, but need your openion re the ENA TFA lead image.. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have and doubtful I'll be moving back the chilly north. I'll try to help as much as I can to see Ezra through, but we know how hard it is with Big Pages. I owe you an apology btw - had a meltdown of sorts. I think the ENA page is beautiful and am fine with whichever image is used to run on the blurb. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * De nada; I'm not long for this world myself. Anyways, before we fade out; from the ENA blurb; "the incorporation of Renaissance ideals", implying Italian. I think this over simplifies, and while it has some truthiness about it, isnt suitable as a stand alone lead statement. Scissors, I think. Here is a nice kitch 90s tune nobody ever heard. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does oversimplify somewhat and I've been trying to think how to reword given the space limitations. Snipping might be the best solution because I can't think of an easy way to explain that the end of the period overlaps w/ the Renaissance and so reflects some of those ideals but not all. Still thinking about it. Victoria (tk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It only incroches from the 1490s, and even then was the north influencing the south, at least in painting. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * haha even though I'm from Cork I cant help think of it in terms of Manchester vs London, you know The Fall and Joy Division vs what ever fashionable bollocks happnuing there this afternoon. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good way of looking at it. The north set the trend, the south changed it up. Or whatever, but hard to put in a blurb. I'll take a look. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a close look. Let's snip it out, so it's like this: "It represents the culmination of the northern European medieval artistic heritage. and the incorporation of Renaissance ideals ." Makes it a little choppy though.  Victoria (tk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cathay (poetry collection)
The DYK project (nominate) 11:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Angelou FAC
Hi VE, I've addressed your comments here. I had a question about one of them. Thanks for the review, it's much appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Christine - something came up and I had to be out for a couple of days. Sorry about that. I'll update there now. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Early Netherlandish painting
This is a note to let the main editors of Early Netherlandish painting know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 11, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 11, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Early Netherlandish painting refers to the work of artists active in the Burgundian Netherlands during the 15th- and 16th-century Northern Renaissance. Their output follows the International Gothic style and begins approximately with Robert Campin and Jan van Eyck in the early 1420s, and lasts at least until the death of Gerard David in 1523. It represents the culmination of the northern European medieval artistic heritage. Early Netherlandish painting occurred during the height of Burgundian influence in Europe, when the Low Countries were renowned for high end crafts and luxury goods. The major figures include Campin, van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden, Dieric Bouts, Petrus Christus, Hans Memling, Hugo van der Goes and Hieronymus Bosch. They made significant advances in natural representation and illusionism, and typically incorporate complex iconography. Their subjects were usually religious scenes or small portraits (Portrait of a Lady by van der Weyden pictured). The painted works are generally oil on panel, either as single works or more often complex altarpieces. The era is further noted for its sculpture, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass and carved retables. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again...
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Ezra Pound to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At long last, congratulations...Modernist (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An article several years in the making. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well done, Victoria. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Very exciting to log in after work to find Ezra's finally been promoted and to find these messages on my talk. , we may have used up the 15th century art niche for a little while with yesterday's TFA (though Dresden Triptych might be a good xmas choice). I might request "Big Two-Hearted River" in the summer for Hemingway's birthday, and Isabeau of Bavaria could go anytime (though I might not be around to tend). I think I'd prefer to let Ezra settle a bit before giving it main page exposure. thanks so much for keeping the faith all these years! , you're an amazing editor and writer; I can't give enough thanks for all your help. thanks for the PR and for creating the daughter articles - extremely impressive work and great additions to the our paltry literary offerings. I think of EP as the most collaborative piece I've been involved with on WP and as such I think it shows what we can achieve with big pages when we work together. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Wow, that's pretty! Thanks so much. It was worth doing and I had great people working with me. Victoria (tk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you did it Vic! I know the long road and hard work and am delighted and proud. *Huge* achievement. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Huge congrats to all of you. The article is a pleasure to read (I'm halfway through) and so are the FA review and the talk page. Wikipedia at its best. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of thanks, but I'll confess that I'm happy it's finished! On another subject I read Pope Paul III and his Grandsons last night - nice looking page and very interesting. I'd not read it in a long time and I'm impressed with how well it's come along. Victoria (tk) 13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem Victoria, if I brought this to PR sometime tomorrow, I would be hounoured if you took a look. You can give it your worst; I dont mind if you swear in disgust during the review. Casual racism ("not bad for an Irishman") is ok to a point. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you should and I'd be happy to review it. I won't even swear in disgust and no casual racism from me. I read it from bottom to top (backwards) last night and thought it was in nice shape. Tomorrow works well for me - I'll keep an eye open. Victoria (tk) 16:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At least now I wont have to worry about having to trott out the "is it cause I is from Cork" defence. If you could swear at least once though it might make things less dull. Even if it was just "feck". Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll either get a bunch of nasty/snarky inlines from me or I'll just jump in and edit (which is more likely) so I can annoy people like with edit conflicts. sorry riggr, I was reading and not aware! I'll have a bit of time later tonight, and if not then, probably tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi VE! I get pinged so rarely, it makes me so excited to get pinged. It doesn't even matter who pings me, at this point, though of course from friends it is always best. Really our timing just coincided as I hadn't touched the article in some time (and then, had only made one edit), but my heart could no longer settle into sundry tasks until I had apologized to Ceoil by way of edit summary and perhaps change the "margarine" joke back to "marriage", which a certain person beat me to (perhaps not understanding that I basically don't make mistakes). With best wishes for the creeping feeling of spring to blossom in each of our hearts now that the Ides have passed us without need of worry—except in me, a creature whose disposition no Spring Awakening will ever now reach—I bid you a Colorado Rocky Mountain High (when I look out my window I can almost see them— the six lanes which jettison the common man unbothered in his disposition to those same peaks (if farther north) to his place of pastoral repose in the Rockies, where the sound of a thousand quad engines can hardly drown out the jolly men calling their wives, ensconced in RVs worth more than my living quarters, for more beer.) Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Mortis! So nice of you to grace my page even if it did take a ping to get you here. Yes, those pings are exciting aren't they? Suddenly a bit of screen turns blood red and the heart races and one either thinks "yay someone has noticed me" or "oh no what have I done now"! Personally I miss that orange bar and old fashioned manner of keeping an eagle eye on talk pages in case somebody takes my name in vein, but we old-timers can't stand in the way of progress. And so I've embraced the way of the ping. So happy to hear the Rockies have found spring. It was 8 fahrenheit where I live yesterday at about noon - so no, not quite spring yet. But those pesky and pricy quads aren't prevalent here so I'll count my blessings. No, I missed the margarine joke and simply couldn't sit on my hands when I saw that! Although in the best manner of wikipedians who are in a constant state of retirement I promised to move out, move to Florida so to speak, yet here I am, fascinated by a grasping pope and his grandsons. Thanks muchly for stopping by chez Victoria! Victoria (tk) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two admin accounts now, Victoria you mentioned in your last email you had three. We should strike. We could take out riggr and Yomani in one clean swoop. Its late at night so maybe there are not that many check users around. Riggr is a self confessed Canadian, there is not a court in the land that would not understand. Its almost the kind thing to do. You on? Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Naw, let's let him do some work first. Maybe we can reel in too to fill the page with seriously snarky inlines and … then .. we'll strike. Hard. If Riggr put in margarine, then well, I suppose he may have gone one step too far. So sad though to see that happen, especially after his long winter hibernation. Victoria (tk) 00:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I both admire and pity your sence of mercy. But it wont do at all; its not the wiki way. How in the name of god did you pass RFA, three times. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sadly it's not the wiki way. I'm trying to set an example. But of course it won't do and that's why I'm always on my way out. I don't really fit here. Victoria (tk) 02:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Victoria has it right. Best to squeeze everything you can out of the slave before offing them. This is always how it has worked, and wikipedia ain't no exception! Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree WP has gotten that right. Maybe it's a good argument though for offing everyone and leaving no one left to edit. The addiction factor or course makes that extremely hard. Anyway, it's late and has been a long day and this becoming depressing, so time to sign off. It's great to see you back Riggr - um even if as a slave about to offed. Victoria (tk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's what happens when I show up. Going back to the start of the thread, more congratulations to you for the Pound FA! How come no one offered a Pound cake wikilove/barnstar/colorful box? That would've been funny.
 * Um because no one is as clever as you? Which is why, slave or not, you're more valuable around here than other slaves. That is funny, thanks! We can have a Pound cake party on a full moon. Victoria (tk) 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible problems with PDF files
Hi Victoria, thanks again for your interest in the activities of the Wiki Education Foundation. As I said on the Education Noticeboard page, I'd like to follow up with you on possible technical problems with the file that contains our monthly report for February. I opened the file in a couple of different browsers and everything worked fine. In case you'd like me to provide you with assistance, please let me know which operating system and browser you were using when you encountered the issue and I'll try to find a solution. You can either send me an email through the built-in email-feature of Wikipedia or use this page. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (WEF) (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm on my way out the door, but just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen this. I'll post a reply when I have time. Thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Take your time. And thanks for letting me know. That's very nice of you :-) --Frank Schulenburg (WEF) (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your reply there and for your post here. I do know about the program and who you all are, see i.e, this long discussion I had with  late last year. I've decided to keep this fairly short. I noticed the link to File:Wiki Education Foundation - Monthly Report 2014-02.pdf and went to have a look. I couldn't read it on Commons - it renders in size 3 or so font and when I tried a zoom it was fuzzy. Hence my comment that it was unreadable. Now that I look closely I see there's a download link and I could have downloaded the report. Initially I'd thought about writing a longer reply, something along the lines that this is a wiki (the wiki of all wikis) and those of us who edit here for our students or to provide teaching material for our students use wiki mark-up, so I think that's where I was going with my comments. Anyway, I'll strike them and I apologize for causing offense. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Victoria, you weren't causing offense at all. I'm glad that you found the download link. Things like that happen to me as well every now and then. The user interface here and on Commons isn't always as straightforward as it could be. And again, we'll be publishing the reports in different formats from next month on. This month is just super busy for me and I thought it would be better to upload a PDF than having nothing at all. I just started as the new ED of the Wiki Education Foundation in mid February and most of the time I'm snowed under with work. Thanks again for your interest. Have a great weekend! --Frank Schulenburg (WEF) (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for obsessive attention to quote boxes
Victoria, I'm sorry to see you've been discouraged by the usual stuff. I was wondering if I could ask your opinion on one of the issues that really matter, namely the appearance of quote boxes. I've been doing the usual staring at two options for longer than I care to admit. It's a choice between using the beige letterhead formatting in this version (not just that section, but throughout), and the pale purple in this version. (I don't know whether it's possible to have the letterhead format in purple; I almost daren't give myself a third option.)

I'm half-thinking of taking this to FAC in the distant future (very tentative, I should stress), so I'm trying to edit with that in mind. Any opinion on the quote boxes, or on anything else, would be most welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very ambitious project! I'd be more than happy to comment on page decoration - as you say extremely important! - or anything else. I won't be able to get to it until late in the week or the weekend, but thanks so much for asking. I'll probably take my comments to the article talk because I had fun bouncing ideas around with you on Ezra's talk page. Must warn you - we might end up with color swatches again! But life could be much worse than that. Thanks again for asking. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone back to purple for now. Ambitious, yes, and probably too much. Mary Baker Eddy would be another good one, but the thing is that it takes so much reading, because there really is a huge amount of (often delicious) detail, all contested. And because it's a religious figure extra care is needed, so it's a lot of work. Not sure how much further I want to take it. Colour swatches, on the other hand, are always fun. There's no rush for any of this, by the way. It's a very long-term thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The letterhead is very snazzy but in the end I prefer the purple that seems to match better with the link color and other colors on the page! I've only now started reading and am about halfway through the Mary Baker Eddy sections but I've taken a few detours into her article and Quimby's too. It's ambitious and complicated and I'll need to read it slowly (and perhaps more than once) and then I'll post comments to the talk if anything jumps out at me. I can definitely see an argument for writing up Eddy's page first - would give the opportunity to really dig in there and do a full source immersion and I'd think it would then be easier to know how much detail (or not) to present in the main CS page. But that's just off the top of my head from reading a few sections. It's really nicely written! Victoria (tk) 13:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very kind of you to read it! (I feel I should be on hand with hot towels and tea.) It's longer than I'd prefer, but hard to see what to leave out; I kept going in to get it down to 10,000, and coming out with 1,000 more words than I'd started with. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've overcome, to an extent, my earlier aversion to overly long pages because I think in the end it's better to have the better prose, narrative, detail, etc., rather than trying to stuff into a specific word count. Once I pulled down that mental barrier, working on Early Netherlandish painting and Ezra became much easier (and successful). Anyway, I'm only reading bits at a time and will continue through the week - this is all stuff I don't know much about, but oddly I'm very familiar with the places and the socio-cultural and literary history of that time in New England. I decided to take a break at Haldeman and Erlichman. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've loved that period in New England ever since reading Little Women as a child. I wanted to live there in that big house, with the freedom and the parents who were never around. There's a Louisa May Alcott connection. Her father was a supporter of Eddy's and even accompanied her to court during the Salem witchcraft trial (1878), which Eddy initiated (or tried to; the judge didn't let her) against a former student who she said was mesmerizing people.
 * Also, Louisa May Alcott herself was badly affected by Christian Science treatment at one point, or believed she was. I'm writing this from memory after only briefly reading about it, but I think Eddy responded that it wasn't really Christian Science she had received (just "mind-cure"). It was much publicized and seen as potentially harmful to Christian Science that such a well-known person felt let down by it. (This is not in the article; perhaps yet another thing to be squeezed in.) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have lots of fond memories of reading Little Women and being obsessive even as a child I read her entire series and I have lots of fond memories of visiting her house (now a museum in Concord). I noticed the Amos Bronson Alcott connection and spent a little time on Sunday having a look at his article, (which is in good shape), and also at the Fruitlands (transcendental center) article where his short-lived health movement was based. Louisa lived there with her family, if I remember correctly, and I believe the later books in the series that were set on a farm, were probably based on that area. Anyway, sorry for the belated response - I do have a few fairly minor comments that I'll try to get posted tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to have seen that house, but it's just as I imagined it. Don't worry about a time frame for your comments; as and when you feel like it will be fine with me, even if there's a big gap. And if you never feel like it, that would be okay too. I know that it's a long, meandering article. I often wonder what lessons I should be learning from feeling sorry for anyone who offers to read what I've written! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hemingway
Talk about strange irony, [...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks M, for these links. I tried searching earlier and didn't find anything. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)