User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 15

Lochner
Nommed in you absence, but hey whats the worst that could happen (cough). Hope all is well and chat soon. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I got poleaxed (nothing to do w/ this place, btw). Should be back in December. Victoria (tk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

To your health
  The Get Well Soon Pony! For comfort and warm fuzzy feelings during your time of difficulty, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Hugs to you and I hope you get to feeling better! Montanabw (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC) To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here. Your good health is valuable. Your contributions here are beautiful. Please return, rested and healthy. — Phil — Neonorange (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks all! Victoria (tk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

saw your ping
Hi Victoria. First, let me say that I'm very sorry to hear that you've been battling health issues, and I do hope you have a full and speedy recovery. Second: To answer your question: No, I was not acting in collusion with any of the editors you mentioned, or anyone else. I was aware of 1.) a long history, and 2.) current actions both on and off wiki. — Ched : ?  22:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I must have worded that very badly because I really was only asking administrators to be aware. I was quite shocked to read it when idly lurking while waiting for a phone call one day. Thanks, though for stopping by. Happy Thanksgiving! Victoria (tk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Get The Call of the Wild review for GA?
Hey Victoriaearle: just discovered how much good work you did on The Call of the Wild in 2012 (read the novella recently) -- and was wondering if you would want to get it reviewed for GA -- its pretty close to a pass despite the interceding years of small edits? I would be happy to be the main POC for the review (and might do a little bit more digging through scholarly journals to add/expand a few of the sections). Also, I wanted to thank you for drawing my attention to Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell with your featured article, I am about half way through the novel -- its quite entertaining :) Sadads (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, sounds like a good plan. I might have some more sources tucked away - will take a look when I can. I do have one other article in the queue I'd like to get to first but I'm not able to edit at least for a few more weeks, more likely until January. Btw - Awadewit took Jonathan Strange to FA. I've not read it, but am in need of a fat book right now, so thanks for the reminder. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks Ceoil! Honored to have you rob that image and thanks for the xmas card. Take care and have a great trip. I think I'll be back about mid-January. Victoria (tk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

 * Thanks Hafs! I hope your holidays were good. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

 * Thanks Johnbod! Belated Happy Holidays to you! Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way...
An expert is needed here. Nobody KNOWS for sure how the original looks like. Hafspajen (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Filippino_Lippi_016.jpg


 * I peeked at it and haven't a clue. Would have to see it in the museum. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Linghzi and happy returns! Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thanks Modernist. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Hi Victoria, just a note to wish you all the best for Christmas and New Year, and hoping 2016 is a good one for you. (Apologies for the lack of a picture; I decided last year that I would organize a proper card for this year, but instead will have to decide again to do it next year!) All the best, SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sarah. I knew I wouldn't get Christmas greetings out, had hoped for New Year's greetings but in end got nothing out! Hope 2016 is a good one for you too. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 17, 2016
Hi Victoria. Wasn't Three Stories and Ten Poems Hemingway's first published collection of short stories? I can't say that the inclusion of the poems keeps it from being a "collection of short stories", because then In Our Time wouldn't qualify either, since it includes 18 nonfiction vignettes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see, that first one wasn't professionally published, not by a publishing house. I'll add the word "professionally". - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for this message - I hadn't clue it had been chosen for TFA. I'm not around until mid-January, perhaps longer, so I won't be able to help prepare this and not sure if I can tend. If you think "professional" works better and it's supported by sources, fine by me. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I changed my mind and went with "first book", since Three Stories and Ten Poems wasn't a book. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I think that's probably better. Victoria (tk) 14:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi adding: I just tried reading the blurb and see it says that Boni and Liveright added "On the Quai at Smyrna" for the 1930 edition. That was actually Scribners. If you need help,  was very helpful during the review as was Ceoil and they both seem to have a grasp. I really am unable to do anything at this point. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , would consideration be given to not running this at this time? I'd prefer it not to run at a time when I can't help with the blurb and tend it; I was ready to run it earlier in 2015, before I got sick, but was told I couldn't have a TFA then. It was written to go in 2015 and I don't see any compelling reason for it to go now. It can wait forever. I'm in no shape to ask the powers that be so asking you to ask. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry to hear that you're sick. I'll fix Scribners. Paging Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian just replaced it. Now I have the problem of finding a place for my summary where I'll remember to find it. In this case, I kind of like my summary ... do you think it works as an article lead section? - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Get well soon Victoria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for replacing it. It's a enormous relief because I would have fretted over it. I do have to sort out the issue of "first", which had been taken care of but got lost in a flurry of edits; I don't know what to say in terms of whether to replace the lead with the blurb. I suppose I'd want to compare them, but won't get to it until I'm back. Belated Happy New Year to both of you and thanks again for all your work around here. Victoria (tk) 20:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Take care. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Availability
I'll be gone until at least mid-January, possibly longer. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugs, Victoria! Get well soon!   Montanabw (talk)  04:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From me, too, Victoria. I hope you're feeling better soon. SarahSV (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We had a very pleasant time in new england and NY; but will be there again. Get well soon, you are/were missed. Best wishes for 2016. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Mid-January has come and gone; I'm out indefinitely. Victoria (tk) 16:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that; hope you find healthful wellbeing! Sadads (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hugs, Victoriaearle! Hope things get better for you soon!   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin‎‎
Nice to see you around for a while, even if it is temporary. Thanks for the edits, its one of our pages I'm most proud of. Would you have any objecting if I put a push on it; I think its there re comprehensiveness, and sources, though may need a bit more wording tweaking. Hope things are improving otherwise, and that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only for a few minutes! I've felt guilty about dropping it just as I began to work on it but managed to drop in a few inlines today. I had intended to add Purtle's interpretation of the Maria Lactans motif in the iconography section, since it's mentioned twice in other sections, but couldn't get to it and probably won't. I'm really out indefinitely - but I think if that one bit gets explained, and the other few inlines I added, it's basically there. Might need a bit of tidying as usual, since writing FA quality ain't easy - as we know. Thanks for stopping by! I see you have lots going on. Victoria (tk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S - I've made a stab, very rough, just sketching, from what I remember from my reading and with a quick look again, it seemed important to add. The refs might needs some fixing. I'll be back in a month or so. Victoria (tk) 21:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Noticing the edits; this brief return has been very high quality and productive! Have come to expect no less, tbh. The Purtle additions are strong, but have to read though again tonight. Also the helpful inlines are noted. Anyway, re VvG, any potential FAC is about two months away, and you will obviously be co-nomed if/when; myself and Modernist ain't taking all the blame, if we go down, your coming with us. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just remembered that I made some notes re the red hat people, eg, if I remember correctly even though the headpieces are black they were originally red (can't remember if we mentioned that). I'll put the notes in my sandbox if I still have them - might be helpful. Yes, please check re Purtle (or whoever wrote it). It was slightly hard to parse and another set of eyes would be helpful. Re VvG, I haven't been around to look at it but noticed the PR requests. I bought lots of books years ago, so if there's a need for sources I have quite a lot sitting at arm's length, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 23:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great re the red hat people, my some distance my favourite passage in the painting. I might have more on the also, will dig out. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some notes here. Please use whatever works. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there is quite a bit there. In other news, we are also in election mode, tough its the most borning low stakes campaign.ever. Which certainly cant be said about the US primaries. Fox seems to have abandoned the both the Republican power base and moderate candidates; their coverage is so lopsided weight wise, while there spin is near reckless, often outright lies. It would be hilarious if not so serious. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's too big of a topic! I just stalked your edits to the VvG PR and noticed that you mentioned me (and thanks, btw). Only problem is that the ping didn't work - so without stalking I wouldn't have known. Thought I'd let you know. I suppose now I should take a look at what's going there …. but it's a huge project and much beyond anything I can do for the next month or so (maybe longer). That said, since the books I used aren't even in another room, I can might be able check sources if you or  have questions or need to have something verified. Victoria (tk) 01:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stalking now are we! My mission now is to reduce (outside of the letters), the nr of web citations, esp to sunday newspapers. Am using the William Shakespeare FA as a yardstick. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Greatly regretting the stalk. That'll teach me - I could have stayed calmly oblivious. Yes, I agree re web citations. I also think the new biography should be taken into consideration, but in the meantime I have access to Hulsker, Pomerans, etc. And the letters in dead tree version. And more. I had a sandbox once too. Might even have notes stuffed away. Anyway, I need to log off, but will give this some thought while I'm off vacationing again. I do check email, so if I'm not responsive here, there's always that option - for any of you. I'll try to find my notes - they might be helpful. But this has been more than enough for one day.  Victoria (tk) 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to plant some various suggestions from you since you took ill on the talk, so I can work through and strike. By the way, bought some nice books today! With pictures and everything. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I hope to catch up with you in few weeks or so. Books? With pictures? Netherlandish pictures, by chance? Victoria (tk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hang in there!
Sounds like things aren't going too well in wiki land. Don't lose heart! Montanabw (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto, Victoria. Hard to see what has happened, but try to ignore and just do what you want to do, whether staying involved or not. I know how hard that is! SarahSV (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for stopping by., you make a good point - by necessity I'm not yet able to be as involved as in the past, so I'll give it some time to think about what to do. I'm mostly upset about what happened to . WP:Share says: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." Ceoil and Kafka Liz have clearly declared their connection on their user pages, yet at AN/I it was said that "but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus". If Kafka Liz has to give up her rights, her voice, because she's now married, then that's obviously a problem. For a veteran editor of eight years suddenly to discover her opinion in a discussion (and, yes, admittedly a heated situation) means nothing, or that she can't !vote the same as her husband at RfA, in RfCs, at FAC, etc, is very problematic in my view. Obviously the same goes for Ceoil, but my sense is that it's the wife rather than the husband who is silenced. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks, for closing the AN/I thread. Victoria (tk) 23:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Victoria: You are completely right, this is very problematic, and its very sad that all of a sudden someones voice gets obscured because of a marriage (its an absolutely medieval outrage actually). We have had Wiki-Weddings in the community, and I would hate to see this kind of precedent show up yet again. I hope you don't lose heart though: unfortunately in environments where the vast majority of the voices are privileged, its a long uphill battle that unfortunately gets ugly every once in a while.
 * Its very sad when our volunteer time becomes emotional labor, and I hope you don't take on more than you need to or are willing to take :( I find stories like Keilana's to be good reminders that sometimes the best way to deal with this kind of systemic inequality and unfairness is to not always to take the emotional burden on yourself. Sadads (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * People may be interested in the thread that started at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry.   Montanabw (talk)  05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder: just adding a placeholder for the moment to indicate that I've seen these comments but haven't been able to get around to formulating adequate replies yet. Will try to get to them tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I haven't apologized and, at this point, don't forsee myself doing so. I have left this comment at User_talk:Kafka_Liz. NE Ent 21:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ent, many of us have had a lot of respect for your work in the past, I hope this was just an intemperate mistake on your part. I hope you reconsider and figure out a way to make amends.  Montanabw (talk)  05:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A parable
C and KL (or KL and C) live in a village. For many years C and KL (or KL and C) lived in his/her own numbered home and were productive members of the community. When they recently married they took up residence in a single numbered home and continued to work in the community, building, weeding, collaborating, etc. One day, there was disagreement about whether a small plot of ground should be weeded out or not, and a heated discussion ensued. KL and C both voiced their opinion. Much to their surprise a member of the village told KL that, because she now resides in a single numbered home with C, she is a puppet of the meat variety, and thus cannot voice her opinion in regards to the weeding project, or elsewhere for that matter. Understandably upset, KL and C closed their doors and ceased their work in the community.

A week later a community member informed KL that the village is large, there are many paths, and from this point onward she may never walk a path upon which C has ever trod. Being newly married, and understandably wishing to enjoy one another's company (and having happily walked the paths together in the past before taking up abode in a single dwelling with a single number), this information diminishes their former happiness about the community. From now on C may join a barnraising but KL cannot help; KL may help the womenfolk in the sewing circles but C cannot join.

For those of us who were for many years friends to both KL and C before they became puppets of the meat variety, this turn of events is rather shocking. And it poses a dilemma. At the scriptorium where KL and C have frequently joined me – often with others to work in a team on a single project – now I must choose between KL's company, whose calligraphy is better than mine, or C's, whose color sense is better than mine. Regardless of whose company I choose, the loss of both KL and C's help diminishes the final product.

Some village residents are surprised and saddened to learn that C and KL's marital state has turned them into puppets of the meat variety, whereas others are adamant that by virtue of sharing a dwelling with a single number henceforth they must be treated as puppets of the meat variety.

Perhaps the community should do what the community does best and have a long discussion about this state of affairs and decide what is what.
 * First of all, thank you for addressing this with something other than ad hominem nonsense; I'm currently in a state of duality between bafflement that such a peripheral to the big picture comment has drawn so much reaction and thinking that, after a decade of this stuff, I should have never have expected otherwise. I think the parable would match actual events a bit more precisely if the discussion was not about weeding a plot, but throwing a fellow villager in the stocks.
 * Let's move beyond that, and think about this. After the plot has been weeded, and it's time for planting something, what do we do when X, Y and Z suddenly emerge from the same house all advocating "Marigolds!"? What's the distinction between the KL's and C's and illegit meatpuppets, or should the meatpuppet designation be eliminated altogether? These are serious questions I'd like to know your thoughts on... NE Ent 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes a village to build an encyclopedia—each villager should be valued for individual contributions. Each brain is individual—and capable of collaboration. Coming from the same housold has less meaning than coming from the same ideology when it comes to collaboration. I recommend Asters, Geranium and Foxglove. — Neonorange (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a small view from the scriptorium (where, for reasons unrelated, I'd not set foot for a number of months) and so saw the weeding argument; twas me who hobbled out and grabbed the two rowdies by the scruff and dragged them into discussion. After I went to my own abode to cook supper, I peeked out and noticed the argument had moved to the village square. Leaving my supper to burn I hobbled out to scream at everyone (nothing makes me crankier than leaving supper to burn) in a most intemperate manner. So we all have different views. I had not noticed a discussion about stockades. As far as marigolds are concerned - personally I dislike them and would probably ask that another plant be considered. But they do well in full sunlight with little water, and often these considerations are important. As villagers it's important that we celebrate Mr & Mrs M. Puppet's marriage, not treat them as encroachers whose motive is to enter the village and steal, and have faith that each is in full control of his or her faculties and so can give a good rationalization whether or not marigolds are appropriate. My suspicion is that sometimes they will agree and sometimes not. But, what we mustn't do, is say to them that now they've chosen to take up housekeeping in a single numbered dwelling - as opposed to their previous arrangement when each had his and her own numbered dwelling - one or the other has lost his or her mind. Or, heaven forbid, that Mrs Puppet may not voice her opinion about the marigolds (she, in fact, might be much more knowledgable than Mr Puppet and the village benefits from both opinions.). We must have faith and, of course, always assume good faith. That's the only way the village can thrive. Victoria (tk) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this itinerant fool shall take his most excellent advice and find other villages, other kingdoms to help flourish. May your weeds be ever few and your flowers many. Thank you again for the tea and the conversation. NE Ent 09:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mr Ent, for stopping by and indulging me in a bit of nonsense. In typical entish fashion you asked questions, deliberated slowly, which is commendable. The kettle is always on, and I always welcome visitors and conversations. Victoria (tk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a hypothetical A and B have previously participated individually in various different discussions and activities within the village, each with his or her own input and point of view, then a change in their personal status should have little if any impact on their entitlement to continue to do so. If the hypothetical A and B never previously participated in the same discussions and activities, and now since a change in their status every time A says something B says "I agree," and every time B say something A says "I agree," then the incremental value of the second contributions might be diminished. Here, in the case of two long-term contributors, and in the absence of clear abuse, the principle of AGF counsels that the former interpretation be given. (But to invoke another bit of wiki shorthand, I also agree that NE Ent's comment on this subject has been taken to some extent out of context and given undue weight.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for stopping by. I'm now two-for-two at having ex-arbs stop by my page and give me a mild wrist slap after I've stuck my head up over the parapet and voiced an opinion, and I'm admittedly one of the most thin-skinned people here, so I won't do that again. To be honest, I felt the dust had settled somewhat and that your message has a bit of a chilling effect. If you're suggesting that in the "incremental value of the second contributions might be diminished" that the project members (villagers) must keep an eye on each and every move C & KL make, then I suppose that's ok, but I'd like to suggest you take it up with them and not with me. In my view, they probably agree or disagree with one another as much as, if not more or less, than people who edit together in a wikiproject or various other parts of the village, as it were. But I think we've spent a little too much time delving into their private lives, thoughts, motivations.  If what you mean by undue weight (I'm trying to parse Bradspeak), the only conclusion I can reach is that I shouldn't have accused NE Ent of sexism. For that, I apologize. Victoria (tk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. First off, my "ex-arb" status (or even my current-arb status back when I had it) is of no importance in a discussion like this one, and certainly shouldn't affect your engaging in a dialog if there's something worth discussing. Second, I obviously didn't communicate effectively in my earlier message, since my intention was to agree at least 80% with your position in this matter, and certainly not to slap the wrist of anyone. My point, which I'll try to state more directly, is that only if some patent abuse were to develop would "the villagers" need to give extra scrutiny to A's and B's, or C's and K's, comments or edits; it should not be the default position, nor should inquests on contributors off-wiki lives be routinely conducted. I think that's substantially what you've said, save perhaps for my overtly mentioning the hypothetical possibility that some pattern of actual abuse might be detected, which I don't think anyone has alleged here and certainly I haven't. (And in any case, I thought I was adding to a live discussion; if you had already mentally turned the page on this chapter, please feel no need to reply here, nor anyone else.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am a rather cranky woman these days. To return to my analogy of the village, when your message landed here I was working in the scriptorium, reading about Mechthild of Magdeburg and Hildegard of Bingen, trying to understand what a medieval woman mystic is, and to what extent, if any, these women influenced the artist I'm writing about. My mind was centuries in the past and I had a difficult time shifting gears. I essentially agreed with your message but the bit about the incremental value worried me a little and that's when saw it more as a decree from an ex-arb, bailiff, town counselour, what have you. Essentially the problem as I see it, is that in this village of ours some people work in the scriptorium, others plow and till, many clean and labor on the streets, buildings are painted and repainted and fussed over again and again. If one walks down the street and sees a building being painted red that yesterday was green, and one asks why green?, inevitably a card is held up - retrieved from the redoubtable ministry of wikicology - with the explanation that the color must change per one of our many rules or policies. In the case of C & K we must accept that they are not puppets of any variety and so that particular arcane card does not apply. Now, if C were to engage in fisticuffs with someone, or course any of our fisticuff rules apply, but having waded into all of this, my inclination is to close the book and quickly wade out (feel free to detract points for the massive mixing of metaphors!). The wrist slap felt as if it came from your assertion that Mr Ent's comments were taken out of context and given undue weight, because as I wrote above, I was the person who charged into the scuffle in the town square and shrieked madly (as my supper was burning). At any rate, yes, it's still live, but we might have to decorate with a few pictures. And patently, I need to chill a little. :) I shall keep the kettle warm. Victoria (tk) 22:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin
I think we did ok here, and was delighted to see your resurrection. Praise Jimbo, is there nothing the man cant do for his beloved editors ;) The feedback during the review was very rewarding, I agree. I was very amused by you analogy, though its water under the bridge now. Anyway onwards, here or elsewhere, I suppose. Personally I'm hoping elsewhere for me, but lets see. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My resurrection is short-lived. I realized that being better isn't the same as being all better, so I'm going under again. Yes, we did ok, and the feedback was excellent. I'm always on shakier ground with art history sources, (it's easier for me to separate the wheat from the chaff with lit. sources, but I prefer the art articles), and I thought the points raised were good. Thanks for the pic - nice reminder. Onwards, as you say. Victoria (tk) 23:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your record is that your pretty confident and well read on whichever format. Some self credit please. At least you could say that you know more than enough to be part of an art cabal. Long may we reign. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Victoria, I was touched when I read again - from four years ago - "leave the man alone". Take all the breaks you need, but please never feel alone, - you give a lot of compassion, but it is also with you. To your health! (Hope this doesn't break the pristine beauty of this page.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Gerda, that's very kind of you. Victoria (tk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been said before
...but bears saying again, without irony. Victoria is our queen. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kafka Liz! For some reason that tune always makes me laugh! I'm glad you left it here - I'll keep it for a while. Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having the Fall dedicate a song to you is high praise indeed. All I got was a lousy Elton John number, and he refuses to sing it until my funereal, the prick. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fume away! It's not really for me, but it does make me laugh for some reason. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no songs featuring my name, not this one and especially not my real one. Still a great song, though I totally see the humour. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm almost completely tone deaf and so there are few tunes that stick in my head. This is one of them. For some reason it makes me happy - that's why it makes me laugh. Thanks again for it. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd say it is. Apparently he was blocked here back in 2002 (for using the f word) and has an account at Wikipediocracy, where he bangs away from morning until night. Men need hobbies. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement on my edits on The House of Mirth :-) Boccherini1942 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

ping
I have sent you a letter via the internet. Its about colluding on a FAC nom, but dont tell anyone, its a secret. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't tell anyone because it's a secret. But letting you know that I got it. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 13:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your most welcome. Or wait no (cough), I am unaware of the internet; you have me confused with another :) Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your BMPL FA review
Hi Victoria,

Honestly I'm not very glad for your FA review. Though you had some points I considered valid and accepted, here's why: I appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You find too many sentences hard to parse or understand. Readers are capable enough that I can provide a lot of facts within a sentence or refer to something described later in more detail, before they become so confounded. It's not a big issue.
 * I don't understand what makes "two and three-quarters full-time" hard to understand.
 * I don't understand why I need to describe the building. People know libraries operate out of buildings, so if I say the building also houses some organizations, they'll understand. Really.
 * The ramps are described as what's currently at the school's site, that should be very clear. This is the only way to tell readers exactly or even nearly where the school was located, and the only reliably sourced information to describe it as well.
 * Why do so many people dislike, as you describe it, "text squash"? I have many historical photos that are important, and haven't even included photos of other historical locations of the library. I don't have a better place to put those two left-aligned images, do I? Better more content than formatting some editors squirm at.
 * What you consider "factoids" are specific/interesting details that provide in-depth information, which should at least make up somewhat for the context that you feel is missing. You might not be used to topics about small organizations, but sources are relatively hard to come by, and aren't always very informative in the ways you desire.
 * You didn't allow me to respond to your comments before an oppose vote. I've been replying to each comment of every reviewer very quickly. You should note this and let me have a chance to respond before such a negative response.


 * The "two and three-quarters full-time" sentence really tripped me up. It's exacerbated by the fact that it includes the eight part-time employees, so the sentence includes two employees who are fully full time, a three-quarter person who is full-time (that's very confusing), plus eight who are only part-time (although the three-quarter person is presumably full-time). When I have to read a sentence, and then re-read it two or three times to try to make sense of it, I think the sentence is difficult to parse.
 * In my experience small towns (or townships) either have a standalone building dedicated only to a library (library, but nothing else in it) or have buildings that include library, and various local government offices, which appears to be the case here. These buildings often have a name other than xx township library - the library itself is housed in the xx building. I'm not clear if that building is called Briarcliff Manor Public Library or if it has another name. Plus there's the issue of the school and the station, which is also confusing.
 * The issue of the ramps if confusing and there are too many buildings - there's a community center that was a school and became a library at the bottom of two ramps but it's not there anymore. Probably it makes perfect sense to you, but as a reader I struggled with it.
 * See MOS:SANDWICHING. It says to avoid sandwiching (squashing) text between images. On my monitor the text between the table and the bottom left image of the first section is reduced to a column of only about four words - that's really hard on the eyes. I've done a fair amount of work on articles with lots of images and fully sympathize but the trick is to spend time rearranging to get it right. I think the table probably needs to be moved elsewhere. The color photograph above is overwhelmed by the bottom of the infobox above and the table below. I agree that the two b&w photos should be in that section.
 * Factoids are something we try to avoid in featured articles. There's a story to be told there: a library was founded in 1914, during WWI, it got moved from one building to the next, money was raised, people hired, one of the buildings is a historical train station which has been incorporated into the new structure. It's the story of a small town American library and it's interesting. But the story is sometimes overwhelmed with detail.
 * A reviewer can oppose and never come back; a reviewer can oppose and then strike their oppose later. I don't have control over when the article is archived and honestly I read to the bottom and would have opposed, regardless. I think you have the makings of a very nice article about a small-town east-coast American library. I don't think it's at FA quality yet. Victoria (tk) 19:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised you were confused. Three-quarters-time employment isn't that rare and should be pretty self-explanatory in my opinion.
 * The situation with the building is interesting. It's hard to document or even describe because it lived in the station building 1959-2009, then moved entirely into the new wing (along with the two other organizations into the lower floor) and the station was empty/under construction until this year, now the community center. The building itself is still referred to and identified as the BMPL or the library, just happening to house the other entities.
 * The ramp is what's now at the site of the school/community center. I didn't make up or influence its history, I wish it could've been simpler. But Wikipedia isn't about simplifying for pretty narratives, it's about giving all the facts, which I do here.
 * I'm not sure if your screen is ancient or a tablet/mobile, but most desktop monitors and mobiles will display this perfectly fine. I didn't want the table, another reviewer told me to change the prose to the table. I can't please both of you, and I can't move anything without removing photos in order to prevent any sandwiching.
 * I knew you had no control in its closing, however I believe your oppose vote before my responses was unwarranted. Best, ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't think it's at all relevant, let alone leadworthy, to mention the number of librarians to that level of detail. Libraries have librarians. That's a given.
 * If I were working on a tablet or an ancient monitor we'd still want to avoid text squash. I'm working on neither and understand how formatting works around here.
 * I don't think it's important to mention the entrance ramps.
 * I read an article at the bottom of the list; I've been mostly gone for six months and I didn't even bother to read the previous reviews - I simply started reading. In my opinion, as a reviewer, it's not quite at FA level yet. I think with some work it will get there, but it wasn't on the day I read it. The oppose was based on WP:WIAFA 1.a., and 1.d; 2, a and b (I didn't look at the citations), 3 and 4. It was a valid oppose. I suggest if you have any more questions of complaints you contact or post to FAC talk. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sandwiching" can be difficult. At some image-to-text ratios, there are simply no options that avoid sandwiching on every combination of screen and font size.  However, in this case, it'd probably be effective to simply not put all of them at the very top of the section.  The table could probably be moved to the ==Operations== section (the one that talks about the fact that libraries have librarians ;-).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata in infoboxes
Thanks for the kind words, Victoria, and apologies for not pinging you. Rather than clog up VPP, I'll just mention here that if you want to do any more research, you can paste into any book article and preview it to see what those demo infoboxes would look like. I would point out that unless the fetchwikidata is filled in, the templates work exactly like Infobox book, so they offer a possible way of replacing infoboxes in a way that doesn't fetch Wikidata until it is specifically enabled in each article (one of the "opt-in" options).

The table of references in Wikidata can be similarly created by previewing  in any article. I've replied to you with another question at VPP as others may find your thoughts on that useful as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks RexxS. I'm on my way out of the house but I have replied to your query. I'm not offended that you didn't ping; it's something I know about, so I commented. The issue I have is this: very limited time combined with very limited motivation, hence the tag at the top of the page. I came back this weekend to do some reviews (something I've felt I've owed for a long time) and have been following the VPP thread and made some comments. If I ever get back here on a full time basis, I'll take a look at the code you've provided, but honestly it makes my head spin a little! Victoria (tk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (watching:) RexxS, I tried it on a book (not saving, just looking), and saw that it got the author and genre correctly, but the genre was in lowercase, while WP tends to use uppercase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've often wondered why we make the first character uppercase of words that are not proper nouns and not beginning a sentence. No such problem in German. Anyway:
 * gives Satiric novel, novella, so it's easy to fix in the infobox definition. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Required school reading
There's no such thing as "required school reading" in the U.S. There are hundreds of books in thousands of school districts across dozens of states and territories that some students read. There are no books – not even something so obviously popular as Hamlet or Moby Dick – that all students read, even if you exclude the ~10% of students in private schools and the ~15% in special education programs.

I agree that Night is an excellent example. Its value as an example has nothing to do with the historical context, but because of the complexity of the book. It gives us an opportunity to contemplate (again) the critical differences between "unverifiable" and "non-neutral" content – and perhaps to wonder whether making Wikidata's content "merely" verifiable is going to be sufficient to satisfy editors here, although no one seems to have made that connection yet. (My prediction: Adding sources to Wikidata won't be sufficient – nor should it be.  We should always double-check the information that we use.)

This example gives us the opportunity to consider whether fixing misleading information in one complicated article (or a few) is a reasonable price to pay for automatically getting accurate information into hundreds or thousands of less-disputed articles. Probably it is worth it overall, but the value proposition will be better for some templates than for others, and for some data fields than for others. We should be thoughtful about it, to find a good balance between costs and benefits.

This example even seems to have engaged a couple of people in a practical discussion about the multiple different ways to address the problem. I think this is an important benefit. Ideally, this discussion would have happened before the RFC, and ideally we wouldn't have that discussion in the context of a few editors being angry (mostly at fellow editors) or afraid (mostly of how their favorite articles will be harmed), but this discussion is IMO "better late than never". We will never be able to actually solve these problems if we don't have these discussions (<-- intentional plural). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I think it's been a good and a productive discussion. Speaking for myself, I've learned much I didn't know a few days ago and I wanted to step back for a while and mull it all over. I. e last night I finally had an "aha" moment when I realized that when a field is named but is left with a null value it won't get populated with wikidata (at least I think that might be right). Pinging to see if that's correct. If it is, then it seems to raise all kinds of other issues and frankly these issues need to be explored. The wiki way is to discuss, almost in an organic way (not my favorite word, but it works in this case) as people float in and out based on various factors, and sometimes those are the best discussions. We can't all sit around a table and hash this out, so this is our only alternative. I suppose we could move it elsewhere, but no one has complained yet, so it's probably ok to let it go and like all wiki discussions it'll come to an end. Anyway, I thought I'd step back for a few days to think about it, but didn't want to be rude and ignore your post.


 * I see your point in terms of the many vs the few articles and to a degree I agree. Obviously we can create almanac type stubs and populate with wikidata. The problem is that the humanities doesn't lend itself to a almanac type format - that's just the nature of the beast and it's always been thus.


 * I don't see this at all as an issue about someone's favorite article being harmed, in fact I take umbrage at that suggestion. So, about Night. I probably should have written "required school reading in the US, in classrooms where it's on the syllabus" but I thought that was self-explanatory. It's a fairly popular book these days. A simple google search will show the number of teaching resources devoted to it, and it you look at this PBS teaching guide you'll see that its historical context is in fact important. Not to go on a lecture about teaching pedagogy, but with the movement toward "teaching across the curriculum" (TAC), Night is perfect to teach in language arts while students are learning about the Holocaust in social studies. It's been on my watchlist for years because I teach it at the college level and it's an article I'm happy to have my students read unlike a lot of Wikipedia articles. They don't care who wrote it and as a teacher I don't either; who wrote it is simply insider baseball. We don't have a lot of articles like that and the editors who take the responsibility to step up and write them are heroes in my mind. Another that comes to mind is To Kill a Mockingbird, also required school reading in the US (in classrooms where it's on the syllabus). It was mostly written by, and in doing so she performed a service that I appreciate. Sadly she's gone - but that's a digression. If using Night as an example is a problem then we can use a different example.


 * I have a question for you. You say: "It gives us an opportunity to contemplate (again) the critical differences between "unverifiable" and "non-neutral" content – and perhaps to wonder whether making Wikidata's content "merely" verifiable is going to be sufficient to satisfy editors here, although no one seems to have made that connection yet." I get the sense someone, the "us" perhaps, see editors here as an obstacle. Am I reading that correctly? If so, it begs the question of who "us" is. But I might be reading it incorrectly, and that's a good example of why these discussions take awhile - we're trying to parse each other's meanings and that's just hard. We all know that. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct that a parameter with an empty value (usually) will not fetch a value from Wikidata. Technically, it depends upon how the particular template is written; in practice, nearly all of them follow this convention.
 * The question of whose ox is being gored almost always matters, and sometimes counting the oxen and assessing their injuries is all that's needed to resolve a dispute. Most of the core community is skilled at writing something that looks ostensibly neutral but which "accidentally" leads in a particular question, so independent examination of alleged injuries usually leads to greater understanding.  It might be inside baseball, but inside baseball matters in insiders-only disputes.
 * I'm happy to use Night as an example. This historical context matters for the book, but it doesn't matter for the Wikidata-related questions.  For Wikidata-related purposes, we could just as easily be talking about a contentious description of a BLP (e.g., is Joe Film really gay?), but using Night means that we don't have to worry about BLP violations.  Also, it's been maintained at FA for a decade (and I know who deserves the credit for that, even if you don't  ;-), so it's conveniently well-sourced and we won't get lost in discussions about nonsense in the article itself.  However, it'll probably be necessary to bring in several examples over time, including some that are much less developed, so that we can get a sense of the range of the possibilities and problems.
 * In reply to your question, it might be clearer to say that I don't see editors as a problem. "Obstacles" can keep you from unwittingly wandering into a dangerous area; they are not negative.  There are parts of these discussions that might approach tedious on occasion (Memo to community:  For the umpteenth time, the reason that WP:V and NPOV are separate policies is because verifiability and neutrality are not the same things ), but overall, seeing how the community learns and develops its opinions is basically my idea of fun.  (If it weren't, then I probably wouldn't spend so much time writing policy and guideline pages.)  And "us" means "us":  the core community of editors at the English Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively, including the editors who have chosen to engage in this particular discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the sense that there's something you're trying to say in terms of editors and writing neutral articles that either I'm too dense to understand or it's eluding me. Basically, though, it probably has nothing to do with the implementation of Wikidata, unless it's the issue of novel vs. memoir, which a three minute search will clear up, and the point that's being made is that the historical context does matter for Wikidata because the Holocaust is not a fictional event. In terms of article curation, it's an issue I've been struggling with after having to take a long break and watch articles deteriorate. Anyone who can curate for a decade is doing a huge service to the project and my current feelings about curation these days is that expecting such a burden from volunteers is unsustainable. To the outsider looking in (and often that's the perspective from which I see this place) insider baseball is just that. It really doesn't matter who does what, but it does matter that WD doesn't feed incorrect or unverified facts to the world. I haven't a clue who the people are working there, so can't really point fingers and say "great job" or "terrible job", nor am I interested in doing that. I am interested (sometimes more than others, depending on how invested I feel), that we get it right. I'm not sure we're at that point. Victoria (tk) 17:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that Night on Wikidata is so interesting (to me) is that it is both "incorrect" and "verifiable". So if you think narrowly – "everything must be verifiable" – then this ought to be acceptable.  Why?  Because we can actually verify that at least one reliable source said that it was a novel.  The existence of even one reliable source makes it "verifiable".  But if you think broadly – "we must get it right" – then it's not acceptable, because it's "incorrect" (or at least, it's more complicated than that).
 * In terms of article curation, I think we have to decide what the correct balance is. Let's assume that there will be some benefits and some problems.  If there are more problems than than benefits, then obviously, it's not worth it.  But what proportion is a net contribution?  I checked about a dozen FAs for books that have infoboxes.  While the genre listed in the Wikidata item was sometimes somewhat different ("essay" vs "non-fiction", or "scientific literature" rather than "science"), and sometimes it didn't include genre, I didn't see anything that was clearly incorrect or likely to be unverifiable.  So let's say that the ratio is one small increase in maintenance burden vs eight small decreases in maintenance burden.  Is that an acceptable ratio?  If not, what ratio would be?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again you have to think of it from the perspective of the person looking in. For example, a student in, let's say, a college literature class writes a final paper and takes (that's a nice word for copies) from here. The student mentions that such and such a work is such and such a genre. The person marking the paper (professor) thinks to herself, "huh, I never mentioned that genre when lecturing about this work, I wonder where the information came from?", and finds it here. Let's extend the example and say the student copied extensively, which the professor discovers while trying to see where that not-quite-exact genre description came from The student gets an F or zero points. It's a final paper so weighted more heavily and the zero affects the student's grade. A lot. Imagine that happening every day. And imagine that the information we put out is mirrored in various sites and basically ubiquitous in the internets. My view, and I think it's the minority view, is that we have an obligation to get it right. As for Night, I found this source that examines the characteristics of a novel, yet it clearly tells us that Wiesel meant the book to be a memoir. The rest is really just academic writing that you'll find about lots of important books. I found this that Harold Bloom wrote, complete with lesson plan and class activities. I stopped after about 30 seconds, but the important thing is that we don't just vacuum up what we find on the web but rather read all the sources about a subject before making a determination. Again, I think these kinds of distinctions occur mostly in the humanities. I'm not sure what you're saying about ratio. When I talk about curation I mean that there are only so many hours in a day, week, month, year, lifetime to devote to wikipedia to make sure a small handful of articles don't disintegrate too badly. I'll answer the question below, which is interesting. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)