Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) →Question: I don't live in your world, so I still have no idea what you're on about |
|||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
:::::::::::::Eric, I've gone to bat for you many many many times. That's just not at all necessary. It shouldn't be necessary to have to spell out what you and Drmies have done, nor would I anyway. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|talk]]) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::Eric, I've gone to bat for you many many many times. That's just not at all necessary. It shouldn't be necessary to have to spell out what you and Drmies have done, nor would I anyway. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|talk]]) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::I'm afraid I don't live in your world. Just what exactly am I supposed to have done? [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::I'm afraid I don't live in your world. Just what exactly am I supposed to have done? [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
*Victoria, thank you for your suggestions which have improved the article. I'm no clairvoyant and I have no idea what Eric or I are supposed to have done wrong. I know Wadewitz as an editor and as a human being, we're both academics at US institutions, and I happen to know this is her field. I'm sorry if I did anything to rub you the wrong way; I didn't do so on purpose. Again, thank you for your help with the article. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:16, 2 July 2013
New name
- Indeed, enjoy them Victoria (or should it be VE?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - to both of you. I didn't expect it to be so fast - thought it would take days. Who knew? It's Victoria, btw. Now I have to sort out my archives! Victoria (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess they have been quick to do it. I think Malleus/Eric didn't wait too long either (although they couldn't rename him because of his edit count) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've meant to do it for a long time and knew I was getting close to the edit count cut off. I wanted it to be Victoria only and almost started the usurpation process and in the end decided against that. I really was expecting days though - not hours. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is the edit count cutoff? I'm a little below 98k right now. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably above. For some reason I thought 45k, but that was when last I checked a long time ago. I'm getting near that, so decided to do it before it gets to be a hassle. I still have to fix the SUL accounts, but might decide to leave those as they are. Victoria (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aha. Well, if I ever wish to change username it will be a somewhat difficult undertaking in the style of Eric Corbett.
You will probably want to create and redirect some nearby usernames such as User:Victoria Earle. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know whether User:Victoria Earle can simply be made into a redirect, or do I actually have to create the account to make the redirect? Sounds like a lot of trouble and I don't want another account. Victoria (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you'd actually have to create the account, if only to ensure nobody uses it to impersonate you. Heck, I'd create it for you if you want. You wouldn't have to use it. See WP:DOPPELGANGER — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, that would be great! I'm about to log out for the night. It's something I'll not ever get around to doing, but I suppose should be done. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's interesting, it's not letting me. If that's the case I think you could get by with just redirecting the page. (Crisco)203.78.118.149 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Um, I've managed to create ... a redlink! This is the sort of thing that I'm never good at, so will let someone else sort it out. I suppose that page will now have to be deleted. I'll check back tomorrow so see what happened to it. But the Victoriaearle might be similar enough or something that it won't work. Will worry about it later.Victoria (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)- Never mind. Got it now. It worked. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) An admin has to create the account if it's too similar to an existing one, and it has to be done with Special:CreateAccount when logged in. --Rschen7754 02:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the redirect I just created isn't good enough, then I need one you admins to do it for me. Truthkeeper88 has a redirect, so I assume it's the same process, but I can't do it myself? That makes sense actually - didn't seem logical have to make another acct. Anyway, really am logging out now, so leave a message and I'll find out tomorrow what's happened. Thanks to all of you. Victoria (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That explains it. Doing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- YW. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aha. Well, if I ever wish to change username it will be a somewhat difficult undertaking in the style of Eric Corbett.
- Nice to see you back! You might also consider signing (only) as "Victoriaearle (formerly Truthkeeper88)" for a few weeks. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rough patch the last six months, but good to be back to real editing. I'm kind of hoping to fly under the radar for a while (did this in lieu of a clean start, which never would have worked), but thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep it in mind. I'm hoping people will figure it out. Victoria (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also like your new name (and have archived the PR as requested). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Ruhrfisch - on both counts. Victoria (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Great! Now you'll avoid being accused of being a nazi. ;) (I originally registered under my real name, but quickly decided that was not feasible - and I am not going back unless it becomes mandatory) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was wondering who that masked woman was at The Coral Island's FAC review. Eric Corbett 17:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Being egotisical, I assumed the name change was common knowledge, but thought maybe you didn't know. There's really very little to do there, but writing about literature is hard, I can attest to that. The DYK downpage for The Revolutionist is about a 400 word story! Victoria (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is difficult, but then so is writing about settlements or witch trials or motor cars. Eric Corbett 03:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- What I wrote above was meant to be a joke, but I guess didn't work. I do think lit is hard, but maybe that's just me. I had a very difficult time with "Big Two-Hearted River". But I've not done witch trials or settlements or motor cars. I realize you have a lot of experience and that you're a very good writer, that you've helped me a lot and given me some tough reviews. And I thank for all of that. Victoria (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Being egotisical, I assumed the name change was common knowledge, but thought maybe you didn't know. There's really very little to do there, but writing about literature is hard, I can attest to that. The DYK downpage for The Revolutionist is about a 400 word story! Victoria (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Isabeau of Bavaria
Honoured to be invited. Shall review with the greatest pleasure. Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks much, looking forward to it. Victoria (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
I hereby award you a sort of career-barnstar for your work as a writer. I'm impressed by the number of the FA articles you worked on and many other edits you've made in the past, and are continuing to make. Welcome back! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Hi, thanks a lot, this was nice to find when I logged in today. I do owe you quite an apology for being so very uncivil during the period I wasn't feeling well - that indeed was one of the most spectacular meltdowns I've had here! But, I'm finally recovered, back in a new guise and back to writing, which as you say, is where my strength lies. From now on, no more talk page conversations for me! At least not for a while! (Though I do have yours and Alf's talk pages on watch, so am aware of what's happening, or not happening with the Am. novel cats, but am blissfully ignoring). Anyway, thanks again. Victoria (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome back indeed - and no need for an apology. I also did/said things I shouldn't have, so I'm sorry. As for the categories, I'm now working on category intersection, which may get rid of the gendered/ethnic sub-cats entirely (so, no more American women novelists and American men novelists, etc). I think I posted on Alf's page how to test the prototype if you're interested. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Help request
Not sure if this is up your alley, but this one needs some research and digging. Your help would be welcome!
- Sewing_circle (was previously filled with unsourced allegations about lesbians in Hollywood - I stubbed that bit down, but now it just needs some serious research on what a sewing circle is, where did they come from, what did they do, etc - it is clearly the primary topic vs the moniker for lesbians in Hollywood. Just don't have time right now to do deep research, some sources are provided on the talk page.
- Fragment_Society (stub I created)
cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sewing circle is vaguely interesting - lots of colonial and frontier history involved, and of course it's a form of crowd sourcing. That said, it needs tons of research because it has such a long tradition and not only in the US - obviously all over the world. Thinking about what a page like that would need makes my head spin! At the moment, too, I have a few too many irons in the fire, prepping for a FAC, and trying to DYK (5 times expansion in 5 days) an already quite long page. And then there's this big page waiting to be finished. But thanks for asking - I'll put them on watch. Victoria (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it does need lots of research, and it is global... but anyway, even a modest effort would be awesome, even if you don't have time to do the full monty. But it's ok, if you don't have time now, perhaps you could look later, its been a pretty terrible article for years, so, it can wait... cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
PR
As you were kind enough to invite me to PR Isabeau, perhaps I can reciprocate by inviting you to look in at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/archive1. I am uneasy about the proportions of the article, and would welcome a steer from other editors. Quite understand if you prefer not, of course. No obligation whatever. Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, I'm trying to ambush (almost literally!) an article to see whether I can expand x 5 for DYK. Not looking good. At any rate, will take a few days to look in your PR but I'd be happy to. I must warn you though - I'm absolutely tone deaf, so useless with articles about music. Victoria (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Points completely taken. I think I'd give this one a miss, if I were you. Editing WP should be a pleasure, not a chore! Best. Tim riley (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've caught a small break in my work schedule and, as I have a tendency to, dove in a bit deep here. I'll be sending Isabeau to FAC in the next day or so, just as RL begins to get more hectic, so unfortunately will have to give this one a miss. Apologies. Victoria (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Points completely taken. I think I'd give this one a miss, if I were you. Editing WP should be a pleasure, not a chore! Best. Tim riley (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You may enjoy...
Hi there Victoria. I see you have been working on the Baby Doe article. You may enjoy reading the Granite, Colorado article, since it is related...in a way... And BTW, would you mind if I offer feedback when you have reached a point where you feel you are almost done? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Gandydancer, thanks for stopping by. I know you from Moni3's page - I had a name change from Truthkeeper. Sorry, I've gone on a bit of tear with Baby Doe - was cruising around looking for something to catch my interest and stumbled on that. Visited the Matchless on a few school trips as a child and it's a story that sticks. Stupidly I decided to try a five times expansion to DYK it, though it was already fairly long. I think I might just make it - but at this point every word and even every character counts, which I thinks makes for sloppy writing. Still would be nice to see it mainpaged, but I'll never try this again. I've at least one free image at the Denver library to upload and I still have a bit of copyediting and then I'll be done and submit. After that, feel free to tear it back down again. I'm the sort of person who needs sources in hand to do a really good job, and I haven't for this, but might order some from the library and come back to it later. Thanks for stopping by. Btw - this is longwinded way way of saying yes to feedback. Victoria (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nice long note! I don't understand what you mean about "DYK"--five times..", etc. But I do believe that it would make a great article to receive more attention. What a spunky woman she was! You mention going to the mine on a field trip--do you live in Colorado? Did you get a chance to read the Granite article? Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, to submit to WP:DYK an article has to be either new or the existing article expanded five times. Which I think, I've done. Lived in Colorado as a kid and I think every school kid there goes to Leadville at some point (and the Denver mint) or at least that was the case when I was young. Sorry, haven't had time to look at Granite yet, a bit busy in real life. Will get to as soon as I have a chance. Thanks for the copyedits by the way. Much appreciated. Victoria (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nice long note! I don't understand what you mean about "DYK"--five times..", etc. But I do believe that it would make a great article to receive more attention. What a spunky woman she was! You mention going to the mine on a field trip--do you live in Colorado? Did you get a chance to read the Granite article? Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
ENA
Re [1]. I do intend to sort, gimme another 2-4 years :) No but, am focusing back on the page, and the inlines are very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I honestly meant to pull them a long time ago b/c I think they're a bit stale and can't even remember now why I put them there. Nice to see activity there again. I've meant to get back to the Ghent after my sprint on Baby Doe, but first want to get Isabeau through FAC. I've decided to scale back a bit and focus only on one page at a time. Or something. Victoria (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would like very much to see Isabeau progressed, you stick with that, it will be very deserved, its a great article. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's dragged on too long and the lesson learned there is not to mess with royalty in the future. I knew I was about to get busy IRL and have a seriously overdue book the library wants back (can't imagine why) so may have to bag it. Will decide tonight or tomorrow. Victoria (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any mention of a library sends shivers down my spine. O lord have I done bad there, I measure overdue books in decades. I always mean to return, but, well you know. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's a nice addition and interesting to read. Strangely I was just reading about that somewhere else, but now can't remember where. But if I do remember, might add a bit if that's okay. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I knew I'd been reading about this somewhere - was here on wiki. I know the page is filling up, but this File:Looting of the Churches of Lyon by the Calvinists 1562.jpg struck me. Though it's not Netherlandish. Anyway, would be nice to find a pic of something that was damaged. I'm at least a section behind you and just brainstorming. A bit busy, so can't really edit atm. Victoria (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thats a good idea. Thinking. Ceoil (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I knew I'd been reading about this somewhere - was here on wiki. I know the page is filling up, but this File:Looting of the Churches of Lyon by the Calvinists 1562.jpg struck me. Though it's not Netherlandish. Anyway, would be nice to find a pic of something that was damaged. I'm at least a section behind you and just brainstorming. A bit busy, so can't really edit atm. Victoria (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's a nice addition and interesting to read. Strangely I was just reading about that somewhere else, but now can't remember where. But if I do remember, might add a bit if that's okay. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any mention of a library sends shivers down my spine. O lord have I done bad there, I measure overdue books in decades. I always mean to return, but, well you know. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's dragged on too long and the lesson learned there is not to mess with royalty in the future. I knew I was about to get busy IRL and have a seriously overdue book the library wants back (can't imagine why) so may have to bag it. Will decide tonight or tomorrow. Victoria (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would like very much to see Isabeau progressed, you stick with that, it will be very deserved, its a great article. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Baby Doe Tabor
The DYK project (nominate) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Peer review request
Hi VE. I've now started to wade a bit more into territory that is well traveled by you, that of content creation :) I've created a bio of a newly-notable person who has been in the news a fair bit recently, Kristin Beck - I've been able to secure images from her, and got a DYK approved that I will release in a few days once final permission is sorted for all the photos. That said, I'm wondering if you might have time to give it a quick once over and provide any feedback. I'm still waiting to get a copy of the book so I can't expand it significantly until then, but I've tried to pull together the relevant parts from the news stories. Anyway, any suggestions welcome from your side. If you're too busy right now, don't worry about it - I know lots of people make these requests of you. Cheers and thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Thanks
"but thanks to Ceoil's encouragement stuck with it". Im a bit of a slave driver I know. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it came across negatively. Was meant to be a compliment. Victoria (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- It so did not come accross like that; I was flattered. I'd blush if I wasn't almost 80, you know. We always push each other, its a good thing, long it might continue. Bty, Ive asked Modernist to help on ENA. We've been sitting on it for quite a while. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Eighty-year-old blush too - I least I think. Wouldn't know, not being there yet. Hard not to notice the activity on ENA - that said, I haven't had a chance to even peek. But, yeah, you're right. We have been sitting on that for a long time. Victoria (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- It so did not come accross like that; I was flattered. I'd blush if I wasn't almost 80, you know. We always push each other, its a good thing, long it might continue. Bty, Ive asked Modernist to help on ENA. We've been sitting on it for quite a while. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Kafka
I read this in one of the sources, a book I think, but danged if I recall which one. The ref probably got shuffled in all the copyediting.PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I could be in that one I sent you - the one about anorexia. I still have it and will look there. Otherwise you'll have to trawl through history. I was scanning through to see where you could easily add in the other, about citizenship, and my cursor was hovering over that ref - I was like, huh?, that's not right. But I've just found out that commenting out doesn't work with visual editor and you don't want to tend a page like that on the main page the same day we implement a new interface. That wouldn't be fun. I'll uncomment it for now. As for the other, the citizenship, I think is easily slipped somewhere without much trouble, but should be mentioned. I've been having difficulty editing the page because it hangs on me, fwiw. Thanks for the post. Victoria (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'll look too. It is an interesting bit. PumpkinSky talk 21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've looked in Fichter and it's not there. Here's the edit where it was added and never changed since [2], I don't know what the edit summary refers to there. Anyway good luck with it. Victoria (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- HEHE. I was just looking at that one. Fichter 1987 one, not 1988 one. It's on page 375 and the direct quote is: ""My body, often quite for years, was shaken again in an unbearable way from this desire for a small, for a certain atrocity, for something repulsive, embarassing and dirty; even among the best things which I experienced here, there was something of it, some slight, bad smell, some sulfure, a bit of hell. This was the drive of the etemal jew, bom and raised without sense, wandering without sense through this senseless dirty world"", perhaps a rewording of the article? PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- This which I've linked on the talk because it also verifies the 1918 Czech citizenship mentions that the shyness was so deep as to believe people disliked him. I'd combine it w/ the 1987 Fichter - (thanks for the page number) - and dump the "Repertory" ref. These two sources have quite a bit about his appearance and characteristics: slenderness, big eyes, shyness, etc. so you can probably spin the para out a bit more. I do think it's interesting. Victoria (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take care of it. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- That book is in the further reading section, ROFL PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which page verifies the citizenship? PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you can get me that Januch page number (I can't find it), that and this should suffice quite well. PumpkinSky talk 01:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was writing. See the bottom of page 12 for the citizenship. Also a nice description of his looks on page 14. Will look in shortly. Victoria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm blind, but I see nothing about citizenship on 12. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was writing. See the bottom of page 12 for the citizenship. Also a nice description of his looks on page 14. Will look in shortly. Victoria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you can get me that Januch page number (I can't find it), that and this should suffice quite well. PumpkinSky talk 01:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which page verifies the citizenship? PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- That book is in the further reading section, ROFL PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take care of it. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- This which I've linked on the talk because it also verifies the 1918 Czech citizenship mentions that the shyness was so deep as to believe people disliked him. I'd combine it w/ the 1987 Fichter - (thanks for the page number) - and dump the "Repertory" ref. These two sources have quite a bit about his appearance and characteristics: slenderness, big eyes, shyness, etc. so you can probably spin the para out a bit more. I do think it's interesting. Victoria (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- HEHE. I was just looking at that one. Fichter 1987 one, not 1988 one. It's on page 375 and the direct quote is: ""My body, often quite for years, was shaken again in an unbearable way from this desire for a small, for a certain atrocity, for something repulsive, embarassing and dirty; even among the best things which I experienced here, there was something of it, some slight, bad smell, some sulfure, a bit of hell. This was the drive of the etemal jew, bom and raised without sense, wandering without sense through this senseless dirty world"", perhaps a rewording of the article? PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've looked in Fichter and it's not there. Here's the edit where it was added and never changed since [2], I don't know what the edit summary refers to there. Anyway good luck with it. Victoria (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'll look too. It is an interesting bit. PumpkinSky talk 21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, we're both blind and I have a migraine. Somehow we're looking at two different books. Have a look here on page 12. [3]. I'm logging out, but will check in on more time in about an hour - otherwise in the morning. Victoria (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, Danke, adding now. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good to get it sorted. Victoria (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, Danke, adding now. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
what?
Am I reading right that you are considering voting for a merge to fiction writers? This would mean, no more novelist categories, at all, anywhere. Weren't you guys fighting to keep the novelist designation? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. I've explained to you many times that I don't come here to fight (and have decided against a long reply). I believed the re-categorization as it was being done would end up with remnants being left in the novels category - which is exactly what's happened. I made a comment, clearly stated it was only a comment, and it's something worth thinking about. But I probably won't go back there now. Victoria (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Something that might amuse you
Thanks for your recent message on my talk page. I am glad to see that Isabeau is doing well at FAC and I expect it to be promoted before long. A few months ago, I believe you quite enjoyed my article on the fictional Kenneth Widmerpool. Well, I've been working on another, this time real-life, reprobate – Harold Davidson, and I thought you might like to read it. I've just opened a peer review, but don't feel you have to review the article, just enjoy the read. Funny and sad. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I glanced at it; he's definitely a reprobate! Thanks for asking - might take a few days. Victoria (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
ENA
This was very helpful and instructive [4]. Am very undecided about the page's structure overall, but had a moment of carlity after your suggestion. Need to work on the timeline. Of course this is a long project that might go for years, but it aint gonna happen unless its a collab with you. For many reasons, mostly because we bounce ideas so well. And working with you is always fun. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 23 June r2013 (UTC)
- What I mean, in my round of way, is that meta Vic is a very good facet of Vic, and more please. But all the same, would be deligted to have you on board on that page. I think that between us, we could get a major art movement to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm undecided too, that's why I reverted. During the week, I'll read through and think about the structure more. Also, didn't respond the question on your page re section galleries because undecided about those too, but obviously it's a good option. I can't do a lot there because I haven't the knowledge for it, but happy to lend support. Obviously I've gone on a tear on the Dresden, which has totally captivated me, but will slow down a bit now. Otherwise I get sloppy. Victoria (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry, I'm not Obiwan Kenobi or the other editor that you thought might have been me. I've been away and busy, and you can look through my edits and see I've been here awhile. :)
Anyways, do take care and have a wonderful day. Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Revolutionist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magyar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for The Revolutionist
Gatoclass 08:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Dresden
We are almost there; but can I have the weekend to tweek and add a bit here and there; esp a sect on the outer wings. Have not been able to track down the Giovanni Mazone Virgin and Child. I wonder if it sources spell his surname differently, but not turned anything up there either. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Caught me just as I was logging off. You want the weekend to tweak? How dare you ask that!! No, no, no, we're slave drivers here, didn't you know? Okay - well, I suppose if you must dither and dawdle I'll have to find something else like <cough> <cough> the huge articles like ENA and Ghent while you're tweaking. I haven't found much about the outer wings and would like to see more on those. Also, need to check a few more sources myself. So, yes. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- This Mazone Virgin and Child? Victoria (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Naa, I mean, just let me tweak for just one more weekend before any review like. Meanwhile, carry on as before. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I was joking, which never really seems to work here. I'm not in a hurry with this one, I'm enjoying it and it's practically writing itself. Victoria (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked Modernist for help in choosing an image for the Diptych section in ENA. I think we are both unhappy with the crucifixion at that resolution. You might wade in. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking. I lIke the one M suggested, but the crucifixion seems to match what the text says. Will dig around a bit later on to see what I can find. Victoria (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I want to re-read the text again, but might be interesting to add one that's a fragment. Maybe the Madonna in the Church? Victoria (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking. I lIke the one M suggested, but the crucifixion seems to match what the text says. Will dig around a bit later on to see what I can find. Victoria (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked Modernist for help in choosing an image for the Diptych section in ENA. I think we are both unhappy with the crucifixion at that resolution. You might wade in. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I was joking, which never really seems to work here. I'm not in a hurry with this one, I'm enjoying it and it's practically writing itself. Victoria (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thank you! Victoria, for adding both side of the stories. I'm happy that it was finally corrected.—Prashant 03:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm about to revert myself and will explain on the talk page there; please be patient and allow me a few moments to collect my thoughts. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, I can understand. I'll be patient. Cheers!—Prashant 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- We say "patience is a virtue" - think of it as karma, I suppose. Victoria (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, I can understand. I'll be patient. Cheers!—Prashant 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Please, talkback at Chopra's talk page. I have given my thought from a complete x-ray of both sources.—Prashant 14:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I have it watched and will post as I think necessary, but if I'm to review, shouldn't be too much part of the disputes. No need to post here. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please, come back on the talk page.—Prashant 16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Solving disputes
Thank you for what you did on Priyanka Chopra. I was hoping to use similar methods to solve other disputes, but they may not be so easy, and I wanted your advice. There area several Bollywood actresses whose birth dates are in dispute. For example, for Genelia D'Souza it is the year, and for Jacqueline Fernandez it is the month and day. There are many sources claiming each disputed date. It usually results in edit wars, and sometimes a standoff, where the date is removed completely, and we go into protection mode to keep it out while waiting for more definitive proof. How would you handle something like this? BollyJeff | talk 13:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I was just about to post to the Chopra page about disputes, and will in a bit. Regarding disputed dates, or names, or facts, etc., it's best to indicate that the sources differ, and this can sometimes (actually quite often) be done in a note. In the lead write something like "Bollywood actress xxxx was born around 1983", or use "circa 1983" and then add a note with the various sources and what they say. Another tactic, if it's really important, which a birthdate is, would be to give it a sentence or two, or even small section at the beginning of the biography portion of the article, and saying that sources differ and no one knows, and then add various cites at the end. The important thing is to work out the wording on the talk page and try to avoid edit wars and instability. Victoria (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Precisely. That's what was done at Sudirman, although in that case we stuck with the "official" date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but were there more than just those 2 or 3 sources available? Because in the cases that I am talking about, a Google search reveals thousands of mentions of each date. BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll look at the articles in question a bit later. A lot of the google hits might be mirrors of what we're writing. Regardless, then you'd just have to say the date is disputed and find the best of the sources and attribute to those. Victoria (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's okay, I'll have a go at it. If I need support I will contact you later, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You don't need "thousands" of sources unless there are "thousands" of dates; you need at least one for each date (which seems to have been implied from Victoria's post as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's okay, I'll have a go at it. If I need support I will contact you later, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll look at the articles in question a bit later. A lot of the google hits might be mirrors of what we're writing. Regardless, then you'd just have to say the date is disputed and find the best of the sources and attribute to those. Victoria (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Isabeau of Bavaria is FA
Brian's comment about untangling such a complicated and messy life was well made. Very proud for you. Keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. Was just about to stop by and thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow there. God what a mess that was to untangle! And the library book can finally be returned. I bet they'll be happy! Victoria (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- No doubt. You were into Keef territory there[5]. 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- <cough><cough>I'm not that old! But yeah, it'll be a pricy article. I needed the book though, so there you go. And I can't complain - the first core contest winnings were used to buy Dhanens and that's helped immensely on a number of pages. Reminds me, I have to tell Cas that. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- A jesus, not what I was getting at! Yes Dhanen has been really useful, we have cited her on a fair few pages. I see the core contest is going strong and getting good results, are you watching the progress with Sea? Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, unwatched the core contest. I couldn't do it this time around and didn't want to be tempted. By the way, consider yourself profoundly thanked for Isabeau - you seriously were the driving force. I tend to leave unfinished articles littered around but you pushed me to finish this, so it's one that actually didn't get abandoned. Despite the many times I was tempted. Victoria (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, your quite welcome. I edited the page a few times before you started on it; my feeble formatting changes to an article then in obvious need of expansion! The embarrasment of it when I think of it now. What direction is right to vanish, or is there a quick swallowed by ground option. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I edited myself a few times when I worked on Bal des Ardents and was vaguely interested. But seriously, who knew! The scandal, gossip, assassinations, dauphin this and dauphin that. My head was spinning more than a few times working on it. The sandbox is stuffed and messy, and now that I mention it, can be cleaned out. Yay for that. Anyway, yeah, you saw something there and kept me at it. Victoria (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I remember it was some ip comment on the talk that said there was so much unsaid in the article that sparked you. Its some achievment though. Wow. Take the rest of the day off Victoria! Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't even want to look at the history to see when I started. I think a long time ago, but it's a good feeling to be done. I have a few more I'd like to finish - e.g the Grimms deserve review, but yeah, I'll rest on my laurels. For a few hours. I'm afraid I'm getting a little hooked with ENA, fwiw. Victoria (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I remember it was some ip comment on the talk that said there was so much unsaid in the article that sparked you. Its some achievment though. Wow. Take the rest of the day off Victoria! Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I edited myself a few times when I worked on Bal des Ardents and was vaguely interested. But seriously, who knew! The scandal, gossip, assassinations, dauphin this and dauphin that. My head was spinning more than a few times working on it. The sandbox is stuffed and messy, and now that I mention it, can be cleaned out. Yay for that. Anyway, yeah, you saw something there and kept me at it. Victoria (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, your quite welcome. I edited the page a few times before you started on it; my feeble formatting changes to an article then in obvious need of expansion! The embarrasment of it when I think of it now. What direction is right to vanish, or is there a quick swallowed by ground option. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, unwatched the core contest. I couldn't do it this time around and didn't want to be tempted. By the way, consider yourself profoundly thanked for Isabeau - you seriously were the driving force. I tend to leave unfinished articles littered around but you pushed me to finish this, so it's one that actually didn't get abandoned. Despite the many times I was tempted. Victoria (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- A jesus, not what I was getting at! Yes Dhanen has been really useful, we have cited her on a fair few pages. I see the core contest is going strong and getting good results, are you watching the progress with Sea? Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Like +1 and all that. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't count the number of colons needed for indents so am cheating. Warmest congrats on FA status. You certainly had to work for it, and did so valiantly! Brava! Tim riley (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Crisco and Tim! Victoria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
FA Help
Hi! Victoria. Well my article just passed GA review. I want it to take to FA. Would you please, help me in some prose tightening and other things required for FA. Fashion (film) is in a very good position but, I think your constructive work could enhance it a little more. Thank You.—Prashant 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- From GA to FA is a big step. I glanced at it briefly and saw prose problems, so suggest asking for a copyedit at GOCE and then take it to peer review. I'm fairly well stacked up at the moment. Victoria (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Question
Do we have any featured articles on poetry collections? I wrote Nyanyi Sunyi yesterday and am trying to find how the contents section should best be written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's The Lucy poems - a collection of sorts. It was a collab with a number of editors. The Cantos were in fairly decent shape at one point, and I know that Ottava Rima did a quite a lot of good work on poetry but he's gone - check his page to see what he has listed there. Maria brought Emily Dickinson to FA, and I'd expect would have worked on her poetry too, but she's gone - also maybe worth checking her page. That's off the top of my head - will post others as I think of them. A long time ago when Filiocht was editing, he did quite a bit of work on poetry articles - but that was when the world was new and inline refing not yet required. But as far as writing and structure, still some of the best articles I've seen here. Victoria (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Interesting, I didn't expect these articles to have in-depth analysis of the individual poems for the contents (I would have thought that such analysis would be saved for articles on the poems themselves). Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the The Lucy poems the individual poem analyses are summaries - all except the first have daughter articles. I imagine that will happen in some decade or another with the Cantos when it's been fully expanded. Ask Ceoil, he worked on both. I've decided to stay away from lit for the time being, as it happens. Apparently I don't know much, and I've found here it's better not to edit or to review in one's area of expertise. Victoria (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand this. What's the apology for? Eric Corbett 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to bother to explain; it should be obvious. You asked for and got a second opinion from someone you trust to know about literature, so let's leave it at that. When the FAC closes, if you don't mind, I'll add info re the contemporary reception. My copy of Humphrey Carpenter's Oxford Companion to Children's Literature has that info - I looked it up this afternoon, before Awadewit weighed in. Victoria (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea what you're talking about Victoria, as I never asked for a second opinion from anyone. And if you've got something tasty to add about contemporary reception then please add it now rather than wait until the FAC is finished. All I want is for the article to be the best it can be. Eric Corbett 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Victoria is always apologizing for no reason, you can't stop her (earlier today). I suppose it's a sort of counterbalance to gruff buggers like you & me. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, there's a reason and I'm not only incredibly insulted but spitting mad. That's why I'm trying to ignore. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just not following this I'm afraid. I see now that Drmies invited Wadewitz to the review, and all I can think is that there must be some bad blood between the two of you. Eric Corbett 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course there's no bad blood between myself and Wadewitz. That's absurd. Adding: I've unwatched the article and the review. Finished now. What happened here is so glaringly clear to me, I'm very surprised it's not to others. Victoria (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- We certainly are finished. Eric Corbett 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Eric, I've gone to bat for you many many many times. That's just not at all necessary. It shouldn't be necessary to have to spell out what you and Drmies have done, nor would I anyway. Victoria (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't live in your world. Just what exactly am I supposed to have done? Eric Corbett 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Eric, I've gone to bat for you many many many times. That's just not at all necessary. It shouldn't be necessary to have to spell out what you and Drmies have done, nor would I anyway. Victoria (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We certainly are finished. Eric Corbett 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course there's no bad blood between myself and Wadewitz. That's absurd. Adding: I've unwatched the article and the review. Finished now. What happened here is so glaringly clear to me, I'm very surprised it's not to others. Victoria (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just not following this I'm afraid. I see now that Drmies invited Wadewitz to the review, and all I can think is that there must be some bad blood between the two of you. Eric Corbett 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, there's a reason and I'm not only incredibly insulted but spitting mad. That's why I'm trying to ignore. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Victoria is always apologizing for no reason, you can't stop her (earlier today). I suppose it's a sort of counterbalance to gruff buggers like you & me. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to bother to explain; it should be obvious. You asked for and got a second opinion from someone you trust to know about literature, so let's leave it at that. When the FAC closes, if you don't mind, I'll add info re the contemporary reception. My copy of Humphrey Carpenter's Oxford Companion to Children's Literature has that info - I looked it up this afternoon, before Awadewit weighed in. Victoria (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the The Lucy poems the individual poem analyses are summaries - all except the first have daughter articles. I imagine that will happen in some decade or another with the Cantos when it's been fully expanded. Ask Ceoil, he worked on both. I've decided to stay away from lit for the time being, as it happens. Apparently I don't know much, and I've found here it's better not to edit or to review in one's area of expertise. Victoria (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Victoria, thank you for your suggestions which have improved the article. I'm no clairvoyant and I have no idea what Eric or I are supposed to have done wrong. I know Wadewitz as an editor and as a human being, we're both academics at US institutions, and I happen to know this is her field. I'm sorry if I did anything to rub you the wrong way; I didn't do so on purpose. Again, thank you for your help with the article. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)