Misplaced Pages

User talk:Victoriaearle: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:43, 2 March 2015 editRationalobserver (talk | contribs)11,997 edits Essay: cmts← Previous edit Revision as of 20:48, 2 March 2015 edit undoKaranacs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,644 edits Essay: for what it is worth, I'm proud of you too :)Next edit →
Line 79: Line 79:
:{{!xt|no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations.}} :{{!xt|no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations.}}
: I guess you're technically right about that, but I was referring to the fact that you apologized at , but thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me , which gave me the impression that you still thought I was a sock, and that was quite frustrating. If all the problems at RBP could have been fixed in a couple of hours, I really wish you had spent your energy doing that versus digging up diffs to present as evidence at SPI. But, I'm not here to argue; I just wanted to put this behind me, and I think I've done that now. I sincerely wish you all the best. ] (]) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) : I guess you're technically right about that, but I was referring to the fact that you apologized at , but thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me , which gave me the impression that you still thought I was a sock, and that was quite frustrating. If all the problems at RBP could have been fixed in a couple of hours, I really wish you had spent your energy doing that versus digging up diffs to present as evidence at SPI. But, I'm not here to argue; I just wanted to put this behind me, and I think I've done that now. I sincerely wish you all the best. ] (]) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|rationalobserver}}, did it ever occur to you that victoria was thanking montana for the nice things that montana said about her in that post? That's how I interpreted it - and that's what AGF should have had you learn toward. Not everything here is about you. ] (]) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{ec}}I'm proud of you too :) I laughed to myself reading this, because just this morning I nominated an article for FAC, one I've been working on and researching for the last 7 years. SEVEN YEARS of my life in which I've spent from a few hours to a few months every year reading, writing, searching for images, reading more, writing more. I couldn't have done it full justice three years ago - it needed to percolate a bit. I'm proud of what it is now. I suspect if we hadn't both gotten disillusioned, we'd ''still'' be working on the history of the Catholic Church, all these years later, and still not finished. In my ideal wiki-world, I'd be left alone to write the articles, to bounce ideas off of other editors (like you) who like to learn and want to share, and I'd have a magic wand to put a protective bubble around my spaces so disruption (including all those middle-school students upset because they have to learn about history, bless their hearts) couldn't get a solid foothold. I am still waiting for someone to hand over the magic wand (come oooooon, universe), and still, twenty years removed from high school, dealing with those who choose to bully the nerdy kid. I have a great deal of respect for those who continue to slog away and focus on creating awesome content - as well as those who served their time and choose to go do something else for a while. Time to let the next topic percolate a while. ] (]) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:48, 2 March 2015

what are you doing?

Why are you ({{db-user}})? No! EChastain (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for a reason. But see comment below when I get there. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion

Hi Victoria, I hate to see you going to rough times - though we all hit them now and again here on wikipedia. I actually came to your talkpage to ask if you might help me out with some copyediting of this article that I have been working on. Might be a good way to a to unstress and feel appreciated again? I certainly would appreciate it in any case. If you're not up for it I fully understand, and wish you the best. I hope to talk to you later at some point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RETENTION

Recommend that you not retire. If I can hang around the 'pedia, after all the bumps & bruises I've taken over the years? then anybody can. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually contemplated re-retiring this morning. Horrifies me that I wasted an entire f*ing day yesterday that I had planned to spend giving my article the last TLC it needed for the FAC nom. Now I'm behind by a few days. I chose to stay because I have a checklist of work I want to finish. I know my re-retirement may come sooner rather than later; I survived just fine with wikipedia for a few years. So I get it...but I hope you find a reason to make it worth being here again. Karanacs (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope everyone here stays; the damn drama trolls have to be fought by being dogpiled with numbers and tenacity, as reason and logic have no impact upon them. Besides, who might support me if I run for admin? Montanabw 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you're not leaving, you're too valuable. Have a break and come back refreshed Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No idea who you are; came here via Montanabw. But same from me: stay! Sometimes Misplaced Pages gives you hard times indeed. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs - yes re wasting a whole f*ing day, or week, or years. Navel gazing at the moment re making it worthwhile. Victoria (tk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by you, - I am so sorry to see what you had to tell us now. I should have asked sooner if you agreed to nominate her for TFA. Will do and think of you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes please to Isabeau - probably for late in March because I think they're scheduling fairly far in advance. If you need help with the blurb I'll pitch in before it runs. The best pic to use for the blurb is File:Isabeau de Baviere (detail).jpg. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It wouldn't have happened without you. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear that - or anything else - from you! So far it's just the nomination, but I am hopeful, according to my slogan ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We are all standing here waiting for you to change your mind

The Marriage of Victoria, Princess Royal, 25 January 1858

Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • RE 15th cent paintings - this book practically fell off the shelf into my arms at the library and I was obligated to bring it home so I'm hopeful there will be work on some 15th cent. pieces before the library wants the book back. Victoria (tk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(NB I have that, so if ever page #s etc are needed after you've given it back, do ask. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
... remember that he sent me a thank-you once for He was despised, - difficult case, know him way too little to reach out. Funny, I thought of Messiah today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Outriggr was far from diffuicult and FAR from despised. But I do like you articles so snap. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
sorry, English difficult ;) - case difficult, not the person, - and not he was despised, - it's just my article redirect, sadly often useful, like WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
English are difficult. Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As an Irishman I concur :) Thnks for the explanation Gerarda. Best, Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe that I agree with Haf about anything V but I agree with him here. Your presence is required...Modernist (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank You Mordy. Those are kind words. Hafspajen (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Featured content would be rather reduced on art side. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Toni Morrison suggestions

When I need Misplaced Pages help, I feel most comfortable in asking you. — Neonorange (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's nice of you to say. I'm sorry I keep blanking this page and I hope what I said was useful. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget about the IB, and please stay!

Look, I was really upset that you continued to accuse me after apologizing, and it came as a shock after I thought we would be okay moving forward. I.e., I acted irrationally when my feelings were hurt, and I said some things that I do not agree with today. All I wanted was some temporary space, which I've gotten, so thanks. Please forget what I said about the IB, including the Rose-Baley Party. If you still want to edit there please do so. I would greatly appreciate any help you are willing to offer me, and I sincerely hope we can move forward and put this behind us. I'm sorry I overreacted and lost my cool. I'll do better in the future. I think you are a valuable editor, and I sincerely hope you find your motivation to continue here. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems attractive and ok at first glance, but sadly I dont buy this plea for a minute. Rationalobserver, you expect us to buy into a mea culpla this late in the game, when you have tried, at lenght, to take multiples of our friends people down; seriously? There are better ways to conduct, and I suspect we all might be friends if worked through. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Essay

Given the naivete I've shown, it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone watching to wonder whether I've been living in a cave for the past six months or longer. The anser to that, yep, I have been living in a cave for real-life reasons. Last year I pruned lots of pages from my watchlist, including AN/I, AN, and all arb related pages, all wiki projects, etc. etc., and now I'm not up on the latest wiki- developments. Which can be seen either as a detriment or not. The thing is: after a while I realized I liked living in a cave. This place is overly addicting (the internet in general is overly addicting, imo), and focusing exclusively on content, staying blissfully unaware of all the drama swirling about, with a tiny watchlist (watchlists are evil because they beg for, well "watching" and then often "action"), and disengaging completely for a few days each week is as good way as any to cope.

Time is a severe issue for me, and this place (because it's so addicting) can be a time-suck. Equally, when working on content, interruptions are deadly. Two of our best policies are WP:DISENGAGE and WP:NORUSH. There is no deadline! There is no reason for a certain article to be finished at a certain date. There's no reason to have to drop everything to respond to a watchlist comment. If more people were willing to disengage and just sit back, let things settle down, this would be a calmer place. Instead, disputes go on and on and suck out any fun that could be garnered from this place. When it's not fun, it's not worth staying, imo.

The WP culture of hat collecting, which promotes work work work for such and such (adminship, green blobs, bronze stars, etc) prevents an attitude of disengaging or building content slowly. Hat-collecting isn't really healthy and is at odds with WP:NORUSH. I like to work slowly on articles that catch my interest, and there are plenty that will never get reviewed, because it's simply hard to find adequate sourcing for some articles. A topic that leans on only a few sources is more apt to be skewed. For reviewed articles we have to be mindful of quality assurance. FAs (and to some extent this is now true of GAs) will at some point be run on the main page, so they should be best we can produce, production or print-ready, and scrutinized. For any page to get to that point WP:NORUSH is a fundamental policy to follow.

This is a collaborative writing project with people from all over the globe working together to create a product. Each person brings his/her own viewpoint and strengths and when it really works well it's truly amazing. The more collaborative the better as far as I'm concerned. Because this is a global community, and for lots of other reasons, whenever someone is kind enough to take time to give advice, that's a benefit. Karanac's post about how to evaluate a source should be written up as an essay; it's truly wonderful (except she missed the bit about "juvenile" books, which we ran into on another article).

An "interaction ban" is at odds with the fundamental collaborative nature of this project, and usually, I thought, only imposed at the arb level. But I did notice another thread on AN/I about an interaction ban, so maybe has become more common during my stint in the cave; common enough to warrant its own WP acronym, IB.

So, now that I've made everyone read this far: let's get to the crux of the matter. Your message, Rationalobserver contains the acronym "IB" in the section heading. The person whose page this landed on, (me), immediately becomes defensive. To continue the defensiveness: no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations. See how quickly this can devolve? Not good, and not a place I want to be. And that's why I probably won't be around much. But let's continue. No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that. Instead we had a week or more of unending whatnot, a handful of blocks, the AN/I thread from hell, a couple of editors gone, and here we are.

Moving forward: in the spirit of collaboration I had left some links that might be helpful. The Huntington Library has images: here is Rose, fourth down, here are images of the Colorado river in Arizona and of a Mojave warrior, taken in the 1860s. They have a good biography of Rose here, which includes what happened after.

Writing an essay is probably not disengaging - the irony doesn't escape me. But I was afraid saying nothing would be misinterpreted. So I made it an essay. Moni would be proud of me. Victoria (tk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations.
I guess you're technically right about that, but I was referring to the fact that you apologized at 06:26 on February 1, but thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me six hours later, which gave me the impression that you still thought I was a sock, and that was quite frustrating. If all the problems at RBP could have been fixed in a couple of hours, I really wish you had spent your energy doing that versus digging up diffs to present as evidence at SPI. But, I'm not here to argue; I just wanted to put this behind me, and I think I've done that now. I sincerely wish you all the best. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
rationalobserver, did it ever occur to you that victoria was thanking montana for the nice things that montana said about her in that post? That's how I interpreted it - and that's what AGF should have had you learn toward. Not everything here is about you. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm proud of you too :) I laughed to myself reading this, because just this morning I nominated an article for FAC, one I've been working on and researching for the last 7 years. SEVEN YEARS of my life in which I've spent from a few hours to a few months every year reading, writing, searching for images, reading more, writing more. I couldn't have done it full justice three years ago - it needed to percolate a bit. I'm proud of what it is now. I suspect if we hadn't both gotten disillusioned, we'd still be working on the history of the Catholic Church, all these years later, and still not finished. In my ideal wiki-world, I'd be left alone to write the articles, to bounce ideas off of other editors (like you) who like to learn and want to share, and I'd have a magic wand to put a protective bubble around my spaces so disruption (including all those middle-school students upset because they have to learn about history, bless their hearts) couldn't get a solid foothold. I am still waiting for someone to hand over the magic wand (come oooooon, universe), and still, twenty years removed from high school, dealing with those who choose to bully the nerdy kid. I have a great deal of respect for those who continue to slog away and focus on creating awesome content - as well as those who served their time and choose to go do something else for a while. Time to let the next topic percolate a while. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)