User talk:Victoriaearle

SEMI-RETIRED

very close to full on retired

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Formerly User:Truthkeeper88

Oh!

I'd leave it. Hope you are ok - don't let the moors get you down. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems a little maudlin. Despite NYB's advice I was fine working on the moors, but I need more time & space & peace than I used to and it was a hectic page. So, I suppose in that sense it got me down, but I thought we were making progress and would have liked to be able to pull Eric back in. To see him leave does bother me. Thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 02:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

P.s - none of my business but Cambrai Madonna is a good model, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

P.p.s - I decided to be brave and put it back, [1]. It needs to be said but it's not a truth people necessarily want to hear. Victoria (tk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good! Talk:Our Lady of Vladimir/GA1 is one thing I have on hand now - interesting. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I have that article on my watch, somehow. I'm thinking maybe since I worked on Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin. Victoria (tk) 03:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, don't get yourself down. You had a well written statement.

I don't disagree with a lot what you said, except for the part about me. I mean, I could've learned a lot about content editing from Eric; without a doubt. I just think the opportunity for me to have ever done so was lost at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games due to his hostility towards me.
You're still a friend in my book, and I agree with the remaining things you said. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, to be honest none of this really makes sense to me and we've not interacted (though I'm not around a lot so that doesn't really mean much). I had a reply to the above but first took a quick look at your contribs to see what's what (like, maybe I've missed something really important) randomly starting at the beginning of 2019. User talk:MJL/Archive 8 is an interesting read and more interesting is that there's archiving within the archives so a lot is gone from there and it's hard to follow. I note that you've been mentored. Are you still in touch with Swarm? Also I note that you've corresponded via email with GorillaWarfare so I'm wondering whether she should recuse?

Basically those discussions lessened some of my confusion re why show up at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games? Why the submit the AE I note Cassianto mentions at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games? (That was news to me). Is that the AE that got Eric blocked for a month? And I've been wondering, why open the arb case? But it's really self-evident now and so I tossed the initial response.

Re the matter at hand I'll say this: according to Google scholar Celia Haddon's work has been cited 14 times - that's fairly extensive given it's an obscure topic - and almost all of those since 2009. The Jstor page noted on that page, link, is interesting and definitely scholarly, but of course very few of us had access to Jstor in 2009. We did have access to libraries and still do; every single library in the US subscribes to the Interlibrary loan system and I suspect the same is true in the UK. Furthermore, Haddon's books about cats seems to be a red herring given that they all appear to have been published after much more recently, and let's face it books about cats sell a lot better than those about obscure historical topics. Regardless, challenging Haddon seems odd.

Still all of this is really moot, because it's not really about Cotswold Olimpick Games (an article I'd written a review for but the FAC closed before I posted it, so I'm quite familiar with the page). It's about something else that I really don't understand, but it kind of reminds me of Counting coup, a Native American practice in which young warriors/braves would swoop in and touch an enemy. It's kinda a point-scoring system and I suspect something like that's going on here.

I have a question and you don't have to answer it: what exactly do you want to get out of your Wikipedia experience? What do you want to achieve here? Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, that case was rejected on that occasion. It was, however, a nightmare I can't wake up from ([2]), he says...and this is the second. Generally, when one's actions put one in a bad place, one stops doing them, no?! ——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I literally added this to my userpage today because apparently I haven't been clear enough about my preferred choice of pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] I'll break my response into pieces:
(0) I've seen you around. We probably haven't interacted.
(1) User talk:MJL/Archive 8 is a special archive within my archives. As mentioned in Archive 10, I made Archive 8 by just moving my talk page after getting done with my Wikibreak. I wanted to start fresh. (2) If GorillaWarfare even remembers me from the one email exchange I had with here, I'll be more than impressed. I emailed her in her capacity as an arbitrator/check user. It was a question about alternate accounts, and she informed me of the answer.
(3) Swarm is still my mentor, but he has not logged in for a few days.
(4) Despite the visible choice made by Eric to willfully ignore the editing restriction, my AE report was closed as no action. I think that even a 24 hour block then would have paid off dividends in ensuring his understanding that he needed to comply with all his sanctions. People acted like I was making a big deal of it at the time, but those sanctions took a month to implement. If he disagreed with them (or any of the uninvolved admins did as well), they were all free to file an ARCA.
(5) Eric would go on from there to violate his sanctions in other areas twice:
(5)(a) For violating his GGTF T-BAN, he was blocked for a month here.
(5)(b) After that month block, he was then found to have ignored his civility sanctions in this thread.
(6) Eric has not once stated he intends to abide by his editing restrictions nor has Eric ever apologized for his behavior.
(7)(I) As I stated in this thread, I found the article randomly. I revealed there that, yes I knew who wrote the article, but I still chose to contribute anyways.
(7)(II) I have never been placed under any editing restrictions. I have a clean block record, more than 15 thousand edits, and my only negative history was asking for a user's sanctions to be enforced.
(7)(III) I wanted to contribute my time to Cotswold Olimpick Games, and that was what I did. You said it yourself, I could've learned a lot about content creation from Eric. I didn't go there to knock him down a peg or anything. I stumbled across a featured article, reviewed the state of its sourcing, and posted my concerns on the article talk page.
(8) I am not now, nor have I ever been, Eric's enemy. I did not expect to be treated as such just for expressing my newbie concerns about an article's sourcing. It doesn't matter if Eric was right or wrong in that thread, what matters is that he chose to insult me regardless. (9) In brutal honesty, the AE report I had filed should not be news to you. It was in my case request under the previous discussions heading.
(10) If I was point scoring, as you say, then apparently I chose the wrong article talk page and circumstances to do so. (a) Eric was unblocked at the time, so he could freely respond to me. (b) If I was trying to carry on a 2 month old dispute with Eric (a fourth of the time I have been on the project for), then Talk:Moors murders would obviously be the place to do it.
(11) As I told Nick on my talk page, if you want to discuss the merits of Haddon's work; please do it at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games. That's a content, not conduct, issue.
(12) Interesting question; I want to help people write a good encyclopedia. The thing I want to get out of it is the satisfaction of playing my part and a job well done.
(13) The thing I am desperately trying to achieve here is to get the community to recognize the simple fact that Eric is not worth our time. He can write great articles, but we don't need him. I'll freely admit: no one will be able to replace him. However, at the end of the day, he has chosen to act the way he acts.

I had liked your statement because it was sincere even if disagreeable at times. It at least recognizes that I, as a human being, have the capacity to learn and grow from my experiences. That is more than I can say for some other statements made in that case page.
Regards, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So my original response would been something along the lines of this: You write The thing I am desperately trying to achieve here is to get the community to recognize the simple fact that Eric is not worth our time. He can write great articles, but we don't need him. Now here's a hypothetical for you - imagine a family gathering, Thanksgiving or something like that and all the family goes to a certain relative's house, let's say an aunt, grandmother, god-mother, something along those lines. She's a bit cranky, doesn't suffer fools, but is hands down the best cook in the family and has been since forever. At the dinner table would you consider it polite to say "she's not worth our time, we don't need her"? Or another hypothetical, imagine a church or community event, same thing, the perennially-cranky outspoken probably not-fashionable decades-older-than-you church/community member who does - fill in the blank. Is it right for the church/community to eject her for whatever that social infraction might have been? Maybe the answer is yes, maybe no, but generally tolerance goes a long way to building community strength. I get that it might be cool to hang with buds and make fun and decide to be the person to act, but sometimes those types of actions don't really pan out very well. You probably don't really understand what I'm trying to get at, and that's okay - just chalk me up to a cranky elderly lady. But please don't try to eject me from any community I choose to be part of. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Before I start, I need to specify: this is a volunteer project to write an online encyclopedia; not a loving family at thanksgiving. It only functions properly if people want to come back to it.
To answer your question: in that specific situation, I would not say that to a family member. If she was making other people in my family feel bad, then I would respectfully approach her about the situation. I'd inform her that the people she loves are being hurt by her words. Ideally, she understand what that means and try to be a bit better. If she insists on cussing out folks in my family and treating them like dirt, then I'll find a solution that works.
For example, in real life my dad is emotionally abusive to me and would rant about how terrible my mom is for hours on end. He'd yell and insult people if he didn't get his way. If I host a family gathering, I don't always invite him. There's no reason to be kind and accepting of people like that in your life.
Eric has his own reasons for being cruel to other people in his life.. or just simply abrasive. I'm bringing up my dad to explain that even when someone you love is cruel, if they hurt other people in your life then you can't accept that from them.
Maybe Eric 's not such a bad guy to you or any of his friends. I do know that more than a few people have been hurt by things Eric has said and did. We, as a community, should not tolerate people who break people down like that (unintentional or otherwise). It's hurting this project, and Eric doesn't seem to want to change for it. We can't make him change, but we can set standards for ourselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, okay, yeah, that's a pretty good answer and I commend you for your bravery in being so forthright. Re being yelled at, yeah, I get it, been there, done that. Like you, I hate being yelled at but my reaction is always to run for the hills. You answered my other question too, whether the not having any need for him is a unilateral or group decision. Group decisions make me nervous for obvious reasons, and I don't agree this is right way to go, because you never ever know what's going on with the person behind the screen (and you're right to say this isn't a family gathering, it's a stupid example but all that came to mind at the moment), so I tend be a bit Pollyanna-ish and think that maybe there's a reason or good explanation for whatever's happening. But generally my best defense is to stay out of the fray. Sadly, I haven't followed my own rules recently and here I am. Anyway, I don't agree with the RfAr but we can agree to disagree. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Give up, Victoria. Mentor or no mentor, MJL is always right and the decades of combined experience telling him otherwise are always wrong. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I will. For some reason I just wanted to try to understand. I don't buy that this is toxic environment and I've seen Eric be incredibly generous with his time and helping new editors. But this past week, this past summer - it is beginning to feel very toxic around here. I blame it all on the not-very-well-named T & S. Victoria (tk) 16:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If my uncle told someone to "f off", I would ask him to leave the Thanksgiving dinner table. If he said as much to two or three different family members, I would not invite him back next year. I don't call that "cranky" or "grumpy", I call it "abusive". Sure, my uncle's feelings would be hurt if he wasn't invited to Thanksgiving, but he should have thought of that before he told someone to f off. One shouldn't ignore bullying out of concern for the feelings of the bully. – Levivich 17:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The hypothetical scenario was that it was an aunt and more importantly she was the cook and the host. So it's a slightly different dynamic. But I already said it was a stupid example. I'm trying to get at something here, but it's not really translating well. There are cultural issues, too, that might need to be taken into consideration. But whatevs, I give up. I'm exhausted beyond belief. So I'll be the abusive cook to get out the kitchen. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

P.s Levivich, while we're talking about bullying, impolite behavior, harassment, etc., I thought your "I'm rolling my eyes" comment about me was really belittling and demeaning. If that's what you thought, you should have said it to my face instead of posting in a place I'd see it. It was making fun of me with a buddy behind my back. Is that cool in your book? Victoria (tk) 17:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

First, let me say that I don't think of you as abusive in the least. Second, making fun of you with a buddy behind your back is never cool. I never imagined my comment at Talk:Moors murders#Page protection ("To be blunt, it's making me roll my eyes that we are waiting for people to get books from the library before we can fix errors sourced to online sources (i.e., waiting for FAR before the page is unprotected or changes are allowed, if that's indeed what we're waiting for).") would have made you feel belittled or demeaned. To be clear, that was in no way directed at you. That was directed at El_C (courtesy ping since I'm talking smack), specifically at the week-long page protection he put on–that's what I was rolling my eyes at, not at you. There's nothing wrong with getting books from the library, or even waiting on making changes to the stuff sourced to offline sources while others acquire the offline sources. I was objecting to waiting for that process to finish before being able to fix straightforward errors (such as changing "1997" to "1996", a small error but one that we've known about for days, that we've served to thousands of readers, but that still remains) that were sourced to online sources and easily verifiable. In no way was that intended to be a slight towards you at all; only towards El_C. And not to nitpick, but although I have nothing but good feelings towards both of them, I don't think ether El_C or EEng would publicly admit to being my "buddy," and I don't think of an article talk page–where you're already active–as being "behind your back". Now, may I ask you a question: When EC referred to MJL as "some clown" in a conversation with another editor, was that cool in your book? – Levivich 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• ether El C – so that's why there's always that funny smell about him!
• I don't think ... EEng would publicly admit to being my "buddy" – Not since you broke off our engagement, but we'll always have Paris.

EEng 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: As I argued at the EC Arbitration request, all of that is besides the point and is a distraction from EC having been penalized right after being baited and not taking the bait. I raised that point also on MJL's talk page — they did not address it my satisfaction (which is to say, at all), so I gave up discussing it with them; nor did the Committee members who accepted the request address that point, either, even after it being raised by multiple other editors, as well. All that is deeply troubling to me — as I already stated but is worth reiterating: being penalized for doing something right is just not right. There is an injustice here and it stems from the particular impetus that lead to the filing of the Arbitration case. I want that point sharpened and pointed. El_C 20:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: My apologies again that you feel I did not address your point to any degree of satisfaction. It doesn't help that I really don't think I get what the word impetus means.
Maybe I can put it in another way...
Here is evidence that Eric knows what he has been blocked for: [3]
Things you'll see in that diff: a clear articulation of what the one month block was for. What does it lack? Eric caring to any degree.
Follow up evidence: [4][5][6][7][8][9]
Analysis: Eric mocking, berating, and criticizing David Eppstein. He prefaces his comments with And at the risk of yet another block, let me be even more blunt. and asking If you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? - to me that's a form of belittling. To you, it might not be. Regardless, it is certainly not a disengagement from the conversation as required by sanctions.
David Eppstein is not a party for the simple reason that if he was; people would be focusing their pitchforks onto him as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, you all are a loquacious group! Except for Levivich's cup of coffee a couple of weeks ago, I'd not interacted with any you. It feels like a whole new cohort came on board while I was off languishing and devouring books. Anyway, thanks Levivich for the explanation - I read it totally wrong. But that just proves some sort of a point, either that I'm really really overly thin-skinned (I am) or that it's easy to misread intent and nuances in meaning in this medium, or maybe a combination of both.

Re the clown comment, no not cool, you know it, we all know it. But there's this edit that no one has acknowledged, so I see it as a bark being worse than bite situation and the encyclopedia benefited from the new source which might (depending, I suppose on stance) ameliorate the clown comment. Certainly clown does not equal an arb case to El C's point.

Furthermore, in my view, there was very much a whiff of pile on, lots of people flocking to Moors murder (plus I don't know David Eppstein so not following that thread at all), and then the Cotswold Olympick Games, and it all seemed just a wee bit premeditated. I could be totally wrong of course. A couple three years ago I had a serious problem with my watchlist not loading and had to dump all 2000 or so watched pages and start from scratch; neither of those pages were re-added so I've not been following what's going on. I just happened to see an edit summary on someone's talk page (or maybe it was section header) that seemed provocative. Regardless, there seems to be a bit more animosity against someone for not reacting than is warranted, and if the expected reaction isn't forthcoming then it's easy to wind it up. That is not cool. For some reason I'm reminded of when Mattisse was around.

Anyway, I'm not around tomorrow, so apologies if I don't keep replying. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You have 77,637 pages on your watchlist — so close to 77,777! El_C 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If I were you I'd go for the 77,777! Watchlists sort of annoy me, and I'm always pruning, trying to keep it down. I also think it's the best way to stay out of the fray - not that it did me any good this time! Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Just happened to see this thread, and thought I'd add my cranky-old-lady perspective, based on long experience and a role within this community that periodically requires me to delve into ancient history, particularly contentious ancient history. I know it is difficult for newer editors to believe, but the Wikipedia of 2019 is infinitely less hostile than the Wikipedia of 10-12 years ago. It is a much nicer place to be, and interactions are generally significantly less aggressive. Having said that, society writ large, and our own internal climate, has become less forgiving of many of the aggressive behaviours that were not only commonplace, but routine, in the past. I'm not an admin who spends a lot of time carrying out civility monitoring or blocking people for being nasty, but one of my recent specialized activities took me to some pages where there were very contentious discussions more than a decade ago, and frankly it makes even the nastiest comments and statements on recent contentious discussions look like a walk in the park; I would have been tempted to block at least 30 accounts - and they included administrators, arbitrators, bureaucrats, and some of the "leading editors" of the day. So yeah, there's still unpleasantness out there, but we must keep in mind that the current status reflects that community standards have changed faster than users have moderated their behaviour. Which, I suppose, is pretty similar to just about everything else around here: it's exactly why FAs from 10 years ago which have barely been modified are no longer "up to snuff" as FAs, why RFA expectations are in a constant state of flux, and why it's almost impossible to recruit good quality candidates for Arbcom. Risker (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Risker! Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I agree and that's why in the midst of all of this I was reminded of Mattisse (and ILT and others) and just blurted that out. Things have gotten better, FA sourcing is more stringent (though we really do need to have a big FAR drive in my opinion), I missed the "easy" RFA days altogether. Change is never fast, easy or painless, particularly in an environment like this, but I remember bringing students through here in 2009/10 and deliberately steering them in certain directions. Still Indian Camp (incidentally GA reviewed by Mattisse) was a project that began in a classroom, so was Edmund Evans (same GA reviewer and incidentally plagiarized by students in successive semesters) and in retrospect I still think more good than bad came from efforts like that. But maybe age is making the "good old days" look better than they were. Dunno. Btw - since you're here: re your comment at the arb noticeboard I've always thought content creators represent a deep pool of talent that's never been tapped for the committee. The bottle neck is RfA and & pure content creator doesn't stand much of a chance of passing, but does understand the the dynamics of most the content disputes that give rise to many cases. Not that an idea like that will go anywhere but thought I'd mention it. Best, Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: I can say that while I do recognize that Wikipedia in 2019 is many times better than the Wikipedia of before my arrival... it really doesn't say much. We're just so far from where we should be. The things I have experienced in the last week should never happen to anyone. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I love the Thanksgiving dinner simile. It is apt for collaborative Wikipedia work. Most families that continue a multiple generational holiday tradition have, one way or another, worked out how to have huge disagreements without being being disagreeable. Mostly by learning where the sticking point is for each individual. Those who don't usually opt out on their own—no bureaucracy required. Rather than calling the police, go out for dinner at Ted's, in several groups, if necessary. — Neonorange (Phil) 00:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit Norman Rockwell but the point I wanted to get at is that Thanksgiving (for lots of folks), graduations, weddings, funerals, community/church events are all social events that, for whatever reason, problem children & difficult relatives etc are included & social mores & manners seem to have unspoken rules for ignoring their infractions. I could be wrong though and maybe more of our social fabric is fraying than I've been aware of. Age, ya know! Thanks, btw, Neonorange, for stopping by & thanks for the tending the articles I never get to anymore. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And here we are! El_C 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your comments at the EC pantomime at AE

Hi Victoria, hope you're well. This is a great statement which I'm sure many people can resonate with. I've noticed a decline of personal thanks on talk pages of late, aided and abetted by the very cold and generic "thanks" button which carries many different nuances, so I thought I'd drop by and say it personally. People just don't seem to talk to one another nowadays. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 08:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cass, I appreciate it. I absolutely loathe arb cases and posting anything over there, so I was conflicted but in the end that's what came out without giving it much thought. Johnbod's nudge helped too. Couldn't agree with you more re the notifications/thanks - I abhor the system. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I support that, thank you, Victoria, and you, Cassianto, for the personal note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you too Gerda. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2019

Per Ceoil's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dank, the best course would be that for me to suck it up and shut up, but it's happened before; in fact the exception is Ealdgyth's notification (see up page). In my view, the atmosphere on Wikipedia is very divisive at the moment and we should be acknowledging productive editor collaborations, because they rarely happen. Ceoil and I had a good run at collaborations (sadly, not something I'm capable of or will be in the future) and I'm proud of the work we achieved. His page is not my page; he and I are two separate editors. He received this notification from Wehwalt. You complimented him ("Great work") and invited him to edit the blurb. "Per Ceoil's talk page" is ... just ... well whatever. And now I'm making a fuss, which embarrasses me. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I intimate that you fall towards reservedness rather than assertiveness. I'm diplomatically challenged, shall we generously say. I could detail all the precise reasons you should have been notified (co-nom at FA, significant contributor, etc), but I'm certain you know those. Hence your upset. I could lambast Wehwalt and Dank for the oversight, but, hmm, white-knighting much. Instead, what I'll do, despite it feeling entirely inadequate, is read the article tomorrow (I should be in bed, it's past mid-night – so technically, later today). That's one more read that you and Ceoil receive for an article you've both poured your efforts into. Thank you for your work, lest that too be overlooked, as the notification was. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude for the offer, but it's not worth your effort. It was a difficult article; difficult FAC, a full 50/50 collab. But it's not worth the fuss. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

my only comment is that yes, like FAR, it might be an idea that all nominators are notified, as an improvement idea for, let’s be honest, volunteers of a thankless role. That said, Dan is not a scheduler, he has taken on the role of condensing often long and complex leads down to the word limit. And with considerable skill.

anyways, Victoria, am late to the party, but to say that your comments on the arb case brought against Eric resonated, and were very elegantly stated. Yet re MJL, and competence in general, we ‘’’are’’’ the encyclopedia anybody can edit, one undergoing a fundamental crisis of how to balance quality control mechanisms with editor and article growth rate metrics. I remember, when I turned up here first, being schooled, to varying degrees of kindness and tact, by Marksell and Death2, I think successfully with regard content at least, haha.

Maybe I was just lucky, but my staying here was in large part because they put in the time and effort, and I wanted to repay and impress...a feat that was daunting and time consuming to say the least. The complicating factor here is that Eric has traditionally been very encouraging towards new editors, which is seemingly being lost, dunno. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. I should shut the fuck up. But but, there's this. I'm not always here and you know why. If you're saying that I'm beating up on MJL, it's too bad my efforts above come across that way. I showed up later than you and the people to pitch in to show me the ropes were Awadewit, Yllosubmarine, Malleus, Modernist, your buddy whose name I can't remember (Lithoderm?) who taught me how to upload images, Johnbod, Sandy & Karanacs, and then of course there's you & the many collabs we've had. And now here we are, me a cranky old lady simply wanting a calendar reminder. Somehow I thought we had templates for that? Anyway, seriously, I'm so so sorry & brought it to your page & offended you & embarrassed myself. Apologies, too, to anyone else I've offended. Victoria (tk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought your plea for dismissal was very moving and articulated a point of view that is evidently widely present but unrepresented and silent. Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't offering, so to speak

Consider this proof that I read the article instead of skimming through, rather than a critique. And having read it, I should note it was near effortless to do. I did expend some slight effort in not getting (too) distracted by the accompanying artwork. Overall, it's a damn good article.

Provenance

On their return the Adornes brothers funded ... - I can't help escape the feeling that a comma "," should be placed after return.

Figures

The representation of Christ in the guise of a Seraph with three pairs of wings, is an unusually fantastical element for van Eyck's normally reserved sensibility - Odd comma placement? I'm guessing its there because of cite 20, but it doesn't appear to belong.

Landscape

Turin-Milan Hours - is currently wikilinked at second mention in prose, instead of first.

Attribution

... usually one of the most important factor in attributing ... - Factor should be plural, should it not?

Ludwig von Baldass - *snickers*

There are three possibilities; the panels are van Eyck originals; they were completed by workshop members after his death from one of his underdrawings; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of Eyckian motifs - Perhaps there's a reason for this punctuation, but I would have expected the first semicolon ";" to be a colon ":", and the following semicolons to be commas ",".

I enjoyed the read, though its on a subject I know little about. I have Ceoil and Attic Salt to thank for what little I do know about Netherlandish art with their article on Gothic boxwood miniatures. I had the distinct temptation of being cheeky and putting "per Victoria's talk page" on Ceoil's usertalk. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude for taking the time for this! I'll make some tweaks before it runs. When it comes to comma usage I'm a bit dyslexic and sometimes the AmEng & BrEng punctuation rules get tangled. And there are always the inevitable typos. Another set of eyes is always helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree

Hello Victoriaearle,

Having read your post(s) at the EC arb discussion, I just wanted to say thank you. I thought you were not only eloquent, but accurate. Personally, considering how everything was handled behind closed doors, I'll have a tough time having faith in, or even believing in, Arbcom again. Using the "privacy policy" as a shield is shameful, but I suspect that T&S is now pulling their strings. In looking at these past few weeks, I have to say I don't believe it bodes well for the project. But then again it seems they (WMF) are much more interested in "Movements" and "harmonization sprints" (whatever that is) than they are in the "projects" that fund their little vacations. — Ched (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Ched I meant to reply to this instead of hitting the thanks button and then didn't get back for a while. I've not been following a thing since you posted this, so I need to catch up to see what's happening. Re Eric, yes, I have issues with how that was handled but there are only so many battles in life that can fought. Unfortunately. Thanks for stopping by, long time no see. Hope all is well. Best, Victoria (tk) 20:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

All my best. hugs. — Ched (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I hit 'rollback' instead of thank on one of your comments. I have a script to block that option out but it did not. Sorry. Jbh ^Talk 17:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a prob. Thanks for stopping by and explaining. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 4, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Very exciting! Looking forward to it. Victoria (tk) 20:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for what you and Ceoil did for the article! - I haven't yet taken a person to FA but would like to try for Jessye Norman, a towering grande dame. I didn't write the article, thanks go mostly to 4meter4. Any help welcome, prose finding refs, formatting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! And thanks, too, to Ceoil and everyone else. I missed it, but it's still there and well so I assume no problems. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

All that is right

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I felt that you truly deserved this for your help and tutorial to Elisa. Real going the extra mile :) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I enjoyed it. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you again for your comments about the Jill Valentine article. I am still trying to grow as a writer and an editor and learn how to better respond constructive feedback. I am actually quite proud of the work put into the article, and a large part of it is from your suggestions. I also wanted to apologize for being a pain in general. I do have a great deal of respect for you as an editor. I am sure you do not need me to tell you this, but your work on here is very much valued. As someone who has taken a few years of Japanese-language classes and is currently trying to jump back into my language studies, your work on the Murasaki Shikibu article is my personal favorite. Anyway, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47 thanks, this is nice. I like the Murasaki work too, but the The Diary of Lady Murasaki has been sitting unfinished for years. One of these days I'll get the sources to finish it. You should be proud of the work on the Jill FAC; it's coming along nicely. I've always been proud of the ones that came out of FAC a much better article than before. It's one of the reasons that FAC is rewarding. To be honest, I'm not great at constructive criticism either so you're not alone in that category. Best, Victoria (tk) 21:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Victoria, you said you'd be willing to scan some of the source pages. I wouldn't mind seeing them if you can do it without much work for yourself. It's mostly Topping I'm looking for. I have Staff although it's Staff 2013; I don't know how much difference that will make. I'm interested in the points tagged on 14 August as failed verification. Perhaps I should list the page numbers I want to look at. However, please do this only if you can without a huge amount of trouble. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So that would be Topping pages 10, 13, 22, 34–39, 72–75, 82–85, 90–92, 95–96, 107, 120–124, 223. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, whatever you are able to scan for Sarah I'd be keen to take a look at too, but please don't go to any additional trouble. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To save Victoria the trouble I'll be happy to do it this afternoon, assuming that won't be interpreted as yet more bullying on my part. EEng 09:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Since I have Triptothecottage's email address I've sent the scans to him/her, and no doubt he'll be happy to pass them on to whoever else wants them. EEng 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm actually really bad at scanning, but I gave it a try and was just logging in to report back. So, thanks EEng, that's really kind of you. I always forget to adjust the resolution setting so I had to break into two files and the first is <cough> large. You've probably done a better job than I have. Also I forgot to mention that I transcribed some it and pasted to my sandbox a few days ago, but that's really labor intensive. P.s EEng, no, I wouldn't interpret it as bullying. It's nice. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

P.s EEng I wanted to do this a., to share sources, and b., to get more sets of eyes. I don't like divisiveness and "he said, she said" situations and I'm willing to accept that others might not see what I'm seeing. Also, I get why you wouldn't want to use Topping, but doesn't everything that's known about the case originate with Hindley and Brady? Victoria (tk) 21:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As Lee (2010) notes, the early efforts of the police were not particularly adept, and Benfield, in pursuit of a promotion, inflated his own role in events in subsequent accounts. And, as EEng has pointed out somewhere in the thousands of bytes of conversation over the last few months, Topping made his name for his single-minded pursuit of the case, including suggesting Brady and Hindley be forcibly hypnotised to assist with locating the later body. It is reasonable to expect his account would be similarly distorted. And yes, I know I’ve used Benfield to “verify” some points, so I’d welcome those being closely examined as well. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Triptothecottage, can you say what you mean by "similarly distorted"? I'd have thought a single-minded pursuit of that case would be viewed as an honourable thing. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether Topping's an honorable source, but rather a reliable source. EEng 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, I’m not impugning Topping’s honour, whatever that might mean. But even honourable people are subject to biases, and if we don’t recognise, assess and deal with these, then we are not doing our jobs. One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of Topping’s perspective becoming the slant of our supposedly neutral article. For example, the 15 August version said Smith became "reviled by the people of Manchester", despite having been instrumental in bringing Brady and Hindley to justice, cited to Topping. Now I read this and hear alarm bells, and sure enough as I flick through the Topping pages EEng has kindly sent, I find such gems as David Smith, young, naïve and impressionable (22) and Ian Brady’s background was... nowhere near as tough or as cruel as David Smith’s (23). These are the characterisations of a police chief trying to defend his badly behaved star witness, and, as one who rather enjoys the police memoir genre in my leisure reading, I am familiar with this kind of unsubtle “good guy bad guy” storytelling. But our article, by policy, needs to be more neutral than that, and when better sources are available, we ought to use them. In that case, I was fortunate to have Bingham’s scholarly assessment of the public reaction to Brady’s testimony; not every aspect of this case has been subject to the same scrutiny, but many have. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Triptothecottage, thanks for the reply. Topping is an excellent primary source. Like all primary sources, his book has to be used with care by editors familiar with the secondary sources. What rings alarm bells for you over Smith being "reviled by the people of Manchester", despite being instrumental, etc? Also, Smith was young and impressionable (he was 17 when he witnessed the murder), and he does seem to have had a more deprived childhood than Brady. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Such evaluations should come from sources not personally involved in the case. At p223 Topping says, "To those politicians and journalists who criticized the Moors search, who talked scathingly about searching for a needle in a haystack and complained about the cost of the search, to them I would like to say: look at Mrs Reade. We could never bring her daughter back [etc etc]. I believe the Moors inquiry team have many things to be proud of [etc etc]". Then he goes on to congratulate his team for their thorough search for Kilbride and so on. You can't blame Topping for being somewhat self-serving in places -- it's inevitable and understandable -- but there's no way we should be using him as a fact source except with "great caution", as they say. EEng 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. At some point we should transfer this thread to Talk:MM.

I agree with transferring to article talk; a lot of the points made here a very informed and cogent, and as they cover issues that may arise again in the future, would be good to have for the record. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)