Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 2 April 2015

Formerly User:Truthkeeper88

Bertin

I am unable to fit in the image of Baronne de Rothschild at this time. But believe me I tired, which I suppose is good enough. Suggestions welcome. To compensate, here is 15th c fatalism married with 20th century minimilism: . Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry, wasn't a mandate - only an observation that I'd noticed she was gone, but not meant to be actionable. Tks for work to I. Victoria (tk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Thank you for giving us this "interesting story", precious again, thanks extended to those you kindly mentioned in the nomination, Ceoil, Wehwalt and Tim riley (who I think watch this beautiful page). This will be the last TFA of a woman in women's history month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you it got to TFA. Condolences, btw. Victoria (tk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. People die, and some people here argue about hidden messages, - it's so unseemly. Thanks for understanding, Victoria, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fasinating, interesting page - a very worthy subject. Congratulations Giano (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba PR

I'm struggling to understand what it is you want to add, so can I ask why you are not willing to write it and add it yourself? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It;s a peer review RO, Victoria only needs to comment! Thankyou for your input at the peer review Victoria. Irataba is now at FAC, I hope you'll appreciate that a lot of hard work and effort has gone into addressing criticism to improve this here. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, think it's okay to point out that a source like this is deeply satirical and borderline racist or to point out that the date for the Whipple party was incorrect. There were too many edit conflicts at the PR and I couldn't respond to ROs pings, so I let it go, and then you left this message that it's gone to FAC. I realize I probably made enemies by speaking up, but I'm not in complete agreement with the silence of culture culture of silence on WP. Anyway, I'll keep quiet now and not comment at the FAC. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean "culture of silence", then neither am I. It's insidious, invidious, and leads to all sorts of distortions. Not at all healthy. The price we have to pay for speaking out is well worth it though, no matter how many vindictive or cultish blocks. Eric Corbett 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that what you're doing here is tantamount to harassment Rationalobserver, and I'm asking you to stop it now. You managed to wriggle out of a block before, but you may not be so lucky next time. Eric Corbett 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, Victoria is okay with me asking about this stuff here and now, as we are trying to move forward, and until she says otherwise I'll ignore your latest attempt to bully me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't give you fair warning then. Eric Corbett 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is harassment. RO was doing it on their own talk page too, now removed. Pinging Coffee, who said he would deal with it. Sarah (SV) 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a very genuine attempt at reconciling. If Victoria feels this is harrassment then surely she will say so, so that RO can react appropriately. Although I don't know what could be more appropriate than trying to reconcile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break, Sarah. This isn't harassment. This is a good-faith attempt to put our difference aside and talk things out so we can move on as friends. If this was harassment, Victoria would have reverted my comments, not responded to them, telling me that she would respond more later: "Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet" Rationalobserver (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria, is this a problem, because I honestly thought we were just talking this out like women sometimes do? We never discussed any of this, and I don't see how I can move forward in a positive light with you if we don't talk it out. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please just talk to each other?

Per this comment I wondered if we could discuss our issues in hopes of moving forward in a positive way. We've never even had a proper discussion, and often I've felt that you were talking past me without really acknowledging my replies. For example, can you please explain why two or three times you encouraged me to upload pictures from the Huntington Library, but when I told you it wasn't safe you didn't acknowledge me? That seemed like a possible sabotage attempt. I think that we need to talk this out and achieve some closure without lost of others piling it on. Can we do this? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RO, I couldn't answer. I got edit conflicted a gazillion times, supper was in the oven burning, the PR got closed in the middle of a conversation. So I let it slide. As it happens, I disagree with those assessments - unless the photographers, all of whom died more than 70 years ago, turned copyright directly to the Huntington, they should be in the public domain, unless they were published in books, I suppose. I wouldn't suggest materials if I didn't think they could be used, or to sabotage. I really don't operate like that. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but old photographs are often purchased by private collections before ever being published, so just because they are old doesn't mean they are PD. Take this awesome image. It isn't PD, even though it is at least 141 years old. Maybe this is an example of you giving advice about things you are not that expert in, but you never gave any indication that I might be right to be apprehensive. I feel like if we communicated to each other better we might find that we have a lot more in common than we do reasons to argue. Can you see that I was hurt by your accusations and attempt to get me banned? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should ask someone else about that image as well. Unless we know for certain that the holding library also owns copyright, then these images should be PD. There's no reason to be apprehensive - that's why we have image reviews and why we write FURs. In an article like that you could well get away with at least one fair use rationale. Also, it's not uncommon to send email to a library to ask whether an image is free or not. I did see the Huntington's disclaimer but I believe it had to do with for-profit and WP is a not-for-profit, and is educational, so it wouldn't be out-of-the ordinary to ask whether they own copyright and if they do whether they'd be willing to release it. Victoria (tk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you see though that this is yet another suggestion that involves complicated aspects of Misplaced Pages policy that I am likely to mess up? At my stage of learning I don't want to put lots of effort uploading copyrighted images and writing FURs when PD ones are available. It far better for me to play it safe on images, and I am frustrated that you don't see it that way. That's why you seem like a saboteur who is trying to make everything more difficult. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Another example was the Kroeber 1925 source, that you had issues with but neglected to follow-up after I explained away your concerns on February 24. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Helping me

I'm also confused because the last time that I tried to talk with you and iron this out you seemed to take the position that it was all my fault, and you had no intention of helping me with the Rose-Baley Party article where the drama began: "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."

So why, may I ask, are you determined to be part of the Irataba FAC process, but RBP sat at peer review for 30 days and you didn't want to help, even though you claimed you could fix the paraphrasing there in a matter of "a couple of hours"? That seems inconsistent with someone who sincerely wants to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no clue Rose-Baley was at PR. Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please just talk to each other?

Per this comment I wondered if we could discuss our issues in hopes of moving forward in a positive way. We've never even had a proper discussion, and often I've felt that you were talking past me without really acknowledging my replies. For example, can you please explain why two or three times you encouraged me to upload pictures from the Huntington Library, but when I told you it wasn't safe you didn't acknowledge me? That seemed like a possible sabotage attempt. I think that we need to talk this out and achieve some closure without lost of others piling it on. Can we do this? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RO, I couldn't answer. I got edit conflicted a gazillion times, supper was in the oven burning, the PR got closed in the middle of a conversation. So I let it slide. As it happens, I disagree with those assessments - unless the photographers, all of whom died more than 70 years ago, turned copyright directly to the Huntington, they should be in the public domain, unless they were published in books, I suppose. I wouldn't suggest materials if I didn't think they could be used, or to sabotage. I really don't operate like that. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but old photographs are often purchased by private collections before ever being published, so just because they are old doesn't mean they are PD. Take this awesome image. It isn't PD, even though it is at least 141 years old. Maybe this is an example of you giving advice about things you are not that expert in, but you never gave any indication that I might be right to be apprehensive. I feel like if we communicated to each other better we might find that we have a lot more in common than we do reasons to argue. Can you see that I was hurt by your accusations and attempt to get me banned? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should ask someone else about that image as well. Unless we know for certain that the holding library also owns copyright, then these images should be PD. There's no reason to be apprehensive - that's why we have image reviews and why we write FURs. In an article like that you could well get away with at least one fair use rationale. Also, it's not uncommon to send email to a library to ask whether an image is free or not. I did see the Huntington's disclaimer but I believe it had to do with for-profit and WP is a not-for-profit, and is educational, so it wouldn't be out-of-the ordinary to ask whether they own copyright and if they do whether they'd be willing to release it. Victoria (tk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you see though that this is yet another suggestion that involves complicated aspects of Misplaced Pages policy that I am likely to mess up? At my stage of learning I don't want to put lots of effort uploading copyrighted images and writing FURs when PD ones are available. It far better for me to play it safe on images, and I am frustrated that you don't see it that way. That's why you seem like a saboteur who is trying to make everything more difficult. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Another example was the Kroeber 1925 source, that you had issues with but neglected to follow-up after I explained away your concerns on February 24. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Helping me

I'm also confused because the last time that I tried to talk with you and iron this out you seemed to take the position that it was all my fault, and you had no intention of helping me with the Rose-Baley Party article where the drama began: "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."

So why, may I ask, are you determined to be part of the Irataba FAC process, but RBP sat at peer review for 30 days and you didn't want to help, even though you claimed you could fix the paraphrasing there in a matter of "a couple of hours"? That seems inconsistent with someone who sincerely wants to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no clue Rose-Baley was at PR. Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly though, I am so over RBP that I won't be making any more edits to it. It's a lightning rod for criticism and tag-teaming, and I couldn't care less what happens to that article now. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The point still stands though, that the last I talked with you, you said you didn't want to help me, but then you came out to participate at the Irataba PR without any intervening discussion with me. So that seemed like a weird kind of lurking, when you seem to follow my every move but won't even talk to me like a person. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Teaching me

I'd like to make a point about comprehending Misplaced Pages conventions. I used to play basketball, in fact I was pretty darn good, and had there been a WNBA all those years ago I would have went pro. One of my favorite players was Larry Bird, and in the early-1980s I attended a b-ball clinic hosted by the Celtics that featured him. He taught us his philosophy of the game, and one major point was about passing, which I loved to do as a player. Bird said that when you pass the ball it is solely your responsibility that the person you are passing to gets the pass. He didn't accept any excuses by passers for dropped balls, even if an easy pass was missed. It's idealistic, but as an educator I take that approach to teaching. I would never excuse poor marks from a class by suggesting the students weren't smart enough. I take the blame, and the buck stops with me.

I feel that some of the things you've tried to explain to me were a bit too complicated for my limited background in the relevant polices, but all misunderstands have been categorically blamed on me and my lack of comprehension skills. There have also been a few things that you were quite wrong about, but I haven't ever seen you acknowledge that, except that I am not ILT, which was painfully obvious to many people who looked at the SPI. I am not an idiot, in fact my intelligence is well above average, but I admit that some of these Misplaced Pages concepts have alluded me thus far, and I have made some mistakes with applying advice and getting along with the different cliques here. But Irataba is the first article I ever wrote, and I think for a beginner it's pretty good – I fully acknowledge that without the help of several more experienced and talented people if wouldn't be that great, but this is a collaborative project, so I take pride in the teamwork. Before me, there was no Irataba article on Misplaced Pages, and I am proud to have started it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appearance of tag-teaming

Can you see why I might be paranoid about your newfound desire to help me, when you and at least two others who are involved in the FAC were trying to get me banned at SPI just 6 weeks ago? Can you see how this might look like you and your friends are trying to make my life difficult? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Some specific examples:

• Victoria: "Add more stuff about the importance of dreams in Mohave life.

FAC reviewer: "What's with all this stuff about dreams?"

• Victoria: "We need more background and context"

FAC reviewer: "There is too much background material in the article"

• Victoria: "We need more material devoted to the governmental system"

FAC reviewer: "There is way too much about Mohave government, so trim it"

• Victoria: "We need more detail about Olive Oatman"

FAC reviewer: "Why is there so much stuff about Oatman, and how does she even relate to Irataba?"

There are many, many more examples, and the diffs are not hard to find. In fact, looking at your peer review it would seem that you and the FAC reviewer are of completely different minds about what to include and what to focus on, and they would absolutely disagree with your approach to writing the article. It also looks like this might be a two-way attack where you suggest we add stuff that they later oppose and demand we remove, causing further exhaustion. I'm not accusing you here, really, but if we are going to talk this out let's not leave things unsaid. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Topics

I see that you've expressed an interest and knowledge of Arizona tribes, but which pages had you edited prior to February 15? Because I don't see any evidence that you've ever edited a single page to do with Native Americans prior to your accusing me of being a sock. Can I expect your presence at any and all Mohave articles I improve in the future? Are you willing to allow me to work on stuff without your help, or have you gone from "I don't want to help anymore" to "you have no choice but to accept my help wherever you go" without any interim discussion with me? I wish you had just asked if I would accept an Irataba peer review, because I would have, but the way you came in at the last minute with piles of concerns looked like an attempt to exhaust me at the end of an already long and in-depth peer review. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)