Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 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 on WP. Anyway, I'll keep quiet now and not comment at the FAC. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 29 March 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)

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)