User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 16

I like to make a point of thanking people who deserve credit, and it's come to my attention that I missed somebody: You. I'm really impressed by the way you've been handling yourself, especially as you've become something of a magnet for abuse and you've responded to that with enormous grace and dignity. Your defence of Rowan and I, and standing up for what you believe, has not gone unnoticed. Hold your head up high, Carole. You're one of the best. Sincerely, nagualdesign 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been quite an experience at commons! I am glad it is getting sorted out. Thank you, that was nice of you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Carole Hensen. I can assure you that the info I have provided because I have a copy of the family (to which I belong) bible, written by Berwyn himself. He was born 31 October 1837 in Glyndyfrdwy. Penderyn01 (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding at user's page to keep the conversation together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look: I am presently in Buenos Aires, 1000 miles from my archive. But I ll be flying tomorrow and will try and get a copy of the Bible or some other evidence. I do not think you should take certain sources as serious. Not everything published by universities is right. Lots of vested interests. :-( please keep Wiki reliable. Lots of people believe you, myself included. Penderyn01 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Penderyn01, I guess we're not going to keep the conversation together. So, I'll answer here.

I'll tell you what, I'll post a message on WP:Teahouse about this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penderyn01, You should see that I "pinged" you at Teahouse, but to be safe, here's the link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Eirionedd Baskerville, a well-reputed scholar, published Berwyn's biography. Here is her email address for you to enquire with her. [email protected] I have also published a book about the Welsh sttlement in Patagonia, in case it helps. Thank you. Penderyn01 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the changes to Richard Jones Berwyn and Talk:Richard Jones Berwyn, by chance?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have. Thank you. Penderyn01 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, great! I was a little confused.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that no-one owns any articles or contents, so you don't ever need my permission to edit a page I'm active on, or to jump in to a dispute I'm in, even to mediate. I may disagree with you, or I may thank you, but in the end, it's never my place to permit or deny you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, MjolnirPants, I just wanted to make sure that the approach made sense to everyone before I proceeded. I fully understand that the outcome / response is not yet known.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, for future reference you can always chalk me up as being on-board with getting more eyes on articles and content. There's some back-end stuff where too many cooks spoil the broth, but when it comes to article content, the more the merrier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I do appreciate the offer to help. Don't let my salty demeanor make you think I don't. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

flowers, music, balloon

Thank you for Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Paris), - it's my parents' wedding anniversary, and the bridal flowers were gladiolas from her parents' garden. I share them in loving memory, with a touch of art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. That was really sweet of you! And a lovely picture to receive today. I hope that your parents have a lovely anniversary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts at User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran. That seems like a good approach! You are trying to identify the issues. It is frustrating when I see people continuing an edit war and I can't even figure out what they are disagreeing about. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! My pleasure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this edit by you contained comments on contributors. This behavioral policy prohibits the users from commenting on the editors since it may be considered as Personal Attack. Please refrain from doing this again. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that could have been construed as a personal attack. It wasn't pleasant, I will say that, but it also hasn't been pleasant the way the two of you have been fighting the voting process every step of the way. It has been disruptive. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, Mhhossein, before you make unfounded accusations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept it or not, I had to warn you. It's clear, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is not a fight. No where in wiki we assess the sources as you're doing. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am super confused, Mhhossein. This is one of the article issues here. I didn't see you object to the list. And, several specific issues get into sourcing. One, for instance, about Iran (newspaper).

Sourcing does coming up in other articles. See this group of archived discussions and this specific list for instance.

Cool, I am not wanting a fight, either!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're trying to help with resolving the issues, and I have already thanked u for that. This is while you accused me of fighting, which was not fair. I say we can hardly build a general rule for a specific source. See

WP:RSN : The article, the material to be used and the context where the material is going to be used are the important factors affecting the reliability of a source. However I also know that there are sources which can't be used in % 99 of the cases. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You may want to vote yourself and post your opinion. I generally agree that we cannot find a general rule for a specific source, although there are good generalizations for the most reliable/least reliable sources. Anyway, why not cast your vote with your opinion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but I think the correct procedure is to modify the bolded part of your !vote. --Calthinus (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just here to say thank you for initiating User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran. I will comment and try to help building a consensus. Pahlevun (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, Pahlevun! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge over Fountain Creek (Manitou Avenue) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi CaroleHenson! Hope you're well. I'm reaching out to see if you'd be interested in helping to review either of my current requests for biographical article updates. For author Wednesday Martin, I'm proposing some updates to the Works section of her article. Meantime, for Waymo CEO John Krafcik I'm suggesting the addition of an Early life and education section, as is common in biography articles. In both cases, I have a financial conflict of interest as I'm proposing the updates as part of my work with Beutler Ink, on behalf of Wednesday Martin and Waymo, respectively. You've previously assisted with some requests of mine and I wondered if you might be interested in either of these, especially since you're a member of WikiProject Biography and have experience with these types of article. If you have any time to take a look, would be you be able to help with either request? It would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just wanted to let you know that an editor had helped with the updates for John Krafcik's page, but I'm still looking for someone to review my suggestions for Wednesday Martin's article, if you'd have a few minutes to take a look? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaroleHenson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Doncram (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There's also Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Colorado#Region groupings for Colorado, might you have any opinion? --Doncram (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the same for you, Ealdgyth. I have been on an extended wiki-break, much longer than I expected. I hope that you are having a lovely start to the year! This was very thoughtful of you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello CaroleHenson, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has to be an all-time belated thank you! I appreciate the well wishes for the holiday and hope yours were lovely, MarnetteD. My mom was a teacher and librarian. She'll appreciate this!!! This was very thoughtful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a marvelous little set of memories CH. I like to read it aloud to friends or family or just myself during the holidays. Thanks for your kind wishes as well. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see Benson's Great White Herons at the top of your page. I still can't believe PAFA deaccessioned it. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you started the article on Catherine Ann Janvier, I thought you might be interested in the article I started on her brother: Henry Sturgis Drinker. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BoringHistoryGuy. Very cool! I have been on an extended Wikibreak and am just going through messages right now, but I will take a closer look in a bit. Hope all is well with you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, all is well. Carptrash, Lockley, Beyond My Ken and I have been expanding an article, that is turning out quite well. Hope you're coming back refreshed. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article, BoringHistoryGuy! I love the use of images and the works made of her. Lovely! It looks like you all have been doing a great job!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The other guys are doing the research, I'm mostly just filling in the table. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole,

You were kind enough to edit the page for Laura Bell McDaniel for me a few months ago. Now I am writing to see if you might be interested in creating a page about me. I have lots of background, including not just books but also television and radio appearances.

I have considered creating the page myself, but realize that maybe that's not the proper channel to use since I could be challenged or questioned. I do have plenty of references, which you may have seen as you created other posts. For reference, here are some links to information about me:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jan-mackell-collins-9a014242/

https://www.facebook.com/JanMacKellCollins/?ref=bookmarks

https://janmackellcollins.wixsite.com/jmcollins

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8462933/

https://janmackellcollins.wordpress.com/

If you are interested or have advice for me in this area, I am all ears.

Thank you and Happy New Year to you. Jan MacKell Collins (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan MacKell Collins

I hope you see this, Jan MacKell Collins, I have been on a break for awhile. I cannot use social media sites or your own sites about a biography about you (except in very limited terms). Do you have newspaper or magazine articles? Mentions in books, by chance? Oh, or sites that mention awards or membership in relevant organizations?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, that is so sweet of you!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson how are things? wondering if you'll be coming back to work with us on the MEK page? I thought we were doing some good progress having you as mediator, but Pahlevun has already started editing the page again. Pahlevun seems involved in numerous MEK-related pages, making edits that are reminiscent of EoL's POV-pushing, so hope you're well and that you can come back to help! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No activity since last August? You ok? - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, I'm a bit concerned, too. Ping us a "Hello," please. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Carole on an old address that I have, which may or may not be linked to her WP account. No idea if it is still valid. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has replied. All good. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to cause concern,

Culturally modified trees, expanding, properly citing, etc. I hope you both are doing well!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks in advance Fotografi18 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Occupational stress, you may be blocked from editing. –Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightningstrikers Would you please point out how this isn't more than your unhappiness with being tagged with warnings by me and other users when you are NOT engaging in productive conversation. And are NOT so far coming up with sources. When you come up with sources to support your position you will be taken more seriously.

Please see [1], [2], [3]–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to answer direct questions to help resolve the issue. You delete edits when we are in the middle of us trying to discuss the issue and find a resolution. I am findinbg sources and stated that but you persisted. Disruptive editing. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are gaining a reputation for lying about what I have done or not done... and have promised sources and not delivered, pardon my believing that this is just one more in a long line of deflection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the liar. Just don't delete the edit while sources are being found. Follow guidelines and policy. Answer direct questions from editors to resolve the issue. Not hard. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your points have been addressed at the dispute. I have explained where you have lied. Please provide one diff where you can quote me lying. I already provide the info on how to create a diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

I have very sound justification for putting the warning here. Sorry but your editing is extremely disruptive. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can we all agree not to revert while we just try and discuss this? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also am sorry for calling you a liar. It was not acceptable. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that, Lightningstrikers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I hope the dispute resolution process will sort this mess out soon. Lightningstrikers (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable editor! I too am dismayed that this lake has gotten so much attention. I am also dumbstruck by the nominator's continued erasures. Initially I worked on the article and the nominator erased my work. Next 7&6=13 worked hard on the article and the nominator erased his work. Then !voted twice. I appreciate your efforts and did not mean to undo any of your work. Was just undoing all the nominator's erasures of 7&6 work. Lightburst (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't remove my work, Lightburst. You returned it. I'll clean-up the overuse of citations and leave the best... and there seems to be a discrepancy on acreage.

Thank you for your efforts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minor discrepancy- 92-97. Maybe drought and rain. I think we just pick one. The main thing is that this nominator needs to back off and let the process happen. Not comment after each Keep !vote and destroy the article. Take a look at the template I updated - the other lakes in Brown county are larger and more stubby. Lightburst (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 97 acres came from a Realty site. I would not consider that a reliable source. It would have helped if they identified the source.

Lightburst, I am not sure where the 92 acres comes from that is on the List of Lakes page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop Please leave it be. There is enough obsessing about this article. Refactor it when this thing closes. You do not favor keeping the article so erasing other improvements is not app. It is too hot now to keep erasing the work. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightburst There were legitimate reasons for the changes. My intention was to try to make the article BETTER. Use of unreliable sources, having failed verification issues, and use of multiple edits with the same info vs. the latest edition is not right. Why would you support that? I was trying to improve on the edits that Doncram made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps later? It is pretty hot right now. Too many misgivings about intentions. 7&6 is a competent editor. I am sure we can edit this article later, but for now it is a constant reactions of WTH is happening there now? Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in this nonsense. I changed my vote to Delete if the version remains with all the breaches of WP guidelines. I don't understand your question... or is it a question? I am not. I did my best and am quite disappointed that it was taken as an attempt to gut the article. I made changes with discussion on talk page and did it with only the best of intentions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saddens me. I see that you are a good editor. And so is 7&6. I did not want to see either of you get in trouble over this small lake. It is just all heated up there, and 7&6 is doing his best, and you are as well. But for now, I was just saying lets let it cool off. Not because you are wrong, but because cooler heads will prevail with a bit of time. I hope you reconsider your !vote and not do this out of frustration over my comments here. I hope we work together on the project! Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Yep, I am hoping so, too. I had thought I was a cooler head until this morning (the past hour, don't know what time zone / side of the world you are on.

I don't have an intention to edit the article any longer, and know that there is zero intention to hear what I said, so I will leave my ivote the way it is. But, in the whole scheme of things, I don't know that one person's vote will change the outcome.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mercifully I see that the AfD mercifully ended ...three separate times. lol I appreciate your work. I am very happy that nobody got in trouble over the AfD. I hope to work with you on your proposed changes or other encyclopedia projects. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Lightburst and thanks. It seemed to quietly slip into the night... and so far the edits to the article and communication seems pretty calm. My next step is to work on an RfC for Lakes notability, but I want to give the discussion continue a bit more to ensure that it's a pretty good sense of where people stand.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I se the nominator still won't let it go. He just slapped a template on the article which I reverted. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw their comment on the article talk page before I posted this, Lightburst. I am wondering why you didn't respond to the talk page. In general, I thought that if someone adds a tag, and explains it thoroughly on the talk page, that people don't remove it until the issue is resolved. I saw that you reverted their edit after I read your message here.

It is so nice having interaction about Bachelors Lake become calm and seem less divided. I would hate to see things backtrack.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is

WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have not assumed good faith lately because they kept filleting the article. Also they did not care about the first consensus close and redirected the article to favor the minority. Now templating the article is just another effort to portray the article as wrong headed. My opinion is there are 6 million articles and lots to do on here, I hope the editor can move on soon. I stayed off Wikipedia for a couple days so I could stay out of the article. Came back to see that it was closed again, reopened again, and then more discussion was elsewhere on the encyclopedia. You do good work, so this message was not about you. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You said I did, too, Lightburst. And, my edits addressed the same issue when I redid Doncram's edits. My edits have been mass reverted and i don't want to engage in an edit war, so I have backed off.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to take a few more days off. I won"t get blocked over the lake. I do not associate Doncram's methods with yours. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Nice working with you at Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! That was very nice of you! Nice to work with you, too, 7&6=thirteen!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

CaroleHenson,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Northamerica1000. I hope you have a wonderful 2020, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back in action, Carole Henson. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde93. It is nice to be back. I hope all is well with you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ealdgyth I hope you had a lovely holiday and a great 2020, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC

Hi CaroleHenson! You created a thread called A State gov biography like the Wikipedia article at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

The The Dapper Dans are a barbershop quartet that performs at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. Hello, CaroleHenson. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Barbershop quartet Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Serengeti • Prayer meeting Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carole, I see that land area of Arkansas in km2 is apparently wrong. As the page is blocked from editing I wrote on the talk page but nobody seems to notice/case. Can you please have a look and correct it? Dubhe (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the Talk:Arkansas page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaroleHenson

Thank you for creating Upper Mercer flint.

Nice new article. Any chance we could get a second reference just for independent

WP:V

?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—

Yes, @Insertcleverphrasehere:, thanks, I am in the process right now. Just realized I didn't add an "in use" tag.

I am wondering why it went through the Page Curation process though. I didn't think mine have gone through that process for years.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

click me!) 23:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, excellent, Insertcleverphrasehere!!! Would you mind looking at it later? I will probably spend a couple more hours on it.––CaroleHenson (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

click me!) 23:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Insertcleverphrasehere, If you could, that would be wonderful. I'm a bit over my head discussing the geological aspects - like the second paragraph. Any input is much appreciated. I am moving back to the Prehistory of Ohio article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Serengeti ecosystem is a geographical region located in northern Tanzania, Africa. It spans approximately 30,000 km2 (12,000 sq mi), and hosts the second largest terrestrial mammal migration in the world. Pictured is a leopard in a tree in the Serengeti. Hello, CaroleHenson. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Serengeti Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Prayer meeting • Computer hardware Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hi. Just FYI: The process is

I think if it's renamed, Alanscottwalker, a lot of the Megxit stuff should be pared down. It seems presumptuous to do that first, though. I don't have any other changes right now.

In any event, the history will get moved over with an actual move anyway, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me it's a bit of a cart/horse thing, unfamiliar editors may look at the article and some may say there is such and such a focus, the name should be whatever that focus is, but who knows, also you may not need more advice but also suggest delving into

WP:BLP, and any 'naming conventions'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Alanscottwalker, I think it might be best to have the conversation, see if there's agreement on having it moved, and then put an under construction tag on the article while making the adjustments.

I looked at

WP:BLP that is helpful, but perhaps I missed something.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, as I suggested at the page the 'tabloid' issue. But perhaps another way to say what I am thinking, imagine there is no title, you just have the article, and you go through examine it, against the content policies and research, and then after that go to title, just because 'I have an article about a word', may be different then 'I have an article about people/events'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, I am sorry, but I am not getting what you think I need to do. I really like the perspective, though, at looking at this like it's an article about people vs. a word. That's very helpful... and makes it a real clear line about what would need to be edited.

Are you suggesting that I start making edits now, before the discussion, to make it more about the people vs. the word?––CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am suggesting know the article and its sources cited and uncited really well, and that might entail making changes you think should be made, but I am absolutely not telling you what you need to do, just offering unsolicited, perhaps poor, advice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlanscottwalkerI have no problem getting advice, particularly when I am about to walk into a glass door. It sounds like you are saying that this isn't the time to do it... and that as an infrequent contributor to this topic, I might not be the right one do to this. I get that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if not you someone 'fresh' I hope goes at the article, perhaps because I think these hot-off-the-press articles cry-out for perspective. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. That is so thoughtful of you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A prayer meeting and hymn singing Hello, CaroleHenson. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Prayer meeting Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Computer hardware • Captain Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

• "legal importation of slaves had ended in 1808." The link to the WP article is great, thanks. But what is accomplished by citing an Oberlin Web page as documentation that he was brought here illegally? He wasn't even born in 1808. And that Web page does not seem authoritative.

• I wrote "Hungry for education" and you took it out. I think this is an important and documented fact about him.

• I wrote "though he was not enrolled as a student" and you took it out. I think it should be in. He had an unusual status.

• "With the Lane Rebels he left Lane and moved to Oberlin, and studied a year in an affiliated preparatory school." Can be read as saying that all the Lane Rebels studied with him in an affiliated preparatory school. I wish you hadn't changed it from moving to Oberlin town to Oberlin College. If he had already moved to the college, then why say AND he studied in an affiliated school? This study in an affiliated school is in addition to what?

• Then I disagree with what you have done using the historical marker as a source. Bradley's own narration - " I think I was between two and three years old when the soul-destroyers tore me from my mother’s arms, somewhere in Africa," - that's the source. To replace it with a secondary source based on it is to weaken the article. We're not supposed to use primary sources? Yes, I know the policy, or think I do. But it's a bad policy, at least here. As I see it, using this source removes value from the qrticle.

We're pretty far apart. I don't have confidence in your editing. I feel that now I must go through the article and check every one of your revisions, that's why I asked if more were coming. Does this mean I want you to withdraw as reviewer? i suppose so (and cancel the "Good Article" nomination), though it wouldn't seem to be my call. We're just not working together and we apparently have different standards or beliefs about what is best in an article. deisenbe (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this to the talk page and responding there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example: you changed the text, which said the legislature refused to issue a charter, to "The integrated school lost its charter after the Ohio legislature said that schools with both black and white students was illegal." 1) It never had a charter to lose, 2) The legislature made no such statement.

As it is, I have to check every one of your emendations to catch things like this. deisenbe (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CaroleHenson! You created a thread called Quote in real English or according to a person's accent at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

I don't know if this will work. We seem to have had more than our share of disagreements and misunderstandings. I wish I understood why that has been.

It would be nice if we could be editorial friends. We have complementary skills and are working on related topics.

If you would like us to go back to being friends, or whatever fraction of "friends" we were, I would like you to post at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031, where you reported me for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", a message not directed to me, but to other administrators, saying that this posting was mistaken, that there was a policy question but that I am not unreasonable. From what you've said already I think that's how you feel, but I would like it formally stated. And if this incident is still on "active" status anywhere, to deactivate it. I have no intention of applying for administrator status, but if anyone had occasion to research my relationship with WP this would inevitably surface. I'd like it stated in the same place the report is, so anyone reading the report knows what your final position is, if I understand it correctly, and doesn't have to deduce it from your postings to me in more than one unlinked location. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, I am happy to do what I can, but I don't think that I can update an archived page, particularly for a notification board. If you would like, I can pull a couple of people into this discussion who are very familiar with the administrator nomination process and ask how to best rectify this. Would you like me to do that?

Regarding where things went off: Things became difficult for me when you said that there are "no rules in WP" and that you were performing original research. I felt like you were pushing back and in no mood to talking through the guidelines. I didn't like you less, it just seemed that regarding WP, it seemed like I couldn't talk to you about guidelines at all.

I was so pleasantly surprised at your response at

WP:Boomerang

... I was nervous posting the AN/I and not at all troubled by receiving the dispute notification. It will be so great to get that resolved.) You quickly addressed some of the issues... and I essentially cut off the need for anyone to weigh-in when I thanked you.

I would be happy to be an editorial friend... we have a lot of common types of articles we work on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see basically you're sympathetic to my request. That's great. I would appreciate it if you would consult with someone else. If they say my concern is unnecessary I'll forget about it. My feelings did get hurt, though. They were assuaged by your words on Crandall. The automated software on the New Article Feed (which I don't ordinarily look at) rated it as "Good", which was nice, not many are, but it's just a bot with a few rules, it meant much more when you said what you did. deisenbe (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I hurt your feelings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for insight

@Ritchie333 and MelanieN:, Hi, I haven't communicated with either of you for awhile, I hope you are doing well.

I was wondering if you could help with something. After I thought I was getting push-back, I posted an incident at ANI to request a warning re: following guidelines. The user responded very well to the issue, owned the things that they felt responsible for and have made some marvelous changes, like in Trial of Reuben Crandall. I thanked them for their response and no administrator needed to intervene.

Deisenbe, though, I think feels that I was a bit presumptuous in going to AN/I and I could have posted a clearer message that the issue is resolved / withdrawn. They requested that I post a note on the archived AN/I incident, but I don't think that I can do that. They are concerned that this has left a black mark on their reputation and I would like to do what I can to clear this issue up so that it doesn't affect any future roles for them at WP (administrator, etc.).

Do you have any thoughts or suggestions? I would so appreciate your input on this!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carole, long time no talk to! It looks as if the incident was resolved amicably, or at least resolved, at ANI. You are right, you can't post an update at the archived discussion. I don't see where he is concerned; was that in email or something? I see you have made a number of friendly and supportive comments on his talk page, and that can be his evidence that he is not in trouble. In any case going to AN or ANI is not a black mark; when I ran for administrator I had been complained of at AN/ANI twice; I called attention to the reports in my nomination, and nobody had any issues with them. I think he can relax. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Deisenbe, if you're reading this: as a result of this discussion I came across your essay Wikipedia:Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country. I loved it; very insightful. I have added it to my list of "favorites" on my user page. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, MelanieN. He made his comments in this main section "Offer of truce" and the one above it. The conversation started at the bottom half of this page.

I really appreciate that you weighed in!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a packet, Deisenbe, the archived ANI discussion, start of the discussion on the Crandall talk page, and "Great job" on your talk page and this discussion with MelanieN. If you save these links of specific diffs (so they will still work after content is archived off), you will more than adequately respond to anyone that questions you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. deisenbe (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have real disagreements, but I must say you've provided a great source I didn't know about. My hat is off to you.

That was fun to write. Now I'm actively working on Slavery in the District of Columbia, which is a big topic politically. deisenbe (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe I know (about having real disagreements), but I do wish you well. I hope I don't sound patronizing at all when I say: You did an excellent job with it... and it's a really compelling story. Very interesting.

It will be fun to see what you do with Slavery in D.C. -- I have been thinking about writing Slavery in Colorado. The state didn't get very populated until after 1859 and most blacks that came to Colorado were fleeing slavery, but it would be interesting to learn more. There was a fair amount of strife between those who sided with the South and those who side with the North.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CaroleHenson! You created a thread called Comma(s) in article title "Greenwood, New York insurrection of 1882" at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Robert McClenon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	100,000th edit award
	Hello CH. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 06:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You improved the abolitionism article so much, if you have time would you look at a similar one? American Colonization Society is similarly disorganized, different people working on separate parts. I've made some small improvements to the organization, but it needs more. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Yes, I will look at it, maybe later today or tomorrow. I did a glance through the article and it seems that there is a fair amount of information that belongs in other articles, so that it stays focused on the American Colonization Society. At the moment, it seems a bit overwhelming, but another read-through will help, I am sure.

I may create a draft or sandbox to work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, I have started User:CaroleHenson/American Colonization Society, and I will pick away at it, bringing over content, figuring out what to do with all the uncited content, figuring out how much duplicates content from linked articles, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. I hope you provide links to matetial taken out. The problem (I didn't think to say this before) is that there is a fork in ACS, one fork being Liberia, which in some respects was a failure, though that's seldom said (in some ways Haiti was a failure too), and the other fork the rejection of it by blacks and the abrupt rejection by Garrison and others he influenced. You can find a lot on ACS in African Repository, which you can find on http://archive.org. deisenbe (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deisenbe, thanks for info. What do you mean "provide links for material taken out"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. deisenbe (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, There is a function to compare two pages. Once I get further along... it's still feeling a bit overwhelming... then we can compare the versions before it is moved to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Epicgenius and SusunW:,

If you are up for it, I have great respect for both of you as Wikipedia editors, and it would be great to hear any feedback you may have for me as a GA reviewer.

I would like to help manage the backlog of GA nominees and I think your input could help a lot.

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, your recent GA review of the Riverside Church article was great. I don't really have that much to add - with 36 reviews, you have more than twice as much experience in GA reviewing as I do. epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CaroleHenson, what epicgenius said! I have reviewed a grand total of 2 articles. You are extremely thorough and fair in your reviews in my opinion. I much prefer someone who is on the nitpicky side and diligently works to help improve an article, over someone who gives it a cursory glance and passes an article. (Not saying that you are nit-picky, but you are definitely not someone to just rubber stamps an article). I appreciate your care and attention to detail in your reviews. I can honestly say that the articles you reviewed for me were improved by your input. SusunW (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input Epicgenius and SusunW. It is my intention to make the articles better. If you think that was accomplished, that helps a lot! I can get lost in my own bubble and I don't want to miss ways to improve.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your review of the above article and the improvements that you made to the article. Another recent article of a pioneering woman that I've written which hopefully could be a GA one day is Mary Gordon. I would welcome any suggestions that you have on how to improve it. I know the lead needs to be expanded and the only other thing I was currently considering adding was reviews of her books (if they exist). Cowlibob (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Cowlibob, I would be happy to look at. I am working on an article right now, but will be able to look at your article in a few hours.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you're interested in stained glass, you might like to see

There is an article I'm heartsick over, which is Abolitionism in the United States. I did 25% of the edits to this article. It is a hodge-podge, a jumble, different people have stuck things in different pkaces, there is duplication. If you have time, would you have a look at it? I don't have time or energy to rewtite it from top to bottom, which is what it needs. deisenbe (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, Deisenbe! The stained glass is amazing. Very unique and several pieces are very poignant in their storytelling. Nice article! I worked on a lot of stained glass article by English and Scottish artists. I do love stained glass! Thanks for sharing that.

I am one of several people working to make Abraham Lincoln a featured article... which I pick at. And, I am working on a GA review, but I will start picking at Abolitionism in the United States and be able to get more heavily involved in a day or so.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen has started getting involved. He's quite unpleasant. We've butted heads before. deisenbe (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I will look at the article and then post what I am looking to do on the talk page. Thanks for the heads up.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to add Mary Beth Edelson and Rebecca Lee Crumpler to "Goal #2: Wildcard category (GA nominations)" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Goal Tracking/2020. It may help you to find a reviewer.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Edith Hern Fossett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edith Hern Fossett for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I'm glad this worked out so well. I've included the article as one of the recent successes in

wp:Women in Green as both Susun and I are members of the project. Please let me know if you intend to bring any other articles up to GA or beyond, especially if they are biographies of women or relate to women's works or activities.--Ipigott (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmmmm. I recently created

wp:Women in Green?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Or, Ipigott how about Ann Cary Randolph Morris. That might be better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of women artists at Women artists, like Susannah Hornebolt, Ruth Henshaw Bascom, Jennie Augusta Brownscombe.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, I think Jennie Augusta Brownscombe is probably the most deserving although it is not one of those you created yourself. It needs a bit more on the "Collections" section, where you could perhaps emphasize and describe some of the major holdings. Perhaps consider writing it in running text rather than a list. You could suggest it on the Women in Green talk page as a candidate for additional work in March in connection with A+F. You could also mention other articles on artists you would like to promote to GA, especially those you started yourself. That's just my opinion, of course. There might be interest in some of the others. As you have quite a bit of experience in promoting articles about artists to GA, you could also help with one of the others listed at WIG. Keep me informed of progress.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the list of articles I created, Ipigott, and I think that Mary Beth Edelson could be a good candidate. She was an active art feminist (who worked to get more art by women in museums), writer, and artist. She has received a number of awards, including two from the National Endowment for the Arts. And, I think that the article could be expanded and improved.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added her here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 34 edits to this article in the last two days. I don't know at this point what you want me to do. Are there more to come? deisenbe (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of things that need to be done to get the article ready for GA status and I was trying to help. I was also really curious about the two open questions. And, I was very interested.

I apologize, Deisenbe, that it doesn't seem helpful. Do you want me to withdraw as the reviewer?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you want me to continue as the reviewer, Deisenbe, as I have said on the talk page: what is needed are citations and paraphrasing the quotes that aren't directly part of his narrative. I look care of the ones in the Biography section, but there are some more in the Debates section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to start the review now and wait to do the copyvio check until all the citations have been added.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

You have changed his dates to make him die in 1837. This is not correct. He was alive in 1837. We have no other information on his death (or his later life). This is why I put his death date as >1837, which I intended to mean "after 1837". deisenbe (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about that Deisenbe. It looked like an arrow or a stray mark to me. I fixed it to say "after 1837". Thanks for letting me know!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Carole. You've been doing a fantastic job on Edith Hern Fossett. Maybe you should consider nominating it for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, great to hear from you, @Ipigott:! Good idea. I really like this article. It might be my favorite of all the articles I have worked on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Congrats
	I think Ann Cary Randolph Morris is a great article - thank you for writing it. Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How fun, Shearonink, I was trying to think where to put that image of the Morrisania crest... at the St. Ann's church article or Gouverneur Morris's article. Thanks for the note!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed I've been unable to find an image of *her*, especially after she married Governeur Morris...they would have certainly had enough money to have her portrait painted... And why has no one made a movie or a TV series based on her life?...from the heights to the depths and back again. Shearonink (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I have thought the very same things, Shearonink

The National Portrait Gallery says that there were two portraits of her... one by and artist (I don't remember who) and another a pastel copy. But I am unable to find an image that I can be sure is her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol, if you still have an interest in improving art-related articles upon your return, could you perhaps take a look at Reshma Thomas? Thanks, and hope you are enjoying the break. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Obviously, I was on a looonnnggg break. I made a couple of minor tweaks to the article. Are you interested in my seeing if I could expand the article? Other? I hope all is well in your corner of the world... and the wiki world.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Valerie Rodway you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Valerie Rodway for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaroleHenson. Do not comment on my talk page again. You are not welcome to comment there. I will consider further unwelcome and unasked for comments harassment and deal with them accordingly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harassment to notify that you are doing something wrong. The intention is for you to realize that you are walking down a slippery slope right now. Anyone that removes maintenance tags without addressing the issues and then ensuring that the fixes are sufficient should expect to get such a warning. Anyone getting close to a

WP:3RR should be notified so that they can prevent themselves from getting blocked. I am providing you the information so that you can be more successful. That's is all and only what I have tried to do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Added a clarification - which is underlined. I said that on your talk page, but not here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is harassment to insist on editing someone's talk page when they have asked you not to. To be perfectly clear, I am asking you not to edit my talk page in future. I will consider that harassment. I assume that you do not want me to comment here either and will make this my last message. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to communicate with you. I have placed the notifications on your talk page. My guess: if you continue this behavior someone is likely to step in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 06:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply