User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 12

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Victoriaearle, along with Ceoil's invisible barnstar, for services rendered to the encyclopedia. Given with respect and admiration by Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I don't really know what to say to this - I don't feel I deserve it. But it's always nice to have a barnstar, both the visible and the invisible type. Victoria (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely deserve it Victoriaearle: you have invested a lot of energy (and health?) helping improve the project. Don't ever doubt your value here, Sadads (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, oh so much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know your not around <grumble grumble> but I'm going to nom this now for us anyway. I've asked Maralia to look over re a copyedit, re the rest, I know you did a lot of the work and most of the research, so this con-nom I'll take care of. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No grumble grumble pls - am doing what I have to. I think I got some of that material from a Durer biography from the library - will pick it up again in case you need access to the source. This is quite unexpected and very generous - don't really know what to say. But it's a nice article; one I've always liked, so am happy to see you taking it to review. If you need anything (you probably won't) I can lend help here on my talk. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a nice guy that I'd forget you while your blocked. But hey, its works good for me in that any faults mentioned in the FAC, I can just shrug my shoulders and claim - Victoria wrote that, nothing to do with me mate. And you can't reply. Cool! This will be fun. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only made 23 edits to the page (and that's hardly worth a co-nom!) so you won't be able to get away with that! But in fairness there were notes I made in the now deleted sandboxes and I did do some of the research - so any wrong facts can be pinned on me. I've been busy in real life this weekend and haven't had the chance to read it yet; will try to get to it tonight, and try to at some point to review the sources. I hope no rush - I've moved very much into slow motion. Victoria (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses, excuses. Face it, your up to your neck in that article. I expect that this time next week your block will be indefinate, by the time I'm finished. The thingsy ou made me write about Dürer's poor parents. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to the sources this week. I had a quick look through of the article and I think some of the material in the Lotte Brand Philips pdf, which explains the panels were separated and for a long time and not known to be two pieces of a diptych, and how they were identified as companion panels, could be brought at out a bit more. But I have to re-read that pdf to refresh my memory of it (all of that was in my notes), and hopefully will tomorrow get to the library to grab the bio too. Victoria (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comments/queries on the talk page; I suspect you might have some insight into those. Hope you are feeling well. Thanks for your kind words earlier. Always meant to drop you an email but somehow never have. Ceoil is obviously beside himself with loneliness; I can parse only one sentence in four from him lately. You are certainly missed. Maralia (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maralia (and Ceoil), just checked in after a few days. Have have a horrible week at work and still not feeling well, but I have the answers to most of what's on the talk page there in a pdf I downloaded a long time ago - and should have edited the article then. I've also grabbed an autobiography from the library. Hopefully tomorrow I'll go through the pdf and make notes; can post here. Victoria (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S - I noticed that footnote 29 is Anzelewsky, but that's from Brand Philips & Anzelewsky. That's where all the answers lie. Probably others of those will need to be changed too, but haven't looked closely enough yet. Victoria (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overdo it on my account—I got antsy this morning and went looking for sources, and consequently found the answers to many of my questions. In any case there's certainly no rush. (FWIW, I read the Brand Philips/Anzelewsky paper today and was wondering about that: we seem to attribute the diptych hypothesis and confirmation thereof to Anzelewsky, but I understood that it was Brand Philips' theory, confirmed by Anzelewsky.) Maralia (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to fix the references, is all. The Brand Philips theory is a bit convoluted in terms of where the mother panel was located when and in terms of identifying it. I had at one point written it all out and simply have to recreate all that. Shouldn't take too much, I hope. I do have a stretch of free time ahead in the next few days, so if I'm feeling okay, will get to it. Sorry about the late response. Tough week. Victoria (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind bouncing ideas around - either here or in email. Also, think the structure might needs some tweaking, but will revisit that later. Victoria (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason I think so highly of you! These are facinating, thank you so much for taking the time to write out. There goes my weekend ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - I've been fascinated by this story since I first read it. No need to ruin your weekend! I've tidied the hastily written notes a little & some bits might be able to copied directly into the article. Victoria (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am hopelessly distractible. Got sidetracked by Brand Philip, the Ghent altarpiece, etc. and this happened...I blame Ceoil. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice Maralia! That should maybe go to DYK? And maybe

this too? I'm enjoying watching this work - and yes I blame it all on Ceoil too. There I thought I wouldn't be doing much here and suddenly a lengthy list of notes appeared! But not as impressive as the new articles! Victoria (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm seems I'm, after all, the root of all evil. Victoria I'll incorporate all the info above but might hold off on advancing the page until you, if you do decided, to come back. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not at all evil. I see a lot of nice work popping up and that's good. It's what this place is meant to be all about and looks as though you've inspired a few people. I will be back but I'm not on the fast track to recovery so it will be a while. Best for me not to edit when cranky etc. If you don't mind waiting, then I'll help incorporate - I hadn't really realized how many notes I took until I pasted in and hit save, then thought ... oh that's a lot! If you don't mind waiting, that would be nice. I would like to work on it and realized I'm still invested in this place. But I need time. Victoria (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re DYK, its the realm of people like Bonkers the Clown and Prioryman; not sure I really care that much to get involved. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't care to be involved with DYK but some pages are worth going there. I think the expansion on

Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden) has been amazing, Ayesha23 did a great job starting it (and the other van der Weydens), and those are the kinds of pages that deserve to go to DYK and be shown on the main page, if you can figure out the labyrinthine process there. If not, I'll just sit back and watch these pages being created - you know how much I love the Netherlandish art and I'm so happy to see more of it. As I sit around being lazy! Victoria (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A lot of the sources are very "meta" on this one, and its very interesting in that it differentiates between how Campin, van Eyck and Rogier developed their styles. I feel guilty that you and Marali have done so much with Durer for me, but am captivated by van der Weyden, again. Your help here would be nice. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always captivated by van der Weyden! I'll be happy to help - in a few weeks (or more) probably. I can see the similarities, overlaps with the van Eyck and Campin, but it will take me a while to get up to speed on the sources. Count me in, for sure. And Durer too. Victoria (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I apparently don't know when to stop, I have written brief bios on William W. Clark, Colin Eisler, and Barbara G. Lane. Working on William S. Heckscher now (he is too interesting for a short one). Glad to see we already have articles on fellow Panofsky protégés H. W. Janson, Ursula Hoff, and Walter Horn—but how do we not have a de Tolnay article? I am thoroughly ignorant but even I have heard of Tolnay. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed - these are articles we need to have. I've meant for a long time to write one about Elisabeth Dhanens but haven't gotten to it yet. Btw - I noticed the DYK nom for Lotte Brand Philip, [1], hasn't been added to the nom page, which goes here or I guess on the date the article was created. I always forget to do that too, the few times I submit there. I'd do it, but ... um .. can't. Victoria (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for pointing out that Brand Philip wasn't transcluded. I added it, but it's technically six days old now, so I asked for advice on WT:DYK.

I finally got William S. Heckscher up yesterday. It needs to be fleshed out with information about his career, but at least the framework is there. If nothing else, I seem to have pushed past my inability to create an article in an incomplete state...Maralia (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost internet for a day (and was too busy with work to do anything about it) but it looks like this the DYK is now okay? But I tried, but couldn't, to post that it should be okay because the nom page was created in the correct timeframe. Victoria (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have started to incorporate; lots of context and insight you posted here. Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, as you are now basically a consultant on wiki until you feel better :) I have a question for you. Re the illuminated manuscript section in the ENA article; I think the Englebert of Nassau image is really beautiful, but it doesnt really fit; do you have any suggestions. Looking forward to you getting back into that page whenever you are ready again. And yes, if your willing, would like to collab on the

van der Weyden. There is a lot of potential there. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking forward to all three! I'll think about an appropriate illuminated ms. image (have a few in mind) and will post here later today (hopefully). Victoria (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'll work away in my inarticulate way, waiting for the heavy to return and polish, make factual and tidy up. Of coures if you want to bitch and critise here, on the ditch, thats fine. Ms consulatant :) Bty the way, read ENA again last night, first time since your last pass, its improved significiantly, I was surprised. I'm hopeful again, though it will be a bear FAC. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You always lay a very strong foundation so I'd argue with the "inarticulate" above. Anyway, didn't mean to set myself up as a sidelined consultant (maybe I need a new template above - where's Yomangani when he's needed?) but I'm really not yet in any shape to edit. Yes, I read ENA recently myself and was pleasantly surprised. This break has done me a lot of good, not the least of which is regaining perspective on work in progress. Maralia's Brand-Philip page made me want to read more about the Ghent too, so there's plenty of work to be done. And being happy about it is half the battle. Anyway, real work beckons, unfortunately. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no jesus didnt mean to put pressue Vic - last thing I wanted. Whenever, wherever. I really appreciated the help from here re Brand Philp. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LBP, the Durers, and the altarpiece

Starting a subsection here because we are very talky. I have finally written up a summary of LBP's Durer work; see Lotte Brand Philip#Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. I would be much happier if I could read German (so I could read her 1981 paper too), but I think this will do for a start. Now I need to write a new hook since the first two were found to be problematic.
On a related topic: Ceoil and I are determined to find out whether there is any other support for LBP's assertion that the stone canopy in de Noter's 1829 painting of the Ghent altarpiece was in fact painted from life (extant in 1829). I did all manner of research into this yesterday and today. I found the painting LBP refers to online at the Rijksmuseum here, titled "Het Lam Gods van de gebroeders van Eyck in de Sint Bavo te Gent". Later, quite to my surprise, I found another painting by de Noter of the altarpiece: it is described as c. 1840, titled "Albrecht Durer Visiting the Ghent Altarpiece", and can be seen in a book here. The canopies are undeniably very different, which seems to me to make it highly unlikely that either was painted from life. Wish I could get my hands on the Dhanens book. Maralia (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are talky. I have Dhanens - BUT bad news is that after a check-up today have been told to stop all activities. So ... I think though I've been editing a bit around the fringes, I'll have to stop. I have other RL issues to sort out too (i.e, what to do about work) and can't get back here until that's done. I do read German btw - if you send the 1981 paper via email, at some point when I'm feeling better, I can take a stab at it. Victoria (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, I am concerned about you. Do follow orders and rest up! C and I will muddle along best as we can in the meantime. Take care of yourself; we want you well. Maralia (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you too, Victoria -- continue to wish you the best always, and of course look forward to any participation from you at WP wherever or whenever you feel it's right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I think doing something I enjoy for the most part is important too. Cheers. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a lonely wiki without you but glad to hear your putting you wellbeing first. Best wishes and worries as always, and hope that none of the chattiness was intended as pressure - it wasnt, it was just fun and all this stuff is trivial compared to health. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure. I just had some decisions to make. Done now and might help here and there a bit. I do want to sort out my sandboxes while I'm sitting around and can't while blocked ... so ... well, guess I'll have to be unblocked. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem for me to look at pics. Not a problem at all. A few below. I'd be tempted to use anything from the

Your the best blocked editor, ever :) Thank you so much. I've gone for the Philip and Iseballa image for the article and with the hot woman reading for my user page. Here is a nice tune (via Riggr) as thanks [2] Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the ones you chose but because I don't know when to stop and I like doing things like this, I've added a few more. I'm wondering whether we can whittle them down to a short list and fit in a gallery on that page? I've not looked carefully there yet, but the miniatures show so much variation, a gallery might work in that section. I reckon that Johnbod can identify some of the ones I can't, but I might spend some time digging in the BnF and various other places to see what I can find. Nice tune, btw, thanks. Victoria (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking the same thing. I'll expand the section and add a gallery. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go you! I'll just flit around looking at pictures and decorate my page! Victoria (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you two! Well, you probably already know this, but as Victoria says she's not sure about the authors of the book of Hours, posting this here just in case. I've read somewhere that, apart from the Master of Mary of Burgundy, Lieven van Lathem, Simon Marmion and Willem Vrelant were involved. The scribe was Nicolas Spierinc (don't remember if it was in a book or an article but I can go through my messy notes and be more specific if you like). Cheers, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Dead chuffed to see you (semi) back, Victoria.

So glad you stopped by! I wanted to thank you for this edit, [3], fixing something that really bothered me. At some point I'll have to clean up the files and properly identify the various Isabellas and Isabeaus so that won't happen again. Thanks for the info on Mary of Burgundy's Book of Hours - had forgotten I'd seen you editing there. It's one I like a lot. I wouldn't worry about too much about the others, Ceoil asked for an image and I gave him eleven to choose from - typical overkill on my part. Yes, only semi back, still not up to editing, but obviously up to prettifying my page. Take care and laters, Victoria (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Vic. 'Twas a real pleasure to do that edit – if you get my drift. I had a rummage on Gallica and the BL site afterwards for another portrait of the lady but found nothing.

(puts serious hat on) Now, listen: you better do what doctors tell you and put your feet up and take care of yourself. You're an awesome human thing and we all want you in fine fettle again. Nice tune and charming bastard to help you along. Laters, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, FWIW (and so as not to sound sooo un/non scholarly, the article is "The Master of Mary of Burgundy and His Colleagues: The State of Research and Questions of Method" by Anne van Buren. It's on pay-walled garden JSTOR, of course.

Yes, that would be the logical thing to do, but when I think about putting my feet up and relaxing involves a bit of tinkering here. Thanks for the tune (what's a woman to do without a bastard or two in her life?); will have a look for the Jstor article and send it on to you when I get around to it. I have searched high and low for Isabeau's pics and I think put as many as I could find in the article. But I'll have my sandbox restored where I have some links stashed. Thanks as always for stopping by. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, been proxying for a blocked editor and incorporated a few from above. Let me know what you think. The diptych section also needs wotk, I cut the van Eyck Madonna, looking around. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really like it. The van Eyck Madonna was meant to be temporary until we found something better, so glad that's gone. I see you're moving into the research/scholarship sections: I had quite a few notes in a sandbox I had deleted (because ... well, because lots of reasons .. ). It's called Victorieaearle/Art sandbox or something like that. Some of it may be useful to you, so if a friendly passing admin TPS were to turn it blue again, I wouldn't mind, and you could take directly from the sandbox instead having to redo research already done. Can't at the moment remember what I had, but do remember some work re the rediscovery and the various art historians. Victoria (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Repeating, I really really like the gallery - it works well with the miniatures. I'm wondering whether the portrait section can support a similar gallery? Something to think about. Also, I notice we have the one of van Eyck in the red chaperon twice. Victoria (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Gallery removed

Good calls, and I was thinking similar, spookily so, if you look at my last edits! Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in agreement now on the manuscript and portraits sections, though outside input would be nice. Re the portraits, its 1:6 male to female, and so ever so slightly uneven. Ahem, we might want to rethink that. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got sidetracked but was responding at the same time you were writing. Outside input is always good. I definitely think the Durer self-portrait should go in, would like to keep van der Weyden's lady but we could swap for a guy, I put the cardinal and the monk up because a lot of patrons were ecclesiastics so thought that might be appropriate. I do like the ones you chose, so, yeah, a hard call. Victoria (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never really fancied eithter the painting nor drawing of craggy old Albergati. What do you think about Anthony, bastard of Burgundy. I know, more mid 14th c, but might do for now. His title includes the word bastard, after all. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's wearing the golden collar. Perfect. Victoria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Victoria, this one time again I'll proxy for a blocked editor. May god help me. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, just wanted to say I've dedicated my first poet FA (Amir Hamzah) to you and your awesome work here. Can't really put it on the article anywhere, but I wanted you to know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you Crisco! And congrats on yet another FA - you're doing great work yourself. Victoria (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot! (Was looking at the gallery up there... really impressive images I must say). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, I think it's time to be unblocked, when you have a chance. Also, I deleted some subpages that I'd like to have back but can't remember the names - something like Victoriaearle/Art sandbox, Victoriaearle/Medieval sandbox and one that might be called either Victoriaearle/van Eyck sandbox or Victoriaearle/Netherlandish sandbox. If those can be located and turned blue again, I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much for how much you've done, btw. Victoria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back :) Delighted to see this, but please promise that you wont over extend yourself. Still, you've been missed. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't overextend. You can leash me! It will take a bit of time to get my sandboxes in order and I don't think I'll be editing a ton. Victoria (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. Hehe, I'll be the responsible one for once! Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hold you solely responsible! Victoria (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to unblock you - welcome back! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch! And thanks, too, for putting back my sandboxes. Victoria (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I looked at your deleted edits and restored the following:

• User:Victoriaearle/Art sandbox
• User:Victoriaearle/van Eyck sandbox
• User:Victoriaearle/Medieval

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your a gentleman Ruhrfisch. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ruhrfisch! There's more than plenty there to keep me occupied for a while and sandbox work isn't at all stressful. Nice to have them back again. Victoria (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see you editing, and to expand on your point just above, there are Queens of France insufficiently chronicled. Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt! I've been telling myself "only ten more minutes, only ten more minutes!" and then my wireless went out on me - so that's a message to stop for the night. I'm enjoying being back but will only be able to be here on and off - which I think is a good thing. I'm moving into the next generation of Burgundian intrigue of sorts, or rather the Burgundian penchant for art, but Isabeau set the standard imo. Victoria (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, just a note to say hi, and that it's really nice to see your name cropping up on my watchlist again. :) I hope you're doing okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi good to hear from you SlimVirgin! I've been watching the improvements on FGM and have been impressed with your energy! I'm not good for much yet, except cleaning the archives and playing in a sandbox. I think I'm still a few months away from serious editing, but brought my students to wikipedia today and their enthusiasm infected me momentarily. Victoria (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really flagging with FGM. I'd like to take it to FAC, but it's such a huge subject and the sources all contradict each other, so even to squeeze out a few sentences I find I'm having to read a huge amount. Currently I'm reading about different kinds of feminism (second wave v. post-colonial, etc), and who said what about it, and how they all fell out over it.

I'm feeling even more discouraged about WP than usual at the moment. Not related to FGM; just the general hopeless feeling it has to it. I'm glad you felt that momentary enthusiasm again. It's a nice feeling to rediscover. I find that reality deals it a swift blow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to get some images for you - I haven't looked at the page in a while so don't know how it is for images, but know someone who has pictures that might work. I might send you mail about it. It's a tough page - beyond the obvious difficulty of writing about the subject - I can see how much research it requires. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm fairly happy to work on pages without the pressure of FAC. I realized that the small bit of enthusiasm I felt was seeing this place from the other side, not logged in, no watchlist, simply cruising through looking at articles and teaching the basic principles of sourcing and so on (it's a good teaching tool in that regard). Logging in and going through my watch is often fairly depressing and I'm not entirely unhappy that I'm unable to edit much these days. How's that for string of negatives? Btw - I changed my email address but have email enabled so please don't hesitate to send mail any time. Victoria (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images would be very helpful. I've tried reaching out to people who have images of ceremonies (nothing explicit, just the dancing), but no luck so far on getting releases. I think you're right about not logging in. Seeing WP as a reader is quite pleasant, because it's so impressive in terms of size and spread. I've often found myself wildly grateful as a reader to find that some obscure thing I was curious about does, indeed, have a WP article. It's when I log in and see my watchlist that the sinking feeling returns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my watchlist several times, but that never works because I end up losing strange and esoteric pages I run across, want to remember, and have placed on watch. Now I just keep it as small as possible. I do think there's a lot to be said for taking breaks; I do feel better about this place after not editing (much) since August. Now I'm much more inclined to take things slowly (partially because I'm not well enough to really edit seriously) and somehow that brings a nicer feel to the place. If I'm tired or grouchy, I don't even bother to log in anymore. But this place is so addictive, that I'm more than willing to admit that it took a self-block to bring me to that point. It was worth it though, and I'm grateful that Ruhrfisch stepped up to push the block button.

Re images: I think it will take some time and arm twisting, but I recently saw a few of shunned women at a shelter, one of which I think would be nice. It will take me a bit of time to try to get it sorted though. I'll send on the details via email a bit later. Victoria (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be wonderful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, you offered a while back to help with translations of the GNM articles. I have basic German, and have made a stab of sorts at incorporating the page on Barbara's panel. Can you see that I was as correct as I thought I was, and maybe give some guidance as regards to Albrect's article. I realise you are strained around now, so no panic. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance this the first part seems to be a synopsis of Brand Philip - except they say Barbara's panel was painted later than Albrecht's whereas she speculates the opposite to be true, so that probably needs to be mentioned. More interesting is the second part with the technical analysis - which is a synopsis of this source:

• Bartl, Anna. "Ein Original von Albrecht Dürer? Technologische Untersuchung eines in der Forschung umstrittenen Gemäldes". Restauro: Zeitschrift für Kunsttechniken, Restaurierung und Museumsfragen, Volume 105, No 1, 1999. 26–31. ISSN: 0933-4017

I wouldn't mind reading Bartl's piece, if it's available, to try to clarify. From what I can tell the panels have both been analyzed and dendrochronical evidence shows them to be from the same tree - but would want to confirm that from another source. Also, he apparently painted on linen – remember our foray into linen with Bouts? – if I'm reading correctly, which was stretched over the panels. (??) Anyway, that's from a quick perusal but I'd need the other source to be certain. Victoria (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: have also just found this link. Haven't read it yet. Victoria (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more: I'm confused. I haven't received anything so am assuming you've decided not have me work on this anymore. Can you please confirm, because I've made stupid edits like this unsure where I stand in regards to editing the article, which look like petulance. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been keeping up with my watchlist, and just now saw this. I don't know what Ceoil has said to you, and I've not heard from him in nearly a week, but if he were to make such a foolish decision as to "not have [you] work on this anymore", I would be first in line to knock some sense into him!

I have just today received a scan of the relevant catalogue entries from the GNM's Early Dürer exhibit catalogue. This is the by far the most comprehensive source I have seen; it addresses the earlier literature and the results of the 2012 infrared study, and covers all the pertinent points RE diptych origin, purpose, provenance, and influences, with a good background on Dürer's portraiture and contemporary Netherlandish portraits. I was thrilled to get the scan, but as it comes from a $200 book and the author sent it to me himself, I feel I should get his permission before I share it; I am waiting for a reply from him about images, so I don't want to be too presumptuous. It is a proper scan, with page numbers and citations etc, so I will start incorporating relevant information shortly.

I haven't been able to find the Bartl paper (C said he thinks he had it, but hasn't been able to locate it since). Is there something else you were waiting on from him that I could perhaps send you? Maralia (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Thanks Vistoria for taking a look, and to be clear your help would very much be appreciated, as you always are. The page is definatly gaining momentum, we have a lot of new sources now I hadn't found, so will be enjoyable to build up. The Early Dürer Cat sound brilliant, and gnm.de link above most espically. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think it was a misunderstanding on my part - I'm a bit distracted these days. Maralia I'm seriously impressed that you followed up to get the catalogue entries for the GNM's Early Dürer exhibit. I completely understand the hesitation about wanting to get permission first and seriously no need to send them on! I hadn't seen any of the German sources and would like to see the technological analysis but I think the synposis provided on the website is probably enough. I have a visitor arriving tomorrow and have to be mostly out for the next week so not much I'll be able to do anyway. Sorry about the misunderstanding - it was my fault. Victoria (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ceoil and Maralia, I have a bit to time available to work on articles and it's been a long time since I've been able to get to Durer, so would like to do that now. I made some test edits last night in terms of organization (I ended up reverting because there's more I want to do there) but the work that needs to be done is very straightforward and shouldn't take at all long. I've moved the entire article to my sandbox, [4], so I can play there (I prefer sandbox editing), and maybe we can all put our heads together either on the article talk page or on the sandbox talkpage? If not, I'll just make the changes as I see fit and then you guys can decide to move over to mainspace or reject the changes altogether. Victoria (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I went ahead an made a whole bunch of edits - result here. If no one objects, I'll copy over in a few days. We can go in stages and I'll have to work out how my schedule looks but at the moment fairly clear through January (except that thing called Christmas!) and have ENA on the go too. Given a preference, I prefer to bring in Durer a bit later because I think it's the easier to get through FAC. Anyway, thoughts welcome. Victoria (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that it needs reorganization. I've been trying to struggle through a reorg offline myself. I just took a look at yours, and we are thinking along the same lines. I do have one quibble, over this sentence:

"Although Brand Philip theorised the clumsiness in the mother panel might have been because Dürer painted it earlier than the other as a youthful attempt at portraiture, with which Albrecht the Elder wished to pair his own portrait, technical examination of the two panels confirm that Barbara's portrait was painted earlier than Albrecht's."

the conclusion of that is at odds with my understanding of Kemperdick:

"After the identification of its female counterpart, attempts were made to explain the allegedly higher quality of the male portrait by positing a later date of production. But investigations carried out recently in association with the Nuremberg Dürer exhibition have shown beyond doubt that the chronological relationship of the two images is exactly the reverse. The image of the father...was made first…"

I am writing a little bit of background, to explain Dürer's experience up till 1490. Also experimenting with different ways to incorporate the findings from the technical study, hoping for better flow; your reorg is definitely a step in the right direction, and I think you should go ahead and put it in. Do you have any suggestions for a new section header for 'Sources'? I've been meaning to change it for a while since we have the duplicate heading Sources under Citations. Maybe Influences? Thanks for your help. Maralia (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I didn't know there was an offline rewrite in the works. I was simply playing and flinging sand around in the sandbox so as not to make mainspace edits. I've fixed the mistake I made (I had to find Kemperdink on Amazon and it was incredibly hard to view!). Anyway, I think it's best for me to officially step away from this and leave it to you guys. Sorry for the misunderstandings. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eek; I dont think anybody is suggesting that!, but I've re-orged a bit, and yes section headings is a bit of a bother. I think the problem is that the page was a bit scattered; bits on condition, inscriptions, reverses, sequences of execution and so forth were scattered here and there; and Ive tried tomerge but with limited sucess - and downright appaling spelling. Am finding it very difficult to resolve; help needed - or a handy scape goat! Essjay stikes again!!! Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had here for only one section in my sandbox with the intention of going through the entire page, but that version is now moot. I can't help without access to sources (which frankly has never been an issue) and good communication. Working on it was a reason I requested an unblock but it's gotten away from me, so I really think it's best to let it go now. Or at the least to step away for a while so as to regain perspective. I find sometimes when a page won't mesh it's best to let it cook and return to it with fresh eyes. Victoria (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be ready for PR. What you think. Ceoil (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes. Has a big red ref error though and I don't know how to fix, which is nothing, only mentioning. But, yes, I think it's time for eyes and feedback Victoria (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found that, and nomed. May god have mercy on us. Just so as we are clear Victoria, any other errors are yout fault and I did warn you this was a terible, dreadful idea. You! Ceoil (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see some good comments there - a lot to think about. Me? Victoria (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, can you run an eye through

The Last Judgment (van der Weyden) at some stage; for spelling and that. Attractive tapestry above, by the way. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keeping an eye on it – it's coming along well! Will probably swing through again tonight when I'll finally get a bit of time. Beaune has always interested me. Thanks re tapestry, I like it too. Victoria (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing the IM section while you put up the in use template, but if your doing a major regig, shouldn't cause an ec. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, thought I'd pressed the section edit link. But I'm done now. Next up is to put together something about the iconography and I'm not quite sure where it will go, but will be working in my sandbox for that. Oh, btw - I added a bit re 16th cent. and Bruegel here. Have a look and if it's okay we should copy it back. I'm not crazy about it, but it does extend the period out a bit, which we needed to do. Victoria (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Welcome back! I really appreciate the clean up to the Songs of Innocence and of Experience poems. Definitely in poor shape overall. I have some students at KSU working on drafting the articles for "Laughing Song" (Songs of Innocence), "Night" (Songs of Innocence), "Spring" (Songs of Innocence), "The Little Boy Lost" (Songs of Innocence) and "The Little Boy Found" (Songs of Innocence) as part of an education project (see their class page at Education_Program:Kansas_State_University/ENGL_340_(Fall,_2013)). If you get in the mood to be starting new articles, it would be great if you left those uncreated (there are still a few more that are atrocious that are already created).

Also, I don't know if you got a chance to check out

I also noticed the you removed the reference to

Please check with Ceoil before continuing with the copyedit of the Netherlandish page - I see some sentences that are moving away from the sources, I have a source sitting right next to me and some extremely heavy lifting went on there. My feeling is that we're not yet ready for a copyedit – there is still writing to be done. Victoria (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: no, asking an unpaid editor to leave articles alone ( "it would be great if you left those uncreated" ) is not how wikipedia works! Seriously – it adds to the class system here, and furthermore it's simply knocked me out, after a very long absence, when I could be spending the rest of the evening cleaning the pages instead of justifying removing problematic links and then just throwing my hands up again. How is that productive for the encyclopedia? Victoria (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, I am sorry that I have offended you or rubbed you in the wrong way. I have never intended to dispute with you. Since meeting you via

WP:Novels, every communication or contribution I have made in your vicinity has been with the intention to improve Wikipedia. Yes, some of these communications feel like bad faith, because every time I make a contribution in your proximity, you respond as if offended. I am not a bad writer nor a poor contributor to the project here, and recently, each time I reach out for cooperation as members of the community, I do not get a very cooperative response. I remember when we were more collegial and cooperative

, and was operating on an assumption that those types of actions should be foundation to our relationship.

In response to the concerns about my COI, one thing to be clear: my COI is hardly any different from a variety of other

WP:Blake

to facilitate content improvement within and without the materials explored by the Archive. My editing practices are designed to improve access to authoritative secondary and tertiary materials, not create excessive linking. Part of the reason I reached out, was that I wanted some feedback on my approach.

Blake coverage here on Wikipedia is devastatingly poor, and I would greatly appreciate any expansion that you might want to contribute. In asking you to refrain from writing particular articles, it was simply as a courtesy to the student volunteers who are operating independent of me on drafts like

User:Zrdemars/sandbox

(and I realize that he is relying way too much of the Blake Archive's material, and will soon get feedback to that effect, I have a meeting with him on Tuesday). They are learning to edit Wikipedia through these articles, and I am doing my best to create opportunities for them not to be disappointed by a clearly superior article suddenly appearing where theirs should go.

I notified Ceoil on the copy edits on the Netherlandish painting article on his talk page, giving an opportunity to respond. I began editing them, because I noticed how robust the "scholarship" section was, and am currently doing research on treatment of historiography in Featured Articles. However, your reversions of the copyedits seems inappropriate, considering that you have reintroduced typos and sentence complications and excessive passive voice, both of which complicate meaning beyond the sentence I had contributed. None of my wording changes should have changed the meaning contributed by the sources, that or the summary that you are expecting from those sources is relying too much on Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I was trying to improve readability, not create a dispute.

I hope you are doing well, and that you return is a sign that health and stress concerns have abated. I hope to see you around more congenially; happy editing! Sadads (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First, regarding the edits to Early Netherlandish painting: the passive tense is a tricky business and often misunderstood. The rule I follow on Wikipedia is best explained by SlimVirgin here - (oh, and yes, btw, the preceding is a passive construction!). The edit you changed is based on something like this (from a published article - but not the source being used), The almost total lack of documented pictures is obviously the severest hindrance to research, so I felt it the spirit was better encapsulated as written. I didn't see much need for the word "deficit" either - well in fact, to me it seemed quite wrong. But I looked it up and found this definition, the amount by which something, esp. a sum of money, is too small, which I suppose is okay but that I had to look it up goes against Tony1's advice about plain English. (He probably has more about that somewhere else, but linking what I found in a quick search.) "Deficit" is a nice word but imo not appropriate in that sentence, for lots of reasons. So, yes, I reverted. And let's be honest, the page is over 10,000 words long and will need copyediting - we're not there yet. We're still writing, so your edits probably wouldn't have survived anyway.
• Next, I suppose I will have to put aside my personal feelings, beliefs, philosophies about GLAM projects and student editing in general (except to mention that I disapprove and find them to be disruptive; there are better ways to bring Wikipedia into the classroom but that's an entirely different subject), and simply say that a., no it's not necessary to verify the captions but if you think they really do need verification, I'd use Erdman instead. I have a copy and would be happy to do so. I do see those links as pushing an envelope that probably shouldn't be pushed, but will duck out on that.
• I've already written more than I wanted but will duck out with these final reminders: 1., you're an administrator and I find it slightly worrisome that you come to my page to complain about my edits, instead of posting to the pages in question, take the opportunity to read the section above and make very pointy "copyedits" about the deficit in grammar there. 2., Sometimes it's best not to mention that someone might be unwell or to tie that with the notion of stress - just a pointer for the future. 3., the Blake pages are in awful shape because we don't have the editors here to work on them and, frankly, who understands Blake? You might, but I don't. And I have two Blake sources within reaching distance so it's not as though I'm unaware of him - "The Tyger" is probably one of my favorite poems, but writing about Blake is simply hard. Anyway, I've said enough. Victoria (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• PS- Yes, before your message landed here last night, I did mean to go on to the main Songs of Innocence and Experience so thanks for the heads up that a student has a sandbox version that presumably takes precedence. Victoria (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads you reached out not because you sought "some feedback on my approach" but because you wanted confirmation. You didnt get it, for a few reasons, heavy handedness being a major contributing factor. Your placing of students above editors who actually understand how sources should be used here is a concern, that you might want to rethink. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, another editor who might help in this realm is User:SlimVirgin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, pinged the ENB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I'm just finishing up a few things here before disappearing mostly for the next few weeks - will be very busy in real life - so won't have a chance to follow up. Also it's something I want to think about seriously so as to be able to articulate the concerns better and my sense that's not done well at this time of year with holidays fast approaching and end-of-semester just around the corner, making too much stress for everyone involved. Better if in a month or so we look at it as a case study of what not to do in terms of student assignments in the humanities (which admittedly pose fewer long term risks than medical articles), how not to alienate long term editors who might have been willing to lend a helping hand, and finally to explore the issue of whether Wikipedia really is a place where students are to be allowed to make intermediary and knowingly subpar contributions with the expectations that others will come along and clean up the mess. Anyway, gotta run, but I'll keep this thread open. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I understood your timing constraints, I went ahead and put a bland post at ENB, hoping that others will help in the interim. If I don't "see" you before then, happy holidays ! (Or, if the education program chases me outta here before Thanksgiving ... which is about the time all hell breaks loose as students shove their work into the last minute ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I don't think I can be around much until after Thanksgiving (and not really looking forward to the cooking this year!) so happy Turkey Day to you! I poked my head over at the ENB, and, well, poked my head out again rapidly! Obviously there's a lot to discuss and I might be interested in becoming involved in some of the discussions but I've not been keeping up at all (didn't even realize we had an Education board (WEF?) now), and I don't think I'll have an opportunity to catch up until mid-Decemeber or so. Victoria (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a great holiday! And do not even think of peeking in to or getting involved at

WP:ENB; it will be as bad for your health as it has mine. If I have retired when you get back, you know where to find me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, it almost certainly wouldn't be good for my health. I have to say, this might be the worst I've seen yet (I peeked at your edits!). Somehow we have to convey the difference between writing essays/papers and writing for an encyclopedia - that's the biggest hurdle. It's not simply about having students write "for" wikipedia, but the students have to be taught encyclopedic style, and because that's not taught in college, this is the kind of stuff that shows up. I feel sorry for the kids, to be honest. Anyway, my opinion for the evening. Best to you too. Victoria (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read Wikipedia:Moving a page and notification is not required, though I would imagine it is better to ask in most cases. If it is an issue, you could ask the user who made the move about it (page moves can be undone). Strictly speaking you do not have to clean up redirects, just double redirects. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read that page too and couldn't quite tell. My biggest concern was making the links match the new page name, but that's now been done. Some of the Hemingway pages have a lot of links (thanks partially to my liberal linking everywhere!). Happy (belated!) Thanksgiving, by the way. Victoria (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your posts at the Education Noticeboard -- I noticed that you said you were unwatching the page and that your ideas were ignored, so I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your input and will make sure it's included in our discussions. I was particularly interested in your comment that having students use Turnitin or SafeAssignment is best practice; I hadn't heard of that particular approach and like the idea of including a recommendation to do that in the information we send professors, though I understand from other comments I saw that there are some objections in academe to the use of these tools. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, I just wanted to poke my nose in to tell you that Mike listens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi guys, I'll try not to ramble too much. Mike Christie apologies for crankiness but I'm dealing with a health issue that's been making life miserable and makes me less than charming. Regarding that particular topic, I simply made a suggestion and didn't want to get into a big back-and-forth about whether or not we have plagiarized content here or the merits of anti-plagiarism detection software. Generally, yes, it's fairly common for students to upload either to Turnitin or SafeAssignment. There has been some movement away from doing so, in particular in the use of Turnitin, because they keep a database of uploads which opened issues about copyright. But my feeling is there isn't a reason to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. If the class supports antiplagiarism software, (which is usually a tool in Blackboard) then the suggestion I made, that students simply copy their WP page to a plaintext or Word file and upload, is sensible. I bailed from the discussion because I have little patience these days for long protracted and circular discussions - unfortunately.
• My question, and I think the question we as a community should define, is what's the education program's and the newly established WEF's mission. If it's purely a numbers game in terms of bringing in new editors then the request above is probably the right way to go because from a numbers point-of-view five or six or more editors will add content as opposed to a single editor. If, on the other hand, we want to sell WP to the academic community as reliable, then I'd argue having an experienced editor write or help the newer editors write a suite of articles might be a better solution. What's lacking in that particular situation is a real sense of collaboration between the project (the established editors here) and an institution-run editing exercise.
• I've always felt strongly that the best way to bridge the WP/academia gap is to make this an attractive place for academics to write. But the truth is that it's not. For lots of reasons: one, because we write in an encyclopedic style that's hard to learn, we have rules and policies that we expect editors to follow, but the biggest obstacle, in my mind is that this is pretty rough and tumble place. I asked whether I could have a separate account many years ago so as to separate what to me has become a personal hobby and my professional life. I was told that wouldn't be possible so I've tried workaround solutions. I think my feelings about it all pretty well overflowed here last summer when I'd had enough of Wikipedia in general. But I do believe strongly that bringing students here only works well if the person doing the bringing is well-versed in the community with all our foibles. So the issue becomes how much to out oneself and how to separate hobby from professional life.
• One final suggestion regarding peer reviews. Most non-Wikipedians have no idea we have a rating system. I teach my students to look for articles with gold stars; I teach them how to find them (go the main page, on the TFA click the little star on the right, which then displays a page of all our FAs (and we can thank Sandy and Raul and others for putting all that together!)) and then I say that generally those pages are reliable. I teach how to edit based on our best practices, and to be honest this is the first semester since 2010 that I've not had an article at FAC for students to watch how the process works. They take as much away from that as they do from writing their own content. We could be pairing students with senior editors on the ground - Sandy and the medical project should be wooed I'd think, the same for the literature and visual arts projects, Milhist, and so on, because the truth is we have lots of subject experts here, working quietly, who I think when asked would be more than willing to help. The best examples of student written projects were JimmyButler's and I loved watching Malleus help the students. For example if I were to have a student working on say, mid-20th century pulp science fiction magazines, I'd know who to point the student to! That kind of knowledge only comes from being around and hooked in here.
• So ... I think there's a ton of potential here. What I see is a divide between the Education community and the regular editing community and in my view that might, in the long run, have serious consequences. In terms of specifics, I'd be happy to share in email. But I can tell you that of the thousands of students I've brought Wikipedia in front of, very very few have wanted to edit - which to me is telling. In that sense I'm losing the numbers game and the reason I'm not sure I have a voice in any of these initiatives.
• Sorry - longer than I wanted. Thanks for reading if you got through it! And thanks for stopping by. Also, as a disclaimer, on a snowy, stormy day when I should be in the kitchen, these are a few preliminary and not very well articulated or organized thoughts. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, I just figured out that you're Truthkeeper88 -- hi again! I didn't notice your name change and am very glad to run into you again. Hope you're enjoying Thanksgiving.

I like your comments above and will think about them. One specific question, for now: can you think of a way to incorporate the critical process (which your students see at FAC) into a classroom exercise? One idea that I'm talking to a professor about is to take an article in the class's topic area and ask the students to critique it, then spend a class going through the article at a FAC level of criticism, including asking the students to contribute their own comments and critiques. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:FA Criteria we have in place - which really is a good page. One thing, though, and the reason I wanted to think about this, is that recently I've changed my philosophy somewhat - a few weeks ago I began to go through an FA in class but we ended up only covering a single section and I've been wondering whether FAs are really the right articles to look at. Those of us who have shepherded articles through FA know how much work is involved, how comprehensive they have to be, and I'm not entirely convinced that's the level we want to be steering students toward, but it depends on the nature of the class excercise. On a separate subject, but maybe related, in my view it's helpful to keep in mind that students have multiple classes, and whatever they do here will inevitably be done at the last minute. Perhaps simply showing them DYK criteria would be a better start? Or even having students write for DYK, submit, review, and have their work published on the main page? (Which is honestly a fairly difficult process for a novice). Then they could get a full sense of wikipedia processes? Anyway this is the direction my thoughts have been taking - maybe we should try to reduce the scale of what we're trying to achieve? I think that say a 10 page traditional paper/essay (about 3000 words) would be equal to something significantly less in WP terms given the steep learning curve for mark-up and the necessity to follow our writing guidelines. This comment, too, resonated with me. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit (the reason I've put off answering too) - but generally, yeah, going through any article using any of our review criteria works fairly well as a classroom exercise. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: Mike, I really haven't been keeping track of things at all (and wouldn't have been much aware of the education program if I hadn't been told not to edit a suite of articles recently) but I've only this moment realized you're a board member of the WEF. Apologies for spouting off as I have been. Victoria (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think an apology might be needed, but it isn't -- I'm very interested in getting ideas on improving the way classes work. We're going to be looking for funding for education projects, and one thing we're really interested in is data about what actually works in a classroom.

I think DYK can work but requires oversight from a teacher who is quite experienced; we've seen mistakes made by students in DYK and I'm doubtful about putting student work through a process that absorbs other editors' time without adding value directly to the encyclopedia. Of course DYK can be motivating, and that can lead to better student work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose I'm apologizing because to an extent I disagree with the direction the education initiative is taking and I hadn't realized it was so far along. I dislike disagreeing with something that's essentially a fait accompli, but I'll carry on a bit more anyway.
• The DYK suggestion was a bit of a tangent - I was thinking about review criteria in general and realized that what we have at DYK, when fully implemented, is probably okay (check sourcing, prose, etc.) and then thought that if we are to immerse students here it might not be a bad place to begin. The requirements are fairly simple and yet I think maybe exactly the level of detail we might want. The most difficult part of the job from my perspective is to figuring out how to create a nomination!
• But I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment - without a teacher who understands the ins and outs here and without having students interact with other editors it won't work, which brings me again to the question about the objective of the education program and to the disagreement. If the objective is to bring students (and by extension teachers) here but to sequester them in a separate area, provide a separate Wikipedia experience, then I can see problems cropping up. By definition this is a crowd sourced project, done mostly with dedication, and I'm afraid much of the community spirit will be broken when we see articles being paid in kind (grades), and student editors and their work treated differently than "regular" editors, which imo sets up a class system. That brings me back to the issue up-page where I was asked not to edit a suite of articles because they've been earmarked for a specific class. What will happen when that kind of issue is scaled up and the content editors who are already here are asked to step aside for students? These are concerns that worry me.
• In terms of data about what works in a classroom, I tend to teach fairly intuitively and treat this place as any other tool on the internet. I'll often use WP to demonstrate whatever it is I'm teaching at the moment. Because I'm so immersed here, it's easy for me to quickly choose an article and spend a few moments showing what I'm trying to say. Often it sticks; often it doesn't. But seeing the particular topic being discussed demonstrated on the internet does have value and seeing edits made in the classroom has value too. All of that, however, is predicated on being immersed and that's what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Without a full familiarity with all of our policies (frankly including
  WP:Deadline) on the part of instructors/teachers/professors and students, I have doubts about bringing students here. This statement too is predicated on my experience of offering students the chance to edit here for a number of years and hearing a resounding "no thanks" each semester. I don't think students should have to edit wikipedia articles for lots of reason, but that brings up an entirely different topic. So I guess that's why I was apologizing. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If the objective is to bring students (and by extension teachers) here but to sequester them in a separate area, provide a separate Wikipedia experience: I don't think there's unanimity on what the education program is for, but I haven't heard many people arguing for this. The benefits I see from the Education Program include getting additional content, mediated by experts (the instructors), particular in areas (social science, for example) that are underrepresented in Wikipedia today; and exposing students and instructors to Wikipedia so that they understand how it works and how to contribute to it effectively and how to read it critically. I don't see sequestration as having much value, though there are times when a sandbox can be useful. I certainly don't see any justification for treating students differently than regular editors. If an instructor asks me not to edit a certain page for a while, that instructor has a poorly planned class structure. There have been successful classes run here, and I'd like to figure out what made them successful and then disseminate that knowledge to other instructors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike - I'm up to my eyeballs with work at the moment so a placeholder here for now. I do have some thoughts and bounced this discussion around with my students a bit for their input as well. When I surface in a few days I'll post more here. Victoria (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm sorry for putting this off for such a long time! I wanted to respond to this statement you made: There have been successful classes run here, and I'd like to figure out what made them successful and then disseminate that knowledge to other instructors. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and, to an extent, yes, have an answer. I considered setting up a sandbox and writing out how running a class here might work well. In my opinion we'd need full community buy-in and support (don't think we're there yet) and I have a few ideas how to give a few nudges in that direction; and then good buy-in from institutions (which I think is more difficult); and finally enthusiasm from students (the hardest component). Anyway, a month has gone by and I've not done anything! I might in the next few weeks, but I'm also at a very low ebb in terms of having any sort of enthusiasm for wikipedia at the moment and might to do better if I'm gone for an extended period. I recently ran a small experiment of sorts - wrote an article in a day (as a student would) to see what that experience was like. It was hard! This coming from an experienced wikipedian! I didn't sandbox, had the sources pretty much at my fingertips, I know how to format, etc., but nonetheless it's time consuming. That made me wonder if writing full articles is really the way we want classes to run (well, I'd already been wondering that and wanted to find out for myself), and looking at some of the work that students produce, my thoughts are no. I still think a slow step up is the way to go, but the biggest impediment is getting instructors on board. Anyway, I don't think there's anything here you don't already know. I did have one of those very rare and very rewarding "wow moments" in the classroom during the fall while using wikipedia as a teaching tool. That's the direction I'll probably continue with myself; and I think I know enough about this place and its workings that I don't necessarily have to be here as an editor anymore to still make those wow moments happen. If you want specifics, I can send via email. I don't think anything I do is particularly innovative but it does seem to have some sort of an effect. Anyway, huge apologies for the late response and a late happy holidays and happy New Year. Victoria (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the delay; there was never an obligation to respond, but I was curious to get your input and am very glad now you're written it up. I will pass this along to the other Wiki Education Foundation board members, and to our Executive Director when we have one. I may ask for more specifics later; just got back from a trip and am a bit pushed for time for a day or so. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its "prestique" in CORKENG, please see WP:CORKENG and this is a matter we are willing to go to war over. You and America in general have been told. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, sorry wouldn't have known that now, would I? It sounds very fancy and prestigious and we can put it back if you'd prefer. No wars! Btw - we needed that section - I'm trying to decide how much to trim now from the section above (I'd thought of moving some text down) but will have to revisit it later. Can't really concentrate now, except to fix prestique. Victoria (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cork's US embassabor is Furious O'Tool, maybe you take it up with him. Back on planet earth, thinking about the pre 1420 preamble, bear with me. Hope all is well, though I see its not quite. Humouring you anyway. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably not bother Mr. O'Toole with this, but I'll keep in mind that he's the person to turn to when I have complaints about Corkish. Bearing with you re preamble - getting that section right is tricky, and no, unfortunately I'm not a lot of help at the moment. Hopefully can be again soon. But I'm happy with what I've managed to do in the past month, so that's something. Victoria (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also happy with what you've achieved in the past month, to understate. Also you might have noticed Outriggr is ab*ou*t. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Corkish"? You know nothing John Snow. Corkonian, innit. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Corkonian" for the language? Even stranger than I thought! Yes, I have noticed OR/RM about - happily. We're lucky. Victoria (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though he better be carefull this time; I have considerably more admin accounts now than in 2010, and if all goes well, pesants excepting (whoes bright idea was it to let them vote) an arb seat in a few weeks. Wonering how riggr might like me then. Ceoil (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, you're being uncivil, disruptive and, worse yet, misleading: per WP:JACKEEN and WP:CULCHIE it should be "Corkish". It's the policy. I'm determined to ANI you for this. End of, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go away from me child and dont be annoing. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For weighing in you know where. Still digesting this mediation lark (?!), which ain't easy: there's only so much shit I can stomach at once. Trying to concoct some solid argument atm. This individual – whoever they are – is sinister. Hope you're feeling better, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Saw your comments at Pound the other day. I've been meaning to write something ever since (the full paid-up members of the infuckbox brigade are spreading like mushrooms after rain!) but couldn't come up with anything decent-ish. But as some Corkonian lord would say, "bear with me".

You're welcome. I don't think you have to accept the mediation and there's no reason for it, that's why I dropped the link on the page. The arbs made a recommendation which should be followed. Consensus has to achieved on the page and given that no i***b**x has ever been there, then it should be discussed there on that page imo. I might weigh in, but not terribly interested in those conversations anymore - they do nothing but cause grief and hurt. I wouldn't worry about weighing in at EP either. Some day I might get back to that page, or not. Don't yet have a sense of how long I'll last here. Anyway, doing okay-ish, thanks for asking. Victoria (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victoria. Dropping by just to say I'm glad (and quite relieved, actually) you haven't chimed in – you've made more than enough and the last thing I want is seeing you stressed and put out by the usual onolatrists. That article's slightly better than a stub, but only just. Take care, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of

]

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

Seasonal greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2013 and best wishes for 2014. Peace on earth and goodwill to all May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness
	Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Brian! And thanks again for all your help and encouragement during the year! Victoria (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ruhrfisch! The tree is lovely and hopefully will have lots of presents under it in the morning! Victoria (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5]...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist - for some reason I don't remember hearing this one before but I like it a lot. Victoria (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's an old recording - it was released only a couple of months ago...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that M, I was beginning to think I'd slipped into senility without fully being aware. It's quite nice - thanks again for it. Victoria (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas for the drink! It knocked me out for a couple of days! Victoria (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply