Hi Victoria, I hate to see you going to rough times - though we all hit them now and again here on wikipedia. I actually came to your talkpage to ask if you might help me out with some copyediting of this article that I have been working on. Might be a good way to a to unstress and feel appreciated again? I certainly would appreciate it in any case. If you're not up for it I fully understand, and wish you the best. I hope to talk to you later at some point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend that you not retire. If I can hang around the 'pedia, after all the bumps & bruises I've taken over the years? then anybody can. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually contemplated re-retiring this morning. Horrifies me that I wasted an entire f*ing day yesterday that I had planned to spend giving my article the last TLC it needed for the FAC nom. Now I'm behind by a few days. I chose to stay because I have a checklist of work I want to finish. I know my re-retirement may come sooner rather than later; I survived just fine with wikipedia for a few years. So I get it...but I hope you find a reason to make it worth being here again. Karanacs (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope everyone here stays; the damn drama trolls have to be fought by being dogpiled with numbers and tenacity, as reason and logic have no impact upon them. Besides, who might support me if I run for admin? Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope you're not leaving, you're too valuable. Have a break and come back refreshed Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by you, - I am so sorry to see what you had to tell us now. I should have asked sooner if you agreed to nominate her for TFA. Will do and think of you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes please to Isabeau - probably for late in March because I think they're scheduling fairly far in advance. If you need help with the blurb I'll pitch in before it runs. The best pic to use for the blurb is File:Isabeau de Baviere (detail).jpg. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(These days I just agree with Hafspajen, hell or hight water. But 15thc articles dont write them selves.) Whateves. Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
RE 15th cent paintings - this book practically fell off the shelf into my arms at the library and I was obligated to bring it home so I'm hopeful there will be work on some 15th cent. pieces before the library wants the book back. Victoria (tk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(NB I have that, so if ever page #s etc are needed after you've given it back, do ask. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
I stand in that same line (not without noting the irony that yesterday we waited for Hafspajen), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Dont worry Gerda!!! Bring back the much missed Outriggr while we are at it. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Outriggr was far from diffuicult and FAR from despised. But I do like you articles so snap. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
sorry, English difficult ;) - case difficult, not the person, - and not he was despised, - it's just my article redirect, sadly often useful, like WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
English are difficult. Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As an Irishman I concur :) Thnks for the explanation Gerarda. Best, Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe that I agree with Haf about anything V but I agree with him here. Your presence is required...Modernist (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank You Mordy. Those are kind words. Do try to give a second thought about my layouts too in art articles ... you might start like them after a while ... It's like olives - you probably didn't liked them in the beginning, but probably you do now.Hafspajen (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding my support. You would be sorely missed. Sarah (SV)(talk) 02:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Featured content would be rather reduced on art side. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Look, I was really upset that you continued to accuse me after apologizing, and it came as a shock after I thought we would be okay moving forward. I.e., I acted irrationally when my feelings were hurt, and I said some things that I do not agree with today. All I wanted was some temporary space, which I've gotten, so thanks. Please forget what I said about the IB, including the Rose-Baley Party. If you still want to edit there please do so. I would greatly appreciate any help you are willing to offer me, and I sincerely hope we can move forward and put this behind us. I'm sorry I overreacted and lost my cool. I'll do better in the future. I think you are a valuable editor, and I sincerely hope you find your motivation to continue here. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems attractive and ok at first glance, but sadly I dont buy this plea for a minute. Rationalobserver, you expect us to buy into a mea culpla this late in the game, when you have tried, at lenght, to take multiples of our friends people down; seriously? There are better ways to conduct, and I suspect we all might be friends if worked through. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the naivete I've shown, it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone watching to wonder whether I've been living in a cave for the past six months or longer. The anser to that, yep, I have been living in a cave for real-life reasons. Last year I pruned lots of pages from my watchlist, including AN/I, AN, and all arb related pages, all wiki projects, etc. etc., and now I'm not up on the latest wiki- developments. Which can be seen either as a detriment or not. The thing is: after a while I realized I liked living in a cave. This place is overly addicting (the internet in general is overly addicting, imo), and focusing exclusively on content, staying blissfully unaware of all the drama swirling about, with a tiny watchlist (watchlists are evil because they beg for, well "watching" and then often "action"), and disengaging completely for a few days each week is as good way as any to cope.
Time is a severe issue for me, and this place (because it's so addicting) can be a time-suck. Equally, when working on content, interruptions are deadly. Two of our best policies are WP:DISENGAGE and WP:NORUSH. There is no deadline! There is no reason for a certain article to be finished at a certain date. There's no reason to have to drop everything to respond to a watchlist comment. If more people were willing to disengage and just sit back, let things settle down, this would be a calmer place. Instead, disputes go on and on and suck out any fun that could be garnered from this place. When it's not fun, it's not worth staying, imo.
The WP culture of hat collecting, which promotes work work work for such and such (adminship, green blobs, bronze stars, etc) prevents an attitude of disengaging or building content slowly. Hat-collecting isn't really healthy and is at odds with WP:NORUSH. I like to work slowly on articles that catch my interest, and there are plenty that will never get reviewed, because it's simply hard to find adequate sourcing for some articles. A topic that leans on only a few sources is more apt to be skewed. For reviewed articles we have to be mindful of quality assurance. FAs (and to some extent this is now true of GAs) will at some point be run on the main page, so they should be best we can produce, production or print-ready, and scrutinized. For any page to get to that point WP:NORUSH is a fundamental policy to follow.
This is a collaborative writing project with people from all over the globe working together to create a product. Each person brings his/her own viewpoint and strengths and when it really works well it's truly amazing. The more collaborative the better as far as I'm concerned. Because this is a global community, and for lots of other reasons, whenever someone is kind enough to take time to give advice, that's a benefit. Karanac's post about how to evaluate a source should be written up as an essay; it's truly wonderful (except she missed the bit about "juvenile" books, which we ran into on another article).
An "interaction ban" is at odds with the fundamental collaborative nature of this project, and usually, I thought, only imposed at the arb level. But I did notice another thread on AN/I about an interaction ban, so maybe has become more common during my stint in the cave; common enough to warrant its own WP acronym, IB.
So, now that I've made everyone read this far: let's get to the crux of the matter. Your message, Rationalobserver contains the acronym "IB" in the section heading. The person whose page this landed on, (me), immediately becomes defensive. To continue the defensiveness: no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations. See how quickly this can devolve? Not good, and not a place I want to be. And that's why I probably won't be around much. But let's continue. No, I don't want to work on Rose-Baley. What I offered, (she writes, defensively), is help, and I could have fixed everything in a couple of hours. And that would have been that. Instead we had a week or more of unending whatnot, a handful of blocks, the AN/I thread from hell, a couple of editors gone, and here we are.
Writing an essay is probably not disengaging - the irony doesn't escape me. But I was afraid saying nothing would be misinterpreted. So I made it an essay. Moni would be proud of me. Victoria (tk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
no, the posts to Rose-Baley were made before the SPI closed, and after that there weren't any more accusations.
I guess you're technically right about that, but I was referring to the fact that you apologized at 06:26 on February 1, but thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me six hours later, which gave me the impression that you still thought I was a sock, and that was quite frustrating. If all the problems at RBP could have been fixed in a couple of hours, I really wish you had spent your energy doing that versus digging up diffs to present as evidence at SPI. But, I'm not here to argue; I just wanted to put this behind me, and I think I've done that now. I sincerely wish you all the best. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
rationalobserver, did it ever occur to you that victoria was thanking montana for the nice things that montana said about her in that post? That's how I interpreted it - and that's what AGF should have had you learn toward. Not everything here is about you. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
See, this kinda seems like stirring the pot to me, but to answer your question: no. If I wrongly accused someone and put them through hell I wouldn't silently assert that someone who continued the same accusations was helping me. Montanabw's comment stoked flames that were just about snuffed out at the time, and I wouldn't thank someone for accusing you of bullying me right after I apologized to you for getting into an argument. That's speaking with a forked tongue, IMO. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm proud of you too :) I laughed to myself reading this, because just this morning I nominated an article for FAC, one I've been working on and researching for the last 7 years. SEVEN YEARS of my life in which I've spent from a few hours to a few months every year reading, writing, searching for images, reading more, writing more. I couldn't have done it full justice three years ago - it needed to percolate a bit. I'm proud of what it is now. I suspect if we hadn't both gotten disillusioned, we'd still be working on the history of the Catholic Church, all these years later, and still not finished. In my ideal wiki-world, I'd be left alone to write the articles, to bounce ideas off of other editors (like you) who like to learn and want to share, and I'd have a magic wand to put a protective bubble around my spaces so disruption (including all those middle-school students upset because they have to learn about history, bless their hearts) couldn't get a solid foothold. I am still waiting for someone to hand over the magic wand (come oooooon, universe), and still, twenty years removed from high school, dealing with those who choose to bully the nerdy kid. I have a great deal of respect for those who continue to slog away and focus on creating awesome content - as well as those who served their time and choose to go do something else for a while. Time to let the next topic percolate a while. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to help Rational observer to just drop it all and move on in a different mindset and focus more on articles and improving her writing instead of commenting on people but she's not just interested. How can you really get through to such an individual? There might have been flaws in her work but beneath all of this she does at least seem interested in content building, and ultimately that's what really matters. Yet every piece of advice or action is perceived as an attack or taken in a hostile way... Montanabw, Victoria, myself, Rational observer etc, aren't we all here ultimately for the same thing beneath all of this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're beating a dead horse, Dr.B; I'm trying to move on as we speak but you keep mentioning past conflicts. Victoria, I'm un-watching this page now, so if you have anything else you want me to see please ping me in the comment or feel free to make it at my talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Dead horse? No, you've certainly not cleared the air with people here, just 24 hours ago many editors were attempting to have you banned. This really needs to be sorted out. You were doing very well at one point and I began to help you and then you said what you thought to Eric and things since then have got even worse. Your comments at the Coffee report the other day worsened the situation further and came across as petty. You can't possibly continue to edit without the support and good faith among at least some of the editors here. Featured articles are a product of such an environment, there needs to be that mutual understanding and trust there. A collegial atmosphere where people don't accuse others of opposing to get one over in revenge for their buddies... Are you interested in producing FAs or not? That can't be achieved by just pretending nothing has happened and shunning people like myself. I was willing to give the article a thorough read and review but am not sure it's worth it given that you seem to be continuing to dig a hole for yourself to the point you're begging to be banned before it is finished. I'm trying to offer a way out and to change, I care about content ultimately, and I think that you can learn from it and achieve something on here. If you didn't bother at all with content I most certainly would not waste a moment in trying to help you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.