User talk:Belle

Booooorrrreeed

Yawn

Anyone who's listed anything at all here will be insanely grateful for any feedback whatsoever. Just sayin'.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have enough problems reviewing a DYK length article, I'd drown in there. (I've gone from bored to bitchy and stroppy anyway, so they wouldn't be grateful for a review right now) Belle (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No time. Still dealing with an unbelievable story, about options.

A user made an edit which improved Wikipedia and helped a new user who didn't know how to format.

He was asked to self revert. (There was the option not to ask.)

He was reported to AE. (There was the option not to do that.)

No violation was found.

People still think it was testing and grey area and he had the option not make the edit.

Sad.

(no room for an image, it's on top of my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't this all cleared up? Seems like ages ago, but I have a memory like a goldfish. Wikipedians are generally so uptight about everything, aren't they? (you mustn't put a dot there as it is against policy...How dare you call me a policy infringer!...I didn't, if you read carefully....the implications is enough....I'm leaving until you are formally reprimanded for calling me an implier....Four admins use the special Wikipedia form to cast you out for WP:ACRONYM...Template:outcast added to user page...Template:outcast removed as out of process...ha, ha, ha, good riddance...come back...we love you...we hate you...die piggy die....how insulting to pigs....a matter you may be involved with is being discussed at the pig insults noticeboard...I was not using it in that sense...Your comments are in the wrong section...Restriction: editor x is not to go within 4 feet of a swine related article...Template:pig insulter...etc.)Belle (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Today it's one year that I almost gave up, makes me understand better those who do. But I fight it with music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

More music, another GA for GA, about my dreams, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You looked the Sparrow Mass. What do think of this? I am not involved (but was the one to suggest to address Classical, instead of an obscure article talk such as Intermezzo.) A precious friend is. He may have worded so politely that the problem possibly isn't obvious (?), but the talk pages carry already long discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What a yucky mess. I don't want to get involved in infobox arguments and neither should you. (How helpful Belle; chicken out) Belle (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, it looks like an infobox argument to you? Look again. The question is if an article which has information on two pieces of music related to each other (one composed as an alternative movement of the other) should be split at all? If yes, if the one who splits, taking the other one's information, should dominate the presentation style? Replace substantial sources by website sources? It's a discussion about ownership of articles, and where are the interests of the reader? I am staying out because it LOOKS like an infobox discussion which I avoid at all costs ;) - But it isn't, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

ps: for ease of comparison, before the split, and yes, it differs significantly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Parliamentary War Memorial

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My FAC hell

Van der Weyden had the grace to to only hint at his tormentors, but here you are going through sentence by sentence. My exasperated and confounded, bitter sweet, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's not that bad; I've got a big dog that looks like one of those tormenting beasts though, be careful or I'll set him on you (he may slobber you to death but that's about it). Belle (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow!

Try this one; it looks all sleepy and content, having stuffed its stomach/s with sweet Alpen grasses. Still, it does have a "stay away from me" glint in its eye, doesn't it? Generally I stay away from them. Particularly if they have horns! Victoria (tk) 16:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I must remember not to try to mooooove it. Belle (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No! You can't move it! Just stopping by to tell you that the code you found (__TOC__ {{-}}) is quite useful. I'll be trotting around to add it to a number of pages. The best thing is that with it now I don't have to try to stuff the lead to prevent a large image from dropping into the next section. So time well spent! Take care, Victoria (tk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it is going to be useful somewhere other than on my (obviously) massive screen. The trend must be towards windows the size of a pinhead, so those of us with more money than sense who are currently wasting both on screens the size of an Olympic swimming pool/football pitch/Wales are either going to have to put up with white space or invest in one of those memory implant modules that allow the whole of Wikipedia to beamed into our brains in a nanosecond [needle plunges into Belle's eyeball] DOWNLOAD STARTS "I never knew that" Belle (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You raise a good point (as usual, so give yourself a pat on the back!). I've stopped using my desktop with the mongo huge screen because the laptop is more portable and I can plop down where-ever I wish to work, but I used to check formatting on both computers. I'll spend some time today doing that and thanks for the reminder. This is lovely! Well done! Victoria (tk) 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I like "mongo huge" (I think that's the technical jargon for my screen). That article is the first one I've started from (almost) scratch, can you believe it? I feel like I've been here years. I did translate Georges Clairin quickly but lost interest when I couldn't find any English sources (don't know why since I've used Danish sources on this one), but apart from that I've just been bulldozing (in the collaborative, sensitive, nurturing sense, not the wrecking ball [licks sledgehammer]) other peoples' efforts; I'll be out the door when they start counting the articles (or up against the wall if they are really strict; that hasn't come out quite as I would have liked; firing squad I meant, not some S&M dungeon). Belle (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns out there's another formatting problem with my mongo huge screen, so I added more mark-up and a screenprint. Can you take a look to see what that does to yours? Bulldozing? Basically reviews are a sense of bulldozing, and it's sometimes difficult. But kudos to you for doing the dirty work, so to speak. I have DYK on watch but consider myself person non grata over there. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at my Talk

... but this is a deadly serious matter, and you know how far off the rails ANI can go. So if you want to comment, I'd appreciate your reading [1], making up your own mind, and commenting there. A topic ban is a serious matter. EEng (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And so I have. "Wikipedia" needs to chill out. Belle (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh Roses.jpg

?

File:Vincent van Gogh Roses.jpg

Hafspajen (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We (I) might have to move the Krøyer if anybody ever does an article on one of the other paintings...

... but the thought of trying to move it makes me pull this face.

Belle, what happened to your face? Are you a man? Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(Haha) I looked in the category for grimacing on Commons and it was full of porn stars and people not grimacing [2], so I went for some classic art (he looks nothing like me except for the drink in each hand). The facial expressions category of commons is hilarious: Smugness, Seduction(really? showing your classy tattoo is not going to turn me), Winking (check out the second picture [3]; who should break the news about his "winking"?) Belle (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Something for you- File:Gerrit van Honthorst cat01.jpg ? Well, I don't know, Hanna looks good to me... Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look like me either (I can't imagine what category that would be put in on Commons). Belle (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That one isn't bad (I just know that this comment will line up with the snarling guy on a small screen, but I mean the girl with a rake); if you squint it could be me (I wouldn't carry a rake though, unless I want to scratch somebody's eyes out and wanted to save my nails). Belle (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Belle, you are a nice and funny girl. It was nice of you to make this good again. You know, there is an explanation on this too. Phil made some nice articles on mythological monsters - and - got involved with some conflicts without actually causing them. I don't know how much you know about Wikipedia - but there is this slendid editor called Eric - who is a little bit hot tempered. Well, Eric is well known around here both as a very good contributor and for all the times he was sanctioned and dragged to ANI. I personally do undertand how he functions, but many people don't. So, the point is - that she and Eric were workig together on those articles - so she kind of got dragged into those conflicts. I don't go near those - mytology is nothing I know much about but it - but I noticed that it is a well known hot spot. So, my guess is that it started there - and - ... well, ... continued, so she has a ... well a kind of open wound from that point on. It is all very unfortunate - and - well, hope it is an explanation. Thanks again... Hafspajen (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really need an explanation; I think it is best that I just stay out of her way. (By the way, urban dictionary as a source for the definition of bumpkin? Really? That can make anything seem horrible.) Belle (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the UD - but that is what came up first - on google- Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't get too angry about it, my dressmaker said I had to leave off hulking out; just don't use UD like it is a real dictionary, please; it's never going to end well. Belle (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roses (painting), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlottenborg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Roses

Thanks, Belle, for you excellent work on the Krøyer painting and also for approving the DYK on the other paintings by the Skagen Painters.--Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the others (and for the background section which I mostly stole from Sankt Hansblus; ssshhh, don't tell anybody). Belle (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What you call 'ssshhhtealing' is what I call 'collaboration'. It's all part of the fun.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what happens to collaborators; have you seen Black Book? By the way, Roser is up for Featured Picture in case you want to vote (this is probably counted as canvassing which is another Wikicrime; I can't help myself). Belle (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I know the English translation about Krøyer's house at Skagens Museum (http://www.skagensmuseum.dk/en/about-the-museum/museums-history/kroeyers-house/) refers to the house as a farm but this is a certainly a mistranslation. "Gård" in Danish can mean farm, house or courtyard and is frequently used in connection with large houses or even mansions. The house you refer to was built in 1833-41 and was generally known as "Madam Bendsens Gård" which simply means Madam Bendsen's House, although with its three wings it certainly resembles a Danish farmhouse complex. Maybe I'll put together a short article about the building which later became known as Villa Dagminne. The Danish article Livet i Villa Dagminne provides information about the history of the building as well as several interesting photographs and paintings, especially in relation to Tuxen. Glad you're aiming for Featured Picture. It will attract additional interest in Krøyer and the Skagen Painters.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take much notice of the Danish for that (as the English sources are easier for reviewers to check I use them when possible), but you are probably right. Lisette Vind Ebbesen just says "hus" in the video, which isn't much help, but this site [4] mentions it has a stable and barn, but doesn't mention anybody farming from the house even though it might have been built in the farm estate. "House" (as you suggested) is safer I think as a farm house is still a house. (Maybe I'll just use cortijo and really make it confusing). Belle (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I keep trying to insert reactions in the right place here. Thanks for this additional site on the house. I don't know how fluent you are in Danish (I see you have a pretty good knowledge of French) but the article shows quite clearly that it was built as a residence and not as a farm. In the 19th century, most large houses in the country had stables. I would also like to thank you for all the bits and pieces you contributed to the other articles on the paintings. Great to know there is someone there interested in checking things out. Some strange turns of phrase can result from sources in languages other than English. "Breakthrough" in particular is a favourite concept in Scandinavia but your paraphrasing is far better.--Ipigott (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The conversation got a bit confused with the insertion of the cake (I believe this is the normal role of cake when inserted into a conversation; numnyomnumm). I agree about the house being built only as a residence. I also agree about weird phrasing arising when working from other languages, I'm certainly guilty of introducing some barbarisms (I think that might be one itself) when translating, but I think it is mostly when you are groping for le mot juste (! I know; shameful). I might dip into the Skagen Painters a bit more when I'm not busy with my self-imposed DYK duties; there are a few more paintings that could use an article. I wonder how we can get this one into Wikipedia [5]. Belle (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

All the Google project paintings from Skagens Museum (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Skagens_Museum) were uploaded onto Commons by a bot (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DcoetzeeBot) run by User:Dcoetzee. This one does not appear to have been covered, maybe because of the warped title. Perhaps Dcoetzee could upload it specially for you?--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 kindly got it last night (last night my time anyway) after I bullied/bribed him. Hip, hip, hurra! Belle (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle, please accept this small token of appreciation for your hard work and good humour. Moondyne (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, how sweet. [sticks finger in icing; licks finger] How sweet. (now I want a real cake and I don't have any in the house) Belle (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to keep adding to this section but I have just noticed the article has no linked talk page. I have alerted User:Rosiestep who should be able to sort it out.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Belle and @Ipigott: I've moved Roses (painting) to Roses (Krøyer). Belle, hope there's a piece of cake left for me; just the chocolate part will do. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks Rosiestep, I was thinking about doing that, but the picture you can see above (somewhere above, or maybe to the side or even below if your screen is big enough) is how I felt about attempting it. Help yourself to cake (it's virtual: an infinity on the lips, minus infinity on the hips) Belle (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to see Roses is queued for DYK together with the picture. Well done! More publicity for Krøyer and the Skagen Painters and a great start for your long list of future DYKs.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before roses, we will have towers ;) - working on roses also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle, watch out for the ubiquitous Gerda and her "mise en musique". Before you know it, you'll be on her list although it looks pretty moribund at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Too late! I'm already on it (if, of course, you move into the modern era and don't keep looking to the past with your outdated links [pokes out tongue]) Belle (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What can I do to make the link from the old list to the new one more obvious? It's the second line under the archive-warning, and bold. Add roses? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ps: no archive needed yet for yours, Belle. - I archived some of mine today, blushing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You should make the link spin around while Japanese pop plays in the background and then it should pop out of the screen accompanied by rainbows and stars. I'm sure there must be a template to do that; or you could put in bigger letters in a box. Belle (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to add colour and heartbeat, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see the same roses in the Signpost. Heartbeat, your name - sort of - was mentioned here, also "ban complaining" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "Davenbelle"? That is very "almost", Greta :) Belle (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you are probably not the one - on the other hand, if you were, you would probably not say so ;) - did you see that the nice user also left us? I would not have known, only saw it because I looked up the old discussion (linked on my user page workshop under "dance"). I was looking for Belle because I met a new one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Belle. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Shafts.
Message added 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For all the care and interest you have taken in improving coverage of paintings by the Skagen Painters.--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Andrés Goddzer

Belle, I was wondering whether you were planning to come back to this DYK nomination, or whether you'd like me to put out the "reviewer needed" icon. Cambalachero says that a new QPQ has been supplied. Thanks! (If you do come back, I'll see it, in which case no need to reply here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Re your image of Dido Elizabeth Belle

You look like you're photobombing (or is that paintbombing?) Elizabeth Murray and she's politely (but firmly) pushing you with an "out of the way dear, you know very well who he's really painting, you know". How does that relate to your personality? I assumed nobody puts baby in the corner when it comes to Belle. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I heard about this painting on the radio, came here to check her article out (as it was about a mixed-race woman called Belle who liked causing mischief, how could I resist?) and 10 minutes later I was a Wikipedia editor (much to the later disappointment of many people no doubt). I thought it was a slow motion photobomb too; I think the finger to the cheek is a "Oppsie, did I accidentally stumble into the picture in my best outfit?" Belle (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Koller

Looks like we may have to withdraw this one... I made a mess of this DYK nomination. Sca translated other articles and all of them were referenced and all right. My fault, wasn't checking it enough. Hafspajen (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the latest PapaJeckloy sock

Belle, I just saw the SPI for PapaJeckloy reappear in my watchlist, and I see that you submitted it and that CheckUser confirms it was him again. Thank you so much for spotting him and getting the machinery in gear to reblock him. His sock had signed up for the current GOCE drive, so I've just warned them that they have an incompetent (and blocked) copyeditor doing work, though fortunately only one ce had been completed. (They'll have to redo whatever it was he did, since his prose was so problematic.) The funny thing: shortly before he was blocked, Jeckloy had signed up for the drive. I'd been prepared to warn them about him, but the block saved me from having to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It seemed quite obvious, but it is still quite a nasty feeling accusing another editor. Belle (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Roses (Krøyer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done! The article attracted more than 2,600 visitors yesterday (apart from enhancing the look of the main page). It also led to 1,300 page views of the P.S. Krøyer article.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the more famous one got more views (but a featureless creek in the wilds of the US got almost double. Philistines.) Belle (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roses - P.S. Krøyer

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:P.S. Krøyer - Roses. Marie Krøyer seated in the deckchair in the garden by Mrs Bendsen's house - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This one seems to have done quite well too. I think I have just about completed my initial work on P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie and am tempted to see whether we can have it reviewed for GA - unless you are keen to make further additions?--Ipigott (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ipigott, I've made a few edits to cut out some of the repetition that came from taking information from the painting articles and added two more of the watercolours (and restored poor Rap to being a "who"; that's normal practice for animals with names). The fourth watercolour in the set seems to be in private ownership and not scanned (which is a pity; now we look like we can't count). I've uploaded a couple of other garden scenes to Commons as these contrast with the beach scenes and portraits and show Krøyer experimenting with styles; there a painting of Marie in the garden with a parasol which shows some Japanese influence, but I can't find a decent copy to upload. I'll write a small paragraph on these when I get back if you haven't done it before. Apart from that I think it looks pretty sweet (I couldn't resist the palindromic caption for the self-portrait but I knew it wouldn't last). Belle (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All very useful edits. Thanks for uploading the other watercolours. For some reason I was experiencing difficulties with them. I've seen various paintings of Marie in garden scenes, mainly from auction sales. I'll have a look at what you have uploaded. Enjoy you Mediterranean boat trip!--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try! Belle (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've just been looking for more background on the watercolours. It looks to me as if the one by the fireplace is in fact in their house in Copenhagen. See "Marie og Vibeke Krøyer foran kaminen i hjemmet, Bergensgade 10, København" at https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/SoegMuseumVaerker.do?page=103&orderBy=asc:titel&action=SoegMuseumVaerker&listeviewtype=museumvaerkliste&museumId=543. The date is given as 1899. See also http://www.skagensmuseum.dk/webshop/vis/produkt/plakater/ps-kroeyerbrmarie-og-vibeke-kroeyer-foran-kaminen-i-hjemmet-koebenhavn/. I'll adapt the caption.--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes it is in Copenhagen, but I think it is probably 1898 (Svanholm says it is). Svanholm has a different take on the watercolours - she says there are only three, exhibited as "Fra mit Skagenshjem" at Den Frie in 1899 but also known as "Chez Moi". (Page 147 in Malerne på Skagen) "From my Skagen Home" doesn't sound like it should include a painting from the house in CPH, but artists, eh? Belle (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm confused now [head spins round and flies off]. The Krøyer page [6] says there are 4 watercolours painted in 1898, all in different collections, (Interiørserien Chez moi (4 akvareller, 1898); repr. i Hirschsprung; Skagens Mus.; Anchers Hus, Skagen; Kobberstiksaml. ) but the page you list above [7] says two drawings from 1898 and one from 1899 (no sign of a fourth that could fit in that group) all at Skagens Museum. Belle (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your change of date. The fireplace painting certainly seems to be from Copenhagen and the programme for Den Frie mentions three items from Skagen. I doubt whether Weilbach would have mentioned four items in Chez moi if there were only three. Anyway, at the moment we seem to have more important concerns to address. Despite your differing approaches, I realize both you and Dr. B are doing you best to improve the quality of the article. I have made some comments on my talk page. I see how upset you were by some of the recent changes but I am confident we can sort everything out. Tim Riley, who has agreed to review the article, will also be able to contribute his expertise. I hope very much you will stay on board, especially as I tend to agree with your general approach although we probably need to be more careful about how we group some of the images. If the article does reach GA status, then you certainly deserve to be associated with its progress. When exactly are you off on holiday?--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that; you shouldn't need to be doing the diplomatic bit because I got precious (I was just mad because I was working on it and when I went to save it I found it had been reverted over my subsequent edits and then I was asked not to edit war over it). I think the Stenberg/Italy pictures could be grouped together (and that's probably an improvement), but the insistence on moving or removing most of the rest so the text can be in big chunks seems just to be Wikipedia dogma/personal preference; I don't think it breaks the flow or in any way hinders the reader to have those mini-galleries as examples. (Going off on one again; I'll stop). I'm away from Saturday but I probably won't be on much today and tomorrow as I have chores to do and errands to run. Belle (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe if I make a few changes today, you'll be around to check them out? Dr. Blofeld may seem over assertive at times but he is one of the most dynamic contributors. I'll see if I can find a presentation we can all accept.--Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle, short sections are advised against on here in reviews. You'd get laughed out of an FAC with an article consisting entirely of short sections and paragraphs. Any experienced editor here would tell you this. If I'm over assertive Ian it's because I need to be on a website like wikipedia, but I'm no more assertive than many of the other regulars here. I know it's an article on paintings, but even now IMO there's still too many images. The only way to effectively carry off that many images is to expand the prose by at least half.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care for the one-size-fits-all review system; If GA and FA can't adapt to encompass different sorts of articles then I'm glad they aren't the purpose of the encyclopedia. We are talking about the pictures, what possible reason is there for not showing them other than some formatting dogma? (Well done, you get 5 "Belle loses her cool" points; please see my disclaimer about punches and kisses on my user page and guess which one I'm thinking of right now). Belle (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can probably check later tonight (you might have gone to bed by then, but I can leave comments). Belle (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'd take it back to this version: [8] and work from there rather than starting with the current version, but I suppose I'm partisan. Belle (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! I think I've sorted out the positioning of the images. I'll now compare the versions and make sure nothing important is missing. Congratulations on another featured picture.--Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this version is better than the previous version, but the "original" was much superior; I'm sorry for you because now I don't think your hard work is being shown at its best and I don't think we are serving the general reader particularly well either. I did enjoy working on this with you initially, but I haven't enjoyed this past 24 hours and I'm glad I won't be around for the next week or so [does The Dying Swan. And fade to black]. Belle (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these kind comments. I am still trying to sort out the problems with the image sizes. There seem to be major software problems which need to be ironed out, especially for the mobile environment. I am also in the process of making sure your own contributions are not lost. It is really useful to have someone like you taking an interest in these articles. It is not often I am able to profit from real expertise on art rather than the overall requirements of "encyclopaedic presentation". I look forward to further collaboration in the future. And now "Bon voyage!"--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore - Krøyer

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Summer evening at Oil on canvas - P.S. Krøyer - Google Cultural Institute.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Koller

Hafspajen suggests I ask you to start reviewing the DYK nom. re Rudolf Koller. (Why me? I donno.) Sca (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Hafs asked me (I think) to notify you that I've added two alts to Koller. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nativity (Christus)

I see that you're on hols, you lucky thing! In anticipation of your return and your sharp eye (and wit) I'm leaving this message here in case I don't make it back here soon - I've been *very* busy at work, six-day weeks, yuck! Anyway, there's a small chance I might get the Nativity to FAC and through by xmas and so have listed it at peer review. Would love to hear your comments! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you editing again, and thanks for the comments to the Nativity - they're good. I'll need to re-read the sources for the necessary clarifications and hope to get to it tonight or tomorrow. Btw - I noticed your post somewhere about the Inuit girl and I'm glad to see you nomed that pic to be featured. I came across it a couple of years ago, can't remember now what I was working on, and thought at the time it was quite memorable. Anyway, take care. Victoria (tk) 20:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I will look at it more later (once I've finished shouting "Sell 200 April at 142!"; I'm still busy running that imaginary company), they were only a couple of little things I noticed straight off. And vote on the pic if you do voting. Belle (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I'll be closing the PR and moving to FAC by the end of the weekend, so if you can bring yourself away from running your company and have more to add, now is the time. I've remembered that I found that pic of the Inuit woman when I was trying to tidy Sedna legend. I thought about using it there but decided not because people would think she's Sedna (who lives at the bottom of the sea). Victoria (tk) 13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

GGTF

We would love you to join the Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with editors who are addressing the effect of the gender gap on women on Wikipedia – whether as article subjects, editors or readers. If you would like to help, please sign up or visit the talk page. Happy editing, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-sequitur

As I posted underneath your post, I assume you are referring to me here. Would you mind explaining why you think what I wrote was a non-sequitur. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just threading is basic. I wish I hadn't said anything ([jumps in time machine; dials back to yesterday; meets past self; universe explodes] That didn't go as well as I'd hoped). Belle (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Here" is a page to which I added occasionally but now try to ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Poverty in Cyprus

Belle, were you going to return to this review? You pulled the article from prep, and there have been some new hooks proposed since by RTG. If you aren't, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Return of the Inuit Woman

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Inuit Woman 1907 Crisco edit 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for outstanding work at DYK. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Hawkeye7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I would like to nominate Belle as Editor of the Week for her work at DYK, where she has tirelessly worked on reviewing articles. Few areas put you in touch with so much of the project. She has also nominated three new articles of her own creation. She has done some great work with articles on artworks. And most of all, she has done it all with a marvelous, one-of-a-kind sense of humour.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! There was also a ringing endorsement from EEng, who wrote, "I enthusiastically endorse this nomination. I could go on and on about her hard work, but her sense of humor is truly one-of-a-kind -- after they made Belle, they broke the mold! (Some say they broke it before, actually...)." Thanks again for your fantastic work. Go Phightins! 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)