User talk:Victoriagirl

Archives
Archive 1

Smile

Tyrenius has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Milton Acorn

Thanks for the tweaking of the article. I am mostly a French speaker (from Montréal) so I can collaborate with advanced english though I may need to be corrected ;) Lincher 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If only my French was as good as your English! Well, a girl can dream. Victoriagirl 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Poets CD

Hello again, I had thought I had put the note of the CD in all the poets I had the Rights to republish, I was just catching up on stuff. In 1976 the CBC produced a series of 30 minute audio tapes of 8 Canadian Poets, When I was at the University of Toronto and became acquaintance/friends with several of the poets in question, one of them mentioned the Tapes and I approached the OISE education at U of T, taken over by U of T Press, and bought/obtained the reproduction Rights for the Tapes for the CPA, including with the help of Gwendolyn MacEwen, the Rights for Milton Acorn's More Poems for People just after he died. In or about the year 2001 I had the tapes Mastered and put on CD. There are two famous poets per CD doing 30 minutes each of their poetry and one hour for Milton. So as sales have been slow to minimal I no longer advertize them on the Bookstore for the Canadian Poetry Association. They are still available if you want a copy. SO how should they be listed, I was going to go back and put the ISBN of each CD this weekend to update it all, Should there be a separate article or part of the CPA site, mentioning them maybe. Please let me know the proper method that is best. WayneRay 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

I just updated and included more information and a list on the CPA article for reference, of all the CD poets, let me know if this is ok. WayneRay 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

I finished the Discography listsings and connections and it does look better, I also updated the CPA site with our book listings. WayneRay 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

victoria victoria

Hi, Do you know a lot about victoria island? I am going to have a year out and my family and I would like to go somewhere unusual (for us!). We were thinking of Victoria Island but apart from a visit to the Burchardt gardens in 1976 I don't know a whole lot about it. Malcolm Lowry wrote a long short story about his sojourn in the area and that kind of inspired me. I like the wild; fishing, writing, etc. I have also been a professional artist in the past. Is there a book I could turn to? Would we have to get some sort of permit to stay? Cheers, Lgh 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

vancouver victoria!

Yes, of course, how dumb of me - I meant Vancouver Island! Thanks for the good info - we will follow up. Lgh 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On AfD....

Hi. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your introduction on the AfD for Leona Czwartkowski. It was very informative, which makes life a lot easier for the voters, and is much more preferable to something like, "WP:BIO.", as an introduction. It's always great to see some one put time and effort into an AfD, and it isn't recognised nearly enough, so thanks! I hope to see you around there again soon. All the best, Thε Halo ^Θ 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion

Hi, I do not have any problem with your edits. However, this was this editor's first attempt at an edit (second actually, but the first was interpretted as vandalism). The editor obviously spent a great deal of effort typing in the edit, and I wanted to soften the blow of the deletion somewhat. Take care. --BostonMA 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad too. But you are right about the edit. It is just one of those unfortunate experiences in life. --BostonMA 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its me again. I originally WP:AGF and didn't want to WP:Bite, but I'm not so sure any more. There could be a sophisticated game going on here. --BostonMA 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion *2

Hi Victoria. This is Abhinav. The editing i have done is based on our school research. Most of my classmates wanted to have a reference page where all the notes could be found. This site was perfect for the information that i had added. Those notes took some time to type... i was sad at the outcome of my hardwork. As for the vocabulary. Our teacher had asked us to find out words we don't understand. I put the words there for my classmates and u deleted them too... dunno what to do next!

           Abhinav :-(

Can u plzz tell me what is wrong with the summary of the book??... all my info is not useless u know!! ... besides.. this is to help Wiki and i know that my info is valuable, not only to my class, but others. Ondaatje and how he uses 'surrealistic' thoughts is a valuable piece of information which i have posted!!...... i doubt u have posted "Great Edits" ... I don't mind repeating the same thing over and over again. U erase.. i will repaste!! I need proof lady!... Please rethink!

           Abhinav :-(

Hey Victoria! .. I don't need your sympathy, besides, there was never a consensus in this matter. U just erased my work saying it was 'irrelevant' with no proof or any communication. All my work is definately not irrelevant! I have sympathy and pity for you being so bad at editing!! Sorry...

           Abhinav :-(

Those who are interested (and it seems there are a couple) can find my response to the postings above on the In the Skin of a Lion discussion page. [1] Victoriagirl 02:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Polish Cz... painters

_ _ Fine job you did, spearheading AfD of Czwartkowski, and you were conscientious enuf to follow up by killing her lk from the LoPbN-tree. Brava!
_ _ That makes me think you probably did similar research to justify killing the other three rd-lks on the same page, since they each appear (as their respective what-lks-here pages reveal) to have been copied in good faith from entries presumably made in good faith to, IIRC, List of painters or List of Polish painters, and i assume you realize that rd lks are a Good Thing until there's article-specific reason to presume n-n. If you did, could you say so (if not, e.g., describe Google test results) on talk:List of people by name: Cz (in lieu of having done so in the summary), saving collegial angst over seemingly reckless removals? Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

CCOTW

You showed support for the selection of a Canada Collaboration. This month None was selected for improvement. We hope you can contribute.

BC!

Wow a wikipedian from BC now going to university in Montreal (Concordia I presume?) Thought I was alone! --Gregorof 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One Dead Indian

Hi there Victoriagirl. Could you provide source for the fact that One Dead Indian was published by Stoddart in 2001? Can you provide an ISBN?

I can find this showing it was published by McClelland & Stewart in 2003. Could this refer to a revised or paperback version? Is Stoddart perhaps a subdivision of M&S, or something? Regards,--Saforrest 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Victoriagirl. Thanks for the explanation about Stoddart. I like the "References" -> "Editions" change; I agree that having a reference to book X on a page about book X is a bit strange. I'm happy as long as the complete information needed for a reference (title, publication date, etc.) and the ISBN is included somewhere on the page, in whatever form. --Saforrest 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Medcab case

Under the Copyright Convention this is true in canada.

If the content is copyrighted and does not have permission to use, Wikipedia can not use it. You would be justified in deleting these links then, get sysop assistance if necessary. The case is therefore Closed. Geo. 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing

I don't see how the changes you recently made to Quebec bashing are "as per the Mediation Cabal decision", as you wrote when making them. perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see that anyone has shown that the articles were used without permission. If I am missing something, please let me know. I added a bit more on the case's page. John FitzGerald 17:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathieugp has clued me in on why the references should come out at least temporarily, but I hope someone is looking into whether the articles are used with permission or not. if no one is, I can try. John FitzGerald 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Our messages seem to be crossing. Thanks for the message on my talk page. At the very least this imbroglio shows the weakness of the mediation procedures – obviously you felt constrained from investigating. Anyway, as I noticed on the article talk page, I don't see how vigile.net could have carried on a program of barefaced piracy for so long without being caught. I will inquire further. I must say I'm surprised that you don't seem to feel any need to. John FitzGerald 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. Took me like three minutes to find it. John FitzGerald 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah – as I've noted elsewhere, I'm now happy with your last edit of the article, until the issue is settled, anyway. Couldn't be more appropriate. As I implied above, I think the problem was too many people trying to act in good faith when what constituted good faith wasn't very clear. John FitzGerald 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathieugp pointed out something I missed. That article I found is dated 1998. As he suggests, vigile.net has probably either established its right to reproduce or reached an accommodation. I haven't been able to find anything later. Anyway, it's about time someone contacted vigile.net. I suugested to Mathieugp that he's the obvious candidate. John FitzGerald 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Defence

Thanks for the note "in your defence." However, no need to defend yourself to me. I admit my original post could well have have left the impression I was expecting a defence, but if I'd thought you'd done something beyond the pale I would have reverted your edits. I work in a field where the modus operandi is essentially to question everything. My original comments on this issue were not fully informed, my contributions since have had certain, um, flaws, but I think we're all getting closer to a resolution as a result. As per Popper's The myth of the Framework.

You were right to raise this issue and I have been persuaded by Mathieugp your removal of the links was the right thing to do until the issue is settled. My big beef is with the mediation procedures. Again, I don't think they need to be defended, just examined. John FitzGerald 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kravitz

Victoria, thanks for your help on the Kravitz entry. You have great taste in music.

s.

John Thompson

Hello,

I did quite a bit of searching regarding the death of the poet John Thompson. I could not find a source that stated his death was a suicide. From what I did find, it is clear it was drug related. As you can see I added both the text I found and its source to his article.

Regards,

Michael David 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mordecai etc...

Thanks for the heads up, and thank you for the clear headed commentary. Hopefully we can move beyond the silliness soon. Peregrine981 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't do it without you. Your resourcefulness has been invaluable to moving that article along. You had mentioned that we should include a ref to how many articles he wrote on the subject, but I am having some trouble finding a reference for that. Any ideas? Peregrine981 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I found one source saying that he had written 7 major articles in the US media (out of 8 on the topic of Quebec!). However, the source for this is Guy Conlogue (Conlogue, Ray. "Facing up to both sides of Mordecai." Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada) (July 25, 2001)). What do you think? Can the source be trusted on this? Peregrine981 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking the databases, I found 4 articles written on Quebec politics after 1991, giving a total of eight. Perhaps it depends on what one means by major. Perhaps we should just cite the articles in question? Peregrine981 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelley Armstrong

Hi, you put a wikify tag on that article. What would you suggest be wikified? It looks to me like almost everything that can be wikified is. (Not all, but most). Could you be more specific (maybe on the article tak page)? Aleta 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have no argument with, and am actually in agreement with, your concerns. I just wouldn't classify them as wikification (which I think of as being markups and wikilinks, etc.). Maybe one of us could change the tag to something more representative of those concerns?  :) Aleta 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I should have thanked you before for your reply, so thanks! I see you've already changed the tag to cleanup - no problem with that.  :) I've reposted your concerns to Talk:Kelley Armstrong, and I've been working some more on the page, adding references (though all so far are to subpages of her official page). Aleta 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lisa B

Hey, I know you didn't realize I was still working on it. I just got frustrated (more than was warranted for the amount lost, but that is my own crap). I wondered about the citation noted thing. Actually I'm adding at least one. Part of what I found disagrees with the thing about her debut album, som I deleted that mention. Aleta 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you don't think I was upset with you. It was just the situation. Anyway, it's funny we keep working on the same pages - for you it's presumably the Victoria connection, but this and the Armstrong article are totally unrelated things for me.  :) Aleta 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your fixes to Runaway production

I just saw your changes to Runaway production. Thank you - I was trying very hard to synthesize everything, but it's exceedingly difficult to edit in the sea of references and notes. I agree there is still a lot of redundant redundant hyper-linking, among other things, so it's nice to have some fresh eyes. Agent 86 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized I was talking about a completely different (but related) article. I guess I didn't screw up after all - until I made the above note, anyway! Agent 86 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said over at Agent 86's talk page, thank you both for your participation at Runaway production and Hollywood North. This situation will really benefit from "new blood" sifting through the conflicting contributions and sorting out what is appropriate. At the same time, I'd also appreciate any advice you can provide me on how best to approach this matter as an editor. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

poet stat!

Hi Victoriagirl - I have watched from afar and with interest as you have bravely defended various poets. Time to reveal that I am a poet (gulp) with two books to my name. If you email me a mailing address I will send you my 2000 book Erosion which will give you some flavour or Australia or at least my small corner of it. Cheers, Lgh 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, if you are logged in you can go to my user page and email me direct using the 'email this user' in the 'toolbox' box in the left margin of your wikipedia window. I'd rather not post my direct email 'cause you never know who's watching! Cheers, Lgh 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Thanks for the thanks. I did say "everyone" because I didn't want anyone to feel singled out and also because I wanted everyone to think about their actions. But I have to say that you were probably the only editor to remain completely civil the entire time. --JGGardiner 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gradey Alexander

I also did a bit of Googling, and turned up about as much as you did. Not having personally heard of him doesn't really matter; if he were notable he'd be somehow verifiable on the web. Unfortunately, though, being a hoax isn't actually a speedy deletion criterion, so it'll have to go through AFD. I'll look after that right now. Bearcat 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

David Bromige

That was a bold edit, your removing the unsourced quotations from the Bromige article. Good work! I'm trying to get a photograph from David for the article. Sebastopudlian Dwalls 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo is up at long last! Dwalls 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary S. Sherman

Thanks for your edits to that article. I was dreading having to go root out conspiracy-pushing in yet another JFK-related article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Road Letters

No problem. You just had to replace "Related article 1" with the name of the related article you wanted to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Hi Vicki, I've always admired your calm and collected sensibility on various Canadian related topics. It has generously reminded me about my own values when it comes to hot situations and the type of editor I want to be. Thanks for all. That in mind, have you thought about adminship for yourself? -hint hint- Mkdw^talk 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I don't understand - I did indeed read all the guidelines about commercial and advertising posting before starting any edits. My understanding was that I was allowed to post factual non-advertising info - which I thought I was doing - adding references etc. and that the best way to do it was to be up front about who I was (hence the user name)as per the guidelines. Nowhere did I try to sell any books, or even post information that would lead to book sales (I added links to author bios - not book pages). I feel that I've been very careful and respectful of guidelines, and even tried to clean up the other info/formatting etc. on an entry wherever possible. Your edits seem harsh. Please help.

Help! Part Two, or, alternately, Thanks for the Help

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I appreciate your committment to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Your clarification and advice does indeed help - I had not realized that mentioning wanting something posted on the talk pages was a possibility. I had obviously not realized the conflict of interest and was trying to combine what I had read on the guidelines as well as following the precedents I had seen on Wikipedia. (For example, on he Mole Sisters entry, the external link to Treehouse TV appears - I didn't realize that although it is promotional in nature ((as much so as is linking to author bios)) it met Wikipedia standards by being posted by a neutral party). Knowing this, I will continue to edit with transparency best intentions and hope that other editors are as helpful as you've been. Thank you also for letting me know the method for signing posts.--Annick Press Representative 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An addendum to Help! Part 2

Upon closer inspection I'm finding that you have also edited out some links that I didn't add in the first place (citing COI). However, in these instances I merely fixed a broken link that was already there, and didn't add the external reference myself. At this point I am obviously hesitant to go and reverse any of your edits, so what happens now? Do I ask you to go back and look at what you've edited of my entries and reconsider those without COI? Is there another solution? Thanks. --Annick Press Representative 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for citation at Anti-Quebec sentiment

Hi, Victoriagirl. The citation for the entire Levine section is the citation of Potvin at the end. If you're asking for a confirmatory citation, though, that's probably a good idea.

I had hopes of getting more done with this article, but work has taken over my life. I'm also losing hope for Wikipedia. AQS needs a lot of work, but compared to the average article here it's a model of scholarship. John FitzGerald 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Williams (trader)

Thanks for the cleanup. I've removed some additional uncited material. Pleclech 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppetfeast

Hey Victoria, I guess now it is correct. I put the kids to bed and did not come back to the computer until now, I apologize. Stellatomailing 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Looks like you are going to get another barnstar :-) Stellatomailing 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

100 New York Mysteries

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 100 New York Mysteries, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your post. In fact, I did not propose 100 New York Mysteries for deletion. The {{prod}} tag was placed by Hoary. It was then removed by 71.203.147.175 as one of over a dozen acts of vandalism committed by the account on that particular day (3 June 2007). The majority of these concerned the deletion of prod tags. Almost all were restored by another. Can the tag not be returned after what is clearly an act of vandalism? Please do let me know if I am wrong about this. Thanks. Victoriagirl 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it may be an attempt to prevent deletion, then the tag shouldn't be restored. According to WP:PROD:

however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith

The removal of this tag from over a dozen pages, together with other tags, would seem to me like contesting all those tags; an anon has the right to contest the PROD. Od Mishehu 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny the right of any user to remove {{prod}} tags. That said, I remain steadfast in my belief that the edit in question was part of a series of vandalism. As stated above, only the majority of the sixteen edits in question - made within a 28 minute period - concerned the removal of {{prod}} tags. Amongst the other edits were more clear acts of vandalism, perhaps the most extreme being [2] and [3]. Victoriagirl 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

post-poet: the elliptical conjunctions

Hi, I wonder if you ever got my book Erosion? Note I'm not asking what you think of the work - but simply whether it arrived (post round here a bit erratic). I have just finished writing a trio of children's novels and waiting for publisher feedback. Yrs, Lgh 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One Book, One Vancouver

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article One Book, One Vancouver, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote Farm at Brain Sex

Ah! So true! I was waiting for someone to do that. Guess I'm going to have to write up the rest of the review. ;) Good on you Victoria, I'd have left it as it is if you hadn't given me a prod. Cheers. Alastair Haines 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks Victoria. I've written up two chapters and have some time today. As it happens I've got the book, but only on loan, and should deal with this sooner rather than later. By the way, it feels good to plead guilty and accept a prompt for improvement from you for a change. Keep Wiki-ing, and keep me honest. I promise I'll never call you the "v" word again. ;) Ouch, silly me. It's day time here in Australia, have a great whatever-it-is in Canada. :) Alastair Haines 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've provided summaries for the first five chapters. If you agree, I'd appreciate moving the "quote farm" tag down to the end of chapter five. (That way it appears above the chapters that have no encyclopedic text.) It would be possible to: expand the summaries of the first five chapters, to remove the quotes or relegate them to footnotes. Removing doesn't seem quite right, footnoting doesn't seem right either, they are more authoritative than any text editors can provide at Wiki -- any book describes itself better than anything else can.

If you think the summaries need to be expanded to keep quotations in proportion, I can do that over the next 24 hours or so. If you think the quotes would stand more appropriately after the summaries than before them, please feel free to make that change, and I'll follow that convention in the remaining chapters. Cheers. Alastair Haines 04:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: are you personally involved with Vancouver Library? Any chance you could borrow and contribute to Brain Sex yourself? ;) Alastair Haines 04:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A. K. Feazul Huq

Why was the citation removed regarding 'Poetry Award' on A. K. Faezul Huq's page? Here is a link that pretty much sums it up what you may have wished to challenge: http://www.dhakacourier.net/issue48/report/doc3.html - besides, Dhaka Courier is a reputable weekly in Bangladesh. Ask anyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minist3r (talk • contribs)

National Librray Page

I blanked the page for two reasons: (1) It strikes me as an invasion of privacy (outing) (2) It's a place that has public Internet access, so it's bound to be used by various trolls. That shouldn't mean everyone who uses it is suspect. Averythedog 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing???

I would like to know what exactloy you think I am vandalizing. Averythedog

A. K. Faezul Huq's Page

Poetry dot com lol? See, that's where the actual misunderstanding is. Mr. Huq never submitted his poems online. Moreover, Dhaka Courier has inadvertently made that misprint on their page: if they have in fact implied Poetry dot com.

Can you be reached in email or Y!/MSN? I can get the hard copy (scanned) of the reception invitation / award certificate from Mr. Huq himself, and show you. May be, then you can help me correctly cite it. How about it? The Minister 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minist3r (talk • contribs)

Dale K. Van Kley

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dale K. Van Kley, you will be blocked from editing. Please discuss your concerns regarding the link on the page's talk page before continuing the revert war. --172.145.250.228 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with 172.145.250.228's charge and have addressed it at 172.145.250.228's discussion page and at the Dale K. Van Kley discussion page. Victoriagirl 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news of sorts! We have consensus. After reading some of the libelous, hurtful garbage that "people" post as ratings on that site, I now whole-heartedly agree that it is not reliable. Therefore, I will not restore that link to the article. Also, I'll do my best to remember adding edit summaries. Enjoy the summer; it's sizzlin where I'm at! --140.254.225.30 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

margaret laurence?

Hi, I am interested in the work of Margaret Laurence. Which definitive book on her would you recommend as a starting point for me? Cheers, Lgh 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, that's perfect. Lgh

Will Lang Jr. wikiarticle

I'm not sure if it's you that's been correcting the article I wrote regarding Will Lang Jr., but if it was, I wish to thank you for making the page look more neater.

However, I regret I cannot cite a reference for the quote from Yale Joel.

You see, I e-mailed Yale & his wife Shirley several months ago and asked them to share their memories of Will Lang Jr. and they evoked those kind words regarding Will Lang Jr. (Seen at the bottom of the Wikipedia article of Will Lang Jr.)

(I was putting together some information on my book, "The Epic of Will Lang Jr.")

If you wish to delete the quote from Yale Joel, go ahead.

John A. Lang - Author

(John1963)

Tom Reilly

I have revised the article, in which I have long been personally interested, to hopefully make it better. I am still kind of new at Wikipedia, so please be kind. Yours,216.194.3.211 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I want to learn all I can. I did just made a very minor punctuation addition (period at end of sentence) and united the dismembered line with the rest of the related paragraph. I know it is trivial but it irked me. OCD?? Probably.

Oh, btw - a bit of advice. Do you recommend I register? I don't have an e-mail address at the moment but I do not want to be considered a mere gadfly. I just got a glimpse of your userpage. How lucky you are to live in beautiful British Columbia!! 216.194.3.121 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR re: Douglas Kinsella

You've violated it. I've reported you. 209.217.93.166 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't. But then my reverts deal with "simple vandalism". You have no case. Victoriagirl 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she has. You can't own articles. She has reported you. 209.217.84.120 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above anon editor has now been blocked for 3RR. Frankly, their edits are uncited WP:BLP violations and you are quite right in reverting them. I have semi-protected the article now as the editor is using many multiple IP addresses to push this particular point - Alison ☺ 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

C. Mulroney

V-Girl, I just saw your near-year old call for the Caroline Mulroney article to be deleted. Too bad you lost that one. What the heck is that article doing on wiki. Care to try again to have the article deleted?DDD DDD 13:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not around much these days either. This is the first article I've ever nominated for deletion. I think I got all the templates right.DDD DDD 11:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Arigatou.DDD DDD 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for checking the Canadian Index. I just wanted to double-check with you... I think the time period I was recalling was not from the time her father was Prime Minister, but around the time of her wedding. There is nothing from around then that is non-trivial, similar to the Chelsea Clinton article to which you referred? Much obliged, --Paul Erik 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why did you remove all of the reviews: [4]? You removed a lot of information. Those reviews are about the book and thus they are relevant. Did you want me to rewrite those sections so that there wouldn't be so many quotes? Also, I have just recently created and worked on that article. It was not yet finished, I was planning to rewrite some parts anyways.Hajji Piruz 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about me

There are some traces of articles about me which I did not want to be on wikipedia. I notice that the people I believe were responsible for it have been trying to remove these traces; I also have made an attempt or two. I would like to discuss this with you off wikipedia - perhaps email @ my username @ sympatico.ca. I just want to be reasonable, but it annoys me that all this junk is floating around with my name on it. Anber 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My response to Victoriagirl's response :) : Yes it is true that I posted the photo and voted abstain in the vote for deletion, in fact I even expressed some amusement with the idea that there was a Wikipedia article about me. That's really all it was though, it was not my idea to post the article that was the centre of the dispute, and I never fought to keep it up, I just mused about it. Remember, while I dabble in Wikipedia I'm really not well versed on how to do stuff or what is or isn't proper conduct so I was just playing around when someone told me that they saw an article about me when they googled me. Bottom line is this whole thing has been such hassle and headache. Yes I also posted Dynamic Legal Solutions, mainly in the hope that it would supplant the current wikipedia result when my name is googled (also because I thought the article might be worthy of inclusion although I thought wrong). I just can't imagine why people appear to be so adamant to keep my name in circulation. Even if it is deleted, I believe that the "proof" of whatever was said in the debate will always remain so what's the big deal. Especially since the consensus was I am not notable, why does anybody care to have this exist in search engines. Anber 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and just one more comment: Regarding the page I posted deleted by user "Lucky-something". That was done when I first joined Wikipedia and thought that it was appropriate to just create a page about one self (many people I knew, far less notable than I had done so and their pages remained for some time) when I was informed by "Lucky" I didn't make any further attempt - the page was speedy deleted. The page that was debated in Afd and argued over was a different page of whos origin I have no idea (although I have some good ideas) and which I never asked to be put up. Anber 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing about Anb-r is you have to realize that he’s probably just embarrassed. If he was just asking to have his name removed because it comes up on google, it wouldn’t matter. As you said, he argued for inclusion in the AfD. But I think that he’s not embarrassed that a WP entry was created but rather by his actions. You can see from his entries in Lucky’s talk that he’s embarrassed and asks for his name removed. The removals of his name have also attempted to remove things which wouldn’t matter on a search result but show his behaviour such as removing mention of the January 23 article (his birthday). His behaviour in working the article, the AfD and the deletion review plus all of the sock puppets (claimed as meat puppets) was overall pitiable, vain and I’m sure he must cringe to know that acquaintances will see it all.

At first, I was unmoved because it was really his own fault. Every time he was embarrassed he kept on trying to work the system in another way. After the first article there was the second, then the deletion review, then the Dynamic article(s), etc. I am upset that he shows no remorse and really only cares because this comes up through google. If it didn’t I’m sure he wouldn’t care about the mess that he’s made here. But in the end I understand that he is a real person who has a life off of Wikipedia and I can imagine that it could affect him negatively to have all of this here. I think we should show him some sympathy although I think that he will need to ask for help in resolving it rather than removing text on his own. --JGGardiner 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

VicGirl, your comments were read and understood, I'm not all that sure of the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but I'm sure learning them quickly. I've spent so much time here lately, maybe I should invest in learning a bit more... thanks for your comments Anber 22:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

long march

Hi, my news is good - and will give you a bit of a taste of the celluloid industry (even though it's mostly digital now). I wrote the script in 2002; hawked it around, got it picked up by a producer and director, worked for a year on the script with the director (who was never happy, it seemed), dumped the producer (or rather she dumped us for a paying gig elsewhere), decided to get commercial after govt failed completely to fund us in any form (what they fund is politically correct but totally unwatchable in the main), worked our butts off finding sponsors, set up a production company, had more investor meetings, issued an 'offer document' for shares (it's all greek to me but luckily a friend of mine is a financial advisor), and are now, now I tells you, finally in position to start pre-production and to film in March, 2008! So, yes, my first film will finally be made in March 2008. We intend to take it round US and Canada to varsity campuses to raise funds and interest once it's done. Cheers, Lgh 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bourrie

I checked Concordia's journalism school web page and he's not listed. How did you confirm he is teaching there? Lafarge Dodger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafarge Dodger (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the Journalism Department web site and his name wasn't on the list of part-time or full-time faculty. Lafarge Dodger 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant discussion about Jo Walton reference tag

I want to thank you for the affable tone of the discussion on this item. Such affairs often get rancorous to an absurd degree. (I fear that with the rash of AfD efforts against Usenet figures [especially science-fiction-related ones], we longtime Usenet fans in particular are prone to a rather defensive tone.) I was delighted to have a substantial exchange rather than one devoid of the prescribed but often ignored Assumption of Good Faith. --Orange Mike 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki Foundation reverts

Thanks for your vigilance and attention to process on the Foundation article. Your request to the anon editor that s/he should discuss on the talk it is right on, IMO. We shall see what s/he does. Sunray 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki Foundation reverts

Thank you for your kind message, but I think it would be proper to discuss the section while it's there or freeze the article due to disputed neutrality. I have reasons to doubt Sunrise neutrality on this topic given the statement on his About Me page: "Some people I know are working at creating alternatives that don't depend on petroleum".

216.240.13.13, 17:51 21 September, 2007

David Suzuki Foundation

I don't mind your latest editing, but did you read my version of the section edited 22:48, 21 September 2007? I'd think it's more neutral.

216.240.13.13 18:59, September 21 2007

Concordia University

The unreferenced tag doesn't cover the issue, because it may never be cited, and policy is that it must be cited. It'll never even get to GA without being cited. GreenJoe 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki Foundation

It seems that nobody's interested in helping us to reach consensus on DSF article. If you continue to claim that you don't have an opinion on this section, I will ask for WP:THIRD. If you have an opinion now, I'll opt for WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Answer me ASAP if you please. I believe it's in everybody's interest to resolve this conflict in the shortest time possible. Vryadly 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• My response.Victoriagirl 23:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At no pont have I claimed that I didn't have an opinion concerning the section in question.

I refer to your statement at Sunray talk page: "At this point, I'm fairly neutral as to whether or not the section should stay as is". (Victoriagirl 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)) It seems to be quite a direct claim that you don't have an opinion on should this sedction exist or not. Anyways, if you have an opinion now, I'll ask Mediation Committee to help us reach an agreement. Vryadly 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is too minuscule for me to comprehend it. But if your only concerns are the changes made to the section, i.e. the name of the section and the last quotation I would be just happy to change the former and delete the later. But I doubt Sunray would agree. Vryadly 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertherless in this case we would be able to ask for the Third opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• And my response. Victoriagirl 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised. I apply for Mediation Committee then. Vryadly 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Concordia

Interesting name given recent developments, no? I just wanted to thank you for your support on AN3. I did lose my cool, and it is great to have a colleague step in and comment when one has already said enough. Thanks. Sunray 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki vandalism

Victoriagirl, this is a public school website and most likely the vandalism won't stop, so, if possible you should block it indefinetly to curb the abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.213.250 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Caroline Mulroney

Is there any way that I could get the source of the deleted article (i.e. could you temporarily undelete it, or post the source on my Talk page), as I plan on implementing some sections of it on Brian Mulroney?

I've read the debates and the notability of the Frank magazine and wedding could somewhat fit on her father's page for the time being. GoldDragon 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

I did, and I said no. What part of that do you not understand? GreenJoe 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't withdraw it. J 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lady, I'm tired and I'm not feeling well today. I mean this in the nicest possible way, but no, I don't intend to do anything about it. I'm perfectly content to let it drop as-is. J 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy Breach

I have posted this on Jimbo Wales' talk page: In Revision history of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus several names of real people, including a professor at a Montreal university, are tossed around and serious allegations are made. I have tried several times to remove the name of one person, only to have it reverted by a Wikipedia user who apperas to hold a personal grudge against this professor and may be a student of his. I think this should be done for several reasons: 1. We have no proof that this person has ever posted on Wikipedia and might be impersonated and 2. the breach of this person's privacy outweighs some old dispute on Wikipedia. Lafarge Dodger 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My response.Victoriagirl 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to haunt Bourrie's life and derogatory Wikipedia entries about him. Dominic J. Solntseff 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

Hi there. I saw the unfounded meatpuppet allegations, and it doesn't like there's any way to persuade the user to be civil. (If he keeps violating policy, I'd go to ANI or AIV though). I also asked for comments from another editor, which are here. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, i agree that there's no way to enforce civility in this case. At least GreenJoe has agreed that it's a closed issue, so hopefully everybody can just move on from here.

That said, Victoriagirl, I have to commend you on maintaining civility throughout the process and not resorting to any personal attacks yourself. And for your patience as you endured the attacks on your reputation, I award you the Purple Star. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely you may move the star to your user page. I put it on your talk page since I don't like messing with other people's user pages (unless it's to remove copyvio or attack content). —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographical info, Ron Horsley

Hey, I just wanted to let you know i restored your delete of 'unsourced biographical information' about Ron Horsley, with a link to the guy's webpage sourcing his biographical info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniwha (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

List of McGill University people

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of McGill University people, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. J 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ray Blackston

Hey! Thanks a lot for working on the article. I really appreciate - was actually waiting around for another editor to wiki-along and clean it up a bit. Thanks.

That being said, I'm a lil confused with a few of your changes. I've addressed them on the talk page of the article. I'd be happy if you could reply to the concerns raised. However, please do not feel threatened/attacked/anything like that - my intention is far from that.

Once again, thanks for stopping by - that's what WP is for, ain't it?! aJCfreak yAk 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You consider that a late reply?! He he he. Anyways, I've responded on the talk page that I'm gonna do some more research to provide info on him. The real problem is though, that I'm sitting here in India while Blackston's an American novelist and I simply don't see a way I'm gonna get my hands on actual printed news articles of the States. Any ideas?! (Also since nobody else seems to be colloborating) But I admire the way you've treated the issues raised. :) aJCfreak yAk 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

Hello! I see you reverted edits by Annoynmous (talk · contribs) back to your own reversion. In addition to removing your edits, this editor also removed some edits by Morningside Clio (talk · contribs) and I think that the two of them are at the beginning of a revert/edit war on this and some other related articles. Your reversion brought back some of the edits by Clio back into the article, such as born in Jordan of Christian parents as well as the tag about Middle East Quarterly. I just wanted to make sure you intended to do that so I don't go correcting your corrections. If you did intend to do that, please ignore me :). Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotiabank Giller Prize

Hello, I've noticed you changing the Scotiabank Giller Prize links on articles so that they lead to Giller Prize, which is a redirect. Please consider altering your linking so that [[Scotiabank Giller Prize|Giller Prize]] is used instead; that way it will go to the proper article without the use of a redirect. Thanks! María (críticame) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Temptation (2007 US game show)

Thanks for cordially and quickly resolving the problem on that article. All's well with it now. White 720 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

My comments were not directed at you, they were directed at morningslide Clio who it is rather obvious dose not like Massad and wants to bias the article against him. Your edits seem fair and I have no problem wth them except for the characterization of the Middle East Forum group. The impression given is that there some neutral, unbiased organization which there not.

Other than that I have no problem with your edits and I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my comments which I assure you weren't directed at you.annoynmous 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

HMS Press (Toronto/London) Canada

Hey there. You marked that article as G4, but I can't seem to find the AfD. Could you point me at it? (I suppose the name changed slightly?) — Coren ^(talk) 18:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Press (Toronto/London) Canada

This was not an article per se and it was the first of several in that category. This was BOOK COVERS only in the Book Covers category. There are only book covers in there, I was in the process of putting together other Canadian small Press book publishers "Book Covers" in the only category for them. How is this similar to the naive first article I wrote 2 years ago when I first started out? If I organized all the McGraw Hill Book Covers into an article it would be the same wouldn't it?? Just book covers? WayneRay 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

My response. Victoriagirl 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs Up Award

The Thumbs Up Award

For your courage in wandering over the border and cleaning up C. Howard Crane you have earned the seldom-coveted Thumbs Up Award.

Kingdom of God

I'm a little confused as to why you continually delete the citation that I add to the text that I myself contributed to The Kingdom of God article. I'm ok with (but don't agree with) deleting the article on the book, Thy Kingdom Come, but when did we decide we no longer want citations? It's not as though people follow links in the reference section when they're book shopping, I would hardly call this promotional. Nrcjersey (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion

Hi Victoria: I would appreciate your feedback on what I've begun with In the Skin of a Lion. I saw that you had placed a "clean-up" tag on it some time ago and soon saw why. I took a look at a few articles about notable books with plot summaries and determined: a) that plot summaries are fairly common, and b) that they are usually just a precis of a few paragraphs.

With that in mind I started to edit the "plot summary" for In the Skin of a Lion. So far I've done Part 1 and started into Part 2. However, I'm not sure whether it works for the average encyclopedia reader. Could you take a look and give me your reaction? We could just scrap the thing and write a new, much shorter summary. However, I'm hesitant to chuck what some other editor has done in good faith... Sunray (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trial of a City

(Apologies if this isn't the wikipedia way to send a message...I keep looking for a send-message button....) I'm the anonymous user who had altered the placing of 'The Damnation of Vancouver' back to 1957, rather than the correct 1977. (And I had been trying to get a copy of Trial of City, not realizing that they were the same text...I thought that the latter was based on the former - thank you!)

I'm currently in the vague planning stages of putting on a production of 'Damnation' sometime next spring - I also live in Montreal! Do you know of anyone in the Montreal-area, presumably at McGill, that does academic work on Birney? It'd be nice to have a contact to speak with my dramaturge (if I have one...I'm still looking for a stage manager!), or who might not mind speaking with the as-of-yet non-existent cast.

You can write back on my newly created wikipedia talk page, I'm "Trialofacity," but I guess that'd be automagically noted in your history page...

later, Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialofacity (talk • contribs)

Block

Glad you're back. It has been unpleasant on the Suzuki article. I'm not sure you were aware, but this evening, following a vandal report by me, 142.68.14.223 (talk) was blocked for 24 hours. CFred has told him to discuss his issues on the talk page. We shall see if he complies tomorrow when he is unblocked. Sunray (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good eye!

Good eye spotting that Martin Gubby matched the bio of Andy Quan! I guess the vandal thought that was really funny. It's sad that trash has been cluttering the servers for well over a year. Aleta ^Sing 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Victoriagirl,

By my count (and I'm in a flu-affected state, so it could well be wrong), you seem to be over the 3RR limit at Rachel Marsden. I do not want to see you blocked over this, believe me, so you might want to revert yourself quickly. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

R.M. talk page

Hi Victoriagirl,

Thanks for your note. The link you were looking for is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. The ip 64.26.147.175 is that of a banned user, so you don't have to (and shouldn't) engage in a discussion with it. The ip has been blocked for 72 hours and its posts have been reverted. I'm on a nice long holiday from that article, but I check in from time to time to keep an eye on the sockpuppets. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations Issue - Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius, please...

Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,

• Please, I re-read carfully the 3RR. And, it is questionable if you are right concerning my possible violations of the 3RR. But, if you consider that I overreacted - O.K., I'm sorry.
• On the other hand - yes, AuthorHouse is the former 1stLibrary Books. Yet, this is a POD Publishing House, not at all, I'm saying crystal-clear, not at all a self-publishing venture. With a POD Publishing House the author must respect the editorial international rules and, despite the fact that he pays some money for the editing&marketing of the book, the rest is the classic way to publish a book and make it available on the market. So, it is a pretty big difference between a self-publishing venture and a POD Publishing House. For example, the oldest POD Publishing House in the USA is Xlibris... a strategic partner of Random House Ventures. Therefore, may I ask: is Random House not credible for you Victoriagirl or for anyone from Wikipedia?
• Last but not least, all your explanations concernig your checking up of these quotations are a totally false argumentation. How do you question cultural American VIPs like Vladimir Tismaneanu (see on English Wikipedia), Norman Manea (see on English Wikipedia), Adam J.Sorkin (see on English Wikipedia) and Andrei Codrescu (see on English Wikipedia) - who are American universitary professors and public persons? They can be contacted to verifiy if they wrote and agreed to publish these blurbs or not.
• Concerning your research to check up on amazon.com the existence of Andrei Codrescu's quote about the literature of Leonard Oprea, well, you missed this reader's review (quote from amazon.com): / *****/ 7 of 7 people found the following review helpful: A marvelous book � this unique vision !, November 17, 2003. I repeat you can find it easily among the 9 reader reviews of the book of Leonard Oprea. Regarding your research on Romanian Wikipedia, sorry, but you did it superficially as well.
• My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Leonard_Oprea#Quotations and continue on the article talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Wikipedia Good references and Quotations issue

Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,

• Please, be so kind and re-read Wikipedia Good references (you have it below). Here, inside this Wikipedia rule, you have a black on white sentence, I qoute: You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites... Yes, I know you will tell me: ... please, in the final sentence it is written, I quote: ... nor is... self-published... But, please, I wrote you several times and do not forget: for many real reasons a POD Publishing House is not, not at all a self-publishing venture. (By the way, I think that you do not understand too well the basic definition of POD. The POD means the Publishing On Demand... which basically is to print a book /already leaglly edited and prepared for printing/ only, but only when this book in demand from the market of books: readers, book stores, specialized /authorized/ web-sites, public or universitary libraries etc.)

Therefor, my question: what is wrong with these Quotations?!! They are on a published book backcover (nota bene: not on a self-published book! ), they are on amazon.com and other authorized web sites... Anytime you can ask their well-known cultural American VIP authors, as I wrote you already... So, for God's sake: what is wrong?!! How should I consider this?!... Please, re-read: Good references: A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.

• My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to both posts from Judetadeus (talk · contribs) at Talk:Leonard Oprea. Victoriagirl (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: 64.230.106.232 and Prince Albert's Unit

I'm glad to help out. The account was obviously some kind of sockpuppet. Just tell me if you come across other accounts or IPs. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with the background of this, but I'm assuming these IPs are socks of User:Arthur Ellis? An abuse report might be filed if this continues. Also, do want your userpage protected? Spellcast (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. Just go to WP:RFPP or on my talk page if you want it unprotected. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain

Hello, Victoriagirl. I noticed that you have done some editing on the site Christian Cardell Corbet and I could use your guidance. I added several citation requests on this page. Drchandler removed some of the requests completely. And in place of some, text was added stating the information was "read to the public" or can be "cited on the artist's website". I see where Drchandler had removed one of your citation requests as well to which you reinstated it. If I undo what DrChandler has done and reinstate the citations I fear this will be an infinite loop of deleting and replacing the citations. What is the protocol at this point? Thank you for any help you can give.--AdamArchebald (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoriagirl1

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.[5] I can't wait to hear what Maclean11jj (talk · contribs) has to say. --maclean 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis Socks

I've asked for a checkuser on the socks on the David Suzuki page. You might want to add details to the request. Mike Bate (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

David Suzuki: The Autobiography

I have put together the article David Suzuki: The Autobiography and began an FAC on it. A reviewer has asked for a fresh set of eyes to provide a copyedit. Could you please review the article and look out for proper uses of words (remove any unnecessary words) and grammar? and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography? Thank you. --maclean 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sew Fast Sew Easy in NY Historical Society

Please note I have changed the Sew Fast Sew Easy article, let messages on the talk page and added several references in relation to Sew Fast Sew Easy's inclusion in the NY Historical Society. Would you like additional pictures? I have contacted the head currator of the NY Historical Society to ask if they would provide documentation that our company patterns and the Sew Fast Sew Easy website were included in the exhibit notating how far sewing has come. Our website was specifically mentioned because we make our own sewing patterns and were the first to offer online video learning for sewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarvin (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Wiley

Not sure about the boilerplate you added there. Tried to link everything I could to help a user immediately or quickly verify the citations. I wasn't sure how you felt I was in violation of WP:EL. Please explain on the talk page there. ALSO! I have been desperately seeking old articles from the Vancouver Sun from late 80s early 90s. Any way I could enlist help?? Much thanks, ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Victoriagirl, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Just use it for reverting vandalism, and you'll be fine! Good luck. Acalamari 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Kudos for filing this. I happened to notice the edits to Orville Lloyd Douglas while monitoring the LGBT watch list and when I left warnings came across your sockpuppet report. Let's hope this person and all related IP's get banned. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

David Suzuki

Hi Victoriagirl. My friend lives in Victoria, address is kozmoklimate@gmail.com We are very interested in your views on David Suzuki. peace out 24.68.249.72 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Russell Longcore article, deleted 22 Feb 08

Dear Miss Victoriagirl:

I'd like to discuss with you the re-listing of my article. You were responsible for its deletion on 2-22-08.

I have additional information and outside verifiable references that can be added to the article so it will meet with Wiki's guidelines.

How do we proceed?

Russell Longcore [contact information removed]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorboy1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• My response of 10 March 2008. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Russell Longcore article, deleted 22 Feb 08

Dear Miss:

I realize I'm not as advanced a user as you, but it appears that I have absolutely no say in this matter, and you editors can do whatever you choose to do. I'm not mad, just frustrated and my perception is colored by that frustration.

OK, I will have my publisher write the article. Since you and MAB have all the power, and you won't allow me to revise the original article...I'll have the publisher write the article.

Sorry that we cannot reach some sort of compromise.

Russ Longcore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.169.113 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Russell Longcore article, deleted 22 Feb 08

If I cannot write the article and my publisher cannot write the article, who can?

Who wrote John Grisham's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.169.113 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Karen Marie Shelton

Thank you for pointing out the reasons why you were removing references that I had thought were correct, I will find the correct references to replace them with. I appreciate all the assistance you have given while trying to write this article to the best of my ability (I have learned a great deal from trying to piece it together). Hairboutique (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman article

Hi, Victoriagirl. I've given a third-party view at Talk:Richard Tylman, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring request

Re [6]. See WP:COIN#PowerBasic Part II. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent.-- Matthead  Discuß   11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rev. David Granfield

I noticed that you removed the title from the Rev. David Granfield's entry. As a Benedictine priest, that is his correct title, either that or the Latinate Dom. David Granfield. [It might be Right Reverend, I never could figure out when one applied versus the other.] You would not remove "Mr.", why did you remove ""Rev."? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.121.140 (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not intend for that to be unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you know, Wikipedia has an [uncited] article about the use of " Reverend " etc. —Preceding signed comment added by Jsdy (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Coupland

We're not actually supposed to add Category:Canadian novels to any article that's already in a "Novels by author" category which is already a subcategory of "Canadian novels". Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of World of Stories?

Hi, Victoriagirl

Thanks for monitoring and providing feedback on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Stories .

Could you please help me understand why it would be considered for deletion? The book is a collection of pieces by 36 authors and illustrators, funded by the Rotary Club, for a local child literacy project, and has both a US and a Canadian ISBN. Perhaps it seems that I'm promoting my wife (Kari Winters) because her name is first, but actually that's both the published order of the book, and her name is listed first at the publisher's site and at Amazon.

It is the case that I'm providing publicity for her, of course.  :-) But not unduly so, I don' think. I linked only to her site and to one other author's site because they are the only two authors in the book with their own websites.

Thanks! Jonah22 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Jonah

World of Stories content edits

Thanks, Victoriagirl!

I'm finding and linking to some articles and interviews now. As a public-interest literacy project, you're right -- articles about the book and project are coming out, and as they do I'll link to them, in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria, and then undelete the Wikipedia article.

I appreciate your feedback.

Jonah22 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag added to Michael Twist

Just a long FYI note: I've been adding information to List of Canadian poets and started looking at the Category:Canadian poets, which led me to Michael Twist. Rather than add his name to the list of poets and a line on him at "births" to 1972 in poetry, I think we should delete this article, since he doesn't seem to fit the WP:BIO notability criteria. As I look at the history for the article, I find a number of editors have spent their time on this article, including you, which I think has been a waste. The article was started by an account named "Jellyfishcom". Jellyfish Communications seems to be a publicity organization that published his poetry chapbook, which I assume he paid for. If evidence can be found for his notability, I'd support the article, but Google hasn't helped me. -- Reconsideration (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RapeLay stays...

...but Sean Kennedy (Author) doesn't? "The mindset of the Wiki[-policing] folk can be summed up in this article: RapeLay -- Yes, a Japanese rape simulator game is more important than all the real people and places that have been deleted."

CelticWonder (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello. I think you should know that contributions such as these [7] made to other users' talk pages could also be seen as canvassing, and runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm just not as long-winded as you are. CelticWonder (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My response. CelticWonder (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have contributed to previous deletion discussions on the topic of Sean Kennedy, it was perfectly acceptable for CelticWonder to notify me. In fact, it is generally considered the duty of the initiator of the deletion discussion to notify those who have contributed to previous discussions on the same topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• PS, both of you grow up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean Kennedy (Author) to stay in Wikipedia

Please reconsider your decision for "endorsing deletion". I believe there have been many productive responses to concerns on the deletion review page as well as additional references and notability entries (#1/#2) added to the article. Thank you very much for your time. CelticWonder (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ron Dembo

Hi -- you seem to have several times reverted as vandalism edits that were clearly made in good faith and probably improve the article, although they have sourcing issues. The IP who made the edits has been pleading for help at WP:BLP#This is a note in regards to the Biography on Ron Dembo. I'm starting a thread at Talk:Ron Dembo to discuss this -- could you respond there please? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice reply. I didn't know how to address that one, it seemed to be a little bit of a troll. In fact, some of his past indicates what is, at best, a brusque writing style: [8] tedder (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

TSAR publications

i removed the advert tag that you replaced on TSAR Publications, but i also took the time to improve the article. (or at least i think i did). i still dont like its structure, but i am relatively new to the process of editing and often do cleanup without it being "perfect". if you think its still promotional, i wont revert, and if you have any easy suggestions for improvement, tell me. i had it on my watch list for a while and hadnt gotten to it, so i noticed your revert of the removed advert tag, and was inspired to make a stab at it. i am not associated with the publisher.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• My response. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. since i do a lot of little cleanups of more obscure articles, i often dont know if i have missed something about format, etc., as likely few people are watching them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CelticWonder

First of all, I'm sorry to see the offensive remarks that were directed at you by this editor. I originally blocked User:CelticWonder but subsequently unblocked them on the understanding that they will not engage in future personal attacks or harassment. I hope you can appreciate that this is the best course of action for Wikipedia as a whole, because CelticWonder has a relatively short period of time in which to improve an article that may be deleted, and because blocks are intended primarily as a means of preventing disruption - a purpose which will not be served by continuing to block this editor. (A secondary purpose of blocking is to inform editors in the strongest possible terms that their conduct is unacceptable; I consider this purpose to have been met in this case.)

If there are any future incidents where you feel harassed or attacked by this editor, please contact myself or another admin (at the WP:ANI noticeboard). Thanks for your understanding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, my thanks for your words. As CelticWonder has withdrawn his comment, I consider the matter closed. And I do understand that the block would have had a detrimental effect on efforts to save RantMedia. Again, thank you. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for putting up with me. :o) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I forgot to mention that, though you may not know it, I believe your suggestions of late will be paramount to the successful inclusion of RantMedia. I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as -- since Tuesday afternoon. I wasn't clear to me what was necessary to be done with the article, and you helped lead me to the answer of my question of "what is it going to take?". So from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard Tylman

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Tylman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard Tylman

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Tylman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University - FYI

I see you were involved in the last discussions about the use of the pages Concordia University, Concordia University (Montreal) and Concordia University (disambiguation) some four or five years ago(!)
You may be interested to learn that (in ignorance) I've upset the applecart.
You may be interested to read Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move?.
(On the other hand, you may want to avoid it like the plague ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet insinuations

You might want to be aware of this recent comment [9] by User:Poeticbent which insinuationes that you use sockpuppets. Pantherskin (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard Tylman

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Tylman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Victoriagirl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 699 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Rosemary Sullivan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Survey

Hi Victoriagirl!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Victoriagirl! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Victoriagirl! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

WRT Caroline Mulroney you might be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_November_1&diff=688607841&oldid=688599572#Caroline_Mulroney

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)