Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 26 July 2018

Flow

June

"Sonne der Gerechtigkeit"

I don't know what happened. Good wishes, whatever, some soothing green and gentle flow, until we meet again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, all the very best, Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you. I've been firmly put in my place here, and apparently off-wiki too, and will honor my instinct to slap a retired template on my page. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sad to hear that. All the very best. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Peace

I read you recent deleted post on the "post-mortem" thread. Your remarks have not offended me in any way. I do think that the thread was perhaps opened too soon, when emotions are still high and people may exacerbate rather than resolve the issues. I would have preferred a couple of weeks of quiet reflective silence before trying to pinpoint what went wrong. However, something you said earlier rather cheered me: "Bottom line is that the article isn't quite there in my opinion". That kind of reasonable measured judgement makes me feel that when the tumult and the shouting dies, the article might yet be rescued to everyone's satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, just to let you know that I've seen this, but I'm not able to reply in any meaningful way right now. I do have a few thoughts that I'll add here when I'm feeling better. Thanks for the note. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Peace 2

Hi Victoria,

I thought I would send a quick note to apologise, to clarify and to (hopefully) clear the air, following the FAC, and the ongoing FAC talk thread.

The clarifications first, on two things you have written on the FAC talk page: firstly, "the nominator seems to believe I suggested men can't write about women": I have never thought that, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. I have always been clear that SarahSV stated that, not you. Secondly you said that "none of my suggestions were taken seriously": they were taken seriously, and I thought about them long and hard, but decided on an alternative course. You may have disagreed with that course, but your comments were always taken seriously, and when you came up with strong actionable points with which I agreed, I amended the article accordingly. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and although we may have differed on specifics, neither was "right" in the absolute sense.

I am sorry this has all turned out rather badly, and I am very sorry that you have thought my requests for clarification on your comments were (reading between the lines of you FAC talk page comment) too much, or too frequent. That wasn't my intention. I get heavily involved in the articles I work on, reading widely and deeply over the course of several years, and when points are legitimately challenged (as they were in your review), I like to clarify and deal with them quickly. It comes from a keenness of sorting out the points raised, rather than a way of bludgeoning or badgering reviewers. I can (in hindsight) see it may come across like that, but it really was not my intention.

I probably responded to you more brusquely at the FAC than I should (I cannot bring myself to read through the FAC again, but I guess I probably did), but that was because of another editor. That doesn't need re-hashing again, but suffice to say, my experience with them seriously affected my good faith with more legitimate reviews, and soured the review process with others. It meant you felt that you got what you describe as a cold welcome, and I am sorry for that: it was not my intention, and I am sorry that I gave that impression.

The experience of that FAC, particularly one set of behaviour, has pushed me down a particular path (one not for general ears on WP), which is why I withdrew the FAC in the end. The sheer attrition took away any enjoyment or sense of achievement, and a WP article, even on a subject I have researched for years and believe in greatly just is not worth the candle. After all that has gone on, including many lies about me that I have read from a couple of editors, I'm taking a break from Wiki for a month or more until I can be bothered to return.

You have mentioned your health concerns in the past: I hope these improve and that you you soon find your desire to edit is re-kindled once again.

Best

Gavin – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat, just to let you know I've seen this but can't really reply or do it justice right now. Will be back when I can. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat, since I'm here, will just add that I agree with Brian's post above that a few weeks of quiet reflection won't go amiss, (certainly I need it). It's best not to relitigate or get pulled into the weeds again - some of the above could, perhaps, have been posted to the thread John started at FAC talk. All that said, suggestions are being made on the article talk and that's where the work will happen. Thanks for the apology and I hope we will all move forward in a spirit of collaborative editing. I've seen it done, been involved in it only a few times on Misplaced Pages. The results are always good and the rewards even better. I'm off to watch France vs. Croatia, so cheers and all that. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Thank you for your recent edits to Jill Valentine. I doubt you're aware, but I've been tasked with doing this (in a nutshell: contacting everyone who has ever contributed to any of JV's FACs and peer reviews, and asking for their current opinions on the article). To be honest, you were actually the only one of those 22 users I wasn't going to contact—I had read on your talk page (about a year ago) that you were unwell, so I really didn't want to bother you. Even so, I tried to incorporate as many of your points from PR into the 'Appearances' that I could... because good advice is good advice. I hope you don't mind that I made a couple (, ) of mainly-Japanese language-related edits to the article's lead after you. Anyway, thanks for working on the article. I really appreciate it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I noticed the message on Sarah's page, but in that case I'll butt out though what ails me doesn't affect my ability to think. The edits I made were a small attempt to demonstrate that the prose needs tightening throughout, and if the edit you changed re the Japanese title needs to go to the lead then it should be bolded as an alt title in the first sentence rather than where it's currently place. Beyond that the issues that need to be sorted and taken to the talk page is how to reconcile the article history, and who the primary editor is, because that's the first thing the coords will consider. There are many other issues that have been previously pointed out and are characteristic of articles to do with characters. The article needs to focus on the character, not on the developer, not on the plot, not on appearances - those are all subsidiary - but on the character. It still doesn't manage to do that, but it's a really difficult thing to do. The best example I can give is my new favorite character is Ciri from Andrzej Sapkowski's Witcher books I read about a year ago. It's not something that could be written because there aren't sources, but assuming there were, the emphasis would be on her temperament and character and quest and history, etc., her skills and so on, with very little emphasis on the plot details the books she appears in (or the games, etc,) the creator (the author) and the reception. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead is the least of my concerns, to be honest. I'm primarily focused right now on trying to sort the 'Concept and design', 'Appearances' and 'Reception and legacy' sections; I think it's best to address the lead after these have been resolved. And I now consider myself the "primary editor" (ie, the only one editing the article), since the previous custodian has said he never wants to edit the article ever again. I think the massive "peer review" demonstrated that prolonged discussion between certain users is not the way for this article to move forward, since several of those users could never actually establish a consensus among themselves for what they wanted the article to be like after the peer review ended. So the personal touch is definitely a more productive way to go—asking people for their thoughts on their own talk pages will result in a lot more responses, as opposed to a generic message on the article's talk page, which I genuinely believe almost everyone would ignore.

With regard to developing the character's arc (personality, skills, etc.), I agree with most of what you've said. But I'd really rather keep things specific to traits which could be ascribed to every medium (games and movies and books), because there's an issue/rabbit hole I see developing there. For instance, during PR2, you mentioned details about the character from S.D. Perry's first book (kudos on managing to extract something of substance from that novel, BTW. I couldn't get through the first two chapters. Attrocious writing.), like her being nervous and clumsy, and running away from fights. But that isn't something I recognise of the character from either the games or films, where she is a brave and resourceful fighter who battles the likes of Nemesis and Tyrant without so much as a flinch. In fact, I recall her only ever backing away from 2 zombies: the first 2 she ever came across. It's also worth noting that her partner Chris also backed away from that second one, because the thing was freaking huge and unexpectedly appeared from around a corner. So, I'd be wary about adding details from one source (the books) that most people wouldn't recognise. There's probably a happy medium between the two (character details from books vs game/movie details), but I currently see this as just one big rabbit hole, and don't especially know how to proceed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I knew it was a mistake to respond with a big wall of text. What I've said above is basically every pre-existing thing I wanted to say about the article, but I've turned green the sentence fragments that I'd like to hear your opinions on. Do you have any suggestions on those? Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 I do mean to answer but haven't been able to yet. I do have limited time I'm able to spend here and expect to be gone for the next few days. I've been mulling this over, though, and thinking about the viability of various approaches. Will write more when I can. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'll probably be working this article until December, so take all the time you need. I'm just glad you're not ignoring me, like some others I could mention. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)