User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 6#Precious

Thank you for your improvements of Henry Jamyn Brooks! I noticed your additions of image information to the image captions. What do you think of this painter? (There was more info in the captions before.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:Oh, that's funny - that there was more information in the captions before.

:Interesting artist - I like his the way he captures light and shade.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::I don't want to a revert an experienced editor who writes one FA after the other, but thought the info was helpful, - there was also one image more, - I'm looking for different eyes on the matter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::I agree that the images looked better the way they were before they were reverted. Rather than start a edit war, you may want to post this as an item for discussion on the talk page - and I'll back you up. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Adding Images, multiple images are allowed. From that guideline, though, they shouldn't be at the top of a paragraph within a section; It would be best to right justify the one that is left-justified.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::They were not on top of the paragraph [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_August_Wenderoth&oldid=591144492 before] ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::Wow, that is so confusing to me. I like the image placement of the Gold Rush image better. I'm not sure if the top image is a good representation of the artist's work or not for the lead image. On this issue, maybe I could start a conversation on the talk page to figure out if there's a good option for image placement that doesn't leave most of them in the gallery. And, just see what bubbles up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::I went to post the question and see that there has been discussion about file use -- and that there are more issues that just placement of the images. And, she's rightfully careful to not add files, caption information, whatever that is not clearly and reliably true. You've got a great passion for writing articles and that's a good thing! I hope that there's a way to do that that is enjoyable for you and goes about a bit more calmly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Different topic: would you dare to add a minimum infobox to this artist? (You have been warned of sanctions by the arbitration commitee. I think of the readers.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:I'm not quite sure what's happening. Generally I like Infoboxes - and there are many who do not. I'm not quite sure that I understand why this boiled up to such a big issue that involved so many people in the dispute, but for now it seems wise to "step away" from the Infoboxes for awhile. It doesn't make or break an article, it just creates a nice little summary.

:My goal is to find a way to be "bold" developing, cleaning up and promoting articles and still go for a peaceful Wiki experience, which isn't always easy. There are things I'm working on to do better with that on my end. I'm not looking to walk into already difficult situations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you for clarifying. I think our goals are not too different, "peace" features high on my user page for a long time. The infobox dispute is on since 2005, I understand, and no peace will be achieved by stepping away. I try to avoid conflict, but don't believe that any editor is in conflict with himself. Back to the images: we have conflicting information, and I - more into music than art - don't know well enough what is reliable. If you have a bit more time, look at the links and see what you think can be trusted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Not being an expert at all on this - my take is: when in doubt check the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and/or Help:Introduction to uploading images/1. And when in doubt post a question somewhere:

:::* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright

:::* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

:::* Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

:::My personal initial impression, which is just based upon my impressions and I am absolutely not anywhere close to an expert, upon looking at the links and then looking at the file information for the Frederick August Wenderoth article is:

:::# I personally would not use an image from a German site for a US public domain claim - that's an issue waiting to happen, it would seem to me.

:::# I am assuming that whoever uploaded the file and is using the US public domain tags is from the U.S. I'm pretty sure that's an issue.

:::# I'm not sure why there's an image for another artist in this discussion

:::# I personally would use images from the museum over other web sites for a couple of reasons: you might have a better quality image, it's a good source of images for works in the public domain and the painting information is more likely to be reliable.

:::# Regarding the photograph of the unknown man: This might be a good question for the Visual Arts group. I can see that it would be nice to have an image of a Wenderoth photograph - I don't have enough knowledge to understand why an image of an unnamed man that does not seem to have anything notable about it would be a useful image. To me it just looks like man of the early photographs.

:::#On the other hand, the image of the man in the book, which based upon Wenderoth's having died more than 100 years ago, is a good source... it's also a good image. The quality of the image is good and the image does provide insight into Wenderoth's artistic talent, techniques, etc.

:::That's my quick take, but like I say, when in doubt research and ask an expert.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Thank you for looking, for helpful links to where to ask, and your personal notes. Looking at images (to make sure we mean the same):

::::* Rider, I think [http://www.artnet.com/artists/august+maler-wenderoth/reiterin-auf-nach-links-aufsteigendem-schimmel-cbI_mF08HIZ0lAU7UsZT7A2 this] supports facts about Wenderoth as the artist, size and technique?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I would have used an English based article, but I see when I click on the link to the article that the url used was [http://www.askart.com/askart/w/frederick_august_wenderoth/frederick_august_wenderoth.aspx the English language AskArt]. I updated the caption with a better translation of the title, added some information about the painting and included a citation for the source of the informaton.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::* Little Miss: I based on [http://www.museumca.org/goldrush/art-misssf.html the exhibition] and had not seen [https://crockerartmuseum.org/collections/permanent-collections/californian-a-american-art/item/little-miss-san-francisco-1853 the museum] (and am surprised about the difference).--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, I think it's worth uploading the newer image at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nahl-Wenderoth,_Little_Miss_San_Francisco.jpg for this file at commons] for the Charles Christian Nahl article.

::::* Man: I think [http://books.google.de/books?id=wKt2NxPbZlMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=wenderoth+%22miss+san+francisco%22&source=bl&ots=7nbYjy5Z8S&sig=UWIl8T57xlDQOHq0tcfB6qWpEy4&hl=de&sa=X&ei=977eUpjrOYbMtQbPyoC4DA&ved=0CIIBEOgBMA8#v=onepage&q=wenderoth%20%22miss%20san%20francisco%22&f=false this] is useful?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::I do, but has there been a controversy about that addition? If so, why?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Back to the other topic: I am not at all passionate about infoboxes, I simply believe that readers are helped by a minimum information about an article's topic and its time and location. How, in the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", a few people (arbitration committee) tell one editor how not to write his articles is beyond my understanding. I am quite passionate about people, and fairness. We lost too many already and keep losing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::I absolutely agree in theory - about why infoboxes are useful and about Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia - bearing in mind that it's driven by guidelines and is managed by consensus. I see from the information about the long-standing controversy about use of infoboxes, editing/reverting content, etc. that there was no clear side that was right or wrong -- and the arbitrator suggested that the parties try to work at getting along. As long as the long-standing dynamics stay the same, the situation will not likely get better. Is it possible to, rather than being frustrated about edits/changes to really try and hear where their coming from and work to address their concerns? The one thing I am continuing to learn here is that consensus is a powerful underlying mechanism for making decisions. I, too, have had differences of opinions with others about whether or not to use citation templates, infoboxes, removal of uncited content, etc. - so I understand the frustration. I also know that trying too hard to push something through can be a waste of energy, create an unhelpful dynamic, and keep you / me from having fun writing articles. I get that it's important for you to stand up for your opinions, it just may be with a bit of patience, trying to understand the other people's point of view, and giving the issue a rest for a bit might result in a renewed energy and approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::Good thoughts in theory. As for pushing, I don't know where people saw me doing that, - perhaps a language question? Look - for one short example - at Peter Planyavsky (an article singled out by the arbitrators by mentioning a diff), was there pushing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

The only thing I can comment about is that I felt pushed - to get involved, add an infobox, change images - in what is a loaded / difficult situation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you, that helps, - if asking is pushing, then I push a lot. Sorry, I only meant asking. Adding an infobox to an article that has the request twice on the talk page, - I don't know if that can be described "loaded / difficult" situation, - my attribute would be "absurd". (I worked on Kafka, did you know?) I didn't ask to "change images", only wondered why you add information that seemed lost the other end, but I understand by now that it was due to no information in reliable sources, so correct. I keep learning, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

::Sure, I keep learning, too!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Do you have time to look at Sorrow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Has :Category:Filipino portrait artist been misnamed? Should it be "painters"? Sionk (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, yes, you're right. I'm in the middle of something right now, but I can get to it in a bit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::{{Done}} I created the portrait painters subcategory category - and move the painters there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you were the person that quickly filtered all the contents of :Category:Portrait artists into :Category:Portrait painters I must say I'm very impressed. I obviously need to investigate this AWB thingy!! Thanks! Sionk (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

::Sure! Yes, it's very cool, particularly: find/replace, append, ability to query for the right records (and not even see the ones that don't apply), and the ability to review the edit screen to determine if it the change/append be "saved" or "skipped". And there's an ability to do a "Google query" that is really nice, too, to select records. It's all about making sure that the record is right before saving/skipping, and I like it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carole, thanks for tweaking the caption on Frederick August Wenderoth and thanks for letting me eavesdrop on your user page where I found a link I'd not seen that allowed me to develop the page a little more! Victoria (tk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:Absolutely!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you, Gerda! That was very nice of you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you! I'm really enjoying it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work adding citations to so many articles where names had been added as Members of the National Academy of Design. You didn't make the mess, but you took the time to fix it. Well done and thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks! I wish I could say that I added references to each touched article, but I didn't - just a few where there was no mention of a date. Unfortunately the dates were wrong in some of the cases - perhaps as much as a quarter of the articles - so I actually removed the added text and provided the link so that people that watched the page could add back the information, properly cite it and use the correct date. I got the bulk of them done, but still have some more to go. Thanks for your kind words, though, it's very much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken over the running of the New Article bot. I have created a rules file User:AlexNewArtBot/Womenartists. The bot only looks at articles, not talk pages. You can add the search results to the WikiProject using these instructions User:AlexNewArtBot#Add the feed to a Portal/WikiProject, substituting Womenartists for Russia in the examples. There are 3 options. If you have any questions, you can ask them here, I am watching your talk page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

:Wow! Excellent, thank you!

:It looks like the magic to show the search results was already inserted. I spot-checked a few search results pages and the Women artists looks like other search results pages. Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

::Ah, I've got it now... and the search results are showing up on the project page. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carole - not sure that I am correctly contacting you, but I do not understand why you altered my entirely accurate and evidenced addition to Schneemann's profile. Jardindulac (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) jardindulac

::Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|style = notice

|small =

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 30 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ethel Sands, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ethel Sands was "one of the leading artist hostesses of her time"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ethel Sands. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [http://stats.grok.se/en/201401/Ethel_Sands quick check]) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

}} Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of Tyntesfield which highlighted several issues I had not spotted and has definitely improved the article.— Rod ^talk 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

:It was my pleasure! It's an interesting article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

::I respect Eric for grammar etc & often ask him to copyedit my work (as I know my grammar is poor sometimes). He may be "making a point" with some of his edits (he has disengaged from another article I've been working on which is currently at FAC) but I've always found articles are improved when he has finished.— Rod ^talk 17:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Rodw}} Great, good to hear!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=17:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Nikkimaria}} Thanks so much! I am just finishing up on Ruth VanSickle Ford and found 21 articles, most of which I had not been able to find otherwise! Yeah! Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Carole,

I want to thank you very much for your contributions to my page. I anat the meeting here in Philadelphia ,in an effort to create a page for "FOCUS:Philadelphia Focuses on Women in the Visual Arts" which happened in 1974

Would love to connect with you via email: burko@verizon.net

Hope to hear from you at your convenience.

Best,

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Lee Ryan (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:Sounds good, I sent you an email.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carole

The .pdf letter from Sue Golding as then President of the Buddies in Bad Times theatre company is from their main website and listed here:

http://buddiesinbadtimes.com/in-the-press/

Also the academic article listed in ref 2 cites Golding as President.

cheers

--Jardindulac (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)jardindulac

Please add this to the correct place in the articles: see WP:APPENDIX. It goes after external links etc, probably after other navboxen already in the article and before things like Persondata, DEFAULTSORT, categories. Please correct any you have already done which have not already been corrected by others. --Mirokado (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

:Yep, I'm running AWB twice so it goes to the right place. You'll see shortly for whatever article you're looking at.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

:: A warning in the first edit summary would help if you do that sort of wave of edits again, but apart from that suggestion, no problem! Sorry if I interrupted your editing of the template, I had started to update it before watching it so I did not realise you were still editing it. I have finished now (I think). --Mirokado (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of these articles still have the navbar misplaced, it goes for example before Authority control. Please correct these "straight away": {{hlist |indent=2 | Abigail May Alcott Nieriker | Alice Barber Stephens | Alice Boughton | Alice Brown Chittenden | Alice Pike Barney | Angelica Kauffman | Anna Ancher | Anna Claypoole Peale | Anna Coleman Ladd | Anna Hope Hudson | Anne Goldthwaite | Anne Whitney | Annie Sophie Cory | Annie Swynnerton | Bessie Potter Vonnoh | Blanche Hoschedé Monet | Candace Wheeler | Cecilia Beaux | Christabel Cockerell | Dat So La Lee | Dixie Selden | Edith Maryon | Eleanor Norcross | Elenore Abbott | Elizabeth Coffin | Elizabeth Forbes (artist) | Ella D'Arcy | Ella Hepworth Dixon | Ella Sophonisba Hergesheimer | Ellen Day Hale | Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven | Emma Lampert Cooper | Enid Yandell | Ethel Sands | Eulabee Dix | F. M. Hollams | Fidelia Bridges | Frances Benjamin Johnston | Frances Brundage | Francesca Alexander | Gabriele Münter | Georgette Agutte | Gertrude Käsebier | Grandma Moses | Gwen John | Harriet Hallowell | Helen Allingham | Helen M. Knowlton | Helene Schjerfbeck | Hilma af Klint | Jennie Augusta Brownscombe | Katherine Sophie Dreier | Kitty Lange Kielland | Käthe Kollwitz | Laura Knight | Laura Theresa Alma-Tadema | Lilla Cabot Perry | Lizzy Ansingh | Lydia Field Emmet | M. Jean McLane | Margaret Ely Webb | Margaretta Angelica Peale | Maria Edgeworth | Maria Peale | Marianne von Werefkin | Marie Bracquemond | Marion Wachtel | Mary Cassatt | Mary Lloyd (sculptor) | Meta Vaux Warrick Fuller | Minerva J. Chapman | Mona Caird | Myra Albert Wiggins | Nampeyo | Olive Schreiner | Pamela Colman Smith | Paula Modersohn-Becker | Pauline Auzou | Persis Kirmse | Phoebe Anna Traquair | Romaine Brooks | Rosa Bonheur | Rose O'Neill | Sarah Grand | Sarah Miriam Peale | Sophie Gengembre Anderson | Susan Hale | Susan Macdowell Eakins | Suzanne Valadon | Séraphine Louis | Vinnie Ream | Violet Oakley | Émilie Charmy }} Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

showed up 16 times on my wtchlist, and this is, I beleive, a god thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:Hi there, cool! You must have a number of 19th century women artists in your watchlist, I'm thinking.

:I hope everything is going well. We haven't chatted in awhile.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, lots of those, mostly sculptors. And on into the 20th Century too. I just moved in with my 91 year old mother in Sun City, Arizona and brought with me only a very small library, so my production will be down, but I still have a few more articles to write. But life is good, these are all my choices. And you? Carptrash (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Good, thanks! I've been enjoying writing articles about women artists, which I've really been enjoying. I hope you're mother is doing well.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:Five times on my watchlist! I love this project, but should the tagged women not have identified themselves as such? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

::I wondered about that, too. After thinking about it a bit, I thought: I'm not sure how much the term was used while they were developing their careers. The thing that they had in common, though, was they they were seeking education where it was often denied to them, many of them also traveling to Europe for education. For the artists, they were among the first to have their works exhibited, solo exhibitions and created their own organizations to promote their work. And many of the women writers were also trailblazers. So, it seemed to me that these women were the bold women who fit the definition of New Woman: "the growth in the number of feminist, educated, independent career women in Europe and the United States" - although I question the use of feminist in this sentence.

::It may be, though, that the list should be scrubbed to remove any woman who really did not have a clear career in art or literature, i.e., they did it more as an avocation, but did work that was sufficiently notable to be included in WP.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:::That's a beautiful answer, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have analysed the articles linked to by this navbar, and find that 168 of them do not mention "New Woman" in the article. This means that the navbar is substantially unsourced and, at present, seems to be mostly original research. The articles I have look at which have a link to New Woman in the body of the article seem to be what is needed for every linked article: an organic mention of New Woman in the text with a supporting inline reference.

Here is an automatically generated breakdown of the articles (since it is automatically generated there may be some false hits or misses):

• OK (13 pages). These articles have a wikilink to New Woman in the text: {{hlist |indent=1 | Ann Veronica | Anna Lombard | Elizabeth Shippen Green | Ella Hepworth Dixon | Frances Benjamin Johnston | George Egerton | Jennie Augusta Brownscombe | Jessie Willcox Smith | Mona Caird | Rose O'Neill | Sarah Grand | The Story of a Modern Woman | Violet Oakley }}
• onlyinlist (3 pages). In these articles, "New Woman" only appears in a list such as "See also" or "Further reading". {{hlist |indent=1 | Annie Sophie Cory | Ella D'Arcy | History of feminism }}
• nokeyword (168 pages). These articles do not mention "New Woman" at all in lead or body. {{hlist |indent=1 | A Doll's House | Abigail May Alcott Nieriker | Alice Barber Stephens | Alice Boughton | Alice Brown Chittenden | Alice De Wolf Kellogg | Alice Pike Barney | Amalia Küssner Coudert | Amanda Brewster Sewell | Amy Londoner | Angelica Kauffman | Anna Alma-Tadema | Anna Ancher | Anna Claypoole Peale | Anna Coleman Ladd | Anna Hope Hudson | Anna Lea Merritt | Anne Goldthwaite | Anne Whitney | Annie Harmon | Annie Swynnerton | Aurora Leigh | Belinda (Edgeworth novel) | Bessie Marsh Brewer | Bessie Potter Vonnoh | Bessie Wheeler | Blanche Hoschedé Monet | Candace Wheeler | Candida (play) | Catherine Andras | Cecilia Beaux | Christabel Cockerell | Clara Montalba | Clara Weaver Parrish | Cornelia Ellis Hildebrandt | Daisy Miller | Dat So La Lee | Dixie Selden | Dulah Marie Evans | Eda Nemoede Casterton | Edith Dimock | Edith Haworth | Edith Maryon | Edith Woodman Burroughs | Edna Clarke Hall | Eleanor Norcross | Elenore Abbott | Elinor Darwin | Elizabeth Barrett Browning | Elizabeth Coffin | Elizabeth Forbes (artist) | Elizabeth Okie Paxton | Ella Du Cane | Ella Sophonisba Hergesheimer | Ellen Day Hale | Ellen McCaleb | Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven | Emily Sartain | Emma Lampert Cooper | Enella Benedict | Enid Yandell | Ethel Sands | Eulabee Dix | F. M. Hollams | Fidelia Bridges | First-wave feminism | Florence Dreyfous | Florence Esté | Florence Koehler | Florence MacKubin | Frances Brundage | Francesca Alexander | Gabriele Münter | Georgette Agutte | Gertrude Käsebier | Gertrude Spencer-Stanhope | Gladys Wynne | Grandma Moses | Gwen John | Hannah Cohoon | Harriet Hallowell | Harriet Randolph Hyatt Mayor | Helen Allingham | Helen M. Knowlton | Helen Thomas Dranga | Helene Schjerfbeck | Henrik Ibsen | Hilda Ward | Hilma af Klint | Irene E. Parmelee | Jacqueline Marval | Janet Scudder | Jenny Eakin Delony | Jessie Lipscomb | Julia Margaret Cameron | Juliet Thompson | Kate Chopin | Kate Cory | Katharine Carl | Katherine Sophie Dreier | Kitty Lange Kielland | Kucadikadi | Käthe Kollwitz | Laura Knight | Laura Theresa Alma-Tadema | Lilla Cabot Perry | Lizzy Ansingh | Louise Abbéma | Louise Cox | Lucienne Bisson | Lucy Bacon | Lucy May Stanton | Lydia Field Emmet | M. Jean McLane | Mabel Esplin | Madame Bovary | Margaret Ely Webb | Margaret Wendell Huntington | Margaretta Angelica Peale | Maria Edgeworth | Maria Oakey Dewing | Maria Peale | Marianne von Werefkin | Marie Bracquemond | Marie-Noémi Cadiot | Marion Wachtel | Mary Ann Willson | Mary Cassatt | Mary Elizabeth Price | Mary Foote | Mary Lloyd (sculptor) | Mary Nimmo Moran | Mary Stanisia | May Wilson Preston | Meta Vaux Warrick Fuller | Mrs. Warren's Profession | Myra Albert Wiggins | Nampeyo | Nellie Walker | Olive Schreiner | Pamela Colman Smith | Paula Modersohn-Becker | Pauline Auzou | Persis Kirmse | Phoebe Anna Traquair | Rhoda Holmes Nicholls | Romaine Brooks | Rosa Bonheur | Ruth Payne Burgess | Sara Page | Sarah Miriam Peale | Sarah Paxton Ball Dodson | Sophie Gengembre Anderson | Susan Hale | Susan Macdowell Eakins | Susan Stuart Frackleton | Susanna Paine | Suzanne Valadon | Séraphine Louis | The Portrait of a Lady | Vinnie Ream | Virginia Richmond Reynolds | Vivian Louise Aunspaugh | Wickliffe Covington | Wilhelmina Weber Furlong | Women's history | Zaida Ben-Yusuf | Émilie Charmy }}

You need to add supporting text with a link and reliable source to every article you link to in a navigation bar, if it is not already present. Articles for which there is no reliable source will need to be removed. --Mirokado (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Mirokado}} Yep, it's a term that is not used often for this group of unique women... It does make sense to add something to the articles to explain the term and its use.

::I'll work on it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::: Thanks for responding so quickly and updating a few of the articles. As far as I can see, though, those changes do not address my concern and raise further problems.

:::# You are adding a long generic description of the "New Woman", interrupting the biography with material which has nothing directly to do with the subject of the article. The pages in Prieto referenced in the added text do not mention any of the subjects I have checked. Prieto does not as far as I can tell mention Alice Boughton or Alice De Wolf Kellog at all. Alice Pike Barney is mentioned on p 112, way before the pages referenced in the addition.

:::# The details about circulation have nothing to do with the subjects of the articles at all.

:::# Alice Barber Stephens is mentioned several times. Prieto may be usable as a reference in her case, but every article will need its own text explaining the connection of that particular subject, with the reference(s) formatted to match that article. This is not I think something you can do with AWB.

:::# If you have the book, you can look in the index to see which of these subjects are mentioned. You can see snippets by searching for each surname in the google book.

:::# As far as AWB is concerned, you need to check your updates carefully. There is a typo in what you are adding, see "Artists the," which presumably should be "Artists then,". Also the repeated full details in each reference do not match the reference formatting in at least some of the articles and are in any case rather untidy. Erroneous or inconsistent mass edits with AWB reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. I will ask you to correct all such problems yourself, nobody is going to run around after you correcting mass edits by hand.

:::# Please stop adding generic boilerplate to these articles: it does not justify the addition of the navbox and will have to be removed or replaced by article-specific details.

::: I'm sorry this is a string of problems, I hope we and others can work together to solve them... --Mirokado (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::Changed bullets to numbers to better respond to the items.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::#The connection is made through the definition of "New Woman", which is a term not likely used much in their daily lives, but which describes this unique group of women: educated, independent career women in Europe and the United States.

::::::#* The women tagged in these articles were breaking ground by obtaining education through the sources that would allow women to be educated at their schools... and created art associations to support and promote the work of women artists. If you have a better definition for these women than "New Woman" to describe the preponderance of women entering the art community, having exhibitions and solo exhibitions, obtaining education in their native country and often in Paris, and establishing careers, that would be good to know. (See the bottom of User talk:CaroleHenson#You just.

::::::#* I am confused by your statement that the text does not have anything to do with these women. They meet the definition of New Woman and are included in the article as background information to describe this unique set of women.

::::::#* I am adding this information where it best seems to fit in the article for background info about "New Women."

::::::#See #1

::::::#See #1

::::::#See #1

::::::#Agreed. I made a change to the text. Good catches. It's not an AWB problem, it was just a couple of copy edits that need to be done.

::::::#See #1--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::You're not helping your cause to lecture. If you looked through the body of my edits, MUCH of my edits include the improvement of articles, including women artists. Your tone, though, is helping me to realize how one might better make a point without scolding, and for that I am thankful (i.e., how to make points to motivate.) When you find someone who is clearly responsive to comments, scolding makes you look bad, not me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::}}

I'm very sorry if you feel I was being negative. That was not my intention at all (as should be clear from the fact that I have updated the navbox, and I have also made a few relatively minor updates to some linked articles). Since the edit summaries adding the 1.2kbytes of generic text to each article were "add info about New Woman using AWB" I was entirely justified to ask you to stop and to explain why fairly clearly, and that use of AWB was problematic. I was also trying not to include links to Wikipedia's standard articles about such problems as they might indeed appear tactless, but here is a neutrally expressed, individually written clarification of the issues:

1. if you as an Wikipedia editor are asserting that the subject of an article is "a New Woman" based on the description of New Woman in that article, but have no reliable source stating so, then your editing is "original research" and "synthesis". I do accept that to include the link in a few articles might be OK, but to add over 150 unsourced links to something like 200 articles is very far from OK: it amounts to about 30,000 unsourced links!
2. If your edits are the first mention of that connection, you are not allowed to publish them on Wikipedia. If they are not the first mention, there is a source, hopefully reliable.
3. if you add a paragraph about another subject without making it specific to the article subject then that paragraph may be regarded as more or less off topic and coatracking the other subject. Again this is a substantial problem given the number of articles which might have been affected.
4. if you add unsourced information to Wikipedia you [https://xkcd.com/978/ poison the well]: since Wikipedia is mirrored almost instantly as I discovered ten minutes after creating my first article, it becomes more difficult to find genuine reliable references.
5. adding a link to New Woman is no better than adding the navbar as far as justifying that change is concerned. Neither is a reference which does not mention the subject of the article.

My suggestion is first to look in Prieto and other references in New Woman for people actually mentioned, and add content to those articles relevant to how they were mentioned. That will give at least a solid foundation justifying the addition of the navbar in those cases. The references do not have to be contemporary, subsequent analysts will have extended and commented on the concept. --Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

I disagree with many of the points made above - particularly that the information is uncited, that I am poisioning the well, original research, and the inference that the addition of the women to the navigation bar is random. I am going to ask for a third opinion. We have gone around a couple of times and it seems we're at an impasse. The problem is that there isn't consistent use of this term... and after writing many articles about women from this period this is the only term I could find to describe this VERY UNIQUE group of women from this time period.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is my attempt at a short summary of the issue:

• I added the "New Woman" Template:New Woman (late 19th century) navigation bar at the end of articles about artists who 1) who were seeking education and careers as artists, 2) at a time when it was highly unusual for women to attain such educations. The definition of New Woman "describes this unique group of 19th century women: educated, independent career women in Europe and the United States." Often women had to create their own opportunities and groups to promote their work... and find teachers and schools willing to teach women. Many of these women also traveled and studied on the European continent... another marked shift for women in the mid to late 19th century.
• I was asked to add content making the connection between the subjects of the articles and the navigation bar.
• I added text to a couple of articles as "background" information. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Barber_Stephens&diff=597080044&oldid=595966091 Example: Alice Barber Stephens])
• This was questioned because the sources did not directly mention each of the artists.
• This is because this is the only term I could find to describe these unique women, it isn't used a lot (which in itself is an issue)... but it would be wonderful to be able to unite the information about these women.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

:* I would be willing to go back and remove women from the list who did not "clearly" have a career in art, but were otherwise notable for WP (their artwork, other).--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Mirokado}} Posted at Wikipedia:Third opinion--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::: This is a fair summary, and thank you Carole for initiating this request. --Mirokado (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

:::: Sure. Another option is to remove the women born in the 1870s, and perhaps the 1860s to get the earliest, and really true, pioneers.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}

Working on the third-opinion request... Garamond Lethet
c 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

First, and perhaps most important: thanks to you both for handling this dispute in such a civil fashion.

Short version: In my opinion, New Woman is a controversial classification; identifying a person as such requires a reliable source.

tl;dr version: Given the definition of "New Woman" provided by CaroleHenson, it's reasonable to argue that we can identify certain women who meet the general requirements she listed, and these classifications would be both obvious enough and neutral enough that no WP:RS would be required. (See WP:BLUE, WP:NOTBLUE).

However, after poking around a bit in the primary literature, it looks to me like New Woman was first used widely as a derogatory term, and perhaps later a defiant term of self-identification. The population to which the term was applied was not only educated and independent, but made others (and not only men) feel uncomfortable with their new status. Subsequent scholarship (and there is a lot of it) has gone to great lengths illustrating this tension as well as providing numerous examples.

Putting someone like Hannah Cohoon into this category brings with it a host of implications that, as best I can tell, aren't supported by reliable sources.

Given the sources that are out there, the next step might be creating a list article along the lines of List of "New Women" Artists and Writers. That would provide a centralized location for the sources and should make the recreation of the classification template uncontroversial.

Carole, to address your final point: I'm not sure there is a term for the set of women you'd like to group together, but New Woman definitely isn't the right one. That said, there are plenty of women who were identified as new women, and I'd be willing to help in creating that list.

I'm happy to discuss this further, particularly if either of you think I've misunderstood your argument.

Best,

Garamond Lethet
c 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Here are the works I consulted:

1. {{cite journal | title=The Decadent and the New Woman in the 1890's | last=Dowling | first=Linda | journal=Nineteenth Century Fiction | volume=33 | number=4 | month=March | year=1979 | pages=434–453 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2933251}}
2. {{cite book | title=The "New Woman" Revised: Painting and Gender Politics on Fourteenth Street | last=Todd | first=Ellen Wiley | publisher=University of California Press | year=1993 | ISBN=0-520-07471-8 | url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W4mfsCnn5nEC }}
3. {{cite book | title=Victorian Women Writers and the Woman Question | editor-last=Thompson | editor-first=Nicola Diane | publisher=Cambridge University Press | series=Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth Century Literature and Culture | year=1999 | ISBN=978-0-521-64102-9 | url=http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/575-579/575000/11145a52acbc41d88fae09b9aecb3a82 }}

Garamond Lethet
c 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:Wow! Great research!

:From what you're saying, I totally getting your point that the term should not be used broadly for a group of educated artists and writers.

:It seems like there are a couple of options:

:* The one you mentioned, create a list (or perhaps an outline with some of the topics in the navigation template).

:* Keep the template as a "New Woman" template but remove all the women who weren't referred to with that term

:* Rename the template - like Template:Late 19th century women artists and writers or Template:Victorian women writers and artists.

:I prefer the third option, but would go along with any of these. The good thing about the list is that more information could be provided - dates of birth/death and the focus of their career (painting, poet, etc.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

::Carole, I don't think your options are mutually exclusive. You might want to start by looking at :Category:Victorian women writers. That looks a little sparse, honestly. I dug out my copy of Tyson's Bernard Shaw's Book Reviews, and just skimming I see:

:::*Miss Gordon Cummings

:::*Mrs. Annie Hector French

:::*Rosa Baughan

:::*Mrs. Julia Constance Fletcher

:::*Harriot Georgiana Mundy

:::*Fayr Madoc

:::*Mary Elizabeth Braddon

:::*Miss Geraldine Pensrose Fitzgerald

:::*Amy Fay

:::*Frances Hullah

:::*Mary MacKay

:::*Lucy Bethia Walford

:::*Harriet Ann Jevons

:::*Sabine Baring-Gould

:::*Sara Chapman Bull

:::*Clara Louise Burnham

:::*Frances Mary Peard

:::*Marie Corelli

::So that's the first 200 pages of 463. This isn't all of Shaw's book reviews, and Shaw certainly didn't review everything. I think something as broad as "Victorian women novelists" might quickly become unmanageable. So my preference would be to start a list (or two or three) in a sandbox somewhere and see what we have. Once we have an idea of how many Victorian novelists there are, we'll be in a better position to figure out how to handle categories and navigation templates.

::(For a smaller project, we might want to start with [http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/search/o8587761|"Victorian women travel writers in Africa"].)

::Your thoughts?

::Garamond Lethet
c 07:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, I agree the options are not mutually exclusive - and thanks for the information about women writers. There might be some great ideas for expanding and unifying information about 19th century women beyond arts and literature, too (physicians, etc.) and I like the women travel writers idea, too.

:::It seems that the first step might be to resolve how to handle the navigation template:

:::# Rename it (like Late 19th century artists or women), but it is less cohesive (having a navbar for artists and writers) without the "New Woman" tie

:::# Keep the current "New Woman" name and remove all the women except those clearly identified as "New Woman"

:::# Remove it entirely

:::I like options 1 or 2. Thoughts on the options for the navigation template?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

::::I prefer #2, but since you're the one doing the work you get to cast the deciding vote. Garamond Lethet
c 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:::: (ec) Firstly, many thanks to Garamond Lethe for the helpful third opinion and, as Carole has already said, the excellent research which has added value to the discussion.

:::: As far as these suggestions for handling the navigation template are concerned:

::::# I think that Late 19th century women or whatever is far too wide-ranging for a navbox. It would end up huge and with very little actual relationship between many of the linked articles. It would also dissipate the focus on the attribute you are here interested in.

::::# This can work, I think. I suggest proceeding in several stages:

::::## remove any subjects whose continued inclusion is clearly going to be problematic, such as Hannah Cohoon already mentioned

::::## add reliable sources connecting the concept and the subject to any articles where that can readily be done

::::## move the links to any remaining articles to a section on the template talk page, with a request for help with the search for sources

::::## the navbox can then evolve as part of normal collaborative editing. A navbox is a navigation aid connecting articles which a reader is expected to need to move between, it does not have to be a complete list of anything (although for something like an author's novels it often is)

::::# This is a nuclear option which would of course be necessary if option 2 proves impracticable, but so far nobody has requested this. An alternative to deleting the template would be to listify it. A list has the advantage that only one article need be maintained and there is room for comments explaining why a particular article is included and for references. --Mirokado (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I like option #2 the best - and since you've already done some legwork, Mirokado, to identify what articles should be removed, that makes it fairly simple to execute. I'm in the midst of something at the moment, but will get on it in a couple of hours. Thanks to both of you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: Thanks and well done for your work so far on the template and template talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, hope all is well. I'd love it if you'd take another look at Rebecca Chamberlain and tell me if it still needs further sourcing. I've added a whole bunch more and cut in a few places. thanks--Aichik (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:Sure, thanks for your patience, I haven't been online much in the past few days.--CaroleHenson (talk)

I really thought I had spotted a forgotten Victorian poet. Oh well...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmund_Clarence_Stedman&diff=prev&oldid=597844772]

Garamond Lethet
c 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{Replyto|Garamond Lethe}} Hi, there! I've been cleaning up DPL and Bracket Bot notifications and just saw your posting between two graphic messages. Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, you're research on Stedman was interesting... all that, and a bag of chip! Love it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ethel Sands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 20px This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- {{User-multi

|doc=yes

|User=Royroydeb

|1=t

}} 13:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

:I am not getting a reply to the comments at Talk:Ethel Sands/GA1. Since articles are kept on hold for 7 days only, and the required timespan has passed, so I should be failing the article. But still, if you can reply within 48 hours, then I will change my mind. RRD13 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Royroydeb}} Oh, sorry. I've been wondering about the nomination, but didn't seen it on my watchlist. I should have checked. I'll go look right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I know we don't exactly know each other, but I'm looking to be adopted. I want to learn more about sourcing, formatting, and article creation so that I can improve the encyclopedia as best I can. I'm already an accomplished spell-checker and typo editor, but I want to work more with content too. I had some previous involvement with Anthony Bradbury, but have decided that we may not be the best match, and I furthermore don't wish to put a drain on his health; therefore I am once more searching for an adopter. If what I've mentioned doesn't sound like a good match for you, or if you decide you don't have time to adopt a user, I apologize. If you would like to adopt me, however, I'd be quite grateful and eager to learn. Thanks for your time either way. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Dozzzzzzzzzing off}} Hi, sure I'd be happy to help. Do you have an article that you're working on now - or wanting to work on?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

::Well, anything on my watchlist (side note: is there any way to show you my watchlist?) would suffice, although with many of those the major problems are in phrasing, punctuation, and other matters that aren't strictly related to content. Chris Stynes might be a good place to start, as that article does have some issues. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Dozzzzzzzzzing off}} Ok, cool. I'll take a look at the article and put some comments on the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Thanks. Wanted to let you know I've seen the comments. Work is keeping me pretty busy, though, so it may be the weekend before I really get to work. I think my first act will be to clear up the language, and I'll go from there---clearing that always makes me think more clearly about the article as a whole. Once again, thank you. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Sounds great, Dozzzzzzzzzing off!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you have a look at this incomplete sentence, I imagine you will be able to tell how it needs to be rephrased: Although Louisa Alcott called the day a "happy event" and described Ernest as a handsome, cultivated and successful "tender friend". --Mirokado (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This sentence also needs a rewrite (I couldn't quite decide how to place the refs in a changed sentence): On November 8, 1879, she died^{[13][nb 3]} on December 29, 1879, seven weeks after her daughter Louisa May "Lulu" was born in Paris.^[26] --Mirokado (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

:Oh, thanks. Good catch!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|type = notice

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 8 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jennie Augusta Brownscombe (1850–1936), painter of the The First Thanksgiving, was a "New Woman" painter and considered "one of America's best artists"? {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at .|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Jennie Augusta Brownscombe|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jennie Augusta Brownscombe.|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Jennie Augusta Brownscombe|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Jennie Augusta Brownscombe.}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/index.php?page=Jennie_Augusta_Brownscombe&datefrom=2014-03-01&dateto=2014-03-31 live views], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/Jennie_Augusta_Brownscombe daily totals]), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

}} The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up from the WikiProject Outlines. The following outline was recently built:

• Outline of Yukon

Please take a look at it, to provide some feedback, or to see if you can improve it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Ethel Sands you nominated as a good article has passed 20px; see Talk:Ethel Sands for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- {{User-multi

|doc=yes

|User=Royroydeb

|1=t

}} 04:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:Well done, Carole. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks, as my first and best mentor here I really appreciate that! Your words come to me a lot when I post something on new contributor's talk page - and try (but don't always succeed) at being "peachy" instead of "preachy".--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Wow, you must have the proverbial memory of an elephant! I can only vaguely recall that, and only now after you mention it. A bit twee or what? Certainly, I'm not now practising so much that which I once preached (sic): I have been at ANI so often that I've now got my own page. FWIW, I've never taken your talk page off my watchlist - you can read into that whatever you wish ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Your own ANI page, yep that sounds busy keeping the alligators at bay. It's amazing how discussions can get pretty wild, very fast. Good luck with that!

::::It's good to hear from you! I had to look up "twee" - yep, since it seems the shoe fits, I'll wear it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::I meant that my original comment was twee - it is entirely my responsibility. Still, you've learned a new word today ... and you are long past being a Wikipedia tyro ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, it's nice to think so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if perhaps you would take me under your wing in accordance with the adopt-a-user program. Consider it! Thanks. Mackatackastewart (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Mackatackastewart}} Sure, I would be happy to. Do you have something you would like to work on?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks! I'm not really working on anything in particular, I'm just trying to help build the project. Mackatackastewart (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Mackatackastewart}} Cool! Feel free to let me know when I can be of assistance.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I need you to take my hands through the lanes of wikipedia. Could you please adopt me? I've already created my first articles which are introduction of the books but still there are lots of questions. I'm looking forward to hear from you.Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to adopt me? I want to learn about citing sources correctly, finding articles in subjects I'm knowledgeable about that need revision, how to properly write in a neutral stance, how to format my user page, etc. It's probably a lot of stuff to cover, and it's understandable if you don't have the time. AndrewVerbus (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|AndrewVerbus}} What great objectives!! I'd be happy to work with you. What types of articles would you like to work on?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

::Well, I'm interested in Wikiproject Classical Music and WikiProject Music Theory, and I also saw that there's a composers task force and a contemporary task force under the classical music project, so I was hoping I could try to help out with those projects. AndrewVerbus (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

:::Sounds great, AndrewVerbus! Let me know how you'd like to start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

::::On this page, someone's requested that Franz Schubert's String Trio in B flat major should be added, and I have a couple sources available that would be helpful in creating the article, although I'm not sure how I would go about creating it. AndrewVerbus (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Two members of the Bloomsbury Group are buried in the Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge: Sir Desmond and Lady Molly McCarthy; there are also another nine members of the Cambridge Apostles buried in the same cemetery. Desmond McCarthy was an Apostle, and together with his wife formed the "Memoirs Club."

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=macCarthy&GSiman=1&GScid=859628&GRid=10462474

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=34797344

FOR CAROLE HENSON (SOMEWHERE)IN THE US?

2.27.132.10 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.132.10 (talk)

:Great, thanks! {{done}}--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to give kudos to your pages, Feminist art and Feminist art movement. I really enjoyed reading them!!Unsung Artists (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks, that's nice of you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I responded on the talk page of the Domestic violence article in regard to recent changes to the article.Talk:Domestic_violence.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on DV. I don't know if I can tempt you to diversify? Power, control and isolation feature quite prominently in DV and abuse in general but they are poorly covered on Wiki from the abuse perspective.

• Control - We have control freak (which is along the right lines but too narrow), control (management) and social control.
• Power - We have power (social and political). It is mainly on sociological theories but I managed to insert just a bit which is abuse related Power (social and political)#Power and control in abusive relationships but really there should be much more from the abuse perspective.
• Isolation - In the context of abuse can be "the silent treatment" (ignored by the abuser) or the abuser isolating the victim from others. There are a lot of related Wiki articles but not specifically abuse related see :Category:Shunning. Social exclusion seems to concentrate on global rather than interpersonal phenomina and social rejection isnt necessarily to do with abuse.
• Terrorism - Intimate terrorism is an interesting term as terrorism is generally thought to only relate to international bombing etc which the intro etc of terrorism implies. I have inserted terrorism#Intimate terrorism which nobody seems to have complained about.

--Penbat (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:Hi,

:Makes sense to delve into these more deeply. I'm working on "Intimate terrorism" in the Intimate partner violence article.

:What do you propose in terms of approach (e.g., new articles, expand within the domestic violence article), etc.?

:It makes sense to cover them and I would be interested in working on that a bit later. I may return back to my work on 19th century women artists for a bit first - the DV content is pretty heavy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::Cool. Many of the underlying psychological dynamics of DV also apply to or are similar to other abuse types. I think it best to create new articles for abuse in general (although there could be DV specific sections), maybe:

::* abusive control

::* abusive power

::* abusive isolation with a section covering the silent treatment.

::--Penbat (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::::{{Replyto|Penbat}}Sounds good. I'll start some stubs soon - and if you don't mind adding further reading with sources or notes on the talk pages on any thoughts about content, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::Cool. Just thinking that, in the context of abuse, power and control may be almost inseparable so it may prove necessary to have a combined abusive power and control article. The first line of power (social and political) says "In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people." Obviously abusive power is less about influence and more about control. But on the other hand influence in the form of persuasion and manipulation may be used to get to the position of control. Its probably safer to develop something in sandboxes as sometimes you get AFD zealots pouncing on new stubs wanting to get it deleted.--Penbat (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::{{Reply to|Penbat}}I went to start the article in the sandbox, but found that there was a redirect with the title Power and control in abusive relationships, which seems to fit perfectly. How does that work for you?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Yes I set that up to streamline a link from Power (social and political)#Power and control in abusive relationships to Domestic violence#Power and control. Anyway lets go with this. I dont think that there is a lot to write about but the tough part is linking together various strands - but that of course depends on sources being available. I'll put some thoughts on the talk page soon. Also I dont know if you have seen the comments here User talk:Jacobisq#Abusive control.2C abusive power.2C abusive isolation as User:Jacobisq may be able to help.--Penbat (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Sounds good! I've added sources I'll be tapping into in the "Further reading" section. Will start getting into the topics from the power and control wheel... and then get into the ramifications, such as how an individual can become so controlled, isolated and manipulated that they do not believe in their abilities to manage life, etc. Help sounds great!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, I'm looking for a Mentor/Adopter : ). I'm looking for some help with some technical questions and some historical reference questions.

I'm working on the entry for Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Winnebago_Surgeon%27s_Quarters. I am familiar with simple HTML coding, so the Wikipedia entry and editing makes sense and comes fairly natural to me. However, now that I'm trying to make a big improvement to a page, I could use some help finding answers so that I use consistent and "good" edits based on the community's framework. There are a lot of help pages, but sometimes finding a specific answer to something that seems small is hard. I'm getting used to how things are named.

The Fort Winnebago Surgeons Quarter page is a good place to start because it is not terribly controversial, there are quite a few references on the web, I have plenty of paper documents, but since the original log house structure was built around 1820, there isn't photographic, DNA, fingerprint or other types of modern proofs. The subject has been researched by many people and there is agreement with the Wisconsin Historical Society that most of the suppositions are valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Perrywattleworth/sandbox

I'm practicing in my sandbox, hopefully in the right way to use the sandbox.

Looking forward to assistance you may be able to provide.

Thank you, Beth Perrywattleworth (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Carole, I think I need to share my sandbox with you, correct? Also when I do, I'm mostly trying to get my people, time and facts straight in some charts. Then I'll add the narrative and some photos. Thank you again, Beth Perrywattleworth (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Perrywattleworth}} - Hi, sure I'd be happy to help! I'm not quite clear what exactly you'd like help with, so I'll try and scout around a bit and see if I can figure it out. If there's something specific I can help with in the meantime, please feel free to let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|CaroleHenson}} - Hi Carole - I guess the first page I edited was more controversial and a seasoned Wikipedia contributor was straight-forward (a little harsh) about the edits I made. I'm planning to edit the Fort Winnebago Surgeons Quarters page. So maybe I don't need to be as nervous. Are you able to "share" your sandbox with someone? I guess I'll put my edits on the Fort Winnebago Surgeons Quarters page and let you know when so you can help me to make sure it is ok. I'm not sure about the process if it isn't a new page entry, and but it is adding a major amount of information. does that make more sense? Thank you, Perrywattleworth (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Perrywattleworth}} Sure, did you, by chance see the edits I made to the version in your sandbox and the talk page?

:::You could move the changes to the article space and put an "under construction" tag {{under construction}} tag on the article, but it might be best to keep working on it and then move over completed sections / subsections when you're ready. That's really dependent upon how quickly you want to work it.

:::I hope my comments at User talk:Perrywattleworth/sandbox and changes at User:Perrywattleworth/sandbox were helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

::::{{Reply to|CaroleHenson}} Hi Carole - THANK YOU - those comments are very helpful. For this topic, a lot of narrative prose exists from 1970s newspaper articles and "tour scripts" from the museum the FWSQ. However, over the years, there has been A LOT OF INTERPRETATION, especially oral history and pre-internet search capabilities. I'm trying to get all my facts in one place from the physical boxes of files and records. Once I verify all the facts, then I'll transfer into the prose. You gave me a great start on the prose!!! This historic site is small, and a "well-kept" secret, but the remaining building from circa 1820 has probably seen 50-75 residents many of whom went on to become noted officers in the American Civil War, among the hundreds of people that resided in the Fort Winnebago proper. (the "Surgeons Quarters" log house was the first and now only remaining building.) So there is a lot to cover in such a small space of a four room house. And there is very little, if any scholarly research. That's why it is even hard to keep these comments short!!! :)

::::Re: "You could move the changes..." Exactly what I'm looking for!!! You hit the nail on the head, with the "under construction" tag and when I move over finished sections. I knew I had seen that before, but wasn't sure where to find that kind of information in the help pages. Thank you for your feedback and I will tap you when I make more additions. Thank you again! Beth 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{Reply to|Perrywattleworth}} My pleasure! Wow, it seems like it's going to be very interesting, based upon the connections to the individuals that were posted there! I'm looking forward to reading more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for making it so hard with the deletions & thank you for your edits.--805LyricalMusic (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{Replyto|805LyricalMusic}} Sure... and thanks for the message here, it saved me from writing a message on your user page about not needing so many redirects.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that another admin has moved this to your user space, and I'm fine with that. If you are unclear why I deleted, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking to be adopted. I want someone who can handle lots of questions, at least at first, and will watch my edits unsolicited and offer suggestions for improvement. I'm not currently interested in creating new articles, only improving existing ones. So far, I've been mostly in historical articles, with no particular plan or purpose, just hopping around randomly. I'm not a complete novice; I've been editing like a madman since mid-February, and I wouldn't have known about Adopt-a-user if I hadn't gone to the Teahouse and suggested a program like it. So I already have quite a few edits for one to look at (not that I expect one to evaluate all of the existing ones at this late date). My first question for a mentor would be: Is this the only way to do one-to-one communication on this thing? Cheers, Mandruss (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, Sure I would be happy to be your mentor.

:We could set up a separate page for discussion, such as User:CaroleHenson/CM workspace. I took a look at some of your edits and posted some comments there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you unreviewed one of the pages I reviewed. Thanks for doing that. I then noticed that you're on the list of people who are taking adoptees. And then I noticed that you just adopted someone. So I was going to ask if you're still taking on newbies? If so, our interests in history seem to align. I'm new to the Wiki-editing thing, although I've jumped right in with characteristic boldness. I've done some page reviewing, undid some vandalism, done some language clarification, and a few other things. If you have time I'd definitely appreciate some mentoring. If you don't have time I certainly understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Mc (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Prof. Mc}} His, sure I would be happy to. Is there something in particular that you're working on right now that you'd like some assistance with?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Prof. Mc}} I'm not sure I can point to any one particular thing. I've tried my hand at a few different types of contribution. As a writer and an editor, I find the "basic copyediting" to be the most interesting to me. But it's also true that many of the articles I find via the Community Portal need so much work that I get a bit overwhelmed in trying to fix them while attempting to adhere to the WP style. Any pointers there? In the meantime I've found the "Fix Wikilinks" one of the easier areas to work on while learning. So, I've tried to go to the oldest articles to help clear that backlog. Prof. Mc (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Prof. Mc}} Yep, working on one of the worklists is an excellent place to get started! It's a good way to get a feel for the variances in the quality of articles and make a very useful and important contribution! I think it's also rewarding to find a topic that really interests you - and work related articles that need improvement. Then, you can start making a niche for yourself and are more likely to come in contact with other contributors / editors who have the same interest. (If someone begins making contributions or improvements to several articles within a topic, it will generally be noticed by senior editors who "watch" a lot of articles.)

:::I would also recommend joining a WikiProject that interests you. Then, you can watch the talk pages and see if there are places to jump in to conversations, article improvement, etc. For instance, for history WikiProjects see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=WikiProject+History&fulltext=Search&ns4=1&profile=advanced this query].

::::Ah, good advice. I've taken some time to read through the meta-pages on WikiProjects. One thing that I'm not seeing is How to join one. I'm sure I'm missing that. Advice? Prof. Mc (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{Replyto|Prof. Mc}} Generally its on the Wikiproject page, towards the bottom. For instance, on Wikipedia:WikiProject History - it's in the Participant section, then click on "members". Sorry it's not always consistent. Is there a particular project you want to join?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:::When I use the Reply to template with your name, then you get a notification that I've posted something for you. You don't need to do that on my User talk page, because I'll get notified anyway. If you ever want to get my attention from another page, though, such as an article talk page or your user page, you can use {{Replyto|CaroleHenson}} or {{Ping|CaroleHenson}}.

:::It's standard to indent one additional place within a thread of conversation so that it's easy to see the individual responses, so I went ahead and added an extra indent for your latest response to me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A question-- Yesterday, I think, I reverted some unsourced edits on Hyperinflation. After the user re-introduced the material with sources I looked at the talk page. As you can see from my comments at the bottom of Talk:Hyperinflation, the page seems to have become home to what might be considered an "edit war." That is, the edits being made are essentially an argument about which economic metrics to use. The page as it exists now is very awkwardly written, largely because of the recent edits by a single user, User Talk:MonteDaCunca, who has already been given some "disruptive edit" warnings. I made some comments on the talk page, near to the bottom. As you can see, that person does admit that the ongoing edits are part of an argument within the discipline. The page itself, though, is suffering.

Advice on how this sort of thing gets handled? Should I have refrained from the revert? Or is there another path? Prof. Mc (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{talkback| Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma|Title name for Land Run of 1889|ts=22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}}

Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There is a new AWB release. Please update to version 5.5.3.0. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

:Will do before I run it again. Thanks for the heads up!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Though I had similar thoughts about this article, it is good that you have tagged. But I would like to know if there is any deadline, if nothing has been solved, article may face a AfD. OccultZone (Talk) 04:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{Replyto|OccultZone}}No, there's no specific deadline. If it's clear that, although the individual had a distinguished career, he may not be notable in terms of WP:Notability (people), then it can be nominated for deletion or tagged for WP:CSD now. This would be better than having the individual work on the article that still would be deleted.

:If it's not clear, then it would be good to give the author several days or more to add sources and content that addresses notability.--04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

::I have notified the editor, we will see after 1 week or more. OccultZone (Talk) 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but a similar bio posted at the time of his death was removed by those that do not see him as notable ... so keep an eye on it. Castlemate (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for patrolling/reviewing this article (I am not sure which is the right term). I have now amended links at Dunwich (UK Parliament constituency) and have added Barne Barne and Miles Barne (politician born 1746), which all link to his article. Would it be possible for you to reassess the orphan tag. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

Thank you so much for all your help with Jaugey's article. I'm new to Wikipedia this is my third article in English Wikipedia. In Spanish Wikipedia I did two articles. I learned so much from reading all the tips that you offered on your user page. I'm working on the Filmography and I'm reviewing all my references because I just realized that one of my sources was a blog although it looked official it is a blog. I selected Jaugey to write an article because it combines several of the subjects that I'm very passionate which are women in the arts, human rights, and women's issues in Latin America. Thanks! again.

--Fénixa 19:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 (talk • contribs)

:{{Replyto|Lisdip1}}It is very much my pleasure. Yep, if you've got another source other than a blog that would be better. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Regarding women in the arts, I'll send an invitation to the Women artists project group, in case that sounds interesting to you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, an image you recently uploaded has been nominated for deletion here. BlueSalix (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm looking for adoption, though my account is nearly a year old and I know the basics of Wikipedia, I'd be happy to be adopted by you. Will you be my adopter? Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{u|Acalycine}}, Absolutely, what would you like help with?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|CaroleHenson}} I want to look at expanding and making articles, since that hasn't been a main thing I've done on Wikipedia. But I also want to look at some other policies and places of Wikipedia. Thank you! Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 21:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

:::{{u|Acalycine}}, Ok, cool. Is there something you're working on now? Or something I can help with?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::I'm currently working on BitSnoop, as I made the article (from an inactive user's draft). I'm also working on getting Isaac Isaacs up to Good Article status, although I haven't worked on it for a bit. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 01:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Acalycine}}, sounds good. What kind of help are you looking for?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::::As I said, making and expanding articles, as well as revising the basics is OK with me, but I'm open to anything. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Acalycine}} Ok. Well, let me know how I can help as you go along... for instance, if you'd like me to review either of the articles you're working on now... or if you have any questions.

:::::::Regarding making one of the articles a good article, I don't know if you've seen Wikipedia:Good article criteria, but this is a good checklist to go through before nominating an article for a good article - and I'm happy to help with that, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I know the Good Article criteria since I have reviewed GA nominations. I requested a peer review for Isaac Isaacs, and got some points, but I could do with some more. I have the list here. Thanks! Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 05:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Ok, sounds good. I am out of town on vacation, but I'll take a look when I get a chance.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carole—thanks for the review of Lake James. I hope to upgrade it to Good Article, and have put it up for Peer Review. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, let me know. TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{u|TwoScars}} Sounds like a good plan. I'm out of town right now and on the web intermittently, so if I don't get to it shortly I will when I get back home in a week. Take care.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful edits and for inserting the ranking. The article is now finished, for the moment, so if it's within your authority to move it from the "start" class, that might be appropriate. (And if not, please do advise what I might do.) By the way, you seem to be a very helpful mentor. If you have any suggestions regarding the ten articles I've so far created, I would welcome them. I'm planning to create some more—mostly about figures in popular entertainment between 1900 and 1925 (especially those based outside New York, which gets a disproportionate share of the attention). [Apologies for the mini-rant!] Wfbrooks (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)wfbrooks

:{{u|Wfbrooks}} Sure, I would be happy to look at your articles. I'm out of town right now so I might not be online too much right now, but will be back in a week.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

::Many thanks. There's no rush, of course. Wfbrooks (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)wfbrooks

Thank you once again for all your help with Jaugey's article. When you have time could you please stop by the article and verify that I have done all the right steps? I also wanted to know if it is needed to do a page for Camila Films, the independent film company, owned by Jaugey. I'm borderline on this though. In some ways I'd like to do it because (1) their human rights work through film to bring to light violence againts women and (2) because there are only about 3 independent film companies in a country where the film industry does not have any government support. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks for the invitation to the women's and arts group which I joined. --LisD 19:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lisdip1

::{{Reply to|Lisdip1}} I've made a couple of minor tweaks to Florence Jaugey.

::Regarding making a separate article for Camila Films, I checked to see how many sources there were for "Camila Films" and I'm seeing books, newspaper articles, etc. so I think it's likely noteworthy enough for its own article if you choose to do so.

::I hope that helps! You're welcome for the invitation to the Women artists group.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and I want to thank you for initiating and organizing the 'Prehistoric technology' template, which is pretty much the template for the Prehistoric era on wikipedia. I've dived into it with all four feet, and hopefully the additions and changes I've made so far will meet with your approval (or at least indifference or disdain). And have you seen the sorry state that the important 'List of prehistoric artworks' is in? I've added some just a few minutes ago but that list has to be added to and arranged like a Humpty-Dumpty-like puzzle until it shines, so if you have a few minutes (hours)(days).... Good to meet you, and congrats on all of your great work here! Randy Kryn 12:34 30 May 2014 (UTC)

::Great, thanks {{Reply to|Randy Kryn}} and thanks for diving it on it!

::I'll take a look at the List of prehistoric artworks. Great to meet you, too!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, perhaps you remember helping me with some updates to the David Harding (finance) article last summer. Then as now, I had suggestions for bringing the article up to date, and I am working in a professional capacity with Mr. Harding's company, Winton Capital Management.

I recently posted a request on the Talk page to make a couple of small updates to the article. You can see that request here. So far there has been no response and, as you were the last editor to make any significant contributions to the page, I'm under the impression that this article isn't really on the radar for most editors. I'm wondering if you might have the time to help me here again? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, you can disregard the above message. I've found another editor to help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|WWB Too}} Glad to hear it.... my wikibreak ended up being a lot longer than I expected.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good morning!

I am an eager mind who has been a regular visitor to Wikipedia for the past six years. I have endlessly enjoyed reading articles here and I have just recently become involved in editing. I really would like to gain experience navigating around the Wikipedia Community in addition to finding ways in which I can contribute to Wikipedia's pool of knowledge.

I see that you tend to focus your efforts on humanities (on topics such as history, biographies, and social studies)and I have very similar interests in sociology, psychology, and United States History.

Since you seem like a very assertive knowledgeable person, I am wondering if you would care to adopt me? I need a mentor to help me find a niche were I can create articles and make a positive impact on the Wikipedia Community.

Thank you for your time, and hopefully this will be the first of many correspondences!

Retroscope (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Retroscope}} If you are still interest, I am happy to help out. So sorry for the delay - I was on a wikibreak for a bit and am back again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz{{@}}gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the related AfD you participated in, with additional Chinese-language sources. Your input would be appreciated. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 25 --j⚛e decker^talk 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

:{{Reply to|Joe Decker}} Thanks, sorry I was still on a break during this discussion, but it seems resolved adequately.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, great work with the template in the headline, and it replaces close to two dozen, in some cases, maps of the divisions with one template, which is very appealing! I'm creating a mirror of it for Tianjin with the map and colors based on List of administrative divisions of Tianjin at Template:Tianjin districts. I need your assistance (or to be directed at someone else who could help out) on:

1. Including a collapsible option, since, as I've previously mentioned, some of these cities have numerous divisions.
2. Creating a label, something along the lines of "See inset", for the central districts of Tianjin.

I look forward to collaborating with you to finish off many of the other Chinese cities. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 00:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|The Last Arietta}} My pleasure, it was fun working on Nanjing related articles. If you're still interested, I would be happy to help. I will look at some other templates I worked on with instructions for how to collapse the template and add that to the template page. I'll also look at your template for a "See inset" label.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

::{{done}} added the documentation for collapsing the template + a label for "See inset" for the central districts. Hopefully this is close to what you were looking for.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, CaroleHenson, I'm new to Wikipedia and saw that your an adopter. Could you please adopt me?PrimitiveOne (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

:Sure, I answered on your talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Carole,

Is there a definitive list of all members? I make 25 and 'my brian hurts' (vide Monty Python)!

HELP. Martin

2.27.130.180 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:AURD (Australia), WP:CARD (Canada), WP:HKRD (Hong Kong), WP:INRD (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at {{IRC|wikipedia-en-roads}} as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That source you're using only has "selected" NFSBs. For example, all 3 from Michigan are absent from the list, yet it tells people to go to http://www.byways.org for the full list from the FHWA. That's the very same website FHWA previously hosted before they dropped the content that isn't specific to NSBs and moved it onto part of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov.

I'm very puzzled, and frankly very concerned/upset that you'd remove the entire authoritative listing in this fashion. Please sandbox your changes elsewhere instead of removing verified content like this. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:I am puzzled that you are basing the inclusion of parks based upon what had been done in the past. Enchanted Circle may have been designated an NFSSB in the past, but it's not on the NFS or America's Byway page NOW.

:I haven't removed anything. It's all saved in comments... as I have been documenting. I won't remove anything until I can verify whether or not it is a NFS scenic byway

:By your logic (including previously designated byways), should I add back to the New Mexico Scenic Byways the byways that were once designated, but now are not NM Scenic Byways (Dry Cimarron and 2 others)? (in the "Notes" section for that article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::First, I think you're confused about something. The USFS source you linked for 4 NFSBs tells people to go to http://www.byways.org/, which was FHWA's website listing:

::*Primarily National Scenic Byways, but also

::*National Forest Scenic Byways

::*BLM Back Country Byways, and

::*Some select state-designated byways.

::Within the last year or so, byways.org was shut down, and FHWA moved the NSB-specific content into a subsection of their website. In the process, they removed the content on all other systems. In your haste to revert my original correction to the footnote, you've been removing the archive link to the website listing all of the NFSBs.

::Yes, you have removed content from the readers. As of right now, that list only has four entries, and it's missing dozens more. That's why I say you should do this overhaul in a sandbox.

::As for former entries, yes they should be included! List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, and List of state trunklines in Michigan all have former designations listed. As of right now, I see no evidence that Enchanted Circle is not still a National Forest Scenic Byway, so it should be in the main list, until a source says otherwise. It won't be on the America's Byways page now, because no byways that are not a National Scenic Byway are on that page anymore. No NFSB-only, no BLM BCB-only, no state-only byways appear there after the page was moved to fhwa.dot.gov. Imzadi 1979 →' 05:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:::I know that you think because something has been done for Michigan then other article should follow suit - it would nice to see that there is consensus for that

:::The difference in at least one of the lists is that it says if a road is current or not. To not disclose that a road is discontinued / byway is no longer designated is misleading.

:::It's helpful to get the link you provided, but I couldn't figure out how to find a list of current byways from fhwa.dot.gov.

:::I'm getting the opinion that you don't even think that the National Forest Service source is reliable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::::I think I haven't made myself clear on something, so I apologize upfront if I'm repeating myself, or if I'm telling you information you already know.

::::1. There are three separate, but overlapping byway systems on a national level. States also have their own systems.

::::#The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)FHA is the Federal Housing Administration oversees the National Scenic Byways (NSBs). A part of that system is the All-American Roads, and together, FHWA markets them on signage and websites as "America's Byways".

::::#The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) oversees the National Forest Scenic Byways (NFSBs, note the F).

::::#The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees the BLM Back Country Byways (BCBs).

::::Since I'm most familiar with Michigan, I default to using a trio of Michigan-based examples. The River Road National Scenic Byway is both a National Scenic Byway and a National Forest Scenic Byway; these are two separate programs with similar names. M-1 (Woodward Avenue) is an All-American Road and a Michigan Heritage Route. We also have the Monroe Historic Heritage Route, which FHWA called [https://web.archive.org/web/20111018103213/http://byways.org/explore/byways/13755 Monroe Street (M125)]. So from those first two examples, we can see that individual byways can have overlapping statuses between the various programs. Also, the third example shows us that FHWA had cataloged some examples of state-only byways.

::::2. As of [https://web.archive.org/web/20130905195118/http://byways.org/ this archive from September 5, 2013], byways.org still existed as its own website. When it did, FHWA also listed all of the National Forest Scenic Byways, all of the BLM Back Country Byways, and some state byways.

::::Sometime earlier this year, FHWA redirected http://www.byways.org to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ and "relaunched" the website. In that relaunch, they removed the content on NFSBs, BCBs, and state byways. If you go to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ , you will not find a list of the National Forest Scenic Byways. Instead, if you go to the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130825215019/http://byways.org/explore/byways/other/usfs archived copy of the appropriate page from byways.org], you will. "Monroe Street (M125)" is not listed on the new website, because it is not a National Scenic Byway

::::3. The Enchanted Circle's own website, like on [http://www.enchantedcircle.org/page.php?p=motorcycling this page], says "Follow the signs as you enjoy an 85 mile, full day New Mexico/US Forest Service Scenic Byway {{sic}} connecting Taos and Questa with the resort communities of Red River, Eagle Nest, and Angel Fire." There is similar text on other pages of the website. This tells me that it is still a National Forest Scenic Byway as well as a "New Mexico Scenic and Historic Byway",That's that actual name of the New Mexico's program. but it isn't a National Scenic Byway, ''which is why it doesn't appear on FHWA's new "America's Byway's" section of their website.

::::4. I've gone looking to see if the USFS has a more recent listing of their NFSBs online. They do not. Any USFS-produced content on the NFSB Program dates back to 2011 or earlier. That means the most-recent listing of all 144 of them we have is still FHWA's page from August 2013 that you'd have to find in the Wayback Machine, not the current site.

::::Imzadi 1979 → 07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::::One other point I overlooked. FHWA was inconsistent about classifying things as "Other Byways". Sometimes use the term to mean just state-designated byways, but not always. If you visit their [https://web.archive.org/web/20130819055243/http://byways.org/explore/byways/other Other Byways] page, it lists "National Forest Scenic Byways", "BLM Back Country Byways", "America's Byways and National Wildlife Refuges", "America's Byways and National Park Service Discover Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series", and "State-Designated Byways" as subsections. It's confusing, but I've been dealing with this topic area for a few years now, so I've come to understand their idiosyncracies. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:::::Numbered items for response

:::::1. Yep.

:::::2. It sounds like, from your perspective the best list is the wayback list. I so rarely use wayback or archive pages and never would in this kind of situation, but I'm seeing that it's complicated. What about http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/NM/maps/All%20Byways%20State%20Map on the fhwa.dot site that you gave me. Are you saying that this is wrong?

:::::3. See #2 map page - says it's "other" and not NFS. I don't think the Enchanted Circle page has changed at all in years. This might be the time to outreach to them for clarification.

:::::4. Very scary, but I'm getting it.

:::::Thanks for the FWHA clarification.

:::::--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::2. Regarding the map showing Enchanted Circle as "Other Byway", that map was the same at the old byways.org site [https://web.archive.org/web/20130709042807/http://byways.org/explore/states/NM/maps.html?map=All%20Byways%20State%20Map in a copy archived on July 9, 2013]. Yet if you were to look at the listing for Enchanted Circle from the same time period, it shows it as a NFSB. That's what I mean about FHWA being inconsistent regarding their definitions. It's easier to use the wrong label in making a map than to create all kinds of erroneous text and designation dates on multiple pages.

::::::2.1 Yes, as far as I can tell, the version in the Wayback Machine is still the most recent that has all of the NFSBs in one location. Sadly, FHWA changed their website to focus just on the one program they administer and removed other valuable content in the process. Think of it as like annual editions of an almanac, but the 2014 version dropped the Appendix C you were using from the 2013 copy. FHWA essentially dropped their "Other Byways" Appendix (in the broader sense they used the term) for 2014. Of Michigan's 3 NFSBs (Black River, River Road, and Whitefish Bay), only 1 (River Road) made the transition to the new site because it was both a NSB and a NFSB, yet all of them appear on the "All Byways" map for the state because those maps weren't changed.

::::::3. As for the Enchanted Circle website not being updated, I won't say it's not possible. They do list "©2009-2014 Enchanted Circle Marketing Group", and provide "upcoming events" that are current. Typically I would go with what a website says unless it's obvious it hasn't been updated in a long time.

::::::Just a personal observation, but these byway designations are kind of like listings on the National Register of Historic Places. Once a building is put on the NHRP, it pretty much never comes off the register unless something big happens. I can't really think of something that could happen in the space of a year to get one of the agencies to drop a byway without some sort of press release, news article, or Federal Register entry mentioning why. Imzadi 1979 → 08:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Create a new section to avoid an edit conflict.

If you click on the Enchanted Circle page (http://www.enchantedcircle.org/page.php?p=byway) that says it's a National Forest Scenic Byway, it has a link to the source. The link forwards to a "page not found error" on the New Mexico Tourism Department website.

Looking up the Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway on that page, it does not mention the National Forest and does not have it in the Scenic Byway name. See http://www.newmexico.org/enchanted-circle-trail/

So, it would seem that the New Mexico Tourism Department removed references to the National Forest Service.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Ok, I still got an edit conflict. So northcentralnm.com is an invalid domain name. So, let's see what the page did have in the Wayback Machine. The most recent archived version is [https://web.archive.org/web/20120624023152/http://northcentralnm.com/ from June 24, 2012]. The next time the servers tried to archive the page was on June 14, 2013, so all we know is that the page went dead by then. It could have gone dead on June 25, 2012, or June 13, 2014, but since the servers didn't try, they didn't report a failure. Also, they could have tried and found nothing changed to warrant actually processing an archived copy.

:So navigating the old version of the page, it points me to [https://web.archive.org/web/20120219165856/http://www.northcentralnm.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=63 Enchanted Circle], cached on February 19, 2012. That website has essentially the same text as the Enchanted Circle website's Byway page linked at the top of this section. So, we have some sort of change between 2012 and whenever the new website was last updated. That just means we need further investigation to find out what that change was.

:Something I've notice in working on the Michigan Heritage Route list is that these byways lack a consistent naming scheme. At least with the Michigan HRs and FHWA's NSBs, each has a local non-profit or local governmental agency in charge of stewardship. Each likes to come up with their own marketing. They don't always use " " as the name they pick. We have the "Copper Country Trail", which lacks any reference the fact that it's a National Scenic Byway or a Scenic Heritage Route. One of our recreational heritage routes was originally named the "Miles of Smiles RHR", and now it's the "Pathway to Family Fun RHR", so these local groups do like to rebrand the roads. So the newmexico.org site calling it "Enchanted Circle Trail", and the local group calling it "Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway" doesn't tell me much of anything regarding its status. As for the lack of references, that says a bit more, but doesn't say anything like "in late 2013, the US Forest Service removed the NFSB status from the roadway." Again, this just means further investigation is needed to resolve the discrepancy or discover that actually changed and when. It may take a few e-mails to the local group and the USFS. Imzadi 1979 → 08:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::I'm understanding that this is a complicated situation - but I come to different conclusions. I can think of a number of reasons why a byway might be dropped - no longer meets eligibility requirements, unable to manage a corridor management plan, etc. I am just surprised that it is so hard to find information that says that the Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway is a National Forest SB - especially in the write up from the state of New Mexico who I would think would be acutely aware of the national designation of the state byways.

::I don't quite get the point about other byways being labeled "Other byways" incorrectly. You may have given me examples.

::Anyway, I agree that at this point it would be good to get confirmation - perhaps directly from the National Forest Service as to the current byways (any dropped? any added?) since the documentation on the web is such a quagmire.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Imzadi1979 Based upon your input that there is no current valid list or source of byways, I have reverted the list to the version prior to my edits. I will try to find a contact email address at NFS or FHWA to see if there is a current list that they could provide / point us to.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

::::I hope there's fruit to be found in that research, and I also hope it's not a repeat of the situation I had with getting the information on Michigan Heritage Route completed. In that case, MDOT doesn't actually have a single list any place of their heritage routes along with the information on the termini/lengths/dates; they just don't log them like they do regular highway designations. I e-mailed one of my contacts, who put me in touch with someone knowledgeable. They agreed that a single list would be a good thing, and a while later they sent me a spreadsheet of the information I was missing and several corridor management plans or other documents to cite for that information. So far, the only single published list with all of the information on the Heritage Routes is our Wikipedia article, and I'm still missing a couple of exact designation dates. Imzadi 1979 → 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure how fruitful the research will be - I have a bounced email for an address no longer used and am having a hard time finding contacts. NFS says contact the local office provided on the byway page, but there's no byway page for Enchanted Circle. There is a phone number (DC?) for someone who manages Byways and several other things. I'm guessing this is an executive. I'll check it out, but I'm not feeling too hopeful.

:::::Score! for what you were able to do for the Michigan Heritage Route!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

:Please. I have done so many violations on it that I need help fixing my mistakes. People are kinda worried because I'm not suppose to create categories. Maybe you could speak on my behalf. I'm wondering if you what categories are suitable to create and not suitable to create. I'm not banned yet you see; I just can't create categories I do have some mental health issues. Please

Venustar84 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Venustar84}} Sure, I would be happy to help!

::There are often approaches within WikiProjects for the types and numbers of categories. So, that may be part of the issue.

::I would be happy to help. Is there something specific that I can do at the moment? Something specifically that you'd like me to look at?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will gladly accept your help. Please just call me Kristine ok? I answer to my first name in a heartbeat. Venustar84 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

:Sure, Kristine. I'm happy to do what I can.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sent an email to the Yahoo address you used to use. No idea if it is still in use. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, what about deciding if the category Category:Welsh_people_of_Barbadian_descent should exist for the article about June_and_Jennifer_Gibbons who are twins in wales UK who committed crimes? Venustar84 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

::I just saw that this was posted on the work page and moved my response there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering as a potential coordinator for The Wikipedia Library. We have a brief questionnaire here for you to complete. Please try to have this done within the next week if possible. Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks, {{ping|Nikkimaria}}, I replied on that page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your edits to this article--I agree that grouping a selection of images under certain headings adds to the article's clarity (and does indeed look more elegant). But, did the other images have to be deleted? Couldn't they remain in a gallery at the end for future study and reference? Again, I agree that clarity is important, but the point of this article was to create as comprehensive an introduction to the artist as possible since there is very little published on her and what is published is generally not illustrated. Thus, in the absence of a cat. rais., this would allow researchers (and my students, who rely on Wikipedia) to see as many of her works as possible in one place.

Thanks for your kind attention,

Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen.prokop (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Ellen.prokop}} Hi Ellen, Thanks for your feedback. I will be adding more on Miss Hall, after my current diversion to a new article about one of her teachers, Alexander Robertson (artist).

:Per the WP:Manual of Style/Images "If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can."

:I added a link to the :Template:Commons category so that readers could look at the full contingent of images there. I tried to select images that fit the text of the article and were unique to other images (brides, "bouquets" of children, portrait), etc. Do the selected images make sense from that perspective?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Ellen.prokop}} By the way, I have updated the descriptions for the images that had numeric file names + requested a move to descriptions of the images, based upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Hall&oldid=617053104 this version of the Wikipedia article] within the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ann_Hall Ann Hall category in commons].--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)