User talk:Victoriagirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cherylktardif (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 24 August 2006 (→‎tardif dyskinesia?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Please remove post below titled 'tardif dyskinesia?' Acknowleding that you did not post it, however. A warning will be sent also to the user involved. Thank you.(Cherylktardif 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome!'

Hello, Victoriagirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Acebrock 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Leacock

Hello there!

I have noticed your recent substantive edits to the Stephen Leacock article. I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated this article as one for future expansion for the Canada collaboration, as I think there is sufficient material out there to make this a solid overall article, perhaps even enough for Feature Article status. If you are interested in helping out, please add your vote to the nomination.

Cheers! Captmondo 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Version

Thanks for the help, that article is still severily lacking content though. Jolly good show. Zombiebaron 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novel edits

I notice some of your edits on the details of publiscation release. Could you when adding details of 1st editions not remove the information that the edition is hardback, thanks. Also you might be interested to know of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate which give overall guidance on the content & structure of articles on Novels. There is other information at the project as well. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved a while ago, if you want to add the indication of first that's fine but try not to remove the binding info. Actually I quite understand your problem with First editions. There is obviously only one "true" first edition. However there is the problem that many people worldwide seem to use the term when refering to different bindings and now more than ever appear to be using the term for their "national" edition. So you get the case for US editions appearing that are (kind of reprints of UK editions) claiming to be "First edition". Truely confusing. what do you think about formalising the "phrase" to mean different things.

for instance

  • hardback first edition - (meaning a worldwide first time in hardback)
  • paperback first edition - (meaning a worldwide first time in paperback)
  • first edition, hardback - (meaning a worldwide first edition that happens to be a hardback)
  • first edition, paperback - (meaning a worldwide first edition that happens to be a paperback)
  • US hardback edition - (meaning a US first time in hardback)
  • US paperback edition - (meaning a US first time in paperback)

does that help or confuse more. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks for you message, my intention by putting these options was rather more to see if these as "forms of words" reflected your own understanding of what should be proposed as a guide, ie. something we can put to the project as a whole, or should I just propose it and see where it takes us. My thinking was if you come from a trade background you might have extra thoughts on it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCOTW

You showed support for the selection of a Canada Collaboration.

This month George-Étienne Cartier was selected for improvement.

We hope you can contribute.

Oryx and Crake first edition

Hi Victoriagirl, thanks for the corrections in the infobox to Oryx and Crake! There are so many editions its very confusing. You give September 2003 as date for the first edition, but the Nan A. Talese edition gives May 2003. As far as I can tell, Bloomsbury (0747562598) and McClelland & Stewart (0771008686) published it simultaneously. Confusing... --Jottce 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for James Sinclair Ross

Be Bold, they say. Why not just make it redirect to Sinclair Ross ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw your response to my post on the The Hours (novel) talk page, and I thought I'd just give a shout out to a fellow Canadian CanLit fangirl (if you don't object to the characterisation).--Anchoress 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shout. I don't object to the characterization - not one tiny bit. --Victoriagirl 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Magie Dominic

Take a look at the original and i would like suggestions for cleanup, I did not write the article, it was in the wrong place and I put it there anew WayneRay 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic

I got rid of the material quoted directly from her web site and added some from other sources. You may want to consider changing your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Dominic. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the Web based bio and I had no idea it was a cut and paste from her Bio. I cut out what I thought was vanity writing and put it together after the fact. If she is and seems to be important in East Coast and Toronto literature I think deletion is a bit harsh. If you hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have known it was a bad cut and paste on her part when she put it up originally. I think we should assume she is a newbie at Wiki and I will edit it down some more, give her a second chance. WayneRay 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Further cleanup

Please take a look at the article as it now exists at Magie Dominic.

Concordia University

Thanks for helping to fix Concordia University's article name. 132.205.64.80 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kaye Tardif

I've tried cleaning up the article to the best of my abilities (mostly removing fluff and arranging info in a better way) , as you can see it is still woefully inadequate as an article, if you can help out it would be greatly appreciated. Short of speedy deleting the article I have no idea what step to take next, I can't write the article from scratch as I have no knowledge of the subject matter nor can I find much information on the web about her. Plus comments on the user's page go unanswered.←ΣcoPhreek→ 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know nothing of Tardif or her work. As I see it, unless someone with the knowledge steps forward, the only course of action is a major editing (which would reduce the entry to a few basic facts) or a recommendation for deletion. I prefer the former and will be happy to do the work myself... unless, again, someone responds to our requests.--Victoriagirl 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now voting for deletion of the article completely, all of her novels are self-published, she is non-notable, and there is no real info out there not copied directly from her home page. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author is now responding should we postpone the afd and try to work with her on improving the article, or just let it run its course? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding that a nomination for deletion, once in place, cannot be reversed. That said, one is always welcome to change one's vote before final judgement has been rendered. Though I stated above that I prefered a heavily edited article over deletion, I've since come to the conclusion that the author is a nn - at least at this stage in her career. I must add that your past efforts to provide assistance were met with silence, and that no action was taken untll the entry was nominated for deletion. --Victoriagirl 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
true... it's just that now that she has responded, she has really worked hard towards getting it up to par. (sigh) I'm torn :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should at all feel badly, after all you offered a great deal of assistance and allowed a month to pass with the concerns left unaddressed. Now that Ms Tardif has stepped forward - and revealed herself as the author of the entry - you've spent a great deal of time and energy in assisting her.--Victoriagirl 23:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks for your concern, Victoriagirl. I realize that all the above messages are old, and that Eco has changed his stance, but I thought I'd address them--more for other readers. Unfortunately, there was a murder in my family recently which prevented me from working on my articles until just lately. As for you spending a lot of time on my 'woefully inadequate' article, perhaps it's time to move on to someone else's. Not only have you incorrectly worded things in your edits, such as incorrectly changing the name of a major newspaper (which I had listed correctly) and a few other important tidbits, you have worded things in such a way that you were misrepresenting me. You seem to be still changing things even though Wiki voted to keep the article after Eco kindly helped bring it up to an acceptable standard. Perhaps you should edit topics that you have some knowledge on. As for not finding much about me on the internet, plug my name into Google or Yahoo search...I was over 50 pages deep at last check. It's strange that in all the newspaper interviews, TV interviews and radio interviews that I've done, none of these reporters have had a problem finding information on me. So I thank you for your keen interest in my article, but I'll respectfully ask you to move on. As a published writer and professional editor, I'm sure I'll pick up all the intricacies of Wiki with time. If Wiki's accepted my articles, that should be good enough. (Cherylktardif 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I suppose I'll begin by pointing out that the term "woefully inadequate" was used by another. At no point have I used these words when discussiing the article.
The Edmonton Sun is, in fact, the name of the tabloid. On this matter, I refer you to "Sun Newspapers" in the on-line edition of The Canadian Enyclopedia [1]. This is, of course, a minor edit - one made in good faith in an attempt to improve upon the article. You'll note that the only other change I have made in the entire history of Cheryl Kaye Tardif was to the opening paragraph, which did not conform to WP:BIO. This fact was pointed out eleven days ago when I voted Keep in favour of the article. As no one stepped forward, I took it upon myself to perform the necessary edit.
You have accused me of wording things in such a way that I have misrepresented you. This is not the first serious charge you have levelled against me[2]. As before, I ask you for examples. If I have indeed misrepresented you, I will be pleased to acknowledge the fact and apologize.
I'm afraid I can't speak to your comment: "As for not finding much about me on the internet, plug my name into Google or Yahoo search..." I've never mentioned any trouble in finding information about yourself - not on this page, not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif, not on Talk:Cheryl Kaye Tardif.
I must take exception with your statement that I am "still changing things even though Wiki voted to keep the article". There is an implication that I altered the article before the vote, which is not true. In fact, the only two edits I have ever made were made yesterday (mentioned above) and today (a minor one in which I again attempted to correct the name of The Edmonton Sun).
I acknowledge your request that I move on, but am sorry to disappoint. As I pointed out on August 5, the article Cheryl Kaye Tardif does not belong to you[[3]. I'm well aware that the article was voted for inclusion - after all, I was one of the three voters who voted Keep. That said, my vote is irrelevant, I have the right to edit this or any other page on Wkipedia - as do you. Victoriagirl 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that 'woefully inadequate' was used by another. I apologize if you thought I had meant you had said it. I hadn't. It should be obvious to anyone who cares to scroll above that it came from another member. I was condensing and catching up on the conversation. It would be advisable to read this in good faith and not jump to conclusions. I have never leveled 'serious charges' against you either, and I'm sorry you believe that. I have simply pointed out that you have not been perhaps as objective towards me or my articles as you should be. I was surprised to receive a few emails (through my website) from people who had read your posts here. They told me I was the subject of much debate on your personal page. Thanks, sales have been great!:) As for correcting the name of my city newspaper, I am sorry you were misinformed as to the correct name. I have addressed this in another post. The correct name as listed in the phone book and online is 'Edmonton Sun', as I have mentioned a few times now. Also, you don't need to point out that the articles I've written don't belong to me...I have never said they did and I don't think that. But in the effort to maintain civility, I will request that you find other articles to edit. There are thousands here...I've written 4 and you've followed behind me on 3 of them. In the interest of Wiki, that would be the right thing to do, especially seeing as you admittedly know nothing about the topics I've chosen to write on.(Cherylktardif 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It is true that I said knew nothing of your work before stumbling upon the entry Cheryl Kaye Tardif. It is for this reason that I limited my edit to issues dealing with style. Another's nomination to delete the article prompted me to look at its links, including Whale song. I was unaware that I had edited a third entry to which you had contributed, but now see that you're listed as a contributor to Trafford Publishing. I'll ask you to assume in good faith that this is a coincidence. Anyone who cares to check will see that it is one of over a thousand sites dealing with Canadian letters and publishing to which I have contributed. Your claim aside, I have admitted nothing concerning my own personal knowledge with regards to whale song or Tafford Publishing.
I'm pleased that WP:OWN is not an issue. To avoid further misunderstandings, I suggest that you reconsider your use of terms like "my article" and "my articles".
I'm afraid the charge that I misrepresented you through my editing is a very serious accusation. I will not allow this matter to go unresolved. Again, I ask you to provide examples.Victoriagirl 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we are finally working out some of these issues. As for my use of "my articles"...I mean it in the sense that the articles were about me or MY work (with the exception of Trafford, which I only contributed to as it was a stub and I have firsthand knowledge of their excellent services. So keep in mind that if I use "my", it refers only to either articles on me or my work, or I may possibly use that term when referring to an article that I write from scratch. Also, note that good faith comes into play regarding your perception of what I meant here. I have never claimed to own any article on Wiki. It seems we are both guilty of jumping to conclusions. Now, I am off to writing more constructive things and view my new book trailer. Check it out on Kunati.com. It's very cool. (Cherylktardif 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
For the third time, I ask that you provide examples to back up your charge that I have misrepresented you through my editing.Victoriagirl 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Renaud

Hi, I noticed you applied a wikify tag to the Chantal Renaud article. Can you tell me what specifically needs to be wikified? I don't see anything in there that needs to be done. Metros232 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, there are a very few, very minor changes required to meet W:MOS guidelines. I really applied the tag to remind myself that it needed attention. I'll attend to it now.--Victoriagirl 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tardif dyskinesia?

Ho Hum. You are quite correct to vote Ms Tardif's entry for deletion. It is rather gauche and naive to claim 'highest honors' (whatever they are) from a correspondence school in an article about oneself - liable to make one only an object of fun. As indeed she is becoming. If the prose style with which she defends herself is anything to go by, her novels are destined for scant readership, and a good thing too, I say. Cheers. Lgh 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriagirl, I will respectfully request that you delete this entry (or at the very least edit it) as it shows a lack of civility on part of the user, Lgh. The title in itself is offensive and this editor's comments are completely derogatory and go against Wiki policy. civil NPOV (I'm sure you could quote some other policies that this goes against, since you know the Wiki policies better than I.) I know that you pride yourself on following Wiki's rules, and so I am sure you can understand my point. These kind of comments belong in a private email, not on Wiki. Thank you. (Cherylktardif 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I won't delete, nor will I edit Lgh's post for the very same reason I have let your accusations stand: I am not a censor. While NPOV hasn't been breached (it applies exclusively to articles), you are perfectly within your right to approach Lgh yourself and ask him to reconsider his comment. I encourage you to do so. Victoriagirl 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have politely requested you delete this and have requested that LGH contact you and confirm a delete on the post referred to above. See: personal attacks per the guideline WP:RPA and WP:NPA. This is not acceptable behavior by Wiki's standards.(Cherylktardif 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
While WP:RPA is, of course, a guideline, WP:NPA is a policy - one that Lgh's post appears to violate. I note that you have asked Lgh to reconsider his comment, as I suggested. It would appear that Lgh hasn't visited Wiki since 05:24, 21 August 2006, well before you made the first of your three requests (20:49, 21:25, and 21:59, 23 August 2006), and will assume he has not yet read them. As previously stated, I am not a censor. I would much prefer Lgh address this matter and would like to give him time to do so. May I suggest that we give Lgh 24 hours to respond?
On a related note, I admit to being slightly mystified as to the purpose of the post placed at the top of this page (21:19, 23 August 2006) - it does seem rather incongruous. As I believe these posts should have some semblance of chronological order, I will be moving it to the bottom of this page.
Please do let me know your thoughts on these two matters. Victoriagirl 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be getting quite stressed about this. Would you like me to look for a random admin to give an opinion and smooth ruffled feathers? I know Lgh a bit on Wiki, so I'm probably not the right person to do this. JackyR | Talk 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Victoriagirl. Actually I only posted 2 of the warnings...one from the Personal attacks page, which I was told was the official one you had to post, and one I found elsewhere. I have no problem giving him or her even a few days to remove the post, and I thank you for your support in this. Thank you also for reorganizing it; I thought they had to go at the top. I am still learning how to do things correctly here and did spend some time reading some policies today to get better acquainted with WIKI. I have already heard back from LGH who is under the impression he/she can write about anyone in any way on a user's talk page, although I found references in Wiki's policies that even the user's pages must follow the same rule as all is visible to users. He/she has at this time refused. I will check back in a day or so, and then follow the next recommended step if necessary.
JackyR, I am doing my best to learn the ropes here and follow the rules, and unless I'm misreading the policy on Personal Attacks, Lgh's post, like Victoriagirl says, "appears to violate policy". And this says a lot, since VG and I have had our own issues to deal with. Thank you, VG. Let's leave it until Friday and give Lgh a chance to reconsider. If he doesn't, then I'll consider the next step or ask for an admin. Thanks! (Cherylktardif 05:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for not responding

I was out of town taking care of business. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who and the 'Tardif'

Thanks for the response. I am very, very disappointed that this vanity article, which is quite plainly that - written by the person praising her own self-published work, has been kept by Wikipedia. It really cheapens the whole deal for me. I have self-published several book and have had two published by bona fide publishers which have sold thousands of copies. At the moment I am just about to have my first screenplay filmed. I thus qualify for a Wikipedia entry, if Tardif is anything to go by! Yet I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to do that. J'ai vu a ta 'user page' que vous aimez bien la litterature et les langues - moi aussi! Actuellement j'ecris deux livres a meme fois - un roman et encore un screenplay; j'espere etre directeur des filmes en avenir. Toutes les meilleurs, Lgh 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uberall's major/minor writers

Thanks for the thanks! I simply noticed the strange POV pushing, but then noticed that 9 of User:Uberall's first 10 edits were to Karen Connelly or Talk:Karen Connelly which is suspiciously unusual behavior ... I suspect the subsequent edits, inserting the word "major" or "minor" into a mix of well known "international" writers and various Canadian writers unlikely to be well-known outside Canada was simply an attempt to cover the tracks by making what was really an attack solely directed at the Karen Connelly article look as though it just happenend to be part of a broader more 'objective' scheme. I suspect Uberall is a sockpuppet for User:AnthonyHead who made a similar edit, along with wanting to highlight details of the controversy over the Governor General's Award. (BTW User:Alice of Wonderland also looks like a sockpuppet for the other 'side'). I've added the page to my watchlist so if there's anymore trouble I can help out. Stumps 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be taken care of. Tyrenius 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victoriagirl&oldid=71538205"