Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) a bridge |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →A bridge for you: not as high as hoped |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| title = |
| title = |
||
| image = Solingen-Muengstener Breucke.JPG |
| image = Solingen-Muengstener Breucke.JPG |
||
| image_upright = 0. |
| image_upright = 0.5 |
||
| bold = [[Müngsten Bridge]] |
| bold = [[Müngsten Bridge]] |
||
}} |
}} |
Revision as of 19:49, 21 July 2018
Flow
"Sonne der Gerechtigkeit" |
---|
I don't know what happened. Good wishes, whatever, some soothing green and gentle flow, until we meet again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I've been firmly put in my place here, and apparently off-wiki too, and will honor my instinct to slap a retired template on my page. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Peace
I read you recent deleted post on the "post-mortem" thread. Your remarks have not offended me in any way. I do think that the thread was perhaps opened too soon, when emotions are still high and people may exacerbate rather than resolve the issues. I would have preferred a couple of weeks of quiet reflective silence before trying to pinpoint what went wrong. However, something you said earlier rather cheered me: "Bottom line is that the article isn't quite there in my opinion". That kind of reasonable measured judgement makes me feel that when the tumult and the shouting dies, the article might yet be rescued to everyone's satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Brian, just to let you know that I've seen this, but I'm not able to reply in any meaningful way right now. I do have a few thoughts that I'll add here when I'm feeling better. Thanks for the note. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Peace 2
Hi Victoria,
I thought I would send a quick note to apologise, to clarify and to (hopefully) clear the air, following the FAC, and the ongoing FAC talk thread.
The clarifications first, on two things you have written on the FAC talk page: firstly, "the nominator seems to believe I suggested men can't write about women": I have never thought that, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. I have always been clear that SarahSV stated that, not you. Secondly you said that "none of my suggestions were taken seriously": they were taken seriously, and I thought about them long and hard, but decided on an alternative course. You may have disagreed with that course, but your comments were always taken seriously, and when you came up with strong actionable points with which I agreed, I amended the article accordingly. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and although we may have differed on specifics, neither was "right" in the absolute sense.
I am sorry this has all turned out rather badly, and I am very sorry that you have thought my requests for clarification on your comments were (reading between the lines of you FAC talk page comment) too much, or too frequent. That wasn't my intention. I get heavily involved in the articles I work on, reading widely and deeply over the course of several years, and when points are legitimately challenged (as they were in your review), I like to clarify and deal with them quickly. It comes from a keenness of sorting out the points raised, rather than a way of bludgeoning or badgering reviewers. I can (in hindsight) see it may come across like that, but it really was not my intention.
I probably responded to you more brusquely at the FAC than I should (I cannot bring myself to read through the FAC again, but I guess I probably did), but that was because of another editor. That doesn't need re-hashing again, but suffice to say, my experience with them seriously affected my good faith with more legitimate reviews, and soured the review process with others. It meant you felt that you got what you describe as a cold welcome, and I am sorry for that: it was not my intention, and I am sorry that I gave that impression.
The experience of that FAC, particularly one set of behaviour, has pushed me down a particular path (one not for general ears on WP), which is why I withdrew the FAC in the end. The sheer attrition took away any enjoyment or sense of achievement, and a WP article, even on a subject I have researched for years and believe in greatly just is not worth the candle. After all that has gone on, including many lies about me that I have read from a couple of editors, I'm taking a break from Wiki for a month or more until I can be bothered to return.
You have mentioned your health concerns in the past: I hope these improve and that you you soon find your desire to edit is re-kindled once again.
Best
Gavin – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SchroCat, just to let you know I've seen this but can't really reply or do it justice right now. Will be back when I can. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SchroCat, since I'm here, will just add that I agree with Brian's post above that a few weeks of quiet reflection won't go amiss, (certainly I need it). It's best not to relitigate or get pulled into the weeds again - some of the above could, perhaps, have been posted to the thread John started at FAC talk. All that said, suggestions are being made on the article talk and that's where the work will happen. Thanks for the apology and I hope we will all move forward in a spirit of collaborative editing. I've seen it done, been involved in it only a few times on Wikipedia. The results are always good and the rewards even better. I'm off to watch France vs. Croatia, so cheers and all that. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A bridge for you
Müngsten Bridge |
---|
Thank you for building a bridge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)