User talk:Elisa.rolle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

TonyBallioni

TonyBallioni has decided to block me because I was trying to preserve an article Wee Curry Monster is disrupting. Instead of asking for explanation TonyBallioni has decided to block me. This is the definitive prove that that Wikipedia is not a place where people can collaborate. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

An article I am trying to improve, an article which originally contained direct quotes from works of fiction rather than reliable sources, and an article in which you insisted an WP:SPS was "good enough". I have tried to co-operate, including directing you to where sources can be found. That much is easily verified from the article talk page. WCM_email 17:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"direct quotes from works of fiction" was not done by me; but if your removing all info about Author, Title and Year of two books, and writing, "there are two historical novels about this woman" is improving the article, then I have a different concept of "improving". Now the details are at least in the references, I do not like it, but if I was not to intervene, neither that info would be available. I'm not sure it is worth my block, but I suppose someone was just waiting for a chance. You gave that chance. As I said, I'm tired to be judged, therefore, goodbye also to you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of formatting two references from google books, in case you haven't noticed I've asked the blocking admin to reconsider. You need to stop lashing out at people. WCM_email 17:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Should anyone wish to see my explanation for why this block is needed, it can be found here. I'm not going to repeat myself since Elisa apparently wants to have her talk page confined to a discussion of my actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I said, I had already decided to let you do what you wanted with the article, but TonyBallioni has decided to block me, and yes, he did it cause you decided to "warn" me on my page. If now you are sorry and you are asking to TonyBallioni to undo it, as he has replied, it's too late. Goodbye to you and TonyBallioni as well. I'm tired of this all. TonyBallioni in three months I haven't had any issue at all, I was just improving article, not writing anything new. Please let me know where in the last three months there were issue from me? your accuse is wrong and I resent it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you review your block log and everything that you have blanked from this talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, again, please, list me what I did in the last three months that is worth of a block. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, after the Dorothy Caruso's event (in May) and after you asked me to remove the reason why I retired from Wikipedia, which I did, and for that you thanked me, what did I do? other than today, and again, it was not just me that was edit warring and the other user even say so, for which reason you are blocking me? where is the continue disruptive editing you are using as reason for the blocking? Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Today you edit warred with multiple users, kept making changes that you knew other editors disagreed with, and when one of them reached out to you, gave every indication that you had no intent on listening to the concerns of others about your behavior. For an editor who has previously been indefinitely blocked three times, and who simply blanks any attempt to interact with them on their talk page that they do not like, there really isn't much else to do other than an indef block. This would have been blockable on its own, but your history on this project is what led to it being indefinite. This does not have to be since May, as you seem to be claiming, but takes into account your behavior as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, then again you "continuous disruptive editing" in the last months is just about today; and again, the fact that the other user is asking you to unblock me should give you the hint that probably it was not only on my side. Sorry, you misjudged today events and you took a decision without asking before to me or even the other side if the block was necessary. And your justification is I was blocked three times. The fact for the last months I was behaving according to what you asked me is not worth anything, according to your explanation. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, and the multiple users are just two working together with the same purpose. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop twisting people's words. Wee Curry Monster did not ask me to unblock you. They said they wouldn't mind if I did so long as you engaged and were willing to work with them (which given your last reply, the answer is pretty clearly "no" on that.) Additionally, you were not blocked because of the warning, you were blocked because of edit warring, which you still don't seem to think is an issue. I also never said it was in the "last months", I was discussing your pattern of behavior here over your entire tenure, which dating back to your first indefinite block (which was lifted after a day), basically can be summed up as you not thinking the rules apply to you and complaining that you are the victim anytime someone points out that you are making mistakes.

Also, this is your fourth indefinite block. By this point, we assume that you know how Wikipedia works. You've been given many more chances than most other editors would have ever had. You still have the chance to appeal this block and explain how you are going to change how you interact with the community and do it in a way that is convincing.

Finally, your last comment makes it clear that this block is justified: two editors object to your edits, and rather than engage with them in good faith, you assume that they are working together to undermine you and continue to revert them, and blame them for your disruptive behavior. This is not something that a time-limited block is going to fix. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, "I've asked the blocking admin to reconsider", these is not twisting words. And if you had looked to the AfD of the articles, yes, you would have seen the two users have the same purpose. Deleting the article. I was not saying they are working "against" me, I'm not even the author of that article. The purpose is delete the article, nothing to do with me at all. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this as required under admin accountability, and I do not think further discussion with you will be fruitful, because you don't seem to see any problems with your actions. At this time, I am unwilling to unblock as I think unblocking would increase disruption on this project. You are free to appeal this block using the instructions provided to you in the block template, but I would oppose any unblock unless the underlying issues of your behavior are addressed in the appeal or the unblock conditions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, Rosiestep, SusunW, Deb, John Cummings, Johnbod, David Eppstein, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Ipigott, Cwmhiraeth, E.M.Gregory, Oakshade, Victuallers, Hawkeye7, you all voted keep in the Afd for María Sáez de Vernet. Today Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster, after the AfD was closed, were removing sourced content. In particular Kahastok removed the Further Reading section, saying it was not interesting. I reinstate it asking to discuss on the talk page if the fact that two historial novel about Maria was worthy of mention or not. Wee Curry Monster continued to revert me without waiting the output of the talk page. They were adding a sentence "Sáez's life was used as the basis of a character in two romantic fiction novels published in Argentina" without giving title, author or year of the books. I managed to have them in the references, but TonyBallioni decided this was "edit war" and blocked me. This is what I achieved trying to preserve a minimum set of info in an article that had already survived the AfD. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I belong to WP:FALKLAND, our desire so to ensure that all of our articles are well written and reliably sourced. So even if I disagree with the notability of this individual I will do my best to ensure any related article is the best it can be. I have a number of my articles at FA standard, I've had numerous DYK. I'm getting rather tired of you and your friend's failure to assume any good faith in anyone who doesn't share your views. And as I have already explained to you, I was preparing two sources when you reverted me. I'm done here. Please stop pinging me. WCM_email 18:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And then people wonder why female editors are driven away from Wikipedia. Sigh. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

All this is indeed very unfortunate but hardly surprising. If Elisa really is retiring, we'll be losing one of our most productive editors. I hope very much she'll nevertheless be back.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page revoked

And with the above mass ping to canvass editors and continue the content dispute you were blocked for, I've revoked your talk page access. You are free to appeal through WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Elisa.rolle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22338 was submitted on Aug 11, 2018 23:10:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

Hi Elisa, I'm posting this here for the purpose of transparency, since you, Ritchie333, and me are discussing this via email. As I said via email, while my inclination is for this to be a standard offer situation, I would be willing to change this to a one month block under the following conditions:

1. You respond to my last email explaining in your own words how you will deal with disagreements with other users in the future.
2. You agree to 1RR for 6 months.
3. You agree to not manually remove posts to your talk page. You may have an archive bot, but it cannot be set for a period shorter than 7 days.

I'm sorry that we are in this situation, but hopefully this will provide a way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elisa, per our discussion via email, I've changed your block to 1 month and restored your talk page access based on these conditions. I hope you will come back in a month and keep editing in the areas that you do best. I've also gone ahead and added the ClueBot archive to this page. It is set to archive after 7 days, and will not keep a minimum number of threads. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I have a concern about this. Both parties were engaged in complex reverts. It would be too time-consuming to trace it all, but here are the reverts that led to the block, focusing on one sentence for clarity (the number of reverts refers to this sequence only).

• 16:52, 11 August: Elisa added "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
  • 16:55, 11 August (1st revert by WCM): WCM removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
  • 16:58, 11 August (1st revert by Elisa): Elisa restored "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
  • 16:59, 11 August (1st revert by Kahastok): Kahastok removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
  • 17:00, 11 August (2nd revert by Elisa): Elisa restored (in a different position) "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
  • 17:04, 11 August (2nd revert by WCM): WCM removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
• 17:06, 11 August: Tony blocked Elisa indefinitely.

I believe you said that you blocked in part because of Elisa's block log, but that really isn't so extensive. She began editing in March 2017. She was blocked (indefinitely) once that month for disruption (I believe this had to do with poor image placement, then undoing it unnecessarily after others had fixed it); once in July 2017 for copyvio; and again for copyvio in January 2018. To remove talk-page access because she pinged people who might speak up for her is harsh, and it means she was forced to get involved in an email discussion about being unblocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have reduced the block to a month based on the conditions above. I still believe it is needed at this time to prevent disruption, but I think going forward the conditions above will hopefully work. I do not think I was harsh in the slightest here. She has TPA back now, and can begin editing again in a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, when three established editors revert each other five times in nine minutes, and there are no pressing BLP or similar issues, it means they've temporarily lost control, so the best thing is to protect. I would have blocked in that situation only if all three had been known edit warriors, and there were other editors trying to edit but being disrupted by the reverting. But in this case, protection would have achieved calm and would have been fair.

Instead what happened is that (it appears) one editor was singled out, and now has a one-month block for reverting instead of the standard 24 hours, as well 1RR and an unusual condition about how she should archive her talk page. My understanding of WP:OWNTALK is that she can archive/remove her talk-page posts as she sees fit, apart from active block notices and similar. If there has been talk-page disruption that I'm not aware of, can you elaborate, please? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors are generally free to blank, but they are not free to ignore concerns, which she has previously. This is why it was a disruptive editing block: communication is required. Also, three indefs in 18 months is an extensive block log. I've already explained this elsewhere, and I know that Elisa does not like the stress that extended conflict on her talk page causes. I've already lessoned the block, but I don't think removing it now is in the best interest of the project: I think removing it now would just lead to a return to this type of anti-collaborative behavior despite the guidelines above, which is why it is still needed to prevent disruption. She was blocked because of her history on this project, including her block log and her interaction with other editors. Her block has already been lowered to a month, and I'm not going to make it any lower than that at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) I hate when people speak about me instead of to me on my talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, you took no action against the other editors who were reverting. Can you explain why not, and why you decided against protection?

In addition, blocks for reverting are usually for 24 hours. To extend this because of previous blocks is unfair, unless there's a history of blocks for reverting. Her first block, on 28 March 2017, was by Laser brain who, judging by his comments at the time and his unblock, applied it reluctantly to force a new editor to slow down (her first edit was on 22 March 2017). The other two blocks are for copyvio and are unrelated to this situation.

As for her talk-page posts, she's entitled to remove comments. If she removes them, it means she has seen them. That's all that's needed.

If you're unwilling to unblock, how do you suggest that we proceed? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained this extensively elsewhere. The other editors actually showed that they were wanted to engage in discussion and I did not see that from her. Her UTRS appeal made it clear that she did not think she did anything wrong. Her attitude at the time and her history on the project showed that the way she viewed Wikipedia was incompatible with the project's collaborative nature. She was the one who was reverting against two other editors contesting her edits: when two people object to what you are doing, that means you stop. Her behavior as a whole was much more disruptive, and as I have said elsewhere, my impression of her is that she is one of the most disruptive editors I have encountered on this project, which is why I initially suggested the standard offer.

Re: going forward: I consider this resolved. Elisa has agreed to the conditions above, and I have changed the block to a lower time. There is nothing else that needs to be done. If she still thinks this time is too long, she is free to make an unblock appeal like any other user on her talk page using the template that was provided to her. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, the agreement about 1RR and the talk-page arrangements can't be regarded as valid. She had no choice but to agree, because the alternative was an indefinite block. Because talk-page access had been removed, she was forced to engage in an email discussion that she almost certainly would have preferred to avoid or at least to hold on-wiki.

I know of several long-term editors who remove (without archiving) every talk-page post as soon as it appears. It's very annoying, but they're entitled to do it.

Elisa, Tony posted a block template here. If you want to appeal the block, you can re-post that template to your talk page and someone will look at it. If you do appeal, you should explain what you plan to do in future to avoid edit warring. If you focus on your view that the block was unfair because other editors weren't blocked too, it will look as though you're saying you did nothing wrong. It's better to acknowledge that you edit-warred and explain what steps you'll take in future to avoid it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SarahSV, for everything you are doing and for the suggestion. But sincerely I have lost a little bit of faith and enthusiasm. Even in this last post here on Wikipedia I have to read sentences like "my impression of her is that she is one of the most disruptive editors I have encountered on this project", and even if these words are counterparted by official or not official messages of support, they are still hurting ten time more. So, truth be told, at this point, 1 months, 6 months or indef does not really change. I will stick to the unblock condition of Tony, and in one month maybe my mind will be different. If not at least I will have the change to support WiR in case it's necessary to improve some articles. Right now, I really just wish to retire and to try to forget. But please, be aware, I really appreciated everything you did. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Elisa, you're welcome and I completely understand. You can change your mind any time, of course. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The weight of words

Wikipedia is made of words. Words to teach, words to record, words to help. Words are important. Maybe since I'm not an English speaking native, I take more care in the words I use. Words have weight, and this weight makes them important. But also dangerous. I have a thirst of knowledge, yes, I was that crazy child that read an encyclopedia starting from the letter A (yes I did, 33 volumes of it). And more I age, not having my own family, I'm probably scared part of my knowledge will die with me. That is the reason why I try to share it as much as possible. But words hurt. And sometime they hurt too much. I think today I was hurt one time too much. In the past I said I was leaving out of rage. Today I say it out of pain. The sad thing is that now this message will vanish in one week, therefore only who is watching this page will read it. Hope they are more friends. I'm not pinging people. I know who is really intersted is reading. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef blocked for yet another copyvio

You posted this, which is a word-for-word copy of this, clearly labeled at the bottom "Copyright 2010 The Louisa Swain Foundation. All rights reserved.". After two previous indefs for copyright violations, and while being blocked for other violations, you really should have known better. Fram (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Archive

Fram I REALLY do not care at this point. TonyBallioni please let me know why the archive is not working. It's longer than one week. Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason is because User:Cluebot III is down (as it often is) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Museum honouring 13 women in Wyoming

SusunW, there is a museum in Wyoming honouring 13 women, I was expecting all of them had an article. I think it would be good idea to list the missing name for future articles... copyvio removed Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Very cool Elisa.rolle We are focusing on North American women later this year, so I'll link this to that editathon. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nina Salaman Portrait by Solomon J. Solomon, 1918

Another one for you SusunW: In 1919 Nina Salaman (Hebrew scholar, translator and poet) became the first woman to preach in an Orthodox synagogue in Britain. BTW the portrait can be added to the husband (Redcliffe N. Salaman), son (Raphael Salaman) or daughter (Esther Salaman (singer)) pages too. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For talk page watchers: I've now created Wyoming House for Historic Women with links to the 13 women - 7 blue links, 6 red, including one which is to a Council and might be redirectable. It seems to have been copying this list with its annotations which led Elisa to being blocked, see below. PamD 16:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Pam. As for the blocking, I really don't care. I was actually just counting the days to when it would happen... maybe just a little bit surprise it was so soon. But I'm not contesting it, cause, as I said, I have already given up. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Takuma Kajiwara

BeenAroundAWhile, I cannot answer on the talk page, but of the red name in the Gallery the following are featured in the Notable Women book of 1914 by Anne André Johnson: Elise J. Blattner Mary C. Dillon Mary Dodds Edna Fern Althea Somerville Grossman Martha H. Hoke Emily Grant Hutchings Alice Gould Pattison May Simonds I was planning to write an article about them, but for obvious reason, I was prevented in doing so. I would save at least the above names other than the blu links to. For your information, the other women missing an article included in Notable Women are: Amelia C. Fruchte Anna C. Hedges Anna Ellis Reifsnider Anna Sneed Cairns Annie Laurie Y. Orff Annie Rooney Knight Eliza Buckely Ingalls Ellen Osborn Maria I. Johnston Mary C. McCulloch Mary Fisher Miriam Coste Senseney Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Now, your not being able to comment on a page to which you have contributed so much does not make sense to me. So I will copy your remark here and post it over there. Buona fortuna a te. Rilassarsi. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Franz Kafka, anyone?

“The sad thing is that now this message will vanish in one week, therefore only who is watching this page will read it.” You are wrong. I just spent an hour going back in your history for almost a year. It is Kafka-esque. You are right to take some time off. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, proud of having been a co-author of Kafka, mmissing the main author who is also blocked for something kafkaesque. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Isophene Goodin Bailhache

The article Isophene Goodin Bailhache has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I have added a book source with a short mention. But even the most open searches including searches on her husband John Mason Bailhache do not bring about significant coverage. Fails BASIC/GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sam Sailor 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, may you please have a look at Isophene Goodin Bailhache if it's worth saving? as you know I'm indef blocked so I cannot do much. KR, Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Elisa, I have searched for a couple of hours. Here's what I find. She was born on 19 November 1863 in Saint Louis and died on 15 January 1941 in San Francisco.[1][2] She was orphaned by the time she was 15.[3] Her mother died in 1876[4] and her father died in 1878. He had been a merchant and did business in St. Louis and Cincinnati.[5] After her parents' deaths, she and her younger sister Hattie lived with their uncle Samuel Goodin in St. Louis[6] and Isophene attended Grace P. Jones' school in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin.pp=27-28 Around 1891, she married John Mason Bailhache and subsequently the couple had two sons, John G. and Preston L.[7] They lived in San Francisco through the 1930s,[8] but son John died in 1931.[9]. Lots of small mentions that she was hosting DAR functions throughout the 1920s and 1930s and she was listed in the social register.[10] None of that really amounts to notability, but it does give a fairly complete bio. However, the fact that she was the national vp of the DAR preservation committee is notable, IMO. The DAR was the first organization in the US to attempt to catalogue, acquire and protect national monuments and significant historical sites.[11] She was reported as the first person to decorate the Liberty Bell as a national shrine.[12] The big question is, is this sufficient to meet GNG given the time frame we are dealing with? @Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Montanabw: can you weigh in and if you think we are good will one of you remove the template? SusunW (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done, SusunW. I think it's sufficient. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a portrait of her that we could include? [13] Thsmi002 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is actually her grandmother, the portrait was donated by her to the Smithsonian: [14] and this is her grandfather [15]. I did not find a picture of her. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I couldn't find one either. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Isophene Goodin Bailhache for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isophene Goodin Bailhache is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently this is how things work on Wikipedia...

SusunW, Rosiestep, Thsmi002, Megalibrarygirl, this is apparently a subtle way to have a backslap to another editor after an apparently civil discussion went wrong (note, in the Article for deletion reason the sentence "despite the quasi-good efforts of SusunW"). Isophene Goodin Bailhache is now up for deletion. I'm too fed up by the current state of Wikipedia to even have the slightly will to do something to save this article. I just want to record my disgust for this approach, that unfortunately I found in too many editors/administrators. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, Whilst I guess your pings breach canvassing guidelines, I have extremely high regards for two of them and believe them to be sufficiently independent, shall they cast their opinions (whatever it might be).Anyways, if you've sources, that might improve the article or you wish to offer a rebuttal to my nomination, feel free to write it down over here and I will copy it to the AfD page. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, first, the people I pinged are those who worked on the article just day before, second, I'm indef blocked, therefore I cannot do nothing other then ping people on my own talk page, third, I kindly ask you not to engage with me. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Elisa, I don't think it's a big secret that I'm pissed off that you're blocked, not least because I spent time with the original blocking administrator to get the block reduced, then somebody else came in and blocked you for something I thought was pretty innocuous. I personally want to unblock you but I would be wheel-warring with Fram and almost certainly lose my administrator tools if I did it. I can review the block on WP:AN and see what consensus comes back with, but I would have to come up with good arguments (and be backed up by Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Rosie etc) for it to succeed.

Godric, I think Elisa knows what the canvassing guidelines are; given her situation, linking to them here is not very subtle or particularly nice. It feels like rubbing salt in their wounds.

Everyone else, I know some of you are fed up with Elisa's attitude and continually tripping up on copyright violations - but I just see somebody who wants to help the project and has got increasingly frustrated at not being able to contribute in a manner that can satisfy everyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I think you have noticed that when I was blocked this last time I did not contest it, actually I took a Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind's attitude, i.e. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" I think I will continue in my Gable's impersonification, I had always the feeling that Rhett had a better life after Rossella. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

What I would like to see disappearing from Wikipedia

sentences like: - this woman born in 18** is not notable since modern reliable source does not cite them. - this woman is not notable (despite various source in newspaper of the time) and is married or is the daughter to some "important" man (cause he was a politician, a businessman, something else) therefore merge her with his page. - this woman (who got a degree when the number of women vs men getting higher degrees was probably 3 to 100, who had a business when women did not have the right to private property if they were married, who was involved in social life when women did not have the right to vote) is not notable since she was "just" a woman prominent in social circles. - this woman or man is not notable cause if you google them there are few results... - even if this article is well researched and well written, the subject is not notable according to this or that or that other checklist that someone has written in some thousands policies on wikipedia. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There are just far too many people, regardless of gender, who do not understand that women were not citizens in their own right until after the 1930s, that there were no significant studies or inclusion of women in the historical records until after 1970, and that most women's history has yet to be told. Women involved in the Women's Liberation Movement on every continent where it spread commented that they thought they were the first women who had ever protested their treatment because no history of suffrage had yet been written. A BBC special airing this year on women factory workers shows that there is still little understanding of women's fight for equal opportunity and access. We just have to keep writing and hope that eventually people become aware that women weren't bystanders, that there is still much of our history that is untold, and that women did not have to do the same things as men or be covered in the same type of sources to be notable. Don't give up, don't surrender, but never, ever argue with them or give in to their aggression. By the by, I love the Clark Gable stance! Mine would more probably be the one taken by Margaret Brown who got so fed up with the bunk created about her, she withdrew from engaging. ;) SusunW (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Never given up ;-) just changed the venue. I'm focusing on LGBTQ people, and I'm just back from Bristol and Bath where I visited the living places of many interesting women and men (the Michael Fields, Edward Clifford, Elizabeth Blackwell, John Addington Symonds, Norman Moor, Cary Grant, Catherine Winkworth, Joan Tuckett, William Beckford, Lytton Strachey, ...). I also paid homage to Amelia B. Edwards's burial place where she is buried with her female partner. I found the church where is buried Barbara Montagu (an article you helped saving) and saw her memorial inside it. All these researches and photos now go feeding my website. Before, in my naivite, I was uploading my photos on Wikimedia, can you believe how stupid I was? Pearls to the Pigs. And now NO ONE can delete my pages. As I said, Rhett had a better life after Rossella/Scarlett. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Frey and Peter Morris

The article John Frey and Peter Morris has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of fulfillment of WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you and I'm not opposed to the idea of renaming the page John Frey if you think is better, but please leave the info about Peter Morris, he may not be worthy of his own page, but he was an essential part of Frey's life, as testify by their tombstone. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Inez Mabel Crawford

Inez Mabel Crawford

SusunW, may you please add this portrait to the article I created on Inez Mabel Crawford? Thank you, Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The image bottom has in big legible letters "Barker" and in smaller less-legible letters "Ottawa Kansas". (Unfortunately no date; the even smaller and even less legible text is his opening hours.) That probably means A. W. Barker, who appears to have left Ottawa before 1900. So your "before 1923" date looks good, and the place matches where Crawford is from. Looks legit to me. Added. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thank you for finding the tip about the photographer proving the date around 1890s. I was almost sure about that giving the looking of Inez, she is a girl there for sure not the old lady she should have been if the photo was after 1923. Pity someone else decided to crop it removing the details of the photographer, but at least you put it in the description. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think that by cropping the bottom without also cropping the top they made it look unbalanced. But maybe that's just me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David Eppstein I was off-line most of the day yesterday dealing with real life stuff. Sorry I couldn't help Elisa, but glad David stepped in. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I actually was thinking the same, forgot to crop it more then; have cropped it now to a more standard portrait ratio. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of John Frey and Peter Morris for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Frey and Peter Morris is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Frey and Peter Morris until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

John Frey and Peter Morris

Ymblanter, you removed the propose deletion tag from the article, so maybe you can do something on the AfD? I'm indef-blocked so I cannot do much. I'm pretty sure that researching John Frey, more it will be available about his academic relevance. As for Morris he was a minor author, so not sure he is meeting notability as his own, that is the reason why, given the common tombstone, I included him in Frey's article, and I'm not opposed to the idea of renaming the page just for Frey. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I'm pretty tired to be "accused" of canvassing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Frey and Peter Morris. a) if you post an AfD on an article of mine while I'm indef-blocked, I cannot do much to save the article if not posting on my own talk page, considering I'm not even able to comment on that AfD. b) the canvassing page states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Above I pinged ONE editor who had removed the propose deletion tag from the article; to this user I told that probably the article can be improved (considering I cannot do that) and BTW I also admitted that a renaming of the article would be useful. Therefore sorry, this is not canvassing, and I'm TIRED of pointing finger people. Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if I may, I would rewrite the article in this way:

Proposed rewrite

John Andrew Frey (August 29, 1929 – August 22, 1997) was a specialist in 19th century French literature, an author of books on French symbolism, Emile Zola, and Victor Hugo.

Early life

John "Jack" Andrew Frey was born on August 29, 1929, the son of George Henry Frey and Marie Berter. He attended Catholic University and was a Fulbright Scholar. In 1955 he collaborated to The Stylistic Relationship Between Poetry and Prose in the Cántico Espiritual of San Juan de la Cruz, Volumes 52-55. He graduated in 1957 and his thesis was Motif symbolism in the disciples of Mallarmé, which he published in 1969.

Career

John Frey became a professor of Romance Languages at George Washington University. He was a specialist in 19th century French literature, and was an author of books on French symbolism (The aesthetics of the Rougon-Macquart, 1976), Emile Zola, and Victor Hugo (Les Contemplations of Victor Hugo: The Ash Wednesday Liturgy, 1988, and A Victor Hugo Encyclopedia, 1999). He also wrote magazine articles on François-René de Chateaubriand, Honoré de Balzac, Washington Irving, and Andre Gide. Frey criticized the use of medieval imagery in symbolist writing: "The whole representation of the Middle Ages, the captive princess, the enchanted castles, fairies, ghosts, and knights-errants... is oriented towards a sensualism. One is reminded of Swinburne making use of the Pre-Raphaelities in England... It is the cloaking of earthly desires in a mantle of aristocracy, of manor houses, gilded ladies, estates swarming with peacocks and swans, of boat and garden parties, and the perpetual games of love."

Personal life

Frey met his longtime partner, Peter Morris (December 29, 1929 - August 29, 2010), while they were both students at Catholic University. Even if fellow students, they did not met at college, but at what was at the time Washington, D.C., most popular gay venues, the Chicken Hut, a piano bar/restaurant on H Street near Lafayette Park. The Mattachine Society sponsored biweekly Sunday afternoon gay dances. Morris was born on December 29, 1929, in Peekskill, New York, the son of Louis Morris and Dorothea Chaplin. He was an expert in French cuisine. He was on the Board of Directors of Dignity, a gay Catholic Organization, and co-authored their community cookbook.

John Frey and Peter Morris were together 43 years. Frey died on August 22, 1997, Morris died on August 29, 2010. They are buried together in the gay corner of the Congressional Cemetery, in Washington, D.C. Their tomb are two benches and a table, inviting people to sit and read their inscription: "Us While wandering down the back roads Of my mind I came upon a memory of us Faces garden-fresh blooming and Full of promise. My inner-eye welled up Furrows have etched their way Into our fields of being. What had youth's straightness Now bends and curves into Accommodation. We have become ourselves Not alone, but with each other's Help. On the face of it, youth's bloom Has gone Replaced by hardier stuff Whose roots are deep and all Encompassing. How fortunate we were to Have loved each other then And even more so, to still Love each other Now. Forty-three years together Is not enough But we will be together again. John Andrew Frey August 29, 1929 August 22, 1997 Peter Louis Morris December 29, 1929 August 29, 2010 In Memory of our Parents George Henry Frey Marie Berter Frey Louis Morris Sr. Dorothea Chaplin Morris And our pets, Bucky, Pudgy, Major, Jelp I II, Rosh I II III, Franah I II, Mime I II, Madame"

References

Even if Morris is not an important author, consider that Dignity [16] is still a strong organization in the US. Thank you, Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

PamD, thank you for how you tweaked the layout. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How to research 19th and 20th century women 101

If you are reasearching women in historical newspapers, for example "Isophene Goodin Bailhache", and you search for "Isophene Goodin Bailhache", or "Isophene G. Bailhache" or "Isophene Bailhache" and you find zero result and then said, oh well, this woman is not notable, you have just failed your entry exam in Women History. Women, in the 19th and 20th century, if married, lost their identity and they became, in this case "Mrs John Mason Bailhache" or "Mrs John M. Bailhache" or "Mrs John Bailhache" or "Mrs Bailhache": all of these searches have results, Mrs Bailhace has even more than 600 hits. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A question out of the blue: why Wikipedia is fixed with notability?

everyone is discussing about the fact that Wikipedia did not have an article about Donna Strickland before she won the Nobel. Worst, everyone is discussing how actually that article existed in May 2018 (so not so long ago), but it was deleted cause Donna Strickland was judged not notable enough. I read the article that got deleted and it was short, a stub, but it was not against any policy of copyvio or else. It was deleted cause someone said it did not have enough reliable sources, and the fact that no one wrote about Donna Strickland before the Nobel was a proof she was not notable. And in this case they were completely wrong. And so I wondered, why Wikipedia deletes articles if they are not a copyvio and someone took the care to write it? is there a some sort of space issues? if the article is stating the truth, and it's giving even one interesting info, why it should be deleted for the person not being notable enough? notability is a thin concept, to me, Donna Strickland is probably not notable, it's not my field, but to whom work in her field she is problably one of the most notable person alive. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Help from page watchers: Charles Aufderheide

May someone please correct the birth and death dates of Charles Aufderheide both in the lead and the biography? when I created the page there was an anonymous with similar biography, but this Aufderheide (author and early movie technician) was born Charles Edward Aufderheide on March 9, 1918, in Seymour, Indiana, and died on May 26, 1991, in Indianapolis, Indiana [17] Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inez Mabel Crawford

The article Inez Mabel Crawford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N .

See this AfD for a near-approximate valid reasoning except that the claim to fame as a registrar of a city chapter of DAR is even more thin.

Neither being the head librarian of a city library nor being the first president of a city-club-federation does contribute to encyclopedic notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ∯WBG^converse 19:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein may you please look if it is possible to improve this article? "She was the first city librarian and head librarian of the San Mateo City Library in San Mateo, California for 27 years from 1911 to 1937. Beyond her duties as librarian, she also worked towards the passage of a local bond issue that increased the size of the library by a factor of three." Im sure there is more about her out there. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been looking. We already have plenty of in-depth coverage of her. What we don't have is an occupation and achievement that will convince the editors who only consider women notable when they do the same things as the prominent men of the time. GNG says nothing about requiring such things but you know there will be plenty of editors who will look for them anyway and will come to any AfD with "just not notable" or "too local" opinions when their expectations are not met. I did at least find another modern source that explicitly calls her "notable", but I'm not sure how much that actually helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thank you for what you did. May I ask why this fact was not included? "At her death she left the to the library the Crawford Trust Account that funded an expansion tripling the size of the library." (Source: "First Librarian". San Mateo Public Library) it's from a modern source, so it should be reliable and independent. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not a fact? What the source actually says is that she pushed for a bond issue tripling the size of the library, and also that she left the library the Crawford Trust. Searching for later documents reveals that the trust is still active and used to pay for librarians to travel to workshops; I infer that it is small. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I re-read the original source and you are right. Not sure how I arrived to that legacy, and it's too long to remember if I read it somewhere else. so fine to remove it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Inez Mabel Crawford

Independently of the ultimately end of this article, I would like to remark the fact that an editor that is allowed to leave and edit summary as the following: "Sheerly and horribly incompetent write-up......How the fuck does she have the auto-patrolled bit?" should be at least warned that there are various policies in Wikipedia against such attitude, it's against personal attacks, against fair play, against all that is civil and collaborative approach. Said that I know my words and opinions are written in the wind and no one will take action. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sybil Cookson

Someone, according to their words, completely rewrote this article to make it better. What they did is to copy and paste the backcover bio of a book published in 1979 (which I had instead linked)... Im pretty sure this is copyvio the book is a reprint of a 1922 edition but the bio is in the 1979 edition so I think under copyright. Can someone take care of it? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A major problem is that the reference to the facsimile of "Tatlings" on etsy, ref 1 in the version before the latest revision, doesn't seem to support any of the content beyond the dates 1890-1963 for "Sydney Tremayne" and the statement (in the intro) that he was published in the Tatler. Have the references got mangled somewhere along the line? Or is there some biographical info on the web page which I'm not noticing? ... Ah, looking at the biography which has been pasted in as the latest version, is that the source you were using, from the cover of a modern print of "Tatlings"? In which case some clarification was needed. I can understand the edit summary describing that version as "poor info and references – multiple Etsy.com listings, etc", because your cited ref, on etsy, doesn't work as a source. That said, the article as it stands doesn't work either: someone not blocked, with access to that book cover, needs to work on an improved version. PamD 19:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

PamD yes I was using the bio on the backcover as source. I did not copied and pasted it like it is now. Etsy was not the source, On Etsy there was a copy of the book on sell with the photo of the backcover allowing everyone to read it [18] Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it looks as if you pasted in the wrong URL! The reference to Tatlings, right from your own original version of the article, links not to that Etsy page with the biography but to the facsimile at Hatha Trust! I hadn't noticed: I'd assumed it was on Etsy because the reference said it was. So no-one has been able to see your source for your edits, hence them being described as poorly sourced. It's always worth clicking on every link you add, whether as an internal link or a source, just to check that it actually goes where you intend. PamD 22:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

James Blake (pianist)

May someone delete this revision? this is clearly spam: [19]. Thank you, --Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done That was from a school IP that had also vandalized several other pages; ClueBot and other editors caught some but not all of it. I went through their contribs, fixed everything and left a final warning. Good catch, Elisa, thanks. – Levivich 16:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ban lifted

Hello Elisa, per Special:PermaLink/916829764#Community-ban_appeal your community ban has been lifted, and a suggested set of unblock conditions (editing restrictions) has been presented at Special:PermaLink/916829764#Discuss_(Elisa.rolle). The next step would be for you to actually ask for your block to be lifted (here on your talk page) - with the suggestion that you agree to those unblock conditions. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well gee fizz Elisa. Of course throw my hat in as someone who is willing to help any way they can. GMG^talk 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Elisa, and welcome back. And many thanks to everyone who supported the appeal. Elisa, all you have to do now is request the unblock and agree to the conditions. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Elisa.rolle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I post an unblock request and hereby I confirm that I agree to the unblock conditions: not to create new articles for at least six months, and only if someone from the monitoring team agrees; focus on fixing close paraphrasing in my existing articles or adding sources to existing articles created by me; discuss any substantial addition of new material on User talk:Valereee/ER first; abide by 1RR for 12 months, including my talk page. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I unblocked your account, since the community agreed on an unblock, as in the topic above, and you accepted the unblock conditions. Welcome back, but please be very careful — in the past, you have been blocked multiple times, and one more block will probably make an unblock impossible for years to come.Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yay! Welcome back! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats - best of luck to you and your mentors :) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Elisa! I'm looking forward to working with you! --valereee (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Elisa, and same hope! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Welcome back Elisa! Thsmi002 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elisa, Victoria here. I'm happy to see that your unblock request was successful. Once you start editing again, I thought it might not be a bad idea to work in main space on the articles we discussed. The articles are all linked and discussed in the mentoring/teaching thread (and I have them on watch, and have looked at the sources); I moved that thread to your archives - the link is here. Would you like me to move it back to your user page or would you like to leave it there? Please don't hesitate to ever ask questions! Can't promise to get back to you immediately but I'll make an effort to be available as much as possible. Good luck. Victoria (tk) 13:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elisa! I'm glad I'll be working with you! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ditto what everyone else has said. Glad to see you back and looking forward to working with you. Feel free to ask me for help any time. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Elisa, and ditto! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good luck. You have many friends, it seems, who can offer you wise counsel Guy (help!) 21:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks also to YMblanter for lifting the block. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see things are finally beginning to ease up.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back - I've returned from a break too. And thanks to SV and Valereee for getting this moving forward. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

Tommaso Zorzi

I'd like to try and create a page for a living person (usually I do not like to do that). I'd like to create a page for Tommaso Zorzi; he is an LGBTQ Italian influencer, currently he is a participant in the Italian Big Brother, the VIP version (Grande Fratello), and in the past he participated in the italian version of the Amazing Race (Pechino Express) and a program about young and wealthy people (Riccanza). Moreover, he wrote a book, "Siamo tutti bravi con i fidanzati degli altri", with a main Italian publisher, Mondadori (so not self-published). I'd like to be as much impartial as possible. People watching this profile can you please tell me if he passes the notoriety criteria? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

this looks promising but better rely on people reading Italian beyond headlines ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm Italian, but of course I would write it in English. Being a living person, I would mostly concentrate in his professional achievements, with a minimum, certified, biographical details. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear. I only talked about my view on his notability, and that you better don't rely too much on my input. Nice to hear of your plan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing full citation

Back in August 2017, it appears that you added a short reference to "National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 1901" to a number of articles, but there is no matching full citation for the short reference. There are about ten articles displaying errors as a result.

If possible, can you please add the full citation to each of these articles? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Jonesey95, it appears I was using a template, but sincerely I do not remember where I found it; since they are only ten I will remove it. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note

Hey Elisa. Hope all is well. GMG^talk 17:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GMG, sort of going on, as much good as I can manage. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Elisa! Good to see you! —valereee (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, hope you're doing well and back into the swing of writing some articles. I've been writing about old keyboard instruments mostly, recently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello Elisa.rolle. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI where you have been mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mike Peel. — Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Geraldine Morgan Thompson

Hello! I noticed you created Geraldine Morgan Thompson and uploaded File:Geraldine Thompson, before 1967.jpg. However, I have subsequently determined the picture is a photograph of Thompson's socialite daughter, also named Geraldine Thompson, from circa 1920. The misidentified photograph was also added by you to the elder Geraldine's Find a Grave page, where it may be continuing to cause confusion (I recently again reverted its addition to Geraldine Morgan Thompson). I am not active on Find a Grave, but if you are, please consider moving the image from the mother's profile to the daughter's, and linking the younger Geraldine and second brother Lewis Steenrod Thompson Jr. to their parents. The Thompson family is described in good detail in A Triangle of Land: A History of the Site, Founding, and Progress of Brookdale Community College. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach restored commercial buildings

Could you give a source for why the photo is used on Myrtle Beach Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Station?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

not sure what you mean for "source", the NH website said there are commercial restored buildings and if you go to the address the only historical restored building are those. I took the photo myself. Elisa Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Where on the NH web site? That's what I mean. The article text doesn't explain your photo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong on the source, it's not NH but references 7, 8 and 9 of the article, by a local journalist. As I said if you go there and look around the only historical block building is the one I took the photo. If that 8s wrong, you can remove it, no problem with that.

The building you took the photo of isn't the depot, unless there's something I'm not understanding.

I see the 8th Avenue North street sign. So what is the other street?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was there years ago and just for a few minutes I can't really remember. I think the station was behind me and there was a crossover in front of me and nothing much else around aside for those buildings. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are correct, then that is Broadway. I can't see the justification for the photo in that article, but if you can find more information on those specific buildings, there might be a use for it somewhere.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Letitia H. Erb

The article Letitia H. Erb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I really do not think the sourcing here is enough to justify an article. Only one of the sources is really even a secondary source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you, Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Relief Society cover as Elizabeth Anne Wells Cannon

Hi, I noticed that you added the December 1939 cover of Relief Society Magazine to Elizabeth Anne Wells Cannon. Do you have any sources that state that the woman on the cover is Elizabeth Cannon? The original is on archive.org and I don't see any indication that the woman on the cover is a specific person. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you. Elisa

Check in

Tonight I had some issues sleeping, and I decided to go through my talk page messages. I realized there were many users who were kind to me, probably more than those I remembered. So I wanted to let them know I'm fine, but a lot has changed: I lost the most important person in my life in 2019, leaving me completely alone during COVID-19. I had double pneumonia in 2020, and just when I though everything was fine, I was hospitalized twice due to some high risk test results in my blood check. At the moment I'm still under therapy, out of the risk level but still beneath the right values. So yes, I'm fine, but not in any mindset of being back. But I appreciated all the friendly comments, and I read all of them. So thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Florence Hayward (disambiguation)

The article Florence Hayward (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Joy McSweeney query

Was Joy McSweeney the person Evelyn Irons saved from the beach? The text of The Times article reads: "Miss Irons rescued a woman from drowning under very courageous circumstances at Tresaith Beach, Cardiganshire. She is the first woman to receive the Stanhope Gold Medal and the first woman since Grace Darling to receive the gold medal of the society. Admiral Sir Michael Hodges, Brigadier General C. S. H. D. Willoughby, and Mr. Dunbar Kilburn represented the society. Miss Irons was accompanied by Mrs. Irons, her mother, Mrs. MacSweeney, the person saved, and Mr. and Mrs. Ewbank." The text appears to suggest that MacSweeney was the person saved! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure about that. In the biography it says they met at a party, I don't remember about the medal, but I don't think so. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)