User talk:Freiherrin

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Freiherrin, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! -JChap 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put the subject of your WEINSTEIN, Irving article in a little better context? It has been proposed for deletion and I would hate to see it excluded if it is an artist that we should cover. Thanks --JChap 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am here I want to point out some of the idiocies due to the growing pains of these mountains of information: Weinstein was an American artist with a fair output principally in Judaica and was active mid 20thC. He is in ULAN (the Getty's Union List of Artists' Names) but because information was scarce to non-existent the stub was shaved off. Then we have a major artist, Bernard Brussel-Smith - am working on an article he was extremely influential and important - and he was not in ULAN. (I fixed that) So we have parallel collections of facts that reciprocally exclude a number of artists. And because of their individual rules these databases eventually chuck out various artists, which then causes the other db to do the same (not always, but often enough.)Freiherrin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrick Palmer[edit]

Thanks for adding Garrick Palmer, but there are a few problems with the article. Please have a look at the Guide to writing better articles and try to address the slightly effusive tone of the writing. If you're making statements like "is the pre-eminent wood engraver of his time", you need to reference this, or else it breaches Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. The references you have put in are set up wrong - I fixed the first one for you, but look at Wikipedia:Footnotes which explains proper use of the ref tags. Finally, don't over-link, epecially to things like exhibitions and smaller galleries which are unlikely to ever have their own articles. Quote marks and commas (') for italics go outside the square brackets when linking. eg Moby-Dick not ''Moby-Dick''. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis 1st pattern[edit]

Hi Freiherrin, I responded to your comment on the talk page.

BTW good job on the article, Thank You.

Bloger (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problems[edit]

Hi, there, you reported some problems with bots, recently. There are some bots that "patrol" recent changes for vandalism, the idea being that they reduce load on the rest of us so that we don't have to deal with the (fairly large) number of abusive people out there -- one thing a lot of these bots look for is changes that add or remove large amounts of text. It's unfortunate that earnest contributions are being caught up by this sort of thing.

From a quick glance, it looks like you ran into a problem with one bot at the Paul Bernardo article. I'll see if there may be anything I can do about that; in the meantime, please do remember that the bot means no harm (they're generally pretty accurate, although the particular one you ran into is unfortunately the most prone to false positives, currently) and that any changes it reverts should still be quite available in the page history. Most all of these bots are programmed to avoid reverting a particular user more than once per article per day (although if you're accidentally logged out, it won't recognize you).

If you find yourself needing help with this sort of thing in the future, feel free to let me know or post to the village pump to request aid. Beyond that, thank you for your contributions and your time; Wikipedia would not be the same without the helpful contributions of countless people. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing Luna pointed out there, which needs to be underscored, is that the trouble only occurred when you were not logged in as Freiherrin. If you look at the history you will see that it only reverted the edits that appeared to come from an anonymous IP address. I totally understand your annoyance and I am not defending the bot. I am saying that a way to work around the problem is to stay logged in (this has the added benefit of giving you credit for the edits). Cheers and thanks for all the hard work! —Noah 08:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see from your comments on the Talk:Paul_Bernardo page that you have already figured this out. I don't have that particular problem (my browser always keeps me logged in) but you may find a cookie-related answer here. Here are some other ideas if you can't solve the logout issue: 1) edit in smaller chunks of time, 2) copy all of the text before submitting it and save it to a text file, 3) open another browser window or tab before submitting the change to make sure you are still logged in. Good luck, —Noah 09:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I was logged in. It happened again just now; logged in, looked at the Featured Article page, made comments and while looking at preview noticed that it said that I was not logged in etc. I made a note of it on that page as well. It's annoying as all get out. Today I am in another city at a different operating system so I don't think it is browser-related. It seems to be the wikipedia endFreiherrin (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Noahs' link (it mixed two link types) which should have gone to Help:Logging in. If you don't do this already then try clicking "Remember me" at login. That stopped me from sometimes losing my login during a Wikipedia session. You are of course welcome to revert an incorrect reversion by a bot, as I see you have done before. It only takes seconds. If a bot keeps reverting you on the same page then you can contact me on my talk page. I'm an administrator which makes my account immune to some things. I hope you decide to stay. Your work is appreciated. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for your help - the long list of Bernardo's unsavoury activities was deleted by the bot right after I posted it (well, about five minutes) and when I tried to revert the note said that it could not be reverted - I don't remember why not because I didn't make a copy of it the first time it happened. I really do not understand how I can be logged in and have it tell me that I am not - shades of KafkaLOL.Freiherrin (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot reverted the same minute.[1] You made a small edit two minutes later. If you tried the undo link on the bot edit after that then you maybe got a message saying "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Help:Reverting describes how you could have reverted to before the bot. This would also have eliminated your edit from two minutes after the bot, but that could have been merged back in manually. Remaining logged in requires communication between Wikipedia and a cookie on your computer. If this fails then the problem may be in your browser or ISP, and not Wikipedia. Help:Logging in has some tips. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hi Freiherrin,

I just wanted to say I sympathise with you regarding the bot problems. I get annoyed when I get an edit conflict with a bot — I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have hard work reverted and to be accused of vandalism.

You might be interested to know that the creator of VoABot II has adjusted the bot's operation as a result of being alerted to your experiences. [2]

I hope these grievances don't discourage you from contributing - you're obviously a knowledgable and hard-working editor, and Wikipedia is benefiting greatly from your efforts.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I have been working on Paulie and "Karly Kurls" to get rid of all the nonsense and the semi-truths and the strangely admiring undertone to some of the paragraphs versus the high dudgeon of others. It is quite unnecessary to froth about their activities - their disgusting record speaks for itself.

I was in St Catharines when all this happened and well recall the rumours (you don't want to know) the stupefaction (an accountant?) and the horror that this little blonde - the North American ideal - could do what she did. The general consensus is that she is right off her stick and that she is responsible for the murders - I have no difficulty with that, given her pathology, which should have been studied much longer; she played everybody and unfortunately the times and the govt. in power were 'right' for her "compliant victim' fantasy to be believed. The parents are weird - Papa H. is in Christmas videos in his underwear, calling his wife "bitch" as a matter of course, and they all flit about as if he were the king of their hearts... and the pool party sendoff, oh that was something.

Of course, that the French family lives maybe three miles from the Homolkas does not help. And the province of Ontario destroying evidence - even if it was repellent - is a truly bad precedent. I hope to get all the facts for both of them...I had to leave the Homolka article for a while. One would not think that working on Bernardo could be a "refreshing" change but it is, only in the sense of looking at different names etcccc. However, if the bot pulls its stunts again I will have my computer tech professor cousin send it to hell - the Antilles, with Karla, and no chance of escape.Freiherrin (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why do I get a new messages message when...[edit]

...there are none??????????Freiherrin (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click the history tab while reading this page. You'll see that a user posted a comment and then reverted, probably because s/he posted the message to you inadvertantly, intending it for another user. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, people won't normally see questions that you ask on your own talk page. A good place to ask questions about Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Help desk. For other problems, you can write {{helpme}} on your talk page to attract attention. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the message was clearly intended for Freiherrin but the editor self-reverted both here and at [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re reassessing an article[edit]

How does one go about getting an article reassessed, submitting it for a feature article etc? assuming that such is not beyond the individual writer/editor. Also, is there a point at which an article is considered unimproveable and "locked" unless new information is to be added? or are all articles open to further editing, even if they are complete?Freiherrin (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Karla Homolka[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Karla Homolka, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/pb-rpc/pbrpc.pdf, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Karla Homolka and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Karla Homolka, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Karla Homolka with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Karla Homolka. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Karla Homolka saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

I'm not sure if you'll read this. But I'm quite concerned about this as I note you have edited quite a few articles extensively. I have identified one specific paragraph that appears to be a clear copyvio. If you have submitted any other work that isn't yours nor available under an appropriate license could you tell us now? Note that the work you submitted has been worked on by editors besides yourself. All this work is now wasted Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]