Hello Laramie1960, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome.  Loopy30 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, glad to be of help Atlantic306 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have just seen your request about the translation of this article. First of all thank you for the trust, I've read it, it's a huge one for my standard! ;) I will be pleased to translate the article though my knowledge of the subject is near-zero. Unfortunately the process is going to take a while since my first university year is just started and I've very little time at the moment, but definitely I will do my best for finish the translation. Cheers! (Sorry, but my It to En skills are still quite bad). STS Manager(Push to talk) 20:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello STS Manager. Let me thank you for your quick reply, that was awefully nice of you. Do not appologize for your skills of the English language, it is also not my native lingua :-) I am truly excited that you are going to do it. Believe me, were the author still alive today, she would so much appreciate it. Most important are your studies at the University. We have a saying: "Rome was also not build in one day". I know the life of a 95 year old author might sound boring for certain people, but Juliette is worth every moment of it. She received in 1998 the Chevalier l'Ordre National du Merite Award, chosen by the French president of the Rebublic. She knew everyone, from Jean Cocteau, to Jean Marais and many other important historians or celebrities.

I like to give you some links to those websites she officially approved of, to learn more of her. https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/French/Index.htm and http://www.juliette-benzoni-tribute.ch/index.htm Believe me, she would be so delighted to know that she will now get her place also in the Italian Enzyclopedia. I have one question. Would you like me to start adding the English text into my Italian Sandbox? I believe it is called PROVE. Like that we could both of us work on it. Lets say, whenever you have done a section, you could delete the English part. I could give it a try with the book titles. I will have a look at other Italian articles to see if it is any different than the English or German Wikipedia. However, thanks so much. Have a good start into you new year at the University. Good luck! Laramie1960 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laramie1960. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi Laramie1960,

I owe you an apology.

In mid-September, I was advising you on your work on Draft:Catherine (Juliette Benzoni), and was planning to help you with the references. On your talk page you wrote "Looking forward to your reply." But I never replied. This was because I had forgotten to put your talk page on my watchlist, so I was never aware of what you had written there. This was my mistake, for which I apologise.

I only realised my mistake when I saw your response at the Teahouse, to my comments on deletiong/archiving. I certainly wasn't offended by your deletion of my long message – I hadn't realised that you'd deleted it, or even that I was responding to a user that I'd talked with before. But when I re-read the Teahouse today, and looked at what it was you'd deleted, I understood what had happened.

Anyway, I see that my offer to help with the references at Catherine was unnecessary – you've done a very good job of it yourself. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maproom, I am glad you wrote to me, because I had appreciated your help back in September. I on the other hand had believed I had offended you because I did not come back to ask you to have a look at what I had done so far. What really makes me happy now, is that you mention that I had in the meantime done a very good job with the references. It is not so easy, because my author started her writing career in 1962 and at that time no Internet existed. I wish I had more English references, because her books sold very well in Great Britain. If the author had not kept old articles or photos, it would be impossible to show more, except French articles which can be found now on the Net, starting around 2000. About my English, that is definitely another matter I am sure. An English writer, a personal friend of mine, told me once, even though I speak so well your language, we shall always notice that it is not my native tongue as soon as I start to write! So, if you see something absolutely wrong in English, I would really appreciate it if you tell me or correct it. With my best regards Laramie1960 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at the draft, and made many minor edits. Your English is always perfectly clear, but sometimes unidiomatic. I don't feel strongly about any of the changes I have made, and I won't care if you reverse them.

I have not looked at the plot summaries. I suspect that a reviewer may complain that they are too long and are without references. I have no opinion on this, but I have seen reviewers of other articles make such comments, so please be prepared for them.

With my best regards, Maproom (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Maproom. It does feel good to read your answer to Scott. I do hope not to regret my honesty about not being born in an English speaking country. In the last couple of weeks, after my draft had been rejected - (and even if I sound like the old carneval as we say in Switzerland where I come from) I had created that article exactly the same way as the sister page in France! That was the reason I had been so upset at first! The person who rejected it had done me a great favour, like that I was now able to tell so much more about the book series! Also, I am very surprised at times about the English of other people, and they got their article's accepted.

I have seen your changes, (I always check, because like that I learn what I did wrong :-) and I agree with everything. I also believe that my summaries are long. My teachers at school used to "hate" to correct my essays - even though they loved them. I could try to give references to the exact pages in the books. I still do not know how to do that. I know these books by heart, it touched the author very much. I hope the reviewer has a "romantic" heart and believes me that the author really deserves to be on the English Wikipedia with her very first bestseller. She sold over 300 million books worldwide and was decorated with one of the most important Awards in France, that of the Orden of the National Merite (given by the French President of the Republic himself) - plus the Prix Alexandre Dumas in 1973. The last could be compared with a Shakespeare Award. Sending best greetings, and thank you Maproom for taking the time to look through the article. Laramie1960 (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speak level 3.5 Spanish, but when I attempted to edit in the Spanish WP, I found it quite frustrating. My decision: never edit outside of the English WP, the only language I'm 100% fluent at. 95% just didn't cut it for me, and wasn't worth all of the hassle. Scott P. (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Saw your entry at the Teahouse.

I tend to disagree with the advice given above – or maybe I don't know how to interpret "level 3.5". When Laramie1960 writes 'If not the Countess “Ermengarde de Châteauvillain” came to her help', it's easy to understand, and to correct to 'Had not the countess "Ermengarde de Châteauvillain" come to her help'. In any case, such slightly imperfect English should never be a reason for rejecting an article. Maproom (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. About the article to be translated into Italian. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it is not me who wants to translate the article. I was searching someone who is native speaking Italian and would do it for me. Thanks for the help I got at the Teahouse a very nice Wikipedian came into contact and will do it for me. If French and English is difficult, Italian is even more so, my work there would never be accepted and I admit this openly. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see Laramie, wise choice. Glad to hear you found the right person. Well crafted wording, if possible the first time (or first publication), always seems to serve the purposes of good communication and good articles the best, and it certainly sounds like the article you are working on is well on the way to being accepted in the Italian WP (with a little help from your friends.) Perhaps someday I will be able to help the Spanish WP after all (by your example.) Scott P. (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

In particular, the problem is WP:NOTPLOT. Wikipedia does not publish plots at this level of detail. Ypou need to first clarify if you are writing about the particular book, or the series. If about the series, name the article appropriately and discuss as a series, giving the overall plot in one paragraph. After that, about one paragraph per book might be sufficient. It would clarify matters not to call them book 1 [etc] but to use the actual titles.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Laramie1960, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine (Juliette Benzoni), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed a bit perplexed at the Tearoom, and as you put so much work into the article, I thought I would try and help :). Curdle (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Curdle for your help. I have to admit that I begin to love my article again. I cannot send you chocolates, but I hope that my sincere thank you will be enough. I hope that soon that "broom" in the REVIEWS section will disappear like magic. Are we not in the time of the year where miracles can happen? However, thank you very much for taking the time that my article will be looked at with Goodwill from the one's charge in Wikipedia. Have a nice evening, best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laramie1960. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laramie1960. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Juliette Benzoni, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laramie1960. I've added the above template for general information purposes after seeing your post on Cullen328's user talk page. If you had any personal/professional connection to Benzoni while she was alive or are editing on her or her estate's behalf, then you should take a careful look at the pages linked to in the above template for reference. Just so you know, COI editing is not expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia and there are many COI editors who make positive contributions to the project. It is, however, something which is highly discouraged because it can quickly lead to more serious problems if one is not careful. So, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the relevant guidelines and policies and know what kind of things the Wikipedia community expects from COI editors. If none of this applies directly to you, then there is still lots information on the pages linked in the above template which you might find useful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your kind message to me and not just putting me down, I believe I had about enough of that today.

Actually I had decided this evening to leave it be and not comment on anything anymore concerning that article. I have been told today a couple of times that any article we write, is free for anyone to do what he or she pleases. I admit that it was my mistake to be over protective of the article.

I confirm again, the author died two years ago. I never received or receive any money concerning that author. If I wrote the article too euphoric it happened because I knew not better and thought it was alright what I did. As a beginner it was impossible for me to know and remember all the rules. I am very upset now and all my energy to contribute has left me.

One more word about that website, where today all links to it were deleted by a member from the Teahouse. I linked to that website because one of the first Users who saw the article, told me that I did not link enough to support the article. Since I knew where the material came from on the mentioned website, I naturally linked to it. No money was earned by me and that website which is a tribute to the author, earned also nothing from these links and never will. If someone would have taken the time, they would have found this statement on that website:

The Catherine de Montsalvy website is not associated with, France Loisirs, France 2, or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Catherine books and films. This site is a non-profit website and therefore constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

I gave my best to link to other sources, and spent weeks to find anything. The author was 95 years old and when she wrote her first bestseller no Internet existed, so where else did I have to look?

I thought an author who sold worldwide over 300 hundred million books, would be an interesting contribution to Wikipedia. She sold not just books in France, but all over the world. If I have done something wrong, I was not aware of it. Thank you for your kindness to read my words and that you explained everything to me. I have already seen that some User is editing the article. That is marvellous, I will never touch it again, especially since I had been told how poorly my English is - I hope the template will soon be lifted. Have a nice evening, best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a COI with a subject does not necessarily means you were paid by the subject to edit on their behalf; it could be just that you were very close to the subject in a personal way, i.e., a relative or a friend. The problem with COI editing is not necessarily that the COI editor is purposely editing in bad faith, etc.; rather, it's that the COI truly believes they are doing the right thing by making certain edits, but are unintentionally violating some of Wikipedia's five pillars. COI editors tend to know lots of information and all of what they know is probably true; however, problems occur when the stuff they know cannot be verified, is not considered relevant, or not neutral. This is why COI editors are highly encouraged to use article talk pages to discuss major changes to articles because discussing things on the talk page allows other editors to review the proposed change and check it for unintentional bias or anything else which might be a problem. Having a COI with Benzoni does not mean you can never edit anything written about her on Wikipedia ever again. It's just means you need to be a little more careful and also be aware of relevant policies/guidelines related to COI editing.

As for the website you mentioned above, I can only say that it's best to assume that anything you find online is protected by copyright, unless it clearly states so otherwise. Content you do find online can often be used in Wikiepdia articles, but you need to be aware of WP:COPY; moreover, we as editors are expected to write articles in our own words and avoid any WP:COPYPASTE and WP:CLOP whenever possible. Basically, we read a reliable source and then summarize things in our own words and then provide a citation to the source in support. This also applies to other Wikipedia articles, even translations of other Wikipedia articles, as explained in Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Translate us. Even we agree to release the edits under a free license everytime we click "Publish changes", proper attribution is still required when taking/translating content from one Wikipedia article for use in another.

As for English ability, there's no requirement which states that you need to be an native speaker of English to edit English Wikipedia. Mistakes are OK and even native speakers make them. A certain degree of competency is, however, going to be expected (see "Language competency" in WP:CIR#Some common types), especially if other editors are having a hard time communicating with you. You also have to be a little more willing as a non-native speaker perhaps to understand your own limitations and be open to constructive criticism from others. As a non-native speaker it might be hard sometimes (especially when you're not standing face-to-face with someone) to understand the intent of something another editor posts and therefore can be easy to assume the worst. I've read what was posted at the Teahouse and I don't think the other editor was being rude, a bit blunt perhaps, but not really rude. Some editors simply follow a more straightforward approach when giving advice, while others go out of their way to be extra careful with how they say something. Basically, you just have to try and keep assuming good faith and develop a thick skin if you're going to continue editing. Moreover, there are over 5,000,000 articles to edit and most of then need to be improved in one way or another, so there's always some article you can try to improve. Branching out a bit and trying to improve random articles, even stuff you might not know too much about, is a good way to learn more about how Wikipedia works, and also a good way to improve your editing skills. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly (talk I understand now that I should never have edited that article. I was a total beginner and I had so far never written an article and really did not know we cannot or should not write an article when we are acquainted with the person we write about. It had been this "Let's get this straight" which brought my temper to explode. I only wish someone had already in July 2017 mentioned all the issues with my editing. No one complaint about my English ever and I assumed all was well. That is mainly the reason I felt so insulted at the first moment.

About that website I have mentioned, I totally trust it. The late author approved of it and gave evidence of that on the site. The English publisher https://telos.co.uk/shop/romance/belle-catherine/ of the reissuing of the Catherine Novels, trusts the website also and gives not just on their website - but also in the books the address to that site. I am very disappointed that since all the links were taken away, that article really misses now citing. I will not edit anything anymore, I really do not have the courage anymore. There are now competent English native speakers doing a wonderful job. Yet you understand that I am now discouraged to continue to write anything more on Wikipedia. Were I a young schoolgirl this would not bother me at all - but I am a grown up and I have seen now my limits. Laramie1960 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Laramie. I saw your post at the teahouse and I hope you arent too discouraged. I hope it hasn't upset you, but I did give the Juilet Benzoni article a copy edit to polish up the writing. I wasnt trying to criticise all the work you have done, but trying to get rid of some of those tags stuck on it. I'm pretty sure he went overboard with the copyright stuff; (I'm not an expert, but can't see why linking to newspaper clippings is a breach of copyright; a clipping is fair use and anyone can post one online as far as I know) so hopefully you will get those back. If not, you will still be able to use them as references, as long as you know the dates each article was published and what newspaper its from. The plagiarism stuff was just ridiculous.

I did end up cutting a bit of text, because some of it wasnt really suitable for an encyclopedia-its easy to get a bit carried away if you're a big admirer of someones work, but you cant say things like "another stupendous success" or "international bestseller all over the world" unless you have a reference, saying exactly that, each time you write it. Read some of the other "Good articles" to see how dry and boring they are:) What sounds good for a fan site or personal blog is seen as over promotional here. Considering the bad time you had, I didnt like to remove it, but I think it would be a good idea to cut the whole "press section" bit altogether; the first half addresses the reader directly (and the rest isnt really encyclopedic either) I think you could get away with a short paragraph about how devoted her fans are,(it does seem to be a feature of her life and writing) but you would have to word it carefully and back it up with really good references. I'll have a look for some more references tommorrow; not sure if I will find any good ones as unlike you, I only speak the one language :) Curdle (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curdle, thank you so much for your encouragement just now to me. Yes I am very much discouraged and on the point to quit. I have been so insulted today and put down that I thought I must be in the wrong movie - and that just because I had to guts to ask a question at the Teahouse. I am still speechless and have asked myself why I spend hours on the Wikipedia to be treated like that. I appreciate that you edited that article, which as I now know is not of my concern anymore. Yes I am very bitter, the part about the plagiarism was hard to swallow. I read those books at the age of 17 and believe me that is more than forty years ago! I will read your message again tomorrow when I have have had a good sleep. So far I have seen that you have done as always a really great job with editing. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the talk page at J. Benzoni today, (and The Teahouse) and wrote this note in my sandbox, planning to post it later, so here it is...

One person has given you an opinion about your English, now I will give you mine. Your written English is just fine. Yes, there are some corrections that can be made, but no more than I have seen in other new articles. I live in the USA, and 50% of the people I meet daily cannot write (in their native language!) as well as you write in a foreign language. Don't let one person's opinion spoil your pleasure. Just let it go, and move on. I'm glad that things are resolved with the Italian editors. I plan to do some copy editing on your article and I will make notes in the edit summary about the changes and make comments on the talk page, if needed.

Since I returned home, I have seen the excellent editing that @Curdle: did and I have edited some also. I agree with Curdle that the Press Section needs to be removed. It is very charming and I enjoyed reading it, but it doesn't fit the tone of an encyclopedia. (I was really worried about saying that to you.)

I'm so sorry that you have had a bad experience. Please, please, don't quit...we need you! Your ability to speak four languages AND write well in English is a huge asset to WP. We need more biographies about women, and there are many projects here that would welcome your abilities. Go to your user contributions, and re-read the glowing compliment that RiverTorch wrote on Dec. 2, 2017. I hope that will make you smile!

Tomorrow, I will continue editing J. Benzoni, but now I will give myself the pleasure of reading Catherine (1963). Have a Happy Friday! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tribe of Tiger|^{Let's Purrfect!}]] when I came to my computer this morning I did not know if I really wanted ever return to my User talk page and just forget this adventure Wikipedia. I am glad I did and I was finally able to smile again. Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words to me.

One more word about this article I wrote. As you can see it was created in 2010, but not from me. I do not want to critisize now the person who started it, far from it. Yet it has to be said as you can see if you go back before July 2017, there was only a short text, issues with the book order and no links. If you only knew what courage it took of me write the whole article. I had so far no idea how to work on Wikipedia. I was a beginner and English not my native tongue. How could I ever be so over-confident. This is probably not even an English word! I asked myself today not for the first time why this article was never edited before? Some editors came by and told me to cite more and I taught myself everything by myself. I checked on other articles about writers to get an idea how it was done. No one ever picked on me before...

I do not want to start again about yesterday, but the worst part was that it was said I had copied the text from the French Wikipedia and then translated it with Google translater. That really hurt, yet I should have laughed, I read these books so many times and was always fascinated by Juliette Benzoni. I read her books also in French, not that this is relevant here, except that it should proof that it was not necessary for me to steal material and say it was mine.It is not that I cannot accept critic, that can be proven by all the messages I shared with other Users.

I admit I am very disouraged to continue and if I understood correctly, I am now not even aloud to write one more word about Juliette, since I admited that I knew her personally. Though I had never read that it was forbidden to write an article when we are acquainted with the person. Juliette Benzoni died two years ago and she never paid any money to me or told me to do some publicity.

I am more than glad that you and Curdle will continue to edit the article. I will not be angry or upset if the part about the Press is deleted. I leave that up to you or other editors to re-write that part. About my euphoric style, you can believe me, I would have written the same if I would write an article about Margaret Mitchell or any other writer I admire.

Merci also for reminding me about that message from Rivertorch. I hope I can find it again. I hope I can move on as you suggest, but there remains at the moment a great bitterness. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you also so much these two tiny Tigers. I am without words about this kindness to me. I will see if I understand how to do this to spread also something as nice to you. Laramie1960 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 22 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Juliette Benzoni signing books in 1963.jpg
• File:Juliette Benzoni in her garden at Saint-Mandé, 8 August 1985.jpg

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff it is very kind of you to have left a message here on my talk page concerning these photos. Not that I am surprised after all that has happened in the last two days. I have left a message on the discussion page and hope for the best for the photos. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you help me pick an image of the cover of the first Catherine book for article Catherine (1963 novel)? I have found https://www.amazon.com/Catherine-One-Love-Enough-1/dp/1845839056 and https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2266108484, but there may be better ones.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff of course I can do that, here it is https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/images/Books/english-catherine/catherine-one-love-enough-1964.JPG The cover is the perfect one, it shows the very first English edition from 1964 by Heinemann Laramie1960 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff here would be another book cover concerning the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1963_novel) it would show the cover for the second book (1965) which was at that time the conclusion to the story. It has even as title the name Catherine. this is the best photo of the cover I could find. https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/images/Books/english-catherine/catherine-sequel-1965.jpg Best Laramie1960 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I await the conclusion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 22#File:Juliette Benzoni signing books in 1963.jpg before potential upload of such images.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be able to contribute directly to the article any more, but your help with translations and references is very valuable Laramie. We can still use a lot of the material from the website, just not link to it directly. A reference doesnt have to be online, as long as its been published in a reputable newspaper/ magazine; and its pretty clear they have. It may be possible to resurrect a lot of them, as quite a few on the website show the entire page with the clipping, which gives title of the magazine, date published and the page numbers, which is basically what you need in a reference. So we can use that, and format it like a standard print newspaper ref. Might need to ask you some questions about the foreign language ones though, if thats ok. With your help, I think we can get a really good article. I remember seeing old paperbacks by the author on my parents bookshelf (made me smile to see some of them on that website), so its interesting to find out more about her. I think other people would be interested too. Curdle (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Curdle after all the unpleasantness from last week it is so refreshing to see how you, Tribe of Tiger|^{Let's Purrfect!}]] and other Users have taken their time to make this a real good article for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. How wonderful to have actually someone here who tells me that their parents had on their bookshelfs the Catherine books. I guess your Maman never knew that their existed a seventh Catherine novel, never translated into English. Thanks very much to have shared that with me.

I am happy to know that you must have realised what a shock and frustration it had been for me to see all the links deleted. Not mentioning the many hours I have spent to find for each citation the correct information. Of course I will help and support all of you who need information. It will be my pleasure. I already saw that Marchjuly has added The story of Catherine and Arnaud de Montsalvy was published in at least thirty countries[citation needed] I can clarify this with sharing a link to the Catherine site. https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/English/Books/Covers/International_book_covers.htm what you see there are book covers from 31 countries. The book covers can be found everywhere, be that Ebay, Amazon, Goodread, Abebooks.

fact is, the books were translated in 27 languages, could be even more, - and published or available in 31 countries. This cannot be denied by anyone. Those book covers speak for themselves. The Catherine novels were mostly published in the sixties and seventies. There was no Internet at that time, yet Juliette Benzoni kept souvenirs from the time of her first success and shared with that website. Otherwise there would be nothing whatsover from her early years. I had been very lucky to find on the site at least a newspaper clipping from London and one from Scotland. She went to London and was interviewd for BBC - all confirmation gone - just like in the case of the Catherine song, composed by Amar,text written by Juliette Benzoni in 1965. I thought people would be interested to read all this or look at the material. Is not that what Wikipedia promises his visitors. Let me know how I can help. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged, so I'll comment. I removed the citation because all that it said was "Catherine 30 foreign Publishers" which is not even close to a proper citation per Wikipedia's standards; it had nothing to do with not being anything available on the Internet. Just for reference, being WP:PUBLISHED does not mean available online; in fact, there are many articles which cite sources which are not found online at all. Moreover, sources don't even have to be in English per WP:RSUE as long as they are otherwise considered to be reliable per WP:RS. English sources are preferred whenever possible, but in this case French sources, etc. would be acceptable. You can cite a reliable source (again by Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source") per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as ling as you provide as much information about the source as possible per WP:CITEHOW, so that others can track it down if necessary. As long as the source is accessible to the public (i.e., not someone's private papers or personal documents which nobody can access, etc.) and someone can go to wherever it may be found and access it, then it can possibly be used. Sources online tend to be preferred because they usually can be quickly verified by anyone from anywhere in the world who can access the Internet, but being available online is not a pre-requisite. As for the website you linked to above, the question is whether it is a reliable source (again by Wikipedia's definition). That is something you can and should discuss on the article's talk page or at a noticeboard like WP:RSN. It might turn out to be a reliable source, but considered to be a primary source, which means that are limits on how it can be used. Finally, just providing a link to a webpages showing various book covers is not going to be a helpful as you think per WP:SYN and possibly even WP:OR. We don't add our own interpretations to what sources say or combine multiple sources together to interpret them in a certain way. Article content only reflects what the actual source itself says or any interpretations it makes. If you can find or remember any newspaper article, etc. (a WP:SECONDARY source would be best) which discusses how widely published Benzoni's books were as well as how many languages they were published in, then that would be helpful. Again, it doesn't have to be necessarily anything found online as long as it's reliable. You can use the template Template:Cite news or Template:Cite magazine, etc. (you just shouldn't use Template:Cite web) to add it to the article since such templates does not require that a link to an online website be provided. If you're not sure how to do that. Just post as much information as you can about the source on the article's talk page and someone will take care of it. Finally, you need to understand that WP:NOTEVERYTHING which can be verified about a subject, even verified through reliable sources, is automatically acceptable for mentioning in a Wikipedia article, and even sourced content which is added may be challenged by another editor. When that happens you're expected to follow WP:DR and try to resolve things through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly this is all very helpful, and I thank you to have taken your time to write it down for me. I have read your information and will again. Truth is I did not know enough, I should not have been tempted by the sentence "be bold". I will better stay away from this article and not interfere with it. Reading the article now and comparing it with my own version I see of course that it was not as neutral as it should have been for Wikipedia standard. And I did not understand enough about the citing rules. It was done in good faith, but that is of course no excuse. However, I will help and give the needed information about these articles. About the website I mentioned, I truly trust it. The Owner dedicated the website to the author - who had approved of the website (can all be read on the information page) and shared her personal (over 50 year old) material from her writing career. It is a non profit site, who as far as I understood must be a really trustfully person, the author dedicated one of the books to her. In the case of her first bestseller Catherine, the website has amazing never seen material online. About those 30 foreign publisher, that was difficult to explain. With the help of those book covers, I understood that 27 publishers translated the Catherine books - yet they were published in at least 31 countries. The source are the book covers found on the Internet. If you click for example on the covers for lets say England, we get all the facts about the year, the publishing house, who translated it and so on. I tried that out myself and landed on various libraries, not just English or French. It was quite fascinating. I found French online articles, yet they cited numbers from old sources. We know that we cannot rely always on newspapers. The author wrote 86 books and was actually translated in 30 languages and published in 37 countries. If not an official libray in France updates about Benzoni, we shall never be able to proof it. That is why I thought those book covers were great. Thanks again for the above text. I hope I understood correctly, that if I have a question about how something must be done, it is here on my talk page I must ask. Wish I knew everything by heart already. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much no editor knows everything about Wikipedia by heart. People who've been editing since Wikipedia started back in the early 2000s still make mistakes, often quite common mistakes. Part of this has to do with the fact that policies and guidelines occasionally change over time as new people with new ideas join the community. Part of it also has to do with the fact that editors tend to focus on certain articles or genres in particular and therefore only are familiar with those directly related to the things they edit. Moreover, Wikipedia wants editors to be bold; if every little change needed to be checked/verified before it was made, the encyclopedia would hardly be improved or exapnded at all. Mistakes are expected to be made, and the only thing the community asks is that editors try and avoid repeating them over and over again. In my opinion, Justlettersandnumbers comment at the Teahouse wasn't intended to be a criticism of you as a person, but rather a straightforward blunt critique of the Benzoni article. It was focused on article content and the problems that Justlettersandnumbers article had regarding relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers is an OTRS volunteer, so one of the things they've been tasked to by the Wikipedia community is to find things which might be copyright violations, etc. and sort them out. OTRS volunteers typically have a good understanding of various copyright laws, etc. and the competence to apply this understanding as needed to help Wikipedia avoid any serious problems. Justlettersandnumbers post was probably based more on their experiences as an OTRS volunteer and similar mistakes they've seen many editors make over the years than a desire to upset or critcize you just for the sake of doing so.

Sometimes when someone writes something negative about an article we've been working on improving, it can be natural to mistake that critique for personal criticism directed at us when it's really not. Part of this has to do with the fact that we are discussing things face to face so when we read something which sounds like the person who wrote it is angry, it's easy to assume that they are angry with us even when they aren't. I could break down the Teahouse thread point by point and provide my interpretation about what was written and why, but at this point it's probably better to just move on. The fact that you have a COI doesn't mean you can never edit any content about Benzoni on Wikipedia again. Just try to follow what's written in WP:PSCOI and WP:COIADVICE, and be willing to discuss major changes on relevant article talk pages when asked to do so. If you do that, you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly I agree that it is best to move on - and I have done that now. Rules are rules and thank goodness they exist. I understand now Justlettersandnumbers reaction in the Teahouse - I did overreact about the part that it was not well written and even copied from the French Wikipedia. I had been so shocked to read that. I did not even know that the User who created the article in 2010 had copied from the French Wikipedia. It only had the merests hints about Benzoni's career - and I thought why not edit it since I know so much about the author. Indeed, he is now very helpful and gives me support on the other article's concerning Benzoni. I will take his advice and put information first on the talk page. It's good news that I can still edit any content about Benzoni on Wikipedia. For the missing references, I will be able to give the name of the newspapers, the name of the journalists and the dates. I will add that on the Juliette Benzoni talk page, so that it can be verified and added by whoever is helping to improve the article. I am reluctant now to do it myself, I wish I had known all this before. But I have found again pleasure in returning to Wikipedia. Laramie1960 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to here. Sometimes when I get frustrated over Wikipedia stuff, I go and take the dog for a walk. FWIW, someone with your ability to understand multiple languages, etc. can probably find many ways to help build the encyclopedia. Perhaps there's something at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English here that you can help with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I enjoyed looking at them all :) But as I said, I think we can use the information from them,(thats what I was doing last night, going through the list of refs to see what was there. MarchJuly is right though about the book covers as references; unfortunately they in themselves are not suitable; we need something that says exactly how many countries etc in actual words. However, I was also reading through all of the online magazine stories with the help of google translate and theres more than enough in there to testify as to how many countries and translations were done I think. And as the song cover was published, we can use that too, for the song and who sung it..all the info is there, I will just have to work out the formula of how to cite it. Never done it before, but it can be done! Its unfortunate that we cant link to it, its a lovely and interesting piece of evidence, but Wikipedia is pretty strict about copyright concerns, and it doesnt seem to be possible. I may not personally agree with it, but Wikipedia also runs by consensus, and there does seem to be a consensus that its not acceptable. We could try hashing it out on the talk page (so far its not going well) or you can even take things to the reliable sources board, but I really dont think that would be successful either. It's better to spend the time and energy to get rock solid references that noone can argue against; it will make a better article in the end.

I will have some questions for you soon..got a list of notes I made while going through the refs.. and do you know anything about using the French national library website? I was poking around there but couldn't find much except for a passing mention in an encyclopedia. I was hoping to find digitised newspapers there (the Australian National library is great for that, but they only had book reviews for Juliette Benzoni) but couldnt seem to get any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdel (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curdle - About the book covers which cannot be used as a reliable source. So far I have never seen online an article with that precise confirmation. Le figaro, a very known French newspaper did not know better the day after Juliette died and wrote : " traduite dans une vingtaine de langues" translation: in about twenty languages. The Minister of Culture in France, just copied everything Le figaro had said. I am looking at it just now. Le Figaro, a famous newspaper, had not done their homework properly. The only thing those newspaper all had in common was that she sold: 300 hundred millions books. And I believe that is not even correct nowadays, it is an old statement from the Eighties. So you see, if we do not add about 30, even on Wikipedia it is not correct. I mean around 20 languages is not the same as about thirty languages. I do not know how we can solve that problem. I am looking everywhere today. Also as I wrote here today to MarchJuly, Benzoni was translated into 30 languages and published in 37 countries - and there is no newspaper which verifies that! We got only the discovered book covers which speak for themselves. About the French national library website, thats a very good idea. I never thought about that, but I do not know how to do it. Could you send me the link? Maybe we should try the English library also, who knows maybe they have that article in their archives about Benzoni's visit to London and Scotland in 1964? I am looking forward to your questions. So whatever you need to know just ask. Laramie1960 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the barnstar! :) Sorry I disappeared for a few days, got a tummy bug, but ready to get back to work now.

I managed to update some of the references to standard print ones, for example ref no 2 on the list; it has the title of the article, magazine title, issue number, page no, etc.(i could see enough of the details from the scans on the website). Thats what we need for all of them, if we cant find an online article link. Some of the scans dont show enough information, so thats where my questions come in. I was hoping that although the scans may have cut out that information, if you have access to the originals themselves they might be able to provide the extra details.

Ref no. 3, I can see title, page number and magazine, but all there is is a year date.(L'Actu Littéraire 2013) do you have any information about what issue number, or exact date it was published?

ref no.14 London, (1964) welcomes One Love is Enough- doesn’t appear to be the actual article, but according to whats there a its a translation- need the original 1964 french article details (date, who written by where published etc)

Ref 17 Le Figaro (2003) Arsenic and old lace- Arsenic et Vielles dentelles Jaques de Saint Victor- need date/ issue no. and page.

26 J'ai un faible pour Catherine, article by François Martinez 1986 pge 13-14 - need title of magazine/paper it was published in, issue no/ exact month/date etc

27 Ici Paris (1964) 10 june , Les livres de la semaine by Henri de Montfort - page no?

30 b Genesis «l'Étoile bleue» the Novels of Aldo Morosini- This looks to be another blog so its not RS- but in the wiki article, you wrote that Benzoni mentioned Aldo's origin in the preface of Les Treize Vents, so it may be better to cite the book itself. Do you happen to have a copy of it, with the page number its on?

Sorry, I know thats a quite few questions, but unless I can put those details into the citations, so other people can look them up, we wont be able to use the references.

oh..I tried the British National library, but it looks like mostly only old newspapers(pre 1909) are up there. Actually, it seems to be difficult to get anything much post 1950 unless you have a paid subscription to that newspaper. Same with the French library too. Curdle (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curdle I am sorry to read that you were not well, I send here my best wishes to you. Never appologize, I am very impressed by your kindness towards that article. As I am now also towards Justlettersandnumbers and Marchjuly. They have confirmed to me that I can at least assist with the article - always first on a talk page. It is understood that I shall add new information on the proper Talk page of the article. I could discuss for hours that it will be very very difficult to find more material in official libraries. But we shall manage because I will be able to help with the name of the newspapers, date and journalist. I know already that we will get stuck when in the case of the Prix Alexandre Dumas 1973, the French Wikipedia did not add a link the literay WP page - because no one has put an entry there. I spent hours yesterday to "deliver" proof of that round medal, which was very important to Benzoni. Remember, she was decorated with that prestige Award for her Catherine and Marianne books. There exists even an Online video where the author is a guest in an famous French talk show back in the Seventies. It was the acclaimed historian Alain Decaux, member of the Association of the friens of Alexandre Dumas, who gave that Award to Benzoni. It cannot be denied by anymone. It is over and over repeated in old French articles. that is why the fr.wp mentions it also. Instead to repeat it here, would you be so kind and read my text on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1963_novel) talk page?

A word to the English article's, you have no idea how pleased I had been when I found them on the website. Since this is the English article of Benzoni and not the French or any other language, I was of the opinion, let's add some article's from England, which would fascinate English Wikipedians. The only one's I found was again on that website. I searched long, I even entered the Archives of the "Scotsman newspaper" - but no one had probably find it important enough to add Benzoni's first visit to the U.K. in that Archive. I will soon write to you the details about your above questions on the proper talk page, that is the Juliette Benzoni article. Until then Laramie1960 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laramie about this line from the Benzoni article; "On 10 June 1964 Le Provençal wrote: “A heroine – who takes place – alongside Scarlett O'Hara and The Marquise of the Angels” (Angélique)." There isnt a reference for it; is it another clipping or something?Curdle (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curdle Just seen that you pinged me. You and Tribe of Tiger are doing splendid. Here what I re-found about that citation. It took me quite a moment to find it again. Here it is https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/English/History/Press/catherine-series-media-1.htm You see there the translated article from the webmaster - and the whole French page from Le Provençal back in 1964. Hope that helps? I know, always the same source. But that is obivious. It was Benzoni's personal material shared with that website - the newspapers of today would have to go to the archives of Le Provençal to find it again. I have also a few questions or suggestions, but I will open a new section for that later this day. Laramie1960 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laramie1960. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laramie, I see the problems. Given that you are the editor who is most familiar with the article, you would do the best job of correcting. It's perfectly okay for you to do this, and you could do it better and faster than I can. Will you work on it, please? I will try to help....

By the way, I just published my first article! Nigel Bonner, if you want to have a look. Hope you are well. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 18:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laramie, I have returned the lede to the good version from March 2018. Also trimmed the plot summary, which was getting a bit over detailed and over wikilinked. No need to link: France, hanged or treason! I hope you approve. We usually have many editors add to articles, but as you said, it can be too much! I will look at the other Benzoni related articles, also. Best wishes to you, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laramie. While writing on Tribe of Tiger's talk page, I saw your post regarding assistance with Catherine (1986 TV series). I looked it over and made a number of changes. For a non-native speaker, you did rather well. There are problem with citations as they are needed in several places. I do believe you'll have no trouble finding them. You might also want to look at other articles so you could tighten up the external links. Here is an example: Peach. I am jealous of your linguistic ability and am striving to become proficient in German myself. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]