User talk:Becsh

Hi Becsh, I've repeated my revision of the Arrival page to replace "short story" with "novella". I've explained this revision in the Arrival Talk page. Please let me know if you find fault with my reasoning.

Regards, Paul Juniperpaul (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#Fatuous?. Thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. I objected, however, to having my edit described as 'fatuous' and my rationale as 'nonsense', and explained that I felt this was uncivil per WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL. For what it is worth, explaining that I was not acting in good faith is advised against at WP:AOBF; coming here with this remark, combined with your reference at the talk page to a five-month-old dispute for which I have apologised (and let lie, even though others acted with incivility towards me), is not constructive. As Graham Beards so helpfully explained for me in July, accusations of bad faith are taken very seriously on Wikipedia and should not be made without good reason - and I am curious as to why you haven't left a similar message for the editor who described my edit as fatuous and my explanation as half-baked and nonsensical. Thanks. Becsh (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi - Sorry to rehash this (especially today of all days!), but I feel a little hurt and quite bewildered by your suggestion that I wasn't assuming good faith when interacting with other editors. I don't see what remarks I made that could be interpreted this way, especially since this was in conversation with an editor with such an obvious breadth of support for the project that assuming bad faith would be pretty much impossible. I'd hate for someone to come to this page without context and see your comment, which I do not feel is representative of either my actions or intentions.

For this reason, could you either let me know via diffs an instance where you felt I did not assume good faith, or else strike through/reword your comment here?

Thank you! Becsh (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion of "They have a pale, serene, unearthly beauty," because that sentence is an unsupported opinion. I am writing to ask about your explanation for your edit, which was "tone." Is "tone" a Wikipedia term of art? If so, does a list of such terms exist? I am aware of Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations, and I wondered whether there is a similar site for terms of art. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I've been making a few edits to Fra Angelico as part of a tone cleanup, but I have a bad habit of writing very brief edit summaries when working on an article across multiple edits (often I'll just put 'c-e' meaning copy-edit, for example). I should probably have put WP:TONE instead - Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone, but WP:POETIC, WP:AESTHETIC or MOS:PEACOCK would do better, since this these are more specific. In short, it isn't an art term, but all of these shortcuts are describing tone.

That said, it would be nice to discuss further this with other editors (like yourself!) as I do find the MOS:VA page lacking with regards to clear policies for editors just breaking into visual arts articles. It is incredibly helpful with regards to consistency/formatting across articles, but it would be helpful to have one page that joins together some of the recurring issues that affect articles about art. Being able to point editors using a variety of poetic/aesthetic/peacock language to one helpful page addressing the issues with such language would offer a useful example of the style to emulate and avoid. Becsh (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Last published version of section (removed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jp1008/sandbox/Marian_Iconography_in_Santa_Maria_del_Fiore_PUB

Chapter from Verdon’s book for your reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkKBBvg1ld4EkbMWGvMWoTsyouiVh8Lq4Y84DQLxtHI/edit?usp=drivesdk

Hi Besch! Thanks for your offer to help polishing this section. To be honest, I have started to think that all this is too much detail for this article. I gather from your offer and the large amount of time you have dedicated to write your comments that you think the content has value and it is worth to keep this long section. But is it? I would value your opinion as to why. Jp1008 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I do think that there is value in expanding the article to reflect how art/architecture historians have approached the cathedral, but I'm not sure it needs to be in different sections in the way your edits originally presented it. I'd definitely support a single 'Marian art in the Cathedral' section that draws heavily from Verdon and other writers (Verdon's bibliography might be of use here). Becsh (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. That would make it more compact indeed. Jp1008 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)