User talk:Ceoil: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
The Motherland Calls	Review it now
Infant school	review it now
It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water	Review it now

; We can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry and talk about precious things Like love and law and poverty We can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry and talk about precious things but the rain that flattens my hair ...past the pub who saps your body and the church who'll snatch your money the Queen is dead, boys And it's so lonely on a limb. Life is very long when when you are lonely File:Orlock.jpg; Come on Die Young. Ohpeople......... ; Mogwai Fear Satan
	Archive 1 (April 2006 - January 2007); Archive 2 (February 2007); Archive 3 (March/April 2007); Archive 4 (May/June 2007); Archive 5 (July 2007); Archive 6 (August/September 2007); Archive 7 (Oct 2007); Archive 8 (Nov 2007); Archive 9 (Dec 2007); Archive 10 (Jan 2008);

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:37, 13 March 2008

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

I'm paticularly interested in pyramid schemes and smuggling money out of Nigeria. These makes me tick this also.

Blue Monday, eh, Tuesday

Hooky's bass sounds huge. It's interesting to see Bernard Sumner try to sing like, well, a singer in that video. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should clean this up, you silly auld dog. I know you want to. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too hot on the newest Bloc Party album. I really liked Silent Alarm. The latest album has its moments, but they took an odd turn there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burial and Tindersticks made the shortlist tonight. Look it up and check it out. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: when you get the newsletter in the next few days, take note of the recommended album for the month. Give it a spin, then compile a list of related YouTube links for sharing and discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check yer inbox. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good for now. No rush. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I just opened a package from the mail and the new Bauhaus album was inside. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You look at Mojo this month? There's a countdown of the top 50 "indie" records, and "This Charming Man" is at number one, with a four page article dedicated to it. Johnny Marr even mentions what key it's in. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to pick up the guitar today and master this one. Flicker flicker flicker.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy s--t, this is awesome. This too. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hear of the two-disc Joy Division best-of coming out that includes the Peel Sessions? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you buy the Mojo article or am I going to have to? (I really don't want to spend ten dollars on an import mag) WesleyDodds (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when this was cool? Ignoring all the shit that's happened since then, this is a great performance. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was DJing at a dance party last where I decided to play mostly 80s R&B dance-pop from my childhood (with some New Order and OMD thrown in for good measure). Whenever a particular onne of my workmates leaned over to see what amazing tune I was playing, it was always a Michael Jackson song from the first two albums (well, the ones that count). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few moments. Until then watch this. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too knowledgable about electro, but I do have this: [1], [2], [3], [4] WesleyDodds (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have some rock to balance that all out. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should upload a new version of the "This Charming Man" soundclip. You can barely hear anything and it needs to be shorter anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only material I've been able to get my hands on is the subpar stuff. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant because the song is fucking great. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the Top of the Pops performance. While you're at it, make the TOTP performance a subsection of the reception section, since bands get on the show for charting. Oddly enough I'm listening to Pearl Jam right now, which is quite the opposite of this song. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend me some British electronic music. I've got the new Autechre album and I need something to go with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite this. Problem is, I haven't quite figured out how to format references for television documentaries. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gerrard

Hey, Ceoil, I saw you in the edit history of Lisa Gerrard. Are you interested in keeping an eye on this? The IP is blocked for a week (see my talk). And what's up with Wesley's FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can do re Lisa. Was travelling for last few weeks so haven't looked too closely at Wesley's FAC for a while, though I saw it was still open. Might have to call in Outriggr for this as it seems to be ce issues only. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Events, dear boy, events

Hi Ceoil. How are you? I am fine. Have you been reading?

Arms and canvass cross'd,
Friedrich has his back to thee.
Free him from the frost,
Landscapes breath infinity.
–Outriggr § 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you've broken my heart, & put another notch in my headboard of disappointments. Collaboration—hopes—dashed—again? I was serious, but do it only for the love of romantic, melancholic landscapes [this guy was more a precursor of modern painting than you may know, bringing a new style of allegory], and not because I will leave again if you don't (LOL :). –Outriggr § 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Collaboration:
  Co–labor I
  call   rationed.
      Adoration,
     a donation...
    pardon I!
     Ardor is
    harder to
   share; to spin
  us Irish tops into  grasp.
Thus, I    opt   to    aspire  re
this–rousted   edits–
  ah,your edits!– to   Caspar are
  ably urged    into    a page ere
shabby    edits invoke rampage.

–Outriggr § 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lil' help?

Dia dhuit, a chara. R U Still in 2 It? Hope so. Have you any interest in hip hop at all? It's an area I've been editing in a little; the wikiproject for it seems moribund and was from what I can tell somewhat dysfunctional in any case. I seek a collaborator or at least a sounding board. Sometimes I just need help with judgment or purely editorial decisions. Since I was recently butchering one of your FAs, I thought of you. Any chance I could come to you for help with stuff? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been long awaited, but here's a formal thanks for your help on the Preludes (Chopin) article, not to mention your quick and honored feedback. (This message would have been longer if I possessed a knowledge of synonyms for "thanks" and "very good.")

The Apple Pie Award

Ceoil, may this pie be as sweet and tartly as your edits (forgive the pun) on Preludes (Chopin), and although it is obvious that this pie is not edible (nor is it a barnstar), at least it looks delicious from your computer screen. And many happy returns and a long Wiki-life. Cheers! --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If I can be of any help...

I'd be delighted to look at both articles, though I expect you and Outrigger will have things well taken care of. Still, it is nice to hear from you, if only to jar me out of my mindless anti-vandalism crusades. Cheers! JNW (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually flattered, and laughing, to be characterized as good on the small stuff, and to be referred to as the serious art guy. And here I've always thought of myself, whether wielding brush or pen, as an artful vendor of prose. Both you and Rigger do great work. More later, JNW (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Friedrich, I have done some editing and moving things about, explained at the talk page there. See what you think. A lot of the big guns have been there: in addition to you and O.R. there are contributions by Modernist and Johnbod, kind of an art editors all-star team. JNW (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to Friedrich soon, maybe even later today. Thanks for asking again. When we put the team together, second base would suit me well. Hell, I'd be happy to platoon there with someone who does good research and can turn the double play. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC

Thanks for the heads-up on Venus. I will have a look. JNW (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JNW, please do contribute to CDF. The other night I was just surprised to see the art all-star team sweep through the article when our little collaboration had barely started—but I didn't realize Ceoil had sent out messages. I then wondered if collaboration would be easier in a "sandbox", but I wouldn't know, because I've never done that before. And, you are good at the small, big, and medium stuff! See you at CDF. I am excited to see this come together. The hard part will be CDF's symbolism. –Outriggr § 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale, again

Hey Ceoil. Perhaps you can help with A Tale of a Tub, after all. Per Awadewit on the FAR, the Historical background section could use a couple of covering notes. That would take care of one unreffed section, at least. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I don't know if Geogre has much to do with the page at the moment. You might talk to Awadewit, however, who was good enough to go through it all. Marskell (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. I guess I'm slow to turn to Geogre. Marskell (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given how often I edit drunk (like now, for example), I don't mind if you copyedit your own messages to me repeatedly. Or if you just leave the typos. The message generally comes across. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fall back on the idea that all of it (including misspelling) is my Dad's fault, the fookin' bastard. It's much easier than calling myself a sinner. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venus

I have it in mind, the article looks pretty good as is, I'll add what I can during the next few days..Modernist (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honoured! Do you mean influences out, as it were? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think some more general appreciation could be added - maybe to a renamed "description" section. I'd leave the nudes section where it is, or the article will be mostly "background". I'll work on the French clothes - some into a note maybe. I have another related point. I think we're nearly there,& it hasn't been up long at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just "the work" or "composition" or something, or leave it. Or if it gets expanded a lot, maybe two sections. Friedrich is a bit out of my period, so I'll just tag along. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalí

Dalí has an early work of Venus and Cupids that is probably influenced by this one. I seem to recall it has her back to the viewer and it might even have a cupid fettered with ribbons. I'll have a dig around later, but if you already know I'm misremembering you can save me the trouble. Yomangani ^talk 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Not quite as I remembered but close enough (palette is fairly close too). Dalí was a Velázquez fan so little doubt that there is at least some influence there. Perhaps someone will have a book - the picture is a little early and not well known enough to get much coverage. You can shoehorn the Aphrodite in if you use the description of the style I took from the Spanish Wikipedia as it refers to classical sculpture which provides the perfect lead in. Lucas Cranach the Elder also has a Venus: skinny, odd looking thing she is, but she did get removed from the Tube for being too overtly sexual.

Now...what's this removing redlinks malarkey? Yomangani ^talk 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, you luddite. Have a link to my half-finished never-to-be-completed essay. I shall have to oppose on the grounds of WP:BITE now (hey, its the in-thing). Yomangani ^talk 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below Outriggr? Now that is asking for trouble. Yomangani ^talk 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<goes to search for his name. This is why we have conversations take place on one talk page. New policy, please.> –Outriggr § 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cranach did dozens of Venuses, all nude, & many with cupids. But mostly standing in a landscape. But I'm not sure how familiar V would have been with them; there are none in the Prado. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of the tradition of depictions of Venus rather than a direct influence. None of that coy turning away or Lady Godiva hair on Cranach's Venus(es). Yomangani ^talk 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just had to say Lady Godiva. Rock out to it, Ceoil! WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in pics of Richardson's handiwork? I have two (both B&W): one a fairly sharp detail and one a more fuzzy view of the whole picture. They are from the same source pic and it may be PD (the books don't give any photo credits for them), but a FU rationale would probably be safer. Yomangani ^talk 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the detail one in - the other one will look just like a black and white version of the painting unless you view it at full resolution, and the detail pic does just about cover all the damage. Yomangani ^talk 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Org

I don't think it is too bad. I might be tempted to move "Inspiration" to its own section after the description - otherwise we've been discussing the picture for ages before we get the details pointed out, and it would then run nicely into "Nudes in 17-century Spain" and then onto "Influence" when you've done that section. Also the ending is a little downbeat. I don't think the vandalism can go anywhere except where it is, but you could move the successful repair to the last sentence and the details from The Times up with the other info on the slashes. That way we end on a "Hooray it was saved!" Yomangani ^talk 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a bit crowded with images, isn't it? Always the problem with visual arts articles (and I always seem to notice it first as apparently my screen is huge and at very high resolution and with very small text). You are probably going to want to put more in when you get to the influence section too. You could go for a gallery approach (always a popular choice at FAC), or we could do something like I did for Giano at Queluz National Palace - a sort of mini gallery to underline each section. Yomangani ^talk 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead needs rewriting now. There are bits that aren't mentioned in the main text and it doesn't provide a summary anymore. Yomangani ^talk 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gerrard

Goodness, the edit summaries here have been giving me fits :-) Ceoil, I don't know anything about Lisa Gerrard, but Glitter has been busy again, and I see she's been editing there as well. In case you want to keep an eye, I've started a summary at User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter; wasted a good half hour of my time tonight. She seems to show up first at Lisa Gerrard, before she comes to disrupt FAC. BInguyen has blocked, but she keeps coming back with the same. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I have added all the above articles to my watch list, and will keep an eye out. Oh and thanks for closing the Venus PR, I'd actually forgotten about. Sings of age are everywhere for me these days. Ceoil (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 I don't think it is too bad. I might be tempted to move "Inspiration" to its own section after the description - otherwise we've been discussing the picture for ages before we get the details pointed out, and it would then run nicely into "Nudes in 17-century Spain" and then onto "Influence" when you've done that section. Also the ending is a little downbeat. I don't think the vandalism can go anywhere except where it is, but you could move the successful repair to the last sentence and the details from ''The Times'' up with the other info on the slashes. That way we end on a "Hooray it was saved!" [[User:Yomangan/sig|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangan|<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 :It's getting a bit crowded with images, isn't it? Always the problem with visual arts articles (and I always seem to notice it first as apparently my screen is huge and at very high resolution and with very small text). You are probably going to want to put more in when you get to the influence section too. You could go for a gallery approach (always a popular choice at FAC), or we could do something like I did for Giano at [[Queluz National Palace]] - a sort of mini gallery to underline each section. [[User:Yomangan/sig|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangan|<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
+::I think the lead needs rewriting now. There are bits that aren't mentioned in the main text and it doesn't provide a summary anymore. [[User:Yomangan/sig|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangan|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 ==[[Lisa Gerrard]]==