Jump to content

User talk:Victoriaearle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
INeverCry (talk | contribs)
Line 82: Line 82:
:::The Crabbe page looks good. I've only begun on Dickens; most of the credit there goes to Nishidani, and I'm afraid to admit that I seem to have stalled. The best work I've done, I think is for Am. lit, with Hemingway and Pound, and strangely the 10th c. [[Murasaki Shikibu|Lady Murasaki]]. You're right about the crit sections being work; that's probably why I'm spending more time these days reviewing and rambling around, rather than actually getting to work. The Dickens page won't be easy. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 03:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
:::The Crabbe page looks good. I've only begun on Dickens; most of the credit there goes to Nishidani, and I'm afraid to admit that I seem to have stalled. The best work I've done, I think is for Am. lit, with Hemingway and Pound, and strangely the 10th c. [[Murasaki Shikibu|Lady Murasaki]]. You're right about the crit sections being work; that's probably why I'm spending more time these days reviewing and rambling around, rather than actually getting to work. The Dickens page won't be easy. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 03:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps another barnstar is in order for Nishidani. I'll have to take a look at what else they've done. If I can't imitate, I may as well appreciate. ;) I don't envy you the work that Dickens will require, nor do I envy GOP with Dostoyevsky. As for Americans, I have vague ideas of doing something for [[James T. Farrell]]. [[User talk:INeverCry|<font face="AR Cena" color="black"><b>INeverCry</b></font>]] 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps another barnstar is in order for Nishidani. I'll have to take a look at what else they've done. If I can't imitate, I may as well appreciate. ;) I don't envy you the work that Dickens will require, nor do I envy GOP with Dostoyevsky. As for Americans, I have vague ideas of doing something for [[James T. Farrell]]. [[User talk:INeverCry|<font face="AR Cena" color="black"><b>INeverCry</b></font>]] 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

==Bartolome==
Thanks for dropping by Bartolome de las Casas - I was going to ask you for a brushover. If you have time and interest I'd be grateful for any edits you'd want to make to [[Benjamin Lee Whorf]], which I've also nominated for GA. I hope youre well![[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 3 June 2012

Semi-protected

I removed an odd post from an IP which seemed very much like a personal attack. I also semi-protected this page, which will keep IPs and new users from posting here. TK - if you want I will delete the posts by the IP. Or, if you would rather, I can unprotect (and am fine with any other admin unprotecting and anyone restoring the posts here). To the IP - if you have a problem with this, feel free to comment on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I think it should stay protected for the time being. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm assessment

Oh, do I feel like a dummy.[1] If I'd have actually looked at the lifespan of poor Friedrich Hermann Georg, I'd have answered my own question... (the death date line wraps, so that's my excuse) Riggr Mortis (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a valid point. I'd wondered whether I should mention the two who died in infancy, and that you had to ask answered that question. Also, it was easy to fix. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter

I was delighted to see you over at Talk:Demeter#Infobox. Could I trouble you to weigh in on the proposed image? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I saw that floating by on my watchlist earlier but I was running in and out today and didn't have time. Nice job finding it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

van Eyck

Thank you very much for the guidance with this; the article is not perfect yet, but you have given a good indication as to were it should aim towards. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm slightly fascinated by the painting to say the least - quite honestly it's the most interesting thing I've seen in a while (the hellscape and all) and I don't have a lot of time to get to other work, so thanks to you for letting me butt in and be diverted. I think the work you've done today should help with the structure. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think so too, but well wait and see until Riggr comes storming in with his openions. Ever I since I called him a cunt on your talk he has it in for me, and frankly I find his repsonces and explinations intimadating. They are anti irish, a lot of them, actually. Why does he hate us irish so much? We dont all think he's a cunt, just the most of us; why is he tarring? Are all Canadians like that? Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, the stuff that happens on my talk and I don't even notice. Missed that entirely. Either I'm very spacey, very stupid, or very focused - or all three together. No wonder he's stopped talking to me. Being abused like that and all. Here, on my talk, no less. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that was a joke as I believe we've been talking? Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. The problem is that I'm terrible with jokes on the internet which is why, generally, I stay away from talk page banter. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! See if you just ranted and cussed at me then I'd be able to tell it was a joke, like Ceoil does... or at least I've always assumed it's a joke. You never know with that over-reaching little prick. Nice work on the van Eyck page (all). Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do what he does, and didn't know how to respond, so made a non-response that made no sense. Sorry about that. It's probably best to simply ignore him - especially when he leaves bad language littering my page! He's getting there with van Eyck, but I need to clarify the section I tried to write - so back to the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core Contest

Core Contest Equal Third Prize
I hereby award this Antique Metal Wikitrophy to Truthkeeper88 for work on improving the Brothers Grimm article in the March 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Wikimedia UK will be in touch shortly with details on the £30 voucher... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!..Modernist (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cong mice! ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cute! Thanks to all. I haven't decided how to spend £30 in a country where I need $$, but not complaining! Truthkeeper (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Order something from AmazonUK? (all I can think of, offhand) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prop up the Irish banks for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sell the gift certificate(?) on eBay (I imagine there are sites dedicated to gift cards and such now). A long time ago I had an Amazon promo code worth say, $14.25 US. And the winner paid, say, $13.85 for it. Quite efficient at turning non-cash into cash. Congrats on your achievement by the way. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now to discuss how to proceed from here...figgered you might wanna add a word or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography

The main obstacle to developing the van Eyck bio has been obviously the paltery known bio details, but more so the difficulty of approaching his iconography in a unified way before getting into specifics. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to guide the thoughs in the current sandbox towards the main bio, as a frame to use to expand the page out a fair bit. There is a bunch I could add, but I was never able to find over arching context (the sources often tend to be very specific to individual works) and what you have may become an excellent basis to build from. A framing para or two would lead to a bunch of specific examinations. Eg on his Madonnas, use of architecture, and on. What do you think, and tks so much for all this help, sourcing and effort. And jeeze, Riggr doesnt really think I was dissing him, really? It was just messing. Retarded messing sure, but there you go; point me to the bock, I have it coming. Just make it clean. (snif). Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say, Ceoil, is FA is not peer review. Din' Sandy dun' tach ya nothin'? Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice and clean, Riggr. Definitely the page needed a little more work before FAC. Ceoil, I don't know what to do with the stuff in the sandbox. Definitely some form of it can go in the van Eyck bio, but I think the individual pages need some kind of general explanation of the symbols. In Hemingway pages I use basically the same general bit of text about the iceberg theory that I copy from page to page, and then I spin out from the general to the specific on the individual pages, so I guess you could do something like that. The sources do tend to focus on the specific works for van Eyck, although not this specific work, but I think a general explanation is helpful. Still reading about it though, and I've noticed that Johnbod dropped a book title in the sandbox so will have a look at that too. I'm reading a book about the Ghent altarpiece, not overly scholarly, with a really good overview of the symbolism so I might be adding a bit more when I've absorbed it all. In the meantime, if it's to be used in the crucifixion, you should finish it soon to keep this FAC from tanking, per Riggr's comment above. I have a little time today to work on it. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you're going to be involved in peer reviewing Dostoyevsky, I just wanted to let you know that I'm still in the process of copy-editing the article. I've finished with the entire biography, and will do the rest some time soon. If/when GOP adds more, I'll help with that too. My copy-edits are just for grammar and syntax for the most part. I've asked GOP about the final paragraph of the bio, as there are some confusing details that he'll have to fix up. INeverCry 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the head's up. It's a long page and will take time to get through it. It's been on my watchlist for a long time and I've noticed all the activity there, so was thrilled to see it go to PR. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The major difficulty in getting the article ready for GAN is the current "themes" section, which might be better named "critical response", "criticism" or something similiar. GOP had first asked me to do the section, but a summary of Dostoyevsky criticism is a highly complex task that's beyond me. INeverCry 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at how it was done for Ernest Hemingway. It does need to be done, but to be honest I haven't even started reading through. I'll make suggestions in regards to how to do a themes section in the PR. I add them to all the lit. pages I do; they're never easy. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Writer's Barnstar
For your monumental contributions on writers. INeverCry 23:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I put that together after looking at what you've done with Dickens, a beloved figure for me. Anyone who does such great work on things literary will always find praise and appreciation from me. My own best offering is George Crabbe, but I don't know if I'll ever get him to GA (not to mention FA, which seems like a super-human feat to me :). The critical stuff is what I have a hard time with. When I get to criticism I feel like I've transitioned from enjoyment to work. Sorry for the ramble. Have a nice weekend. INeverCry 02:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Crabbe page looks good. I've only begun on Dickens; most of the credit there goes to Nishidani, and I'm afraid to admit that I seem to have stalled. The best work I've done, I think is for Am. lit, with Hemingway and Pound, and strangely the 10th c. Lady Murasaki. You're right about the crit sections being work; that's probably why I'm spending more time these days reviewing and rambling around, rather than actually getting to work. The Dickens page won't be easy. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another barnstar is in order for Nishidani. I'll have to take a look at what else they've done. If I can't imitate, I may as well appreciate. ;) I don't envy you the work that Dickens will require, nor do I envy GOP with Dostoyevsky. As for Americans, I have vague ideas of doing something for James T. Farrell. INeverCry 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolome

Thanks for dropping by Bartolome de las Casas - I was going to ask you for a brushover. If you have time and interest I'd be grateful for any edits you'd want to make to Benjamin Lee Whorf, which I've also nominated for GA. I hope youre well!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]