User talk:Gerrit-Jan Berendijk

Talk:Paris Métro Line 12/GA2

A GA review of Paris Métro Line 12 has been put on hold for seven days. Clean up and cite tags have been placed on the article to indicate where work needs to be done. SilkTork *^YES! 02:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the perceptive review. I've worked through a fair number of tags and will post other observations on the review page. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting advice on getting article evaluated

Hello again, Kt. Since we worked together on Earnest, I have put a fair bit of time into very substantially upgrading another Wikpedia article: the biography of a late 19th/early 20th century US progressive politician, Robert Latham Owen. The article is rated stub or start class. Even before I started, that rating was a bit out of date, and now all the more so. Since you are much more experienced than I in the ways of Wikipedia, I wanted to ask for your advice on how one goes about getting an article re-assessed after a lot of work has been done on it. Thank you for any guidance you can offer, and all best wishes. Nandt1 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Humbled that you asked Nandt. Most wikiprojects have an assessment department, you could request an assesment at WP:Biography, WP:Politics or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States for this particular article. If you think the article meets the criteria for GA or FA status, you could nominate it for one of those. I'll have a look over the article and see which would be best. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice elsewhere. I have started the ball rolling on a review. All best wishes. Nandt1 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your encouragement with Robert Latham Owen which made the grade as a Good Article yesterday. Nandt1 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion, it's no mean feat. I hardly helped at all. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Gerrit-Jan Berendijk! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The barnstar that isn't

Hi Kt. I am not at all versed in harnessing all the powers of what a computer can do but I want you to know that if I was I would have created a barnstar entitled "The all of us are in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars barnstar" and awarded it to you for all of you work on Oscar Wilde related articles. Many thanks for all of your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your season's greetings and kind praise. I am humbled to be so recognised by an editor of your pedigree, you've been a stalwart in improving and defending those articles for far longer than I have been editing. I am currently moving location and should have more access to strong theatre sources soon, and look forward to collaborating with you on more articles on Wilde's works with you in the new year. A featured topic on his plays is very possible. Wishing you a happy, holy Christmas, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

politics and oscar wilde

As far as removing sourced information this can be a case of vandalism. And as far as the structure of the article, maybe it should be broken up into sections such as "biography" "politics", etc. I don´t see a good reason why hiding the political views of Wilde and it happens that his views in The soul of man under socialism were influential and that he was outspoken about them so as to dedicate them a long political essay. And of course you are mentioning that this is the second time you are removing this. --Eduen (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the one citation that you did add was copied from the specific article, so it is still on wikipedia. I happen to be more of the opinion that adding huge chunks of political aggrandising to biographies is closer to vandalism, though as I explained on your talk page I don't think it is. I also cited another example of how one quotation does not mean some is "an influence". Again as stated on your page, you are in danger of overstating the importance of this topic in Wilde's biography. The article is a biography.

The political views of Wilde are not hidden, but are mentioned several times throughout the article: his support for the Haymarket anarchists, his support for women writers, his defence of Parnell and his advocacy of the separation of ethics from aesthetics. The sources that you have mentioned, to the extent that you have provided many, are partisan anarchist sources, i.e. those who want to advance the anarchist agenda and adopt Wilde into it. Biographical and mainstream critical studies of Wilde's work do not give that particular essay the prominence you do. The Portrait of Mr W.H., for instance, is considered to be a far more important piece than Soul of Man.

It is the second time I have removed it because it is the second time the anarchist task force and self declared anarchists have pushed their own political views forward, with the same lame web essay in support. If you want to discuss anarchist responses to the essay in question, then that article is a better place to do it. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Political agenda? well. It is clear that he was more of a literary personality than a political activist but he did have an important interest in politics as the long essay The soul of man under socialism shows. That essay shows well he is interested in the relationship of creativity and artistic expression in current society but it goes beyond that as he deals with things like private property, state and church censorship, mass culture and other political matters and does show specific ideological affinity. "Pure" literary personalitites might really not exist and i didn´t try to force on Wilde opinions he didn´t have. Fiction writers are thinking persons just like anybody and it happens that some writers might not write anything directly dealing on politics but Wilde did just as Leo Tolstoy did for example, and so their politics end up influencing their lives. In many articles about literary personalities on english wikipedia a small section on that person´s politics is somehow common and so even about a somehow more "apolitical" personality such as Charles Baudelaire there is one while you somehow seem surprised about the idea. And of course if you talk about "partisan" sources one can very well suggest that on Wilde you won´t find them in fascism or conservatism or marxist-leninism but in Anarchism for an obvious reason. You can claim that some anarchists might "exagerate things" for their political agenda but it happens that the cited work of George Woodcock is a long serious work of historical research and so you will have a very hard task on questioning Woodcock´s scholarship. The book Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas is not a political or theoretical essay on the author´s opinions but a rigorous historical book which I suspect you are judging without ever having checked it first. A quick look at it should show anyone how silly the sentence "partisan work" is just as a quichk check on George Woodcock´s "credentials" as a scholar. As I check http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22753/anarchism , the enciclopedia britannica article on Anarchism, it shows at the beginning that George Woodcock is a main contributor to their article. And one of the sources cited for the relationship between Wilde and anarchism is the enclopedia britanica and that same article Anarchism in which Wilde is mentioned.

In a sentence here seems you are accussing me of "pushing an anarchist agenda" and of being a "self declared anarchist". Maybe you need to take this discussion in a less emotional way.--Eduen (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1.I don't deny his interest in politics, I just think the article is already long and the essay in question is already given considerable space.

2.The style of the Wilde article is different to the ones you cite, here literary criticism is mixed with biography. This is an acceptable and standard style.

3. Woodcock is the single reliable source I mentioned that you cited. But there's only space for a few words based on his book. The point is that it's a book all about anarchism. If you read a book all about Oscar Wilde there is little or no space devoted to anarchism

4. Your userpage has anarchist written all over it and all of your contributions seems to be about it, that was all I meant. I have already said I think you are working in good faith. There have been previous attempts to hijack the page for various causes, see the essay I linked on your talk page. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To summarise, I agree that Wilde's essay is an important part of his work, but his take on political theory is typically unique and deserves a proper nuanced treatment. According to WP:SS the Wilde article is already too long. The best place to add new information on The Soul of Man under Socialism is that article which is still a stub. Finally, I apologise if my tone was a little brisk, I was very tired when I wrote that last comment. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hooper

Thanks for your thorough review of Tom Hooper (director). Regarding your suggestion about his style, I have actually being drafting such a section over the last few weeks but have chosen not to incorporate it thus far because of a) the risk of it being a bit original research-y and b) it would only cover his works over the last four years. Hopefully as the Oscars draw nearer, more reliable publications will profile his career as a whole and that information can be covered. Thanks again. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for providing us with an interesting article to read, with the success of the King's Speech it should prove useful to many people. The narrative and cinematographic style is obviously the most interesting feature of any director, though of course the basics have to be in place first. As I mentioned he is still a youngish director with only a handful of features, but I smiled to myself when I read about the crane shot in Eastenders, and early sign of ambition! One if already starting to see deeper mediations on the King's Speech and its maker as attention continues beyond ordinary film reviews. Please let me know if I can be of any help. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sister Wives

Thanks! Looking forward to working through the review with you! — Hunter Kahn 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Paris Métro Line 12

I've closed the GA Review as a fail. Once the sections and statements that are tagged as needing citing can be sourced the article can be nominated again. SilkTork *^YES! 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A pity, apologies for the wait, I simply could not track the sources over the holidays. I now have access to a large research library and will try to locate some soon. Many thanks for your patience and thorough review. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sage Ross,

Thanks for your invitation, I'm flattered to be asked. I'm interested because I think building links between wikipedia and academia is a good idea, because I'd like to become a better teacher & mentor, and, as a bonus, I know a little about public policy since I studied economics and political science at university. I'm going to send you an email about it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello again. Many thanks for the wee dram. Whew - what with the holidays and then WikiP's 10th anniversary my liver has been put through its paces :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Body of Lies (film)

Thank you for your efforts on the above article. I believe you may have forgotten something though - see the last sentence (fragment) of Body of Lies (film)#Location and design. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and kind remarks. It certainly is a little too tantalising for an encyclopedia, I suspect I was drafting different lines and forgot to delete it, it could be for either section. What do you think of the article's chances at GA? It would be a shame for it to sit in the queue for over a month and then fail. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the GA processes or what's required, but I thought it decently written with a lot of interesting information. FYI I didn't correct the error above - should the line just be deleted? Please do the needful. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding aesthete and link to article about aesthetics movement.

You wrote: But the article linked to discusses aestheticism as a philosophy advocating the beautiful, one which Wilde was a part of for a large part of his career. Do you mean that the word "aesthete" has other meanings?

Thanks for your keen eye regarding tinkerings with your project. In the article, there is a link to aestheticism in the next paragraph or so - the embedded link from "aesthete" does not link to an article with that specific title. It seems to me to be confusing and redundant to include the same link from both terms. The word "aesthete" has meaning independent of the movement of which Oscar Wilde was associated - in fact - even though the "Aesthetic Movement" was an 1800's philosophy, the perceived "ending" of that European phenomenon does not preclude later - or even present-day aesthetes - who may have a cultivated sensitivity to art or beauty without being a part of any "movement."

I enjoyed reading the Wilde article, and surmise you are to be credited for its fine composition...

McHuston