User talk:Yllosubmarine

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of April 2013.

Archive Archives:

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6  · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10

Chin up

Have a few of these!

Maria, you're doing what I do. I've taken all my accomplishments down. I have little interest in ever going to FAC again, and I've basically wiped my page many times. The thing is, I like to write, this is a hobby I enjoy, and somehow I have to try to find a balance here. You know as well as I, having my page on your watch, it's been damn hard in the last year. But please don't get too discouraged. You do good work; I often use your pages as templates for short stories. I look at your sources when I need information because I know you're a good researcher. Please, chin up. This is supposed to be some kind of a pep-talk. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aw, I won't do anything drastic, so no worries. This is the second time in a week I've been told I have ownership issues, and when it's said so ardently it makes me doubt myself, my motives, my laurels. Then I think -- how nuts is this place? How nuts am I to have stayed here, holy crap, six years? Why do I have to keep explaining myself over and over? How can it take five years to build an article, but one person can come in and make a drastic visual change with little more than their own opinion and the majority "vote"? And perhaps most importantly, why stick around when others -- better editors! -- gave up long ago? Writing is fun, and I'm a big enough nerd that I enjoy research quite a bit. But, yeah, balance. We'll figure it out. If not, it's not the end of the world. BTW, I was in Key West last month and not only did I visit Hemingway's house, meet his cats, and visit his favorite bar, but I also drank far too many margaritas. Yum. María (yllosubmarine) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hemingway story is totally cool! And the margaritas too! I'm on my way out to Idaho soonish but on a very quick trip and realized I won't get up to Ketchum – but he didn't really have a favorite bar there anyway. I'm like you – it's the nerd factor and the research that I like. I'm finding niches where I can quietly work and learn about things that interest me and I quite frankly don't know anything about, so there's some reward in that. You got double whammied with the Emily picture and the Dillard infobox – and maybe I'm not the best buddy to have on Wikipedia either, dunno. Anyway, take care and don't get too discouraged. I think TFA is tough. Maybe we should redesign the main page and get rid of TFAs altogether. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Small little niche articles are great, I agree. TFA is just too big a draw. In a way it's hilarious; Pilgrim only gets 70-100 views a day if it's lucky, but this is the article where an infobox is suddenly all important? If I wasn't so irritated I'd get giggly about it. Anyway, thanks for your help and the drink of course. :) I'll be back later, hopefully with a little article of my own to work on once I find the inspiration for it. María (yllosubmarine) 01:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you got a nice bounce with 18,000 views! From what I'm seeing infoboxes are being added to anything that ends up on the main page without one. Dunno what to say about it. As for niche articles, having said that, I'm working on a massively complicated painting with Ceoil and we're both in a little over our heads; and what I thought would be a simple bio of a medieval queen that as it happens involves complicated medieval politics that I'm having a hard time figuring out. I have an ILL from across the state from a university library that's so densely written it's off-putting but needs to be sent back. So, oddly that's the kind of stuff I enjoy. And I have to say, I have enjoyed writing The Call of the Wild (and btw have a Cambridge Companion e-book on naturalism that I'd be happy to pass on). I do believe that on some level the sniping has to stop and bridges built. Otherwise there's the potential for too much damage. Anyway, logging out for the night. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Gah, I meant to tell you how awesome Call of the Wild looked. Wonderful work with that. I'd love to tackle London's article one day, but it's a weird mix of somewhat good and terrible, so I wouldn't know where to start. I was thinking of taking on Elbert Hubbard, an interesting guy, but there's not much out there about him. We'll see. What's the ISBN for the Cambridge Companion book? I might already have access to it via EBSCOhost. María (yllosubmarine) 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry missed this post yesterday, bleary eyed and tired. ISBN for Cambridge Companion is ISBN 978-0-521-43876-6. Thanks for the comments about Call of the Wild – still some work to be done there but it's coming along and I've enjoyed it. FWIW - the break tag in my page is only there to force me to break – too busy at work to get sucked in here at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice writeup

I just heard about you via the Wikimedia Foundation blog and wanted to thank you for improving Wikimedia sites. Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara 18:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the link. So strange to see my name there. María (yllosubmarine) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for articles dealing with literature

First of all, I am very new to Wikipedia and am still trying to figure things out. I kind of feel like I have no idea what I'm doing (maybe a bit more than when I started!), so please be patient with me! I hope it is okay to send you a message here?

I joined Wikipedia because I love books so much and I wanted to help other people find books that they wouldn't have otherwise found. Also, I wanted to have more information out there in general (for instance, I think there should be more biographies on inspirational fiction authors). I was wondering if there is a place to go to ask about creating articles? I have some ideas that I'm not sure will work or be helpful. For instance, organization makes me very excited (I know this is not normal . . . ), and I have some ideas for pages with lists of books organized a certain way, like historical novels in England categorized by monarch. I joined the Wikiproject and wrote an intro in the "members" section, but I'm not sure what to do now. Is there some kind of mentor program within this Project? I have so many questions and I'm sure as I go along I'll just have more, and I'm not quite sure where or how to ask. I saw you were an "evangelist", so that is why I'm asking you.

Thank you so much in advance, even if it is to tell me I'm asking the wrong person :) Hope you have a good week! BookBard (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you some more :)

Thank you for the help in cleaning up the article :) My strengths are more with research than with writing. Thank you again so much for your help! I know I already thanked you, and I don't know if so many thank yous make it seem insincere, but there are only so many words to convey so much! BookBard (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! I think I *have* found a way to thank you better! May I present you with . . .

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For helping a poor newbie, being gracious and kind :) BookBard (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! I'm glad I could help. :) María (yllosubmarine) 12:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Yllosubmarine! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm sorry

I opposed this TFA nomination. I'll pull the oppose if you don't mind going through the same ordeal again. Interesting message above btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I wouldn't have known otherwise. Until this last spell, I never minded seeing articles on the main page. I'm not about to get involved with it, but TFAR is a mess -- whatever happened to the points system, and a variety of subjects? Surely there are other subjects to cover, like fungus and video games? I actually wrote the popular culture section at Reception history of Jane Austen, but I haven't checked on it in forever. I think Crane is the last of the articles I've written that hasn't been on the main page, and it holds up well. But what exactly does "too bad that some will have to be trimmed" mean? Is that some new guideline? María (yllosubmarine) 19:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if it meant that some of the article has to be trimmed, and if so what?, or whether you the author (remember we're not supposed to "own") must write the blurb. I think it's a good page too, but next year will be another anniversary and maybe things will calm down by then. Didn't know you helped with Austen - I opposed that too and hate doing this to lit pages quite frankly. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only researched and wrote that one section -- which used to be called "Adaptations" I believe -- but the article can definitely wait until January. It's weird that there is this plethora of lit articles all of a sudden, when typically there are hardly any. If only one or two people are nominating, and the points system is being ignored, of course the front page will become lopsided. As for Stevie, eh. A 139th birthday isn't exactly a notable anniversary. That, and minus the points for Pilgrim being on the front page recently, and it's pretty useless. Bring on the fungi! María (yllosubmarine) 19:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had to leave after I suggested and had no time to notify you, now I'm back. I was attracted both by the date and by the interesting story. By "too bad the blurb needs to be trimmed" I meant that I would love to see all of it on the Main page, but it is longer than the rules want. I don't know as well as you will what absolutely has to stay. - If you have the time, please polish the blurb, we park the waiting ones. In case you don't know, point calculation is replaced by discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand. However, what you wrote was: "interesting bio, too bad that some will have to be trimmed". If you meant the blurb needs to be trimmed, perhaps "bio" was the wrong word to use. Also, that the point system has been replaced doesn't seem to be a unanimous decision, since someone is asking you to provide points for Crane. My guess is 1 point -- 2 for age, 1 for anniversary, -2 for representation. Not exactly stellar. María (yllosubmarine) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chosen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi,

Regarding Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, do you agree that it is written in the same vein of Naturalism as the writings Stephen Crane such as The Red Badge of Courage (a book that made a huge impression on me as a youngster)? The article on the book seems to say the opposite and to describe Annie Dillard's writings as both metaphysical and based on scientific observation. She doesn't focus on the social issues, the gritty themes of Crane. Perhaps the definition of literary naturalism has changed, but to me Crane and Dillard are very different as writers. Am I off base? What's your opinion?

In any event, both articles are wonderful. Thanks for writing them!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

p.s. As to my "strange" comment, I'm not that familiar with FAs and was unaware of the other Crane articles and I'm glad to learn of them. I apologize to you. Please accept. (Mostly I don't read the FA on the main page, so I'm uninformed and just so glad to see some great articles proposed for it. But that's me. There's much about wikipedia that I don't know about.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no offense taken, so no apology needed. It's very rare that a writer has that many high quality articles dedicated to them, so I guess it's safe to assume that most authors are neglected on Wikipedia. I wish Crane had more than four FAs, but it's a one-woman show, I'm afraid.

I think your question is a really interesting one, but it's complicated by the fact that both Crane and Dillard were/are vehemently against being placed in silly boxes. Crane I believe is best described as a naturalist, whereas Dillard is obviously more contemporary. Remember however that Naturalism isn't just about grit and social issues, something that works like Red Badge and The Open Boat prove. Some of Crane's major themes in both fiction and poetry are Man vs. Nature, Man vs. God; Mother Nature is cruel; God could care less about his creation; men are but animals, and animals are in this constant battle against one another and nature/God. In this way, Crane was very metaphysical. Dillard is often painted as a nature writer (something she hates), but Pilgrim goes far beyond that, touching upon the idea that the rules of the natural world mirror those of the social world (aka sociological naturalism). Not sure if this makes any sense, but there are definitely strong similarities between, say, The Open Boat and Pilgrim. Just my opinion, of course. Thanks for the interesting prompt. María (yllosubmarine) 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

I suppose I should let you know that I mentioned you here: [1]. It's an issue that won't go away. Don't know what else to say. Hope you're well and all. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeesh, I can't believe this is still being discussed. Thanks for the note. I've been floating in and out, mostly concentrating on work (for which I'm paid!) these days. I hope you're doubly well, but I know things are an uphill battle. Any interesting lit-related articles to be worked on? María (yllosubmarine) 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the closing-up-shop phase. Got a few pages to finish and a few to send to review - the lit ones are Ezra, a Hemingway, the Grimms, the Jack London one - but I have precious little motivation right now. A year is a long time for this crap, and it's time for me to join the other editors, those better than I am, and to walk away. Strangely my skin failed today (I use Monobook and it just shows a jumble of junk) and that felt like one of those strange signs, like the time has come and all that. Haven't even the motivation to report it. Anyway, enjoy the holidays. Turkey day is coming too soon for me. I need to turn my mind to shopping and cooking. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. Turkey sounds far more appetizing than Wikipedia at the mo. María (yllosubmarine) 19:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Yllosubmarine! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Mrsbrownposter.jpg

I've orphaned this image by replacing it with original UK poster in Mrs. Brown. I wanted to upload it as a new version in this file name, but loading the new version is not that great, especially with bug cache (long story). I wonder if you have objections against deleting this DVD cover. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mrsbrownposter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mrsbrownposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Maria. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Crane edits

Hi Yllo, just thought I'd like to explain my "strange nbsp" edits on the Stephen Crane article which you reverted. The reason I did that was to keep the title, ("A Girl of the Streets, / A Story of New York. / —By—/Stephen Crane.") together, rather than being split between two lines as here; I believe it looks better all in one line. I bow to your greater experience as a wiki editor (I've only been at it 2 months) so will leave the article as it is; however, I do feel that there ought to be some kind of convention about keeping titles in one piece, whether they be of books, copyright applications or any other titles. I would be interested in any comments you might have to make about this. On a personal note, I too like to cook, I make my own bread and do a mean poached egg, which is a little involved but gets perfect results every time. Ciao Jodosma (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jodosma. There were several unconventional changes with your edit, and I'm sorry I didn't take the time to explain outside of an edit summary. First, the use of <p> tag is not necessary -- I'm not sure about the MOS, but simply leaving space between paragraphs is enough to distance them from one another. If you want to single out a block of text, such as for a poem or particularly long quote, there is the blockquote tag. Again, however, blockquotes are for large chunks of texts, not a few words or the title of a work. As for the nbsp tags, you might want to check out MOS:NBSP. The title appears on one line on my browser, but nbsp is typically used for units of measure -- i.e. it would be strange to see "lb" or "kg" alone on a new line of text, so the nbsp protects against that. I've never seen it used with a title, although if you have thoughts on that application you could always propose something on the MOS talk page. Anyway, I'm not around much, but I hope this helps! María (yllosubmarine) 12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaa!

At least you kept the margarita! Have a few more on me! I can't say I'm surprised to see the semi-retired tag, but am sorry to see that we're losing so many content contributors, especially in the humanities. I'll probably still be in and out and will keep an eye on your pages - particularly Emily. Thanks so much for all your help and reviews and encouraging words since I've been here. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I never turn down a good margarita! (I've also been known to accept sub par and even downright horrible margaritas, but that's another story.) I'll still be checking in from time to time, but the light has gone out of the place for me. It's just too silly to get all worked up about anymore. Don't let it get to you too much, and thanks for keeping an eye on Emily. María (yllosubmarine) 12:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)