User talk:Alan W/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Daktari, Wofford

Hi, Alan W. The inclusion of these topics is quite pertinent on the page of Shelly Manne. The use of tack piano appears on his Daktari record. It strikes me as rather narrow to exclude from his article any mention of Manne's records or the use of novel instruments on his records. The note of such instruments is pertinent to the characterization of Manne as more than merely a standard, straight-ahead jazz musician. But I suppose that I'm flattered that you're noticing my edits. Dogru144 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, I took a look at your edit of Daktari. You've definitely improved this section. Hopefully this series will get a video release. More people will get an exposure to Manne's music via the vital background that it provided for the series. Dogru144 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Herbie Mann

Hi, Alan W. I've appreciated your feedback re Shelly Manne. If you are interested in 1960s mainstream jazz performers that dipped into world music, you might be interested in flautist Herbie Mann. (no pun intended... I just realized that their surnames are rather similar.) Dogru144 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Earl Hines

Thanks, Alan W. Your careful Earl Hines edits and suggestions (and better spelling!) June/July 2007 all V. much appreciated - thanks86.141.248.117 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)cnairn

Aha! My hunch was correct. I thought it was you, Cnairn! Glad that my editing has not gone unappreciated. But what I don't understand is why you feel the need to hide behind anonymity. You should be proud that you are doing justice to a musician as great and as, unfortunately, underappreciated these days, as Earl Hines. If I were you I would be boldly adding this material under my own user name. You deserve the credit. We certainly don't do this for money. <grin> --Alan W 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan W. It's not [you will be surprised to hear] modesty but an inability as yet to get my head round Wikipedia and its workings! I must do my techi-homework. I've still got I-think-good stuff about Hines's Grand Terrace days to come and good stuff about his late 1920s recordings. And what's in those "30 solid Schuller pages on Hines" up on that shelf of yours? There must be something. [Why, I wonder did his wife divorce him [I think] in 1980 so at c.77? Was it just "the road"? And if you Google Tosca Hines [his daughter's name], why did she - assuming it was her - die in Oakland - @ 23 I think?] He has another daughter who was "in Hollywood" when I knew him. Where's she? And where's Marva Jose? 86.141.248.117 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tosca Hines died of a heroin overdose on 11/24/1976 in Pomona, CA, according to the coroner's report (dated 11/27/76). And Janear (his other daughter) died of Bright's disease on March 2, 1981 at Kaiser Hospital in San Francisco. Janear acted in the TV series JULIA (this information from the 3/6/81 issue of VARIETY). How sad that he lived to see both his daughters die! Judging by the area code of her phone number, Marva Josie is now in the Pittsburgh area. Frweber (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how easy it will be to integrate the essence of those Schuller pages on Hines into the rest of the article, but I suppose I ought to try at some point. Some interesting questions you raise about Hines's family. Come to think of it, I don't recall reading anything that suggested he even had a family. Why did it seem such a secret? If you can find out more, good! Keep up the good work, in any case. As for the "techi" side, it shouldn't be too hard just to log in as "Cnairn". If you forgot your password, I think there is some mechanism where you can email Wikipedia and get a new one, or something like that. --Alan W 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Parentheses" ... well done & Thanks, Mr Eagle-Eyes!!86.141.248.117 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ocean Parkway/Ocean Avenue Ditmas/Kensington on 2007 Brooklyn tornado

Hi Alan: I have a question about the change on the Brooklyn tornado article. The original info came from the NY Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102007/news/regionalnews/from_staten_is__to_bklyn_regionalnews_john_doyle__jeremy__olshan_and_lukas_i__alpert.htm (although the google map link in the wiki article was off). I believe Kensington was also hit but I am just going by the sourced article. Any help would be appreciated. I wrote some info on the article talk too. Thanks. Americasroof 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for going the extra mile to claify. I thought you were probably right! Americasroof 15:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Shelly Manne

No doubt about it. With a browser spell-checker, the large number of false positives for spelling errors due to names, keywords, abbreviations, and identifiers can quickly cause attention fatigue. Still, it remains a powerful tool in the toolchest for me; spell-check is responsible for a substantial percentage of typo fixes in my history.

I am wondering if there is a reason you have not submitted Shelly Manne as a Good Article nomination. It is already of higher quality than many passed good articles I have read or copy-edited. I realize that the Good Article process is unloved by various editors due to perceived or actual flaws, but there is a unmistakable cachet lent to articles which pass, as well as increased reader attention. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(oops, copying to your talk page since I asked a question.) -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shelly Manne

Hi, you should nom Shelly Manne at WP:GAN. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alan, thanks for your note. I'll respond to your comments in order.

• OK, if you can't find a free image (I looked too and found nothing) then that one is OK, but its fair use will need to be justified. It's OK to use though - that's the main point, right? :)
• "This Shelly is a man (no pun intended)" - OOps, sorry, missed that...I did it correctly elsewhere in the review though!
• "I meant here only that Sinatra was the star of that movie. Of course his article provides ample evidence that he was a star in general." - Aaah, that's OK then.
• "Before I remove all those Wikilinked years..." - Sorry, I should be more clear. As far as I know, individual years shouldn't be wlinked, only full dates (DD/MM/YY) such that they provide a context for the reader (and so that they can be formatted through user preferences). Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates seems to agree with me here.

Hope this helps! — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never fully read that (or most MoS, or most policy, yet people still trust me on that :P) and didn't pick up that last bit you quoted, but I can't imagine *many* situations where that would be appropriate...and in most of those cases (September 11 attacks was the first that popped into my mind) the specific date is known. Usually. Anyway, cheers, and good luck, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

About jazz drumming...

Thank you for looking over the article and correcting the mistakes that you discovered. You also inspired me to look around, and it seems that "drum set" is correctly spelled with a space (even the OED says so), but since I had been exposed to it without the space in some lesson books, through instructors, etc., I was unaware of the proper convention. I will correct it. Kakofonous (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! This kind of cooperation is what Wikipedia is all about. Glad to have helped, just as others have helped me by finding mistakes in my writing (I worked for years as an editor, but that doesn't mean I don't make my own mistakes.)--Alan W (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shelly Manne

Congratulations on the Good Article recognition of a job well done. -- Michael Devore (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks again for being the first to suggest that I do this. --Alan W (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jazz drumming peer review

I remember that when I first created the jazz drumming article, you were the first one besides me to edit it. Well, I continued adding content and other tidbits until I thought it met the good article criteria, but unfortunately it was not passed. After another round of editing, I decided to nominate it for peer review, to find remaining issues before I nominated it for a second time. I was wondering if you might have any comments to make, as you got Shelly Manne to GA and have an interest in jazz. The peer review page is here.

Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK January 17

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Fair Lady (jazz album), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Jazz

I started doing work on minor jazz notables when I found out that there were a few hundred American jazz musicians with articles on the German wiki and not one here. I've been furiously trying to pick up the slack; I guess I'm about half done. Roker was on my to-do list, thanks for tackling him. Chubbles (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Coop

The Harvard Coop was TOTALLY awesome. Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the discussion of some recording called the "coop." I realized my mistake too late. Dogru144 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Glad someone's watching the Hawes article. Keep up the good jazz work. See Nathan Davis (saxophonist) for my standard on jazz bios and method of connecting notability.

Selected discography makes people think a complete discog is not the goal. No one is qualified to select what to pick. Add

and more people will know the state of the section.

http://silentsprings.blogspot.com/

Automat (painting)

Thanks for the compliment you left on my user talk page back in January. I really would like to see all of Hopper's paintings covered in more detail---I have a feeling that he's a very misunderstood artist, whose paintings tend to be reinterpreted as reflections of a mythologized version of Hopper as the chronicler of American alienation. A careful study of Automat and Sunlight in a Cafeteria shows them, I think, to be paired versions of the same very personal artistic theme: Hopper's own intense shyness, and hence his awareness that he had missed many opportunities to meet or speak to the many people that he saw.

I suspect that Automat is a painting of a real woman that he saw from time to time at a real Automat somewhere in New York, and whom he never had the courage to approach, even though she seemed to him to be an ideal of beauty. The Automat in which the painting is set, on the other hand, is probably an amalgam of several locations.

Sunlight in a Cafeteria is probably a melancholy reflection on all the lost opportunities for human contact and love which must have been weighing upon Hopper in his old age. He had been unhappily married since the 1920s, and life had passed him by without bringing the personal happiness for which he craved (like all of us, I suppose). The woman in this later painting is probably a merging of all the women he'd never had the courage to address, and the man is likely a stylized version of Hopper himself. The painting was, I believe, his way of expressing this coded thought, without revealing it to his wife, who would have been terribly hurt.

Of course, all of this is speculation, and therefore has no place in a Wikipedia article (although I've been trying to look up scholarly articles or documentary evidence that would either bear out this theory, or demonstrate it to be incorrect). But I think it's okay to express unproven theories on a comments page, and I thought you might find this to be interesting....

Seaside rendezvous (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do find this to be interesting. My own belief is that the best articles here may have to be thoroughly grounded in fact, but there is something in them that goes beyond dry facts and is an expression of an intense interest in, even a passion for, the subject matter. You obviously have a passion for Hopper. I've always like his paintings myself, without ever having studied them as intensely as you have. Maybe the alienation is there, but you have made me think about how much more there might be in them as well. Keep up the good work. If you do any more such articles, I would like to read them. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Shakespear's Plays‎

Characters of Shakespear's Plays‎. When I get a chance, I will be creating pages for his other major works. I will also create a page on his literary and theatre criticism as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, after I do this, I would like to work with you and help make the main bio on Hazlitt more concise by moving some things to some subpages and summarizing it could be put up for GAN and then FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Biographer just came out. I sometimes say literary critic or the rest. I don't really care about descriptives and tend to drop them (but people at GAN and FAC tend to ask for them). You can adjust it (and the page) in any way you wish. I didn't include any of the smaller stuff yet, as I will do that after it hits DYK and random people come through. Just drop me a line when you work on some pages and I will help out. If you keep them to the user space, it would make it easier to work on them (as I have bad luck with people randomly altering things when trying to build a page in article space). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain through example - This is one of many new pages that I build in my user space. It allows me to go slow, take my time, put up one source at a time, build, etc. I don't have to worry about lack of cats, wikilinks, references, etc. No AfD nominations, no trolling, no vandalism, etc. It is just easier to build a complete and thorough page that way then to attempt on name space. When I am ready, I just click the move button and move it out, then list it for DYK. I was just pointing this out if you make a new page to go through this process as it makes things more convenient. A lot of people don't think about doing it this way and end up with many problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On your recent edit - I don't disagree. However, I would suggest a compromise of "poets and poetic imagination" as per some of the statements on p. 110 about Wordsworth and Coleridge, and on p. 110 stating "Poets had been accused before..." and other emphasis of poets as the source. The blockquote on p. 110 also says "The language of poetry", which would connect to both poets as creator and poetic imagination as the operating system. Does that make sense? It is not that important to me, but I just thought it might help. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion - 'Bromwich agrees that "the passage on Coriolanus [is] extraordinary" in its implications and that "no such passage will be found in the whole range of Coleridge's criticism"' - Change to 'Agreeing with Kinnaird, Bromwich claims that the "extraordinary" discussion of Coriolanus and that "no such passage will be found in the whole range of Coleridge's criticism"? Otherwise, there would need to be a [...] after [is] for the first quote. Any which way, really, is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Square brackets, however, may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three periods in it to indicate a pause or suspension." This happens quite often in the quotes on that page and it would be nice to conform to how the ellipses are used (non bracketed are used to represent ellipses within the original quotes, as there are many). This is also academic, so it would be necessary to differentiate between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The [...] can be found in my FA The Lucy poems and used in the footnotes of my FA Samuel Johnson. It is also in others. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed my previous comment as I do not want to fight about it. However, I will ask you to please remember that the page is -new- and that I have substantial expertise in both FAs and on the Romantics as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a second pair of eyes. However, I just want you to not get overzealous. It is still only the beginning of the page and I have three other important sources that haven't been added. I still has far more work before it could go through GAN. And this correction is as much of a fix of my original version here as it was yours. I haven't yet had a chance to look it over, and it hasn't yet been put up for DYK. The background section is too short and the critical reception is missing at least half. I have yet to talk about the praise that came back on the fourth edition of the work. You can correct a lot, I just don't want criticism about any mistakes on my talk page about sloppy wording or the rest - I know there are problems. Is that so bad? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no. Be merciless to it. Just remember that it is not yet done. The main bulk is done. The rest will fill in pieces and the rest. I mostly linked it for you so you knew that you had a page to back up the biography. However, I do welcome copyedits and the rest. I just get tired of hearing about how awful I am. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way - if I didn't think you were doing a good job with the Hazlitt page, I would never have bothered to contact you about any of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Check how I rewrote the beginning about Kean and Lamb. Does that separate out the two and reduce confusion? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to come to an agreement on the first paragraph of the Macbeth section. If you are still having problems, could you come up with a counter proposal for the wording? I've tried to rework it multiple ways and it just wont seem to fit with the Hazlitt quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am going to force you to stick around through the GA review (remember, GA doesn't mean finished yet) and I will force you to be around as it is prepped for FAC and eventually put up at FAC. It isn't my page, or any sole other person's, so I would like your influence to make sure that it is well rounded. You already proved yourself on the Hazlitt biography, so your view would be important in shaping the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• How is the page looking? I've noticed that you have accomplished some great improvements and additions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have some time coming up at the end of this week to devote to the page. How is the progress and what is left to be worked on before FAC? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To Autumn listed for Featured Article review

I have listed To Autumn for Featured Article review due to significant instability issues and content disputes. Please read and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/To Autumn/archive1. Regards, –MuZemike 01:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan! Well done. Do you mind doing a bit more of a tidy up! But please be careful of the refs. You lost the "ref name" thing and left something else orphaned.

Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Amanda! Thanks. As I said, I hope to get around to reading through the whole article and commenting/tidying eventually. Please feel free to do more editing of your own meanwhile. If, however, you feel a particular passage could use a second pair of eyes, just ask here. As for the orphaned ref, of course I will be extra careful from now on. But this is the beauty of Wikipedia: you noticed the mistake, so it would not have remained for long. Better yet, a bot cleaned it up very soon thereafter! And I see how I missed it: the <ref name="B581"/> appeared before the <ref name="B581">Bate 1963 pp. 581–582</ref>. This is not the best practice, as it can lead to mistakes like mine in further editing. Regards, Alan W (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan W. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Alan W. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Alan W. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm sorry

Were they your edits? That was rude of me. However, it's the sort of thing that happens when one is trying somehow to find a compromise and walk this ridiculous fine line in order to please everyone. Everything is OK as long as it's referenced! I didn't mean to offend you, but I have no doubt it was offensive. Right now I feel hassled on three different sides.... What is going to happen on the 4th? Well, I could go back to that page and modify what I said so that it's politer, but it's probably too late now!

On one level, I shouldn't let it matter whether the article is OK or not. It's not a personal thing, as far as that article goes. It is simply that for Wikipedia to have credibility, then the article about the best known work of a great poet needs to be good. The credibilty effects me because I have a fair few articles on wikipedia, and if the encyclopedia looses credibility, then so do I, and so do all the other serious editors. I have taken to watching potential FAs much more closely, particularly those that are about to go up on the main page.

I wonder if the person who now wants this reverted is the same girl under a different name? While banned in relation to something elses, she did previously leave a message to say that the word "cunnulingus" (She knew how to spell it, I don't!) had been distributed through the article by a vandal so it needed reverting. This was a blatant lie that another editor acted upon, without checking the validity, or what was being lost in the process. She could just be mighty determined to have it put back the way she wrote it.

Apologies again! Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Maybe we don't always agree about specific points, but I think we do about most things. Certainly I agree with you about highly prominent but heavily flawed articles undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. It disturbs me very much to see articles with obvious flaws (often really major ones) being posted as the best that Wikipedia can do. And it is really a shame about this one. Maybe this is only me speaking, but I see a lot of good in there. I have worked with that banned editor responsible for most of it, Ottava Rima. To say that he (and he's definitely a he) and I didn't agree about everything is a gross understatement. Yet I still admire his love for the literature and dedication to getting many of the English literary classics represented in Wikipedia. I think he was good at laying the groundwork for articles with a lot of good research. My impression, though (and I am not just talking behind his back, so to speak, but I said this to him directly at least once), is that he tended to work too hastily. The result was often prose that is broken, stumbling, and coming across as amateurish (though I think he could do better when he really applied himself); and, maybe even worse, working at that speed also led to overhasty interpretations of his sources, often leading to gross misinterpretations of his subject matter. That said, he worked well with teams of those with whom he could get along, and the whole then was greater than the sum of the parts. Sometimes, though, even then articles would be pushed through to GA or even FA status with many faults remaining. This is unfortunately one of those articles. I wish there were others who really know and appreciate poetry who showed interest in this article, and then maybe we could all work together to help smooth out the rough spots and add those essentials that you have found missing. As things are, well, I see that we are outnumbered by those who want to neither leave the article alone nor delist it, but rather are pushing to revert it to the way it was and leave the FA status alone. Their comments (assuming good faith, though, who knows? as you intimate, something funny could be going on here) have led me to look at what they have done, and I see very interestingly that not one of them has made any major contributions to any articles on literary topics. So, for all their good intentions, they probably don't really understand what makes a fine article on a literary topic, certainly not poetry. I have to go now (and I am getting typically long-winded anyway), but if I think of anything else that can be done to rescue this article (which to me means clean up the problems and retain FA status), I will drop you a note. Feel free to comment on this talk page as well. And again, apologies accepted; Wikipedia can drive anyone mad! I understand. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan! I must add that I forgot that Joseph Severn with whom Keats was living when he died in Rome, was a painter of both portraits and landscapes. The well-known pics of Keats are by Severn. Amandajm (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw your improvements. Well done. What a dreadful row...

Now I still have this Sagrada Familia thing to do with. Take a look if you like. It can be hard to convince some wiki-purists that there are certain artworks/objects/achievements/people that actually occupy such an elevated status in the public mind that it needs to be acknowledged in the article's intro.....that it isn't sufficient to say that Leonardo was a painter, Michelangelo was a sculptor, Shakespeare was a writer, To Autumn is a poem and St Peter's Basilica is a church. In each case there is a degree of fame that goes far beyond the commonplace. It is the same with Sagrada Familia. It is unique and unprecedented. But I'm worn out! Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Alan! I had a protracted interaction with a very well meaning editor over the Leonardo da Vinci article. He simply failed to see why "fame" was such an issue. It was so hard to explain that even within Leonardo's lifetime his fame was such and issue that the French King carried him away like a trophy of war, and that people have "raved" about him ever since. He is not "just another Renaissance painter". What's more the fervour over Leonardo shows no sign of dying down! Anyway, this sweet editor eventually shook his head and went off and created a very useful article, thereby clearing out a long list from the main page. List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, and a good drop-down box. I loooove drop down boxes because they clear the side space.

Anyway, simultaneous to all this, I have a thoroughly well intentioned editor (with negligible editing skills) begging assistance to put up an article on Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci which a team of experts from various fields have set out to prove is a genuine self-portrait. However, even the person in whose interest it lies most to prove that it is by Leonardo cannot help but mention two anomalies. The bottom line is: it doesn't look like a genuine Leonardo, even though it must fall bang in the middle of his (very few) autograph works. As it happens, I'm a person who has spent much time on my knees, (literally) before this painter, (to get a good raked angle on the surface: application of the paint, small changes, underlying images etc.) While everyone in the Louvre is fighting for a spot in front of Mona Lisa, I have The Virgin and Child with St Anne all to myself. It is curious, to say the least! (And I get so flipping frustrated when they have to glaze them as a security measure!)

The thing that is noticeable about these new/spurious attributions is the way a number of top authorities just keep their noses right out of it. Martin Kemp had the courage, after two years of deliberation, to say that the exquisite portrait of a girl on vellum was, in his opinion, Leonardo's, and some people simply howled with laughter. The fact remains, it is an incredibly beautiful and accomplished work (if I can use such words on Wikipedia). Kemp doesn't seem to have made comment on this latest (unless I've missed it).

So how do I tell poor Murray and a team of forensic experts and the man who found the painting and who has commented on the article already, that it really isn't what they want it to be. Given that a) I have nothing to back it up bar my exceptional "eye", because almost all evidence retrieved and published has been with the aim to proving the case, b) My opinions constitute PR, even on the talk page c) if I succeed in convincing them, it will break their hearts!

These two recent attributions are right at the bottom of the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci article. I think I'll go to the pub for dinner! That'll cheer me up!Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lucan portrait: I did write it, from info provided initially by Murray, and since then it has been further pruned by another editor. But Murray, who originally drew it to my attention, simply wants it stated that it is Leonardo, as a proven fact, and wants it to replace the famous red chalk drawing from Turin on the main page.

The history of the Turin drwaing is interesting. It has always simply been accepted as genuine. Then in recent years some historian said "Oh, it's too old! It's a man of 80 and Leonardo only lived to 67. Must be his grandfather, uncle or father!" and everyone hopped on the bandwaggon. So every Wiki editor who knows nothing else knows that it isn't really Leonardo.

What they do not recognise is that drawing, by its linear nature, emphasise lines, so all the lines of the face are apparent, where they would not be so apparent either in life or in a sympathetic photo. The man has lost his top teeth, which is very aging. His long beard and hair looks like Gandalf and are associated with venerable age. (There is quite a strong case for believing that Leonardo was Jewish). We are looking at a man who grew up without central heating or cars, whose face was scorched by the open fire all winter, and who travelled in the open, often on foot, through much of the northern part of Italy. The aging of the face needs to be compared with that of a modern labourer, not a modern gentleman. I'm prepared to believe the Turin drawing is indeed him. Amandajm (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To Autumn

Finality v. cycle. It seems to me that anything that links death to the season has to do with a cycle. However, if one is absolutely locked into using referenced material, then it is always someoneelse's opinion that counts. I would tend to go with the referenced opinions that match your own, but perhaps include some statement that indicates that there is an opinion that it is about "finailty". The whole point about twittering swallows is that they will return. The whole point of storing food, whether it be the grain harvest and cider, or a little hoard of nuts, is that life goes on. That whistling robin and the bleating lambs will see the winter through. Amandajm (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, at this point, I am really happy to just sit back and watch what you are doing. I haven't checked out everything. I have been rather ill and tired, and finding it hard to concentrate. I saw what you did to the intro and it expresses it much better. Amandajm (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and things

Alan W - Thank you for the kind words about my attempts to create new articles (which as you say are "at this point, little more than track and personnel listings". I started doing this because I was a little surprised that many of the artists that I like - the Four Freshmen, June Christy, Jeri Southern, Stacey Kent, Susannah McCorkle etc - didn't have many album detains on their pages. I do have many CDs of all of these - FF(10), JC(13), SMcC(10) and SK(7) - so have plenty of resources to use.

I see that you have an interest in drumming and in particular Shelly Manne. I have a little story about him. In my teen years both an friend Roy and I played drums for small events - weddings and the like, and also a trad band. Roy's favourite drummer was Shelly Manne. A month or so before Roy's birthday I sent a blank birthday card to Shelly in the US (don't remember where I got an address from) and a request that he sign the card and send it back to Roy. I wasn't sure whether anything would happen to this but you can imagine how pleased Roy was when on his birthday he did get the card duly signed by his hero!

PS. My own favourite drummers are Buddy Rich and Kenny Clare.Thumper2 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about stubs. I'll try to add them to all of my future postings. Current working on a Four Freshment double CD (First Affair/Voices in Fun)).Thumper2 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

G'day!

Yer goin'real good, Mate!..... from the Colonial Amandajm (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2