User talk:Boneyard90/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Boneyard90! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 talk 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history project[edit]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR tagging of Castle[edit]

I have removed the FAR tag that you placed on the Castle article because the FAR instructions clearly state the the first step is to raise any concerns you may have on the article's talk page. Also, you provided no rationale for your review request and failed to add it to the FAR queue, so it was never live anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it much too soon. As per the instructions, I tagged it first, then wrote my reasons. You removed the tag while I was writing. I have already addressed my concerns on the talk page. See my comments in Talk:Castle#Distinction from Japanese castles (moved from "Rename" section). Boneyard90 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Schleiz[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the Battle of Schleiz article and your thougthful comments. I have made it a habit to use Google Earth every time I write a battle article for several reasons. (1) It gives me (and the reader) a good idea of the geographical relationships between the locations cited in the sources (e.g., AA is 1 km south of BB). The sources often list names of towns without placing them on a map. (2) It helps me to create a map if I choose to. Sometimes the maps provided by the sources are wrong or out of scale or the north arrow is incorrect. (3) It can provide insight into the battle. In this last case, it would be possible to introduce original work. As far as adding an analysis section, I would like to do this but it is entirely dependent on whether the source itself provides analysis. In my various wikipedia researches I've found a few errors by authors. I point these out in footnotes only, since I'm aware this amounts to original work. Note my comment in footnote 1 in the Schleiz article, where a very careful historian (Frederick Kagan) has apparently fumbled. Please advise me on what I should do when I run into this situation. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the maps, I'm with you all the way. Sometimes those old maps, esp. hand-drawn just look like a scattering of curves and lines. I suppose, if you're going by a source that lists Point A, in relation to Point B, then including the distance between those points as shown in Google shouldn't be contrued as original research, UNLESS you were to use that information to build a hypothesis, somehow. But, you don't, and you cite Google, so I'm sure there's no problem. I guess I wanted to caution you because I have been (unjustly, in my opinion) accused of "borderline" original research. But, on further thought, I think it was bad judgement on my part to mention that on the Discussion page; it would have been better or more appropriate on your personal Talk page.
On the topic of further "analysis": I concur that it could be done, or done accurately, only if historians had commented on, say, the relative conditions of the opposing forces, which commander had the high ground, was low on ammunition, or was one commander in a position where his flank was covered by an officer who despised him, etc. These are the details that make battles seem less like chess boards, and remind the reader that history is about real people. As for the author's mistake, I think the statement that the "French did not invade Naples until February 1806" needs a reference. If it has a reference, then that information can be either in a footnote or in parentheses in the text. I enjoyed reading the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Commentary section and a tactical map. I removed the comment about Kagan being wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss this (maybe in an Amazon.com book review) especially since it does not bear directly on accuracy of the article. I have seen two authors write that general so-and-so was killed at the Battle of Piave River (1809). Luckily a third source noted that he was captured and survived to a ripe old age, and a comment is in footnote 30 of Piave. Two authors wrote that there was a clash at Trochtelfingen in the Ulm Campaign when that was impossible (thanks, Google Earth) and that they meant Treuchtlingen. Since it had a direct bearing on the facts of the article it's in footnote 37 of Ulm. The latter is original research by any standard, so I may revisit my comment in the Ulm article. Just writing these articles is fun and challenging historical research! Djmaschek (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WS-199[edit]

I added an infobox to the article, thanks for the suggestion. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Boneyard90. You have new messages at Talk:Alpha Draco.
Message added 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Welcome[edit]

To the death project - SatuSuro 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it looks like a great project and I hope I can make some contributions. Is there a specific page where "requests for re-assessment" can be posted? Boneyard90 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
things are a bit quiet at the moment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death - I had seen a few cemetery articles get the chop for what I thought were spurious reaons - but no one has come around to sending a comment - the same page is where you might ask or offer suggestions - cheers SatuSuro 13:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
much quieter that I expected - if I see no comment this week I will spam people who claim to be participants :) SatuSuro 09:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assessment[edit]

Thank you for the Food and Drink assessment of the Otto Frederick Hunziker article. In particular, your detailed rationale is appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure to help out! Boneyard90 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1930 Palm Island Tragedy[edit]

Hi, This article was re-written on Jan 7 after the previous assessment on Jan 4.  I think this article should now be B class.  Any advice? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I assessed the article as C-class, though I think it's pretty close to B. (The WP:Death template doesn't provide a grading scale.) Here are some points that may help improve the article:

  • Coverage - Do the sources explain WHY Curry and Pattison were at each others' throats? I mean, there was the "provocation of a verbal assault" and altercation on Christmas 1927, then we fast forward to 1930, with a mention of bickering and Curry's personal problems in between. What did they bicker about? Was there a difference in opinion over policy, or just personal animosity? Did Curry blame Pattison for his wife's death in 1929?
    • Where did Curry get the explosives?
    • In the section "3 February 1930", Morcom's testimony makes it sound like Curry really had it out for the "whites" on Palm Island. Why was that?
    • The aborigine group that shot Curry: was this a posse of vigilantes out searching for Curry? A random encounter?
    • "Later" section - Did the incident on Palm Island have an effect on the rest of Australia? Did it affect policy toward aborigines, or in regard to problematic superintendants? How was it portrayed in the media, and how has it been treated by popular culture in the last 80 years?
    • Was a monument built, or have there been any memorial observances?
  • Grammar & Style - This is fine, except in a couple parts.
    • You begin the first section: "Within two weeks after the tragedy..." Try going more chronological; describe the altercation, then the succeeding reprimands, inquiries, and reports as they happened.
    • Number of pupils in the school: I would remove the sentence for lack of relevance, unless it's backed up with something more substantial. Were they really proud of it? Did the aborigines build the school? Was it the first or oldest or biggest school in the area?
    • "Withdrawing from novacaine" - a little unclear, was Curry suffering withdrawal symptoms because he quit novocaine? Or was he socially withdrawn because of ongoing novocaine usage?
    • You might have a third party go over it for general readability.
  • Supporting Materials - You could add an infobox; see the article Columbine High School massacre. It uses a "terrorism" infobox template, which the Palm Island tragedy might be considered under current definitions.
    • Photos - Searching "Palm Island Queensland" on Wikimedia Commons reveals a couple of color maps or sattelite photos of the islands. You might use one of those in lieu of photos of people or buildings mentioned in the text.
    • From the online newspaper article - Check Wikimedia rules, maybe the copyright has expired and you can download, upload, and use the photos. If it hasn't then add an "External links" section after the references with a link to the article.
    • Even if you've been to the island itself, and took some photos, one of those might be relevant.

Hope this helps! Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and useful points, I've reposted your reply on the Talk:1930 Palm Island Tragedy page.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors[edit]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to say thank you for the invitation to the Online Ambassador program. It looks like a commendable initiative. However, I have to say I still feel like one of the "new guys" here on Wikipedia. I'm editing and contributing, but with alot of trial & error. I just don't believe I'd be able to offer useful advice on a consistent basis. Thanks again. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Marc Antoine de Beaumont. After reading your comment, I added a short Family section at the end and put the marriage before the death. Please reassess the article and see if the change gets it over the hump for B-class. I also resized some pics and added better alt captions. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. B-class. Pretty interesting article. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Coffin birth[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination of Camp Nelson National Cemetery[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Camp Nelson National Cemetery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

You are almost there as nearly all of the criteria are met, but there were a few unsourced sections in the article, which I notated as "[citation needed]". Even if you are unable to find supporting material for verification and need to drop them in a worst case scenario, you are still well past 5x expansion to pass DYK. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIrst, I want to say thank you for reviewing my nomination! You can check the nomination, where I note that the text has been modified, expanded, or deleted as needed, and references and new citations have been added at marked places or where otherwise needed. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All clear now. Good work! KimChee (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Boneyard90. You have new messages at Talk:RGM-59 Taurus.
Message added 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Camp Nelson National Cemetery[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Boneyard90. You have new messages at Talk:RIM-101#Possibly.3F.
Message added 04:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Death star[edit]

thanking you indeed for your efforts to improve the state of cemetery articles - please take this is a very big compliment! SatuSuro 23:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

intentional pun of some complexity - traditional rewards for editors who help improve articles and projects - have been WP:Barnstar - the death project barnstar in full length would be death project barn star - the other resonances and paradoxical associations are too many to explain here at this point - needless to say it is meant as a compliment despite potential negative associations - the pun was meant to relieve that SatuSuro 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nijūmon[edit]

Thanks for the comments you left about Niōmon. I have a question about your evaluation of Nijūmon. What's the problem with the accuracy of the references? Could you explain, so I can fix it? Thanks. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I left a commentary on the Talk:Nijūmon page. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, which in all honesty is to me what matters. No revision of the assessment is necessary.

I fixed the references, but I cannot really solve the other problems you pointed out because for now I have no more material to work with. If possible, however, I would like your opinion on something. I wrote all the articles about gates in Japan, torii included, so I kind of feel responsible for the general structure of the whole series. You are right that there should be something about liminality and the general significance of the gates in general, and this is why I added a link to the Mon (architecture) article, which covers those parts. Do you think I should rather repeat those parts in each article (something I am reluctant to do)? That series is a long-term project for me, so any more opinions and notes are welcome.Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the Talk:Mon (architecture) page. You're right that it shouldn't be necessary to re-write all the "origin" and "significance" information for eah gate article, but perhaps the reader should be clearly pointed to the right articles. I'll take a look at some similar articles and look for a precedent format to suggest. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amphora[edit]

In rolling back the article to an earlier version to restore material deleted by an anonymous user, this also deleted a "Citation needed" tag that you had placed regarding the plurals of the term (amphorae/amphoras). Was this tag even necessary, given that both forms still seem currently acceptable - e.g. Wiktionary:amphora, or the dictionary that I use (Collins English Dictionary, Australian edition, revised 1981)?

See also: English plurals#Irregular_plurals_from_Latin_and_Greek. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was that tag necessary? Perhaps not. However, I wasn't aware that "amphoras" had become "acceptable". The Wikipedia link on English plurals that you posted states: "traditional Latin plurals are found more often in academic and scientific contexts, whereas in daily speech the anglicized forms are more common". I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be written in a layman-accessible academic/scientific context. If "daily speech" is acceptable in an article page, then wouldn't that include the use of contractions? Personally, if I were the main editor of the page, I would mention that "amphoras" is common in daily speech in the lead section, cite the dictionary, but I would use amphorae throughout the rest of the article (except with quoted passages, of course). But, that's my opinion, or rather, my suggestion. I think we're both acting in good faith here, which was demonstrated when you did me the courtesy of writing about your concern. I thank you for that. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not an expert on the subject and it's not a term that I can ever recall having used in daily speech, even when visiting museums in Greece. At the time I first posted to you I was more concerned about restoring the deleted material on the early Chinese example, and hadn't yet seen your post on the article's talk page. Bahudhara (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was also concerned about the "Chinese example" you mentioned, mostly because I thought amphorae always had tapered ends, but I remember I read the article and it mentioned Greek examples with flat bases. I guess somebody else didn't read that far. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a look at the picture of the Chinese version on the Banpo page, it also tapers to a point at the base - the main difference to the Greek version is that the handles are small, and located at the widest part of the bulge, rather than on the neck. My guess is that the tapered point of both types enables an amphora to be moved around by a single person, by rotating it on its axis at a slight angle from the vertical; while the small handles of the Chinese version are for securing it in location to a wall or post, or for transport, slung by ropes from a pole. The large handles of the Greek version suggest they are for manual handling (e.g. being carried by slaves), or for being slung from a crane, for loading onto ships. Bahudhara (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:Cemetery[edit]

Hi, do you know how/where one can edit an Infobox template? Not an area I'm experienced in but Infobox:Cemetery could do with some adjustment - re its talk page. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Actually, I tried editing it once. See the term "Style"? That's mine. I intended it so that I could fill in "baroque", or "memorial park", or "memento mori", or whatever, kind of a line for architectural, artistic, cultural, or nationalistic style of a cemetery. Unfortunately, if you fill in the blank, it doesn't show up on the article page, so apparently I didn't do something right. And that's was the only infobox template I've tried to edit. But I'll take a look at the Talk page. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist banner and Blog del Narco[edit]

Hi! I notice you removed the milhist banner from Blog del Narco.

But the blog is about the Mexican Drug War, which is a conflict that involves cartels *and* the Mexican military

Since the drug war is a part of Milhist, then shouldn't Blog del Narco should be a part of Milhist? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for writing me. As for the article, I considered the drug war angle, but as I read the page I saw no direct mention of the activities of the Mexican Army nor of its soldiers or officers. It's a decent article, and an admirable topic, but it reports a military conflict, without participating in it. For example, Life magazine reported widely on World War II, but it is not part of WP:Military History. On the other hand, the Stars and Stripes, which is part of WP:Mil Hist, is a newspaper about the U.S. military, it falls under the United States Department of Defense, and is at least partially staffed by U.S. military servicemen. That was my rationale for removing the article from the project. However, if you like, I don't mind contacting one of the other WP:Mil History editors on your behalf and getting another opinion. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Black Thunder (chocolate bar)[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disembowelment[edit]

You have not yet explained your insistence on using an unreliable source for inflammatory content on disembowelment, and you appear also to be edit warring and making uncivil comments. Please address this matter on the article talk page so further time doesn't have to be wasted at noticeboards. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Saigō-no-Tsubone[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bleah... etc[edit]

couldnt give a rats either way - have just happened to see text being reverted - thought it looked odd - but hey not interested if its a dud anyways - other places and other spaces consume my time at the mo anyways - good to seeing your upholding the good fight etc - have one for me - cheers SatuSuro 13:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?[edit]

We seem to have accidentally been edit warring :) SpinningSpark 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. I've never had an accidental edit war, but I was beginning to think something was wrong with the Wikiepdia server. So, not supposed to be superscripted? Very well, I'll quit trying to fix that "mistake". Boneyard90 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zobel network[edit]

I've come to your talk page because you asked about this article, but I did not want to bang on about my own articles in the GA review. Zobel network is not a good example, it does not have GA status and would be unlikely to get it in its current state. It was one of my earliest substantial contributions to Wikipedia, if not the earliest, and suffers from many faults that with more experience I would have avoided (probably a lot I wouldn't have as well). Plus I have added large chunks over the years and the change in styles (and my wiki-ability) is quite noticeable.

I sympathise with your feelings on technical terms, I have felt exactly the same when my own articles have been reviewed. Every time I have taken a technical article to WP:FA I have caught absolute hell over this very issue and every one has been an uphill struggle to get through. I have sometimes felt that the reviewers are asking for everything in electrical science from Ohm's law upwards through to quantum electrodynamics to be explained in-article. There is no easy answer to this - or if there is then please tell me what it is when you find out yourself, I would love to know. What one has to bear in mind is that we are writing a general encyclopedia for a general readership; not for professionals, nor enthusiastic amateurs, nor for a scholarly journal. The language of our articles here consequently needs to be very different from the language we would use amongst our peers. There is an art to getting this right, but it is by no means easy. Easy or not, a great deal of attention needs to be paid to it to get an article to the very top in Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 22:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Om's Law"?! I've heard of that! That's where you go up in the mountains of Tibet and sit and say, "Ooooooommm!!"
  • Ok, not a great joke. Of course there needs to be some accessibility in articles. On the other hand, I'm probably not going to look up an article on quantum electrodynamics without some background in... quantumology... or something. At the least, I think we understand each other on this issue. How to make an article meaningful to the specialist and accessible to the general reader. I'm sure we'll find the acceptable median. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etats unis bretons[edit]

I'll bite. How is Flag of Brittany relevant to WikiProject United States? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for writing. I thought the article was relevant to the project because according to the article, the US flag inspired the design of the flag of Brittany. Notice I did not apply WP:US to the articles on Brittany or Brittany (administrative region). I figured if the Flag of Brittany article was NOT within the scope of the project, then somebody would delete the banner, presumably when some project member moves to assess it. I see this all the time in WikiProjects I work with. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor templates[edit]

There is an error in the anchor template example I gave you. The colons should were supposed to be pipe characters. I have fixed the one you put in the decomposition article. Did you do any more? SpinningSpark 13:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For your ongoing work with the death project articles - it is much appreciated! SatuSuro 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, you're welcome. I'm enjoying being a part of the project and reading up on some diverse topics with a common theme. And have you seen? I've added another "Good Article" to WP:Death. Pretty cool, huh? Boneyard90 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I won't lie, I'm still aiming at one day earning that WP:Death award! Boneyard90 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abyzou[edit]

Could I ask why you added the Christianity template to Abyzou? I don't really see what the Christianity project would have to contribute to this article. There's much more evidence for the demon Gello within Christian practice. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well, according to the article, Abyzou crosses paths with several prominent figures in Christian belief or seems to find a place in some of the older sects. Not counting the apocryphal Testament of Solomon, the article states:
  • Abyzou is identified with Alabasandria "in Coptic Egypt" (Lead section).
  • Abyzou is "on several early Byzantine bronze amulets. With her hands tied behind her back, she kneels as she is whipped by a standing figure, identified as Solomon or Arlaph... [who is] identified with the archangel Raphael."
  • "In one magic-related text, the archangel Michael confronts Abyzou..."
  • "At the monastery of St. Apollo in Bawit, Egypt, a wall painting depicts the childbirth demon..."
I've never heard of the demon Abyzou, so there wasn't any preconception there. The WP tag isn't set in stone. If you think I made a mistake (or if a later WP:Christianity member disagrees with the tag), it can be removed, and I won't mind. I just thought the article was relevant (and would appeal) to a broader readership. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early Christianity and magic is a very interesting topic, but you have to have a lot of stamina to deal with attempts to censor that kind of material, and in general I try to avoid getting into those arguments. I guess I was thinking more in terms of the project being asked to work on it. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, I'll copy and paste my reasons to the Talk page. That way, if any WP:Christianity member becomes indignant, the reasons will be plain and in the open. If you or they disagree and want to remove the tag, no worries here. Good Wiki-luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saigō-no-Tsubone/GA1[edit]

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku - thank you[edit]

Your comments are extremely helpful. Tesspub (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the "campaigning" nature of the article is well-observed and well-taken. Can I ask your opinion on the separation of haiku from haiku in English? At the moment it's a bit half-hearted and I feel that either the separation needs to be complete (with some more internal references between the two) or the two articles should be re-integrated. I am not at all sure of the right way to go and would welcome your opinion. (I suspect other editors would resist re-integration but it would probably be easier than improving the relatively poor quality of Haiku in English.) Tesspub (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for writing. I was glad to help. Next, I didn't notice the listed article for Haiku in English. That's a pretty sizeable one at that. I'll take a closer look at it today or tomorrow, but my initial impression:
  • Re-integration looks untenable at this point. The 'haiku in English' article is so big that one would have to cut major portions of it to keep the new article to a manageable length.
  • For situations like this, I have seen and I recommend that the original Haiku article contain a short section, a paragraph or two, with 'this is how haiku are taught', a short explanation why (school teachers' ignorance? adaptation of on to English syllable?), and maybe an example of a notable haiku.
  • For the rest of the article:
  • Except during the explanation of terms, purge most other comparisons between the two forms.
  • Write the rest of the main haiku article as if someone has NEVER heard of it before.
  • Try to find English substitute terms for as many of the Japanese terms as possible.
  • If the Japanese term must be used, re-iterate the English term frequently, like at the beginning of a new section. Just because you explained it once, doesn't mean a foreign word has sunk in.
  • Use of the word on is probably justified, though in the introduction of the concept you might refer to it as a "Japanese syllable". People think in terms of their own cultural context when trying to comprehend a new concept.
  • I'd try and find an English term for kireiji, like the "linking word" or "pivot word" or "pivot point" or something that a reader with NO experience in Japanese language or culture can pick up on and integrate into his/her cocept of the haiku.
  • The Seasonal reference is an important point and I think due emphasis has been placed there. When I was a kid in school, I don't remember the teacher mentioning that part of the haiku, or at least not stressing it. Even now, when English-speaking adults I know are told to compose a haiku, even thos that are familiar with Japanese language/culture, they tend to make humorous, clever haiku. Amateur English haiku with seasonal references tend to be viewed as... not sure, but not humorous or clever, which is what people like.
I'll try and take a closer look at the two later. Let me know if you have any other questions. Later! Boneyard90 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow[edit]

i think you need barnstars, medals and a lot of thanks for your continued death project tagging - heaps of thanks from down under (ambiguity intended :) ) SatuSuro 14:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow - you got it!


Death Star
This Death Star award is for all your excellent and persistent hard work on pages and talk pages tagging and assesment related to the death project.

SatuSuro 14:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! My first one! Thank you! Boneyard90 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery info box[edit]

I notice that you just added one to Camperdown Cemetery. Good. But there is a problem with the info box itself. It refers to the "number of gravesites". This is wrong on two counts.

Firstly, the term "gravesite" is a site where there are graves. The word is inclusive of any number of graves. Camperdown Cemetery is a gravesite. It contains numerous graves.
Secondly, the 18,000 bodies are not in separate graves. Many graves contain as many as four bodies, and the numerous pauper burials may contain more.

The word "gravesite" should not be substituted for the word "grave", and the word "grave" should not be substituted for the word "burial. This needs fixing because it will be inaccurate for every cemetery to which it has been added.

There should possibly be an option to use either "grave" or "burial". Very old cemeteries may know the number of existent graves, but not know the number of burials. A comparatively modern cemetery like Camperdown has records of almost every burial (the earliest register book has a few pages missing). Many of the graves, on the other hand, were never marked or have had their gravestones removed.

Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. I see that you're the major contributor on the Camperdown Cemetery. Well done. It's a much better article than many, many other cemetery articles out there. As for your points:
  • I would say "gravesite" is closer to being a synonym for "grave", not "cemetery".
  • You've actually hit on a discussion that I see you've already found at Template talk:Infobox cemetery. We've had the discussion, reached consensus, and I've been waiting for one editor to make changes to the Cemetery infobox template.
As for the infobox in the Camperdown article, when I went to fill in a number for "gravesites" (however you want to interpret it), I didn't find many the numbers easily forthcoming. There were numbers of burials per period, but that didn't seem right, and I saw the "about 2,000 tombstones and other memorials and monuments"; I was between that number and the 18,000. I chose the latter. If you disagree, know of a more accurate number, please change it. I'm sure I won't disagree . Boneyard90 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed your recent addition of the infobox at Kensal Green Cemetery. As we have discussed before, I really like the feature but its not appropriate to use it for European cemeteries and churchyards (at least) until the 'Gravesite' error is fixed. Once its sorted out, I'll gladly help you roll it out. Best regards. Ephebi (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

I have just had a look at the lists of ratings of importance.

My comment here is that it seems to be very orderly, but for a few glitches. It you look at the "mid importance" page, there are a few articles, such as a stub about a 1928 plane crash in which 5 people died. And the odd murder such as James Bolger. While James Bolger's sad demise was pumped by the media, it wasn't quite up there with the assassination of a president. These matters need review. There doesn't seem to be much out of place.

I also want to comment that among individual cemeteries, some are very much more significant than others as they contain the burials of a significant number of famous people and are frequently visited by the public for this reason. Some of these should probably be rated higher than small local graveyards. If you decide to upgrade the ratings of some that are of greater than average significance, then Camperdown Cemetery and Rookwood Cemetery should both be upgraded. Amandajm (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument, the importance rating is somewhat subjective, based on the evaluator's own opinions, values, and experience. Well, let me tell you how I rate the importance of an article for WikiProject Death. At Mid-importance, the subject should provide or lead to some understanding of death, it should have an effect on more than one culture, or, through death, have had tangible repercussions on a greater number of people. Some of the subjects I have rated as Mid- or High-importance:
  • Subjects directly related to death and our knowledge of death: Decomposition.
  • Subjects that affect our perceptions of death, and are significant across multiple cultures: Cannibalism
  • Mass disasters and/or public transport accidents (with fatalities) that were a "first", "most", or led to a significant change in policies.
  • The deaths of people who, through their death, had a wider impact on history. This usually includes heads of state assasinated while in office. The Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was rated High-importance because it not only affected (many) more than just one country, but with tangible repercussions over a period of decades (as many will argue that WWI led to WWII led to the Cold War, etc.). Many other "murder" articles, while sad and newsworthy, are rated as Low importance.
  • With cemeteries, I look at whether they are a "first" or a "most", but I also look at the list of Notable interments. It's not enough that the cemetery is a popular spot of local folklore, or even a popular domestic tourist destination, I try to look at if any of the interments affected peoples outside of their immediate sphere of influence. Cemeteries with historically significant heads of state, Nobel-prize winners, other significant scientists, authors, artists, musicians that changed their field and have been recognized as significant in history somehow. Their interment thus makes the cemetery more significant, as they are a reflection of how valued contributors to society and history are treated in death. See Père Lachaise Cemetery. By comparison, Camp Nelson National Cemetery, which was significant in local history with a noteworthy role in US history, is rated as Low importance.
Those are some of the guidelines I've developed for myself, based on the mission statement and the Importance guidelines for WP:Death. Of course, let me know if you have any further questions, comments, suggestions. (Oh, and PS: The article on James Bolger doesn't appear to be part of WP:Death.) Boneyard90 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iga-ryu has no (badly written, unveriefable) "modern ninjutsu schools" section[edit]

--Barry Sandwich (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs real content about real history/myths, with sources (books!), instead of some questionable claims regarding self-proclaimed modern era practitioners. --Barry Sandwich (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to the Kōga-ryū article? Sure, I'll concur with your assertion, especially regarding unreferenced claims. But what about the following two items; one may not be referenced but at least looks somewhat credible, and the other has a reference. Why were these deleted?

  • Banke Shinobinoden; group run by Jinichi Kawakami and his student Yasushi Kiyomoto. Kawakami works as the curator of the Iga-ryū Ninjutsu Museum and is recognized by the governments of Shiga (Kōga) and Mié (Iga) as the 21st Soke of the Koga-Ha Bantō-ryū tradition that teaches both aspects of Koga-ryū and Iga-ryū.
  • Koga Ryū Wada Ha; originally taught by Fujita Seiko, the 14th headmaster of Koka-ryu Wada-ha ninjutsu who was a martial artist instructor at the Nakano School during World War II. (reference: Fujita Seiko by Phillip Hevener ISBN 1436301769 )

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Death templates[edit]

Regarding your recent edit at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death, please note that the related article in question is a redirect to Dispute about Jesus' execution method. I have therefore moved the old discussion items to Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method/archive1. You may like to assess the article Dispute about Jesus' execution method and add a template to its current Talk page as you see fit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. That Talk page was already tagged with the WP:Death banner, I just assessed. But, sure, I'll be happy to take a look at the main article. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Gilmour references[edit]

Hi Boneyard90, thanks for taking the time to assess Léonie Gilmour and assign it to appropriate task forces. As you cited a problem with "referencing and citation" I was wondering if there were some particular points where you noticed this problem.Icuc2 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for writing. That really is a great biography on woman who must have seemed like a real adventurer to her family and friends. Here are the specific sections I found deficient:
  • Life section: the 2nd, 4th, and 6th paragraphs don't have any in-line citations
  • the 7th paragraph can also be included in the list, as the only citation is within the parentheses.
  • Literary works: No citations, which really needs one after the sentence with "It has been speculated..." That phrase begs the question, "Speculated by whom?"
  • Interest in Gilmour - no references.
  • Number of references: While it is not too much problem for the B-class assessment, many editors and (I think) a Wikipedia policy do not take a favorable view of an article where the majority of citations come from one source. One author can be mistaken, biased, accessed outdated information, etc. A variety of references is preferred so that the validity and neutrality of the information can be cross-referenced.
  • In-line citations:All paragraphs need at least one citation, and unusual claims within paragraphs need citations.
  • Higher than B-class: With a little work, this article may qualify for GA status.
  • For GA status, the Lead needs to be expanded. It should provide a summary of the body, such that everything described in the body should be mentioned briefly in the Lead.
  • More historical context should be provided throughout the text, which would fill out the body. As it is, the reader has the impression that Gilmour is sort of in a cultural and temporal vacuum. Unanswered question that come to mind:
  • Why was Noguchi in New Jersey? What had he done in California? How unusual was it, or what did it mean, for a white woman to be employed by an Asian in 1901? Why did Noguchi go to England, and for how long? What did Gilmour do during that time? Was their "marriage" (based on the piece of paper) legal by Japanese laws? Why did Noguchi feel compelled to leave at the outset of the Russo-Japanese War? How did that was affect a Japanese citizen living in the U.S.? If Gilmour was born in NY, how did her mother get to Los Angeles? And what happened to her father? ...
  • The account follows the life of Gilmour pretty well, but is written with blinders, as there is little information on anything or anybody else, which would provide more context, and thus provide better understanding of Gilmour.
Again, good article on a great subject! I'll copy & paste these suggestions to the articles Talk page. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my endless admiration[edit]

May your entry (whenever it maybe) to the other side (may it not be for a long time) - they welcome with a trumpet blare and million strong salute - for your excellent doggedness with the death tags - keep at it!! cheers SatuSuro 14:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

We probably need to revisit and check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Death - in your opinion is it ok and up to date? SatuSuro 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I've never worked on a portal before. I've taken a look at the Death portal a few times over the last couple of days. My initial thoughts and questions:
  1. Do I understand correctly in that the "Selected article" and "Selected picture" are displayed at random from the archives?
  2. Is the DYK section also taken at random from the DYK archives?
  3. Now that I know it's there, I can start working on a DYK #13 if you like. I noticed that the DYK from Coffin birth isn't listed. I'll also keep my eyes open for DYK banners in the articles I assess.
  4. I'll try to familiarize myself with the categories on the left of the portal page, so maybe I can add them to some of the articles I assess.
Boneyard90 (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 = yes, I think - 3 and 4 = excellent - thanks very much for your positive response SatuSuro 08:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I may use this section here as a sandbox while I gather 3 DYK's for a list. At least until I figure out what I'm doing... Boneyard90 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Death prep[edit]

General finds[edit]

Did you know...

  1. ... that, in 1551, hours after a pregnant woman was hanged during the Spanish Inquisition, two dead infants were seen to fall free of the body in an unusual case of coffin birth?
  2. ...that the remains of Confederate soldiers buried at Camp Nelson National Cemetery were exhumed after the American Civil War and re-buried elsewhere?

From June 2011[edit]

Taken from Wikipedia:Recent additions

  1. ... that over 16,000 aborted fetuses were found in the Los Angeles fetus disposal scandal in 1982?
  2. ...that the Sumerian "river of paradise", the Hubur, derived partly from real geography before becoming a demonic fantasy?
  3. ... that Dedi was an ancient Egyptian magician who was said to be capable of resurrecting decapitated beings?
  4. ... that the London Necropolis Railway was used to relocate the exhumed contents of at least 21 London graveyards to Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey?
  5. ... that Mexican-American singer-songwriter Selena was murdered by an employee who (falsely) claimed she was raped and needed the singer's help?
  6. ... that after the science fiction anthology Machine of Death reached No. 1 on the Amazon.com bestseller list instead of his own book, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck denounced it as part of a liberal "culture of death"?
  7. ... that the killing of four students at Trisakti University eventually led to the resignation of Indonesian President Suharto?

I'll begin building some DYK lists for the Death portal based on these. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ... that according to legend, the Chiapa people committed suicide by jumping off the Sumidero Canyon in Chiapas, Mexico, rather than submit to Spanish domination?
  2. ...that human sacrifices and perhaps cannibalism took place on the Ehrenbürg in Franconia during the Hallstatt and La Tène periods?
  3. ... that the 2009 film Korkoro is a rare cinematic tribute to those who died in the Porajmos?

These are all from June 2011. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You[edit]

When do something more substantial than spam article talk page with an inactive and useless project template, membership:you, come back to me, meanwhile dont bother your pretty head reverting me on articles you know nothing about. Now really. My impression is that you are more suited to editing, or spaming, or whatever, articles like Los Angeles fetus disposal scandal, as the bot advises, above. Listen to the bot. Ceoil 11:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to add information to an article, you need to be able to back it up with a reference. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a idiot so if you admit you have no idea of the substance and revert the blatently obvious as a reflex. Fuck off back to your tempates and leave me in peace. Ceoil 11:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw nothing "blatently obvious" [sic]. I checked the article The Braque Triptych before reverting your edit. There was no mention of the information you had added. I'll leave you in peace. But I'm going to be all over that article from here on out. And by your tone, it doesn't sound like you're familiar with the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You may have heard of these, stuff like being civil, assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks. You should review those policies. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
s>Well, you know mister, an implicid treath - I'm going to be all over that article is a far worse sign of a person than coming out and saying - "what the fuck are you up to". But fine if your like that, try and trick me and have fun with that in your life; its my almost exclusive area of interest. This might be oddly amusing.v Ceoil 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm "up to" is trying to make better articles. And go through some of the backlog of the projects I'm interested in. And do you really believe that I'm "going to be like that"? Dude, you're cracking me up. You started this party with the hostile tone from your first comment. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude yourself. Quote you: But I'm going to be all over that article from here on out. If your the self appointed authority on death or whatever, and you dont take the presence of a brick supporting a skull in the outer wing of an triptych alterpiece as a signifier of past material wealth, now little more than dust, then I dont know what to say to you. Except maybe this: yawn. Ceoil 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I think of the brick is irrelevant, and so is what you think. It sounds like you're inserting Original research into the article. That's a no-no. Now, after you're done yawning, have a look-see at the edits I've made. I've provided a verifiable reference, and on the Talk page I've provided the passage you erroneously cited, plus a few others. I couldn't find any sources that could validate your interpretation. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong, but I'll give you this, you looked and checked carefully and came back to it, and stood your ground. I still disagree with you, but I take back the stuff above. Ceoil 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you sound sincere. If you've come this far, then would you be so good as to explain the reversion? I've presented clear evidence that the referenced source does not support the claim made in the caption. I would be satisfied if there was no comment other than, say, "The Braque Triptych by Rogier van der Weyden (c.1452) is an early example of memento mori art." There's a reference for that much. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here Boneyard,

"With this in mind, let us turn to the Braque triptych by Rogier van der Weyden ( Fig. 4.38 ). 44 The trompe-l'oeil casing of red bricks frames the death's head as if in a niche, and the skull is supported by a broken brick. The lone brick has been interpreted as symbolizing ruin, whether of a building or a dynasty; all things of this world will, in the end, crumble to dust. So too does the skull prefigure the inevitable ruin of all individuals and of mankind. The sentence inscribed on the top and bottom of the brick border announces: "Mires vous ci orgueilleux et avers / Mon corps fu beaux ore est viande a [vers]" ("Look you who are so proud and greedy, / My once beautiful body now is meat for worms"). 45 Painted as if etched in the stones of some memento mori monument, these words reach, as it were, from beyond the sepulcher. In its moral content as well as in its ingenious graphic expression of the theme, this complex design is at once a mirror and map of mortality. The same sense of compound artifice is explicitly discussed in Moore's verbal treatment of the theme, in terms that are at once admonitory, commemorative, and quite consciously designed to project the reader's consciousness into the "future anterior."

ref Baudrillard, "Four Plotting the Passage of Death," The Persistence of Memory and Melancholy in Early Modern England. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. 178.
How does that work for you? You also sound sincere. I'm listening and open. Ceoil 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Key word is ruin. I'll be expanding the article on the triptych in the next few weeks, so have been reading a lot about, and have plenty more extracts where that came from, and they all agree on the substative matter. They are a bit mixed up in my mind at the moment, so hence I was hasty, but please appreciate that it's so obvious a claim, I can't accept being reverted, twice mind, on that article by a new comer. I act quickly in toes sisuations, as life is short and it happens a lot. Ceoil 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to base the text of the article on that quote from the book? It sounds good. The brick as a symbol of ruin makes sense to me, more so than Blum's comparison to Golgotha. I noticed in some sources that there was some question of when the triptych was made. If I remember right, one source even suggested that Mrs. Braque might have commissioned the piece before her husband died, and it was only afterward that it was adapted as a memorial. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'll do is synthesize, that is I'll read a lot, take it all in, and then just write, taking the best and most interesting bits from each of the sources. The dating is interesting considering mr Braque's death, but what grabs me most is the speach baloons, and the lovely dress of the Magdalen on the right hand wing. To be honest most of my interest in the paintings of the period is centered on the fashion, I just love it, espically the headwear.Ceoil 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I agree that there are several aspects of the piece that are very interesting. The proto-speech balloons are one; they remind me of 18th and 19th century political cartoons. My main interest lies with bones. I thought it odd (naive?) that several of the art-history sources commented specifically on the color of the skull (Blum). That brownish color is the natural color of aged, well-preserved bones that have not been exposed to sunlight. If van der Weyden had ever seen a grave dug in a churchyard, the bones tossed out by the gravedigger (think the Yorick scene in Hamlet) would be a similar color. Other details make the skull looked aged and decomposed, like the hole worn in the left maxilla and the disarticulated mandible. Why was it drawn separate from the cranium? It actually appears as if the articulating end was broken off, so that he would have been unable to align the two pieces in their correct anatomical position. The mandible might have been broken like that if the skull he saw was pulled from the ground. I wonder if he had a model or if he drew from memory. The skull is anatomically accurate in many details, but the nasal aperture is small, and with the high forehead and nearly toothless and shrunken mandible, it resembles the skull of an old woman. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grave robbing was rampant at the time and van der Weyden was a very important person indeed, so without doubt drawn from an example, but he was inclined to bend his compositions to get as much gut reaction as he could, so I guess he was free in his treatment. The other points you mention are very interesting, and not so far as I've seen covered by the sources. I got you completly wrong, my first mgs was from annoyance, the second anger. At this stage, I would invite you to keep an eye on the page, or help better again, and offer a hand of friendship for what that might be worth. Ceoil 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm glad we could come to an amicable understanding. With that resolution, it would seem today has been quite a productive day after all. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, funny how things work out, wiki never ceases to amaze. I sent you a mail, with a JSTOR pdf if it interests. Ceoil 20:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murasaki Shikibu[edit]

Thanks for pointing out this article. I believe, however, that the claim she wrote "the earliest known novel in human history" is not factual. See ancient Greek novel. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, I have no doubt the claim is disputable, that's why I used the phrase "credited with..." or "considered to be..." (I did use one of those phrases, didn't I? I usually do.) And sometimes I've heard it put that she wrote the first "modern novel" or "true novel" or "recognized novel", etc. Cases can be made for the ancient Greeks, the Viking sagas, Epic of Gilgamesh, and I'm sure others. Some of these may be considered pre-cursors or legends (that is, partly historical). It may also depend on how a writer/critic defines a novel. Operational term is "credited with"; and even if The Tale of Genji is discredited as the first, a novel that's lasted a thousand years is not too shabby. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sekigahara[edit]

Shouldn't any mention of "rifle" during that time period(1600) actually be "musket"? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That term struck me as odd too, but I was focused on a different topic of the passage. Apparently the editor who originally wrote that passage was a little careless. After doing some digging around, I believe the correct term for the firearms in use at the time would be arquebus. I think the term "musket" was (or is now) applied to the longer, heavier flintlocks that came later. Shall you do the editing or shall I? Boneyard90 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will let you have the honor of changing it. Happy editing! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Old Province[edit]

Thank you for helping me to parse and evaluate a trivial problem. --Tenmei (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Boneyard90 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Anthony trial[edit]

Hey, Boneyard90, weighing in at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Blackie Lstreet at Casey Anthony trial seems to be the best shot we have at get something done about Blackie Lstreet's disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So weighed. Keep up the good fight. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize[edit]

I reverted your revision back to back to mine because I needed to rephrase my edit. Without certain words it did sound POV. But I was rather harsh, I'm sorry -Angel David (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for writing, and no problem. I debated with myself on the language I used for the same reason and I'm sure it also might have sounded harsh or unfounded at first glance. However, I'm thinking your wording would fit better under Christianity, although I see now the description is moving toward a more inclusive description. The topic covers a dichotomous view of the Afterlife, which for convention's sake can be viewed as Heaven/Hell, even though such places as Valhalla, which might have been "heavenly" for a battle-loving Viking (with days of combat, evenings of feasting, and nights of passion with eternally virginal Valkyries), it was not for the "righteous", unless by "righteous" you mean "adhering to the virtues of a particular religion" (here again, the term "virtue" is a subjective one, as the Viking "virtues" included fighting, taking slaves, exploration, screwing/raping women, and more fighting). There is also evidence that slaves could accompany their lord to the Afterlife, so even though the slaves were in Valhalla, it was not their idea of heaven. The term "Heaven" is relation to the Abrahamic religions is problematic as for along time (and maybe now), Jewish tradition doesn't maintain a strict dichotomy, so much as a one-way street. See Sheol. In Aztec religion, there were several "heavens" that depended mostly on how one died (sacrifice, childbirth, battle) and one all-inclusive "Land of the Dead" (Mictlantecuhtli) where everyone else went regardless of good/bad deeds. I suggest more inclusive and less judgement-oriented terms: sanctified and rejected, selected and not selected, those with particular merit and those without, something along those lines, though I'm sure better there's better and more relevant terminology. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Zombie[edit]

I suggested breaking the page into two on the talk page, and got a positive response, so I thought I'd go ahead. If you feel that is unwarranted, then we can discuss it there. Serendipodous 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was bold, you reverted; I'd appreciate it if we could now discuss it. Serendipodous 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger. I've commented on the Zombie talk page, as requested. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thank you! Boneyard90 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 14, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks for putting the Wikipedia: WikiProject Food and Drink Tag on the article on Soul cake. If you are in that WikiProject group, I wonder whether you - or any one else in the WikiProject group - could have a look at the article on cake? If you go to the talk page of this article, you will see why I think the history section needs a good edit! Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków[edit]

Hi. I noticed you recently did a B-Class assessment of New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków (NJC). I wanted to bring a few things to your attention and maybe receive some feedback on the process in return:

  1. The article falls under the scope of WikiProject Poland, Death, Jewish history, and Military history. However, your edit summary seemed to indicate that you only assessed for the Death and Military history projects.[1] I understand that assessments may differ, and correct me I'm wrong, but assessments at B-Class and above are generally consistent due to the strict criteria. If this is the case, would it make sense for you to add the B-Class assessment to all of the project tags?
  2. I'm not sure the article currently meets the B-Class criteria, specifically B1-B3. Starting with B1, the section on "Notable individuals buried at the cemetery" does not appear suitably referenced with inline citations. All it would need is at least one showing the reader where to verify this content. B2 is also a bit iffy. For example, the see also section refers to articles on the Remuh Cemetery and the Rakowicki Cemetery. What, if any, relationship do these two cemetaries have to NJC? For the article to at least reasonably cover the topic and to avoid obvious omissions or inaccuracies, this question needs to be answered in the body of the article. This concern brings us to B3. The lead section consists of one single sentence that does not summarize the article. And if we compare the overall structure to a FA like Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) we can conclude a lot is missing. For example, the NJC article says "there are many monuments commemorating the death of Jews killed during the Holocaust". If that is so, we would expect to see, at the very least, a section on these monuments. I can go on, but I think you can see my point.
  3. B4 is met.
  4. B5 is met.
  5. B6 is met.

Now, just so you understand where I'm coming from, I'm not trying to dispute your assessment, but rather, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. For me, this article could quite possibly be assessed as C-Class, and would require just a little bit more work to reach B-Class. I initially assessed as Start-Class as a pseudo-base assessment, since it was much more than a stub. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to write. As you said, I did the assessment, and I was pretty impressed with the article, as so many cemetery article get really brief treatment. Let me address your points:
  1. I only assessed the article for the projects I'm in, because they cover subjects I am familiar with. I know many editors like to assess all projects at once, and there are even bots to do this. I do not agree, as every project will have its own version of what constitutes "coverage". I don't know much about Poland, so I'm not sure that more or less should be there. By way of comparison, I once assessed an article about an earthquake in Japan, written by a geologist or seismologist. Very thorough from a technical standpoint, but said nothing of casualties or collateral damage, so it seemed to fall short of what I expected to read when it came to a natural disaster in Japan; hence, it was a B for the earthquake project, and a C for WP: Japan. So to summarize, I believe it is more beneficial this way so that different editors can weigh in with their criticisms, advice, etc.
  2. Individual points:
    1. B-1: Notable burials: True, I may have been lax on this point. As the criteria says "suitably referenced", then sometimes, if an article is otherwise well-referenced and well-written, I may let it slide on one point where a reference is lacking. This of course would not meet GA or FA standards, which is probably why I've seen so very few GA-class cemetery articles.
    2. B-2: Without knowing more on the subject myself, B-2 looks reasonably covered. As for the "See also" section, I see links to articles on two old cemeteries (one Jewish) located in Krakow. They seem appropriate and relevant to me. If the two cemeteries are mentioned in the text of the article, then they would have to be removed from the "See also" section.
    3. B-3: The Lead section. Often problematic because many writers do not appreciate its value. Perhaps they want to get to the meat of the article, and writing a good summary, condensing alot of research information into a paragraph or two can be challenging. You're right, it doesn't meet FA criteria, and doesn't adequately summarize the contents. But since so many Leads fall short, this is one section I'm most often relaxed about in a B-class assessment. And I think on this point, I've taken my cue from other editors. Again, won't make it through a GA-review, but I could see some effort was put into it, and thought I should reward it.
  3. I also noticed the "Many monuments" sentence and thought about this. I thought it generic enough to let it go. How many is "many"? Are any or all of them notable?
Perhaps I was too generous. In assessments, I've waded through so many Stub- and Start-class cemetery articles, it's refreshing to see one with a bit of effort put into it. I am amenable to downgrading it, if at least for the un-referenced list of burials, and actually, there may be too many there, which would overdo the coverage. Many editors think lists of names like that should only include Wiki-notability, or names of people with their own articles. I look forward to reading your thoughts, at which time I will be happy to re-assess the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have offered a good reason for your assessment, but a one-sentence lead section that doesn't summarize the topic and an unsourced section on notable persons is a problem for me. There's no need to reassess at this time, but I am still curious about how to best assess articles when we are dealing with multiple project tags. Do we have a guideline or essay on this subject? Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a policy for everything else it seems, but I don't know for sure. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification (for Boneyard90)[edit]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Henriette Catherine of Nassau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Dutch

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your many good contributions. You're so prolific, in fact, that if you occasionally forget to sign, the autosign facility doesn't sign for you. Hence I've taken the liberty of minor adjustments to your user page (same as my talk page), which will ensure future autosigning. I hope you don't mind. Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New VT shooting[edit]

Your comments in response to Neutralhomer's most recent post demonstrate that you are a clear thinker (not always a given around these parts). And I agree with you--up to about 90%.* I simply have one (IMHO) very significant issue that causes me to disagree with your conclusion, and so I've posted a reply to your last two posts. Hope to hear from you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*BTW, I recognize that the expression "I agree with you--up to about 90%." is logical nonsense. But I imagine you'll be able to discern my meaning. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children's books about death[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you did a lot of copyediting on Children's books about death just after it was moved out of the category namespace, but one thing you didn't do is to clean up the references. So I'm guessing you haven't yet discovered how to cite a single reference multiple times.

The first time you cite a reference, define it as 

<ref name="refname">Reference content</ref>

and then, when you want to cite the same reference later in the same article, just use 

<ref name="refname"/>

where refname is a name of your choice. Good luck. — Smjg (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confidence and the free lesson. It's pretty odd to be chastised for not volunteering enough; if I had done something wrong I could understand, but not doing enough? Very strange. Anyway, you guessed wrong. I do know how to format redundant references, but didn't feel like spending the time (then) to tediously paste in the new format. The way it is now, while not the best way, is also not necessarily the wrong way. It's just great to see references in an article. But don't let me stand in your way, if you want to make the corrections, feel free to do so. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Siege of Busan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Tsushima
Smallpox demon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Yoruba

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Parker[edit]

Hi, I noticed you seem quite experienced in assessing articles and took the time to rate the Murder of Ross Parker one back in August. I've tried to improve the content since then so if you could take another look sometime I'd appreciate it as feedback is always useful. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for writing. You're right, it is improved, and I've assessed the article as B-class for WP: Death. I also left comments at Talk:Murder of Ross Parker#WP: Death assessment commentary. Good work, and good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Juliana of Liège, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Francis and Frederick II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boneyard90/Archive_1&oldid=1144593621"