User talk:Prairieplant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Additions to The Hermit of Eyton Forest by Ellis Peters[edit]

I just wrote a Plot Summary for this novel. It is so long! I hope some others who read this novel by Ellis Peters will see how to make the summary a bit shorter. The character list needs to be made, too. I included all the characters in my summary except I forgot the first name of Drogo Bosiet's son.

I was logged in while doing the summary, but somehow got logged off before I completed my summary. So it was not attributed to me in the History. Rather to and I cannot figure how to change that to Prairieplant. Prairieplant (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did add a sentence at the top -- all there was, with a very terse list of the elements of this novel. All except treason. That might tell the story before it is read. Prairieplant (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I have added a List of Characters, Themes and Setting in History, Reviews, and references, after reading the novel again, in sequence of the Cadfael Chronicles. The reviews were interesting. I cannot figure how to get the image of the cover in place -- such a good cover, too. I hope someone else knows how to do that. Surprised myself with all this writing, hope someone else reads it. Prairieplant (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

After the Funeral by Agatha ChristiePrairieplant (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[edit]

In the info box for After the Funeral, the Author's name does not show up. After Author in bold, we see only { {author} } where I expected Agatha Christie to show. I do not see this error in the info box, so cannot fix it. I hope someone else can fix that small error. Prairieplant (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It April 4 now, and that error is still present. Some bot went over the text, but I saw no improvements. This is the line that presumably includes the text yielding {{{author}}} instead of Agatha Christie as the author. I do not know how to fix this -- does anyone else? {{infobox book |

I made changes to the Plots Summary, Characters, Themes, but wikipedia logged me out while I was making them in January, so they are not marked as mine. What is the time limit for doing an edit? I do not mean to be skulking in my edits! Now I have logged myself in for 30 days so I will not get logged off while I write something.

The Clocks by Agatha Christie[edit]

Prairieplant (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I typed Londong instead of London in the title of one of my changes. Sorry! Cool story, I thought. Definite 1960s flavor in it, and the mood of the Cold War, added to a murder mystery, murder for greed, a frequent motive.

The Virgin in the Ice, other Ellis Peters novels[edit]

Starting the Plot Summary with the series summary is redundant, in each novel. Having the List of Characters allows Cadfael to be described, and reference made to the entry on Cadfael in wikipedia.

Plus, sometimes in looking up a story, I want to see the character names without reading the plot summary. This is especially helpful to me when I listen to an audio book and want to know the spelling of a character's name. The plot should not be told in the Character List, I agree with the person who took out my effort on that. But it was not true that everything in the Character List was found in the Plot Summary.

Most of the other Ellis Peters Brother Cadfael stories have a Character List, so this keeps them consistent for this 20 book series.Prairieplant (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Supporting change in Plot summary, that Cadfael was on foot across the frozen stream, seeing what the boy could not see, still seated on the horse. Then went back again, alone, as boy and horse waited for him. The boy crossed the same stream; it could be a secret from him only if he could not see through the ice as Cadfael did. This is the end of Chapter 3:

The second brook, still and silent like the rest, was a shallow, reed-fringed, meandering serpent of silver. The horse disliked the feel of the ice under him, and Cadfael dismounted again to lead him over. The wide, glassy surface shone opaque from every angle, except when looking directly down into it, and Cadfael was watching his own foothold as he crossed, for his boots were worn and smooth. Thus his eye caught, for a moment only, the ghostly pallor beneath the ice to his left, before the horse slithered and recovered, hoisting himself into the snowy grass on the further side.

Cadfael was slow to recognize, slower to believe, what he had seen. Half an hour later, and he would not have been able to see it at all. Fifty paces on, with a thicket of bushes between, he halted, and instead of remounting, as Yves expected, put the bridle into the boy's hands, and said with careful calm: "Wait a moment for me. No, we need not turn off yet, this is not the place where the tracks divide. Something I noticed there. Wait!"

Yves wondered, but waited obediently, as Cadfael turned back to the frozen brook. The pallor had been no illusion from some stray reflected gleam, it was there fixed and still, embedded in the ice. He went down on his knees to look more closely.

The short hairs rose on his neck. Not a yearling lamb, as he had briefly believed it might be. Longer, more shapely, slender and white. Out of the encasing, glassy stillness a pale, pearly oval stared up at him with open eyes. Small, delicate hands had floated briefly before the frost took hold, and hovered open at her sides, a little upraised as if in appeal. The white of her body and the white of her torn shift which was all she wore seemed to Cadfael to be smirched by some soiling color at the breast, but so faintly that too intent staring caused the mark to shift and fade. The face was fragile, delicate, young.

A lamb, after all. A lost ewe-lamb, a lamb of God, stripped and violated and slaughtered. Eighteen years old? It could well be so.

By this token, Ermina Hugonin was at once found and lost.

Hope this is persuasive. Prairieplant (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Is it truly a vital, indispensible plot element that Cadfael got off a horse? What was wrong with "As they cross a frozen stream, Cadfael sees the body of a young woman frozen into the ice. Fearing it is that of Ermina, he conceals his discovery from Yves." I'll let the present version stand, but it is important not to bloat plot summaries with unnecessary details. HLGallon (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it is an essential plot point, given the book's title, and the line in the above text that the ice was opaque from all angles other than standing right above it. The gruesome image was seen due to the need to walk the skittish horse, while he was searching the likely area. Protecting the boy is typical of Cadfael, as is being quiet about what he learns before it can be properly digested, used, as is his combination of chance and skill in finding clues as well as missing people.

The other way of saying it left me remembering how the boy sat in front of Cadfael on the horse, and wouldn't they both see the same thing, from the same vantage point? How could he conceal what lay open to view? That is why I noticed the sentence. I appreciate you letting it stand.

I may yet be stinging from your description of my two to three sentence plot summary at the top as lurid, blurb style, or something like that. My one and only attempt to write a "blurb" for a friend was a dismal failure; too dry. Dry description is more my strong suit. Your reason to delete the very short summary did startle me. Your strong aversion to the very brief summary led me not to revise what I wrote.

Yes, of course these summaries need to be terse yet clear, and pick up the points on which the plot turns. In mystery stories, pick up the points that lead the detective to find the resolution, which is as important as the name of the character who did the crime. Prairieplant (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote the original intro: "Is there safety to be found, travelling from one Benedictine monastery to another? Political chaos leads to civil chaos, catching up a brother, sister and her tutor in life and death confrontations beyond their once-sheltered lives. Treating a brother at a neighboring abbey, Brother Cadfael solves both the murder of the most innocent and the guilt of the suffering, while the civil forces restore order." This strikes me as the sort of thing which might be written by sensationalist publishers on the inside leaf or back of a dust jacket. It is inaccurate in some respects, and too vague in others. ("Brother" refers both to a monk and a brother by blood. What are "civil forces"?) By all means add a dry intro, briefly describing the book's publishing details, spin-offs and, if a reliable review can be found and cited, the book's major themes. HLGallon (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked for reviews but had no luck, not on web sites by book lovers, or in newspapers.

I see, two meanings for small b brother. Civil forces are the sheriff, not the army. Well, another try might distill the story. Those are contrasts and story tensions I saw. You call it sensationalist. Well, try for a middle course.

I am not much expert on publishing details. I see, only one reissue date is supplied, not the original. The television and radio programs are already mentioned. It is the short introduction that lacks -- which I can contribute. Prairieplant (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I edited the plot summary to fix problems, only to find myself reverted to your last version. I must insist that the following features must be addressed:
  • Dates; most of these are not mentioned anywhere in the novel, and to impose them is puahing original research, whether the calculations are correct or not. Nor are they really relevant. "As the first snowstorms of winter ..." is descriptive, and indeed an anchor point for the narrative at several points in the book. "... on 5 December" is meaningless.
  • "... proving to be nine days." OR again, and not relevant.
  • "Cadfael dismounts to lead the horse..." unnecessary detail, and glimpse of the blindingly obvious. "As Cadfael leads the horse..." saves verbiage.
  • "...Hugh Beringar has arrived in response to his message." What message? No message has been mentioned anywhere.
  • "At the hut, Elyas talks in his sleep." And says what? Nowhere is it made clear that he appears to confess to murder. "At Bromfield, Yves tells Cadfael what Elyas said." is still meaningless.
  • "Dinan recognises the brigand leader as Alain le Gaucher." Who or what is le Gaucher? The reader should not have to leave the summary to read the potted biographies underneath to find out.
  • "Boterel arrives at Bromfield to reclaim property." What property? "... a stolen horse." is a mere two extra words and far better description. Instead of property, Boterel might as will have arrived to reclaim stuff, or things.
OK, at 1301 words, the plot is longer than recommended, but it is a long and complicated plot, and it is awkward to summarise without losing important details. HLGallon (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

HLGallon, I thought we had talked this all out before. Making the plot summary longer is pointless. All good books have complex plots; our task is to trim out what we can and leave a reasonable summary. Longer novels than this have summaries that meet the Wikipedia standards. I appreciate how much you love this particular book. I like it too. But it needs a shorter Plot summary, not a longer one. WP:PLOTSUM

I am sorry to see that you put all those words back. They are not an improvement to the Plot summary, and a bit of an insult to me.

There is no original research, the dates are in the text, and you can read the book again to see that. You make that accusation rather easily, without checking the text yourself. That is how I knew the story happened in nine days, from the dates given. I went through to eliminate things said twice. Any change that makes it longer is a bad change at this point in my thinking. I hope we can agree on that. 1,300 words is close to double the guidelines. I got it down a little. The real edit it needs is not to include all the complexities but to relay the main threads of the story. Shorter Plot summaries than this one have been flagged for length by other editors. I think this one would read better if it were shorter. The book is rich with details, but there are main threads in the story. I hope we can agree on changes if they are shorter, more concise. Have a good night or good day! --Prairieplant (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's NovicePrairieplant (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[edit]

The term squire in the 12th century referred to an aide or young man in training in the service of a knight.

The meaning of squire as a country landowner was not current until several hundred years later.

A man who owned a manor and lands surrounding it was called lord of the manor. Thus, it is not correct to call Leoric Aspley a country squire. His family was long in the area, from the Saxon days (that is, before Wiliam the Conqueror and his power over land ownership). Leoric Aspley was successful, as shown in his being called a generous patron of the Abbey by Abbot Radulfus. In discussing son Nigel settling in a manor further north upon his marriage, Nigel was described as seeing his lording.

Bucolic is not the opposite of prosperous. Throughout the story, Abbot Radulfus gives this family special attention because the generous donations to the Abbey made by Leoric Aspley. The finery of the wedding is marked as well above the common, suitable to a prosperous manor. All of England was bucolic in the 12th century; London had under 20,000 people.

The Sanctuary Sparrow by Ellis Peters[edit]

The story takes place in a week, from after midnight the night of a Friday wedding to dawn on Saturday one week later. "The winter had been hard indeed, but was blessedly over, the sun had shone on Easter Day, and continued shining ever since, with only light, scattered showers to confirm the blessing. "

The days of the week are in turn described as matching the statement above (from the 4th paragraph of Ch.1) about the lovely weather. The boy does not enter the Abbey for a few more paragraphs. Thus it is Ellis Peters who says it was a lovely night in May when the story began.

Can someone explain the AnomieBot? I found a spot-on definition of a jongleur in 12th century England. I used the link in the plot summary, and again in the description of the character Liliwin who is a jongleur. The link works in both cases. What is the objection, why does the link "fail"? Cannot talk to a bot, I guess.Prairieplant (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

An Excellent Mystery by Ellis Peters[edit]

I removed this intriguing review because the link is not valid in Aug 2012. I did search at Nan Hawthorne's newer blogs, and cannot find reference to any Ellis Peters reviews. Perhaps someone else can find it?

"A more recent review can be found at "That's All She Read With Nan Hawthorne" "I don't think I have ever read a sweeter love story. You will just have to read it to see what I mean. It is, indeed, an excellent mystery."[1] /Blog no longer at URL, Aug 1, 2012/" Prairieplant (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC) References

  1. ^ Nan Hawthorne (22). "That's All She Read With Nan Hawthorne". That's All She Read With Nan Hawthorne. p. 1. Retrieved 16 April 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

The Raven in the Foregate by Ellis Peters[edit]

This page was nearly bare, so I did plot summary, list of characters, theme and setting in history, and even found some of the critical reception. The last, not from newspapers of the time, but on line blogs and Kirkus Reviews. Not sure how to find those original reviews, when it was published. Added reflist and external sources. Accurate, but not as concise as I would like to be.

Still missing -- commentary on the herbal recipes given in this book; more about the television adaptation, which I did not see. Was its plot the same as the book? Altered slightly or a lot? If someone else knows, it would be great if they add that. Also, an image of the book cover. I cannot quite figure how to do that, even if it seems simple to do fair use from an Amazon cover image. Hoping someone else can do it easily.

Finding the French version of the title (wings of the raven) made clear the meaning of the title -- simply that the tall and dark haired Father Ailnoth, in his priestly garb and walking rapidly, looks like a raven as he stalked past Brother Cadfael near the Abbey, on the way to his death. Ravens have so much symbolism, hard to know if any specific symbolism was meant.

Prairieplant (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Leper of Saint Giles[edit]

This is text from Chapter 1 of the book, mentioning Empress Maud and the setting relative to the activities of the Anarchy:

It was a large house, well walled round, with garden and orchard behind, and it belonged to Roger de Clinton, bishop of Coventry, though he rarely used it himself. The loan of it to Huon de Domville, who held manors in Shropshire, Cheshire, Stafford and Leicester, was partly a friendly gesture towards Abbot Radulfus, and partly a politic compliment to a powerful baron whose favor and protection, in these times of civil war, it would be wise to cultivate. King Stephen might be in firm control of much of the country, but in the west the rival faction was strongly established, and there were plenty of lords ready and willing to change sides if fortune blew the opposite way. The Empress Maud had landed at Arundel barely three weeks previously, with her half-brother Robert, earl of Gloucester, and a hundred and forty knights, and through the misplaced generosity of the king, or the dishonest advice of some of his false friends, had been allowed to reach Bristol, where her cause was impregnably installed already. Here in the mellow autumn countryside everything might seem at peace, but for all that men walked warily and held their breath to listen for news, and even bishops might need powerful friends before all was done.

Supports mention in the wiki.

Prairieplant (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The historical facts have no place in the article unless you can provide 3rd party coverage about the books that talk about the period of the time. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read both of those Wikipedia guides, and modified what I wrote to fit it, by adding sources. Third party sources. Including many wikipedia entries. except your actions cancelled my writing as I was doing it. Give a person a chance to do their edits!

Prairieplant (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Cadfael Articles[edit]

Please refrain from using blogs for reviews. Articles require WP:NOTABLE sources, not random individuals. I've just had to remove who swaves of content from A Morbid Tate for Bones. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GimliDotNet I cited that blog because he had the top 100 list posted there. Wikipedia has the list posted, but it is a red link, confusing to me. I can reach it from google search results but not inside an article.

There are many blogs or sites that post that UK list. What is your guideline which one I can use so people can see the list? Do I use one as a source, with no mention in the text? For the US writers list, I found it on a public library site in the US. You accepted that one. The published source (on paper) of each list was in the External References.

One reviewer you dropped, named Cecily Felber, is an author who writes in the same time period and geography (Wales and Shropshire) as Ellis Peters. She posts her reviews on Goodreads. In one such post, she remarked that the Peters book inspired her to write her own. I had a footnote for the webpage with her and her book -- link provided by another person HLGallon. Why did you delete her?

Philip Grosset has a web site where he reviews "clerical detetctives" exclusively. Why is he not Notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? Are all blogs not Notable by definition?

What is wrong with Kirkus Reviews? Full time business is reviewing books, since 1933. Sometimes favorable, sometimes not.

Once in a while I can find Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, but not for every book. I have not figured how to get reviews from newspapers (which would come out when the books was published, therefore in their archives) or major mystery magazines.

Trying to learn.

I am curious how A Morbid Taste for Bones got on both those lists (US and UK), and I cannot yet find other reviews to match the high esteem of the mystery and crime writers. Out there, not found.

PS Thanks for following up on your own suggestion, on placement of the reference to stories with adaptation for television. My time had been spent putting content in the wikipedia entry for that year in British televion. The wiki links were useless with no mention of the date the show first aired on ITV in the UK. Got those from IMDb, the dates.

Not sure how to tell you that I have questions.

Prairieplant (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable sources are generally published works by established organisations. Personal blogs, Goodreads etc are not reliable. It is difficult to find links for Cadfael books as they are not recent (therefore pre-dating the reviews on the website) it is better for the project to have a couple of good links than a whole section of blogs GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Good work on the two new reviews on A Morbid Taste for Bones, the Kirkus one is especially excellent. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Novels[edit]

There is a project where editors work together that you might be interested in. WP:NOVELS is the link. I've joined it yesterday. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User: GimliDotNet I looked at it, not sure I am up to being part of the project. Still working on Cadfael series. Can you look at The Summer of the Danes entry? Plot summary is not the longest, but one contributor puts back details. I do not want argument. I put an alternative Plot Summary in my sandbox, but will not put it in the entry, as HLGallon will not like his/her words removed. Can this discussion about NOVELS and SHORT PLOT SUMMARIES and THIRD PARTY VIEWS of the novel include HLGallon too?

Prairieplant (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Heretic's Apprentice by Ellis Peters[edit]

I put up a plot summary just now.

Longer than four paragraphs, but shorter than the summary of Our Mutual Friend, the last, longest and most complex novel by Charles Dickens.  :-) Now even that impressive wiki entry is rated just B class (hard masters, these wiki raters).

I will re-read the novel to hear if there are errors to correct. I guess four paragraphs is beyond my scope!

Another day, it needs Setting in History to get some of those valued references added to the entry. Room to talk about heresy and heretics in 12th century England, or Europe, as I skipped all of the specific heresies and point-counterpoint dialogue in the summary. Perhaps also there is room for some discussion of seven year pilgrimages to the Holy Land by men in their 70s.

Prairieplant (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It has one quarter the word count of the Plot Summary for The Hermit of Eyton Forest, staying with Ellis Peters and Brother Cadfael. Is that any sort of accomplishment for a wiki article hoping to be "encylopedic"?

Prairieplant (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary is a very small part of what makes the article encyclopedic, in theory an article that is just plot can be deleted because it is not notable, what's important is the amount of reliable 3rd parties talking about the item in question. There is a guideline you may not have seen, it is called WP:INUNIVERSE, personally I still struggle to get my head around it but it basically sums up my point. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose not having the text immediately taken down is the only 'thanks' on wikipedia! I read the links you recommended and a few more. All the way to reading the entry for To Kill A Mockingbird as a perfect example.

Over my head, that kind of writing! I suppose I will keep trying. There is an example using Little Red Ridinghood, of how to pick the major plot and main themes, and not necessarily in the order of the plot. I do like to stick to chronology; so many challenges! I get the part about writing in the present tense and not in the world of the novel. All I do is think of extreme Star Trek fans, who live inside the show, cannot talk about it normally to understand that point. How to do that with a mystery story, still to learn.

Our Mutual Friend/Sinebot[edit]

Sinebot is a robot that automatically adds signatures when the editor forgets. It doesn't check the additions in any way. So what happened here is that someone vandalised the article (but did not sign the change) and the robot added the signature before anyone had a chance to undo the damage. PRL42 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The vandalism is gone now, the main point. Prairieplant (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi - I've replied to your question regarding Cleeton on the Talk:Cleehill page. David (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


I've tweaked the page and replied to you at Talk:Vale#Where_is_vale_as_valley.2C_other_than_this_disambiguation_page.3F. PamD 19:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent job, much clearer. Prairieplant (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So the tedious efforts to shorten the Plot Summaries, each of them are major edits. Tedious to me, trying to edit what others have assembled, most of the time. I think I understand this now. Thanks.Prairieplant (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Top Crime Novels[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prairieplant. You have new messages at Talk:The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
en This user is a native speaker of English.
bo-1 This user is able to contribute with a basic level of Tibetan.
Search user languages

I responded to you over there.
Also, on your User page, it is conventional to use Babel to show what languages you speak, for example, native speaker of English, and student of Tibetan.
Cheers, (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the Babel box to my user page. I never noticed that before. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.Prairieplant (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Olivier Charbonneau[edit]

Thanks for the translations of Olivier Charbonneau. Peter Horn User talk 04:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

agatha christie edits[edit]

I have only today discovered the talk page/messages you left for me. That function is not obvious, even though I use Wikipedia almost daily.

Of course I had no idea about the rules you cite for summaries. Surely you can figure out some way to pop them up when the edit function is selected. As with the other Rules.

The length limit makes no sense, especially since storage is free, and I suppose that one reads the Summary of a novel to understand the plot; otherwise a Plot Introduction would suffice. The logic of her often-complicated mystery novels only make sense in a longer format.

I have no interest or time to shorten these summaries. The prior ones are very deficient in logic, in content, and often make mistakes. Some other reader will have to undertake subsequent corrections.

I find Wikipedia to be immensely helpful, and have been a financial contributor. I'm not sure about your role there, but if you are this patient in explaining things to me, you must be making a good contribution to w worthy cause.

NYResident (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Jim in Rye Brook

I replied on your talk page, as that is where the discussion began. Yes, there are many features of Wikipedia to uncover, at least that is what I have slowly learned. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

/* Olivier Charbonneau */ well I did a bit of tidying[edit]

I did a bit of tidying up at Olivier Charbonneau, sorry je m'excuse it has taken me six months to get round to this... I thought it best to revert it as I was in the middle of the translation when life intervened and so I left it a right mess and didn't have time to revert it even. Also my comments at User:Peter Horn's talk page probably seemed a bit harsh on French Canadians but were left in a hurry and were meant a bit tongue in cheek, they were not meant to be a put-down on French Canadians (or indeed English Canadians or anyone else).

The "sewer cleaner" is really a struggle to translate, "ditch cleaner"? I am really not sure how best to translate that. I just did a bit of tidying up and I can quite understand why you left the French in but I have translated that as a first pass but usually when I do a first pass translate then it is not very good English so could probably do with some polishing.

I am very sorry if I accidentally offended you with my off-the-cuff remarks about French Canadians, my intent was to make the article better and life intervened but it is certainly not my intention ever to offend anyone. I am sure you know I actually translated La Corriveau, a famous French Canadian, and got her to Good Article status, so it is not my business to go around insulting people (although she seemed quite good at it!) Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

SimonTrew, when I encountered the page it was mainly in French so I gave a try at translation. We decided to leave the French until others who felt strong enough in French and English gave it a review, and now you have done that. How do we add the the tag that the page is mainly translated from French Wikipedia? Seems we need to know the version number you used to start the English version. The tag might look like this, is it close? Except that version number is a complete fabrication. Back on 6 August 2013, Peter Horn marked on the French page that the English Wikipedia page had been set up. Where does one find the proper version number?

between double curly brackets translated page|fr|Olivier Charbonneau |version=45069858

I wondered also about the references that are deadlinks. Are there live links to use in their place? The links are dead from either version of Wikipedia. We have a red linked name in the English article Pierre Dagenets, but I see there is no link in French Wikipedia either, so I will just remove those brackets.

I do not feel insulted by any of the work you did. Glad you did it, mainly. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although obviously this is not the right place to put it, I insert it here so you can kinda copy-paste it for future reference (please deleted it because obviously this is not a translated page).
{{translated page|fr|Olivier Charbonneau|version=45069858|insertversion=573975874|small=no}}, that is where I lost it when someone scraped my car so I think that is reasonable, I'lll stick that on its talk page. I'll come back to read the rest of this later but it needs that for WP:COPYVIO so I shall do that first and thank you. I can't even speak French any more since I have been learnging Hungarian all day and I knwo it sounds ridiculous but I can't remember the French for thank you, it kinda gets "blocked" but at least, Kosszonem (thank you) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Merci. I remembered. It is just weird it kinda gets blocked when I am speaking or learning Hungarian the French my brain kinda blocks it. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)ha
I don't know how others do it, but I find the version number by going to the history of the page and then doing a diff between one version and another, then in the URL you have both version numbers. But I don't know how others do it, I am old fashioned and have the URL on my browser being the real URL and not some nice 'n' tidy URL. But that's how I do it. If you hover over the differences or look at the history page, it does also come up as a wossname, yellow little sticky note thing (let alone losing French it appears I am losing English) but that is the way I do it, but it is still a bit of a fiddle. Thanks, merci bien the corrections/copy edits you made, it is always rather stilted in English the first time cos I forget to reverse adjective order, and that kind of thing. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked out all the links I think, and that is why I marked a couple as dead links. THe others that are live I improved the referencing style, but I will check again in case I missed one. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SimonTrew, thanks for showing me the easy way to find version numbers. Yes, they show nicely in the URL in the History list. You speak English and French and are learning Hungarian! It will be interesting at what point you feel comfortable with all your languages. So the translation template goes on the Talk page, not on the article page. I am learning new things all the time. I love that these articles on New France and its settlers are getting into English language Wikipedia, and then get strengthened (that is, taking the British bias out of the history type articles, which is much slower than your translation of Olivier Charbonneau). Such a grand story, I think, the settling of New France. Do you think we need to keep those dead links in the article? How long does a dead one stay there, before it is buried, I guess that is my question. I did hunt around a wee bit for some substitute reference, and found nothing, but my little search was just a toe in the waters. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would keep the dead links since you never know, someone might find a better link for them via an archive site or something, I just didn't have too much time to do it, and being in Hungary when I Google (Or other search engine) I get a different set of targeted results than probably someone in Quebec would. What is really annoyihg with Google and Bing is that (I don't know if the Wikimedia software pushes them over or what) nowadays as soon as you type even a stub article it immediately appears as the top hit on those engines, at least for me, which actually hinders finding more research to fill in the articles.
Hungarian isn't particularly difficult it is just a bit of a language island, it is not Latinate or Slavic or Germanic etc, so that I constantly find myself either slipping into French or Arabic even rather than using Hungarian words, it is just my brain kinda trying to tie it all together on the road to fluency, I will get there. It's like people say "Chinese is difficult", well about a billion Chinese people seem to manage it wihout too much problem. Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to go on the talk page, it can go on the article page itself, but it's a bit ugly to clutter the top of an article with all these kinds of boxes.
The {{translated page}} template was changed a few years ago and without the "small=no" it comes up as a tiny box, which to me just looks really ugly and also when there are other boxes on the talk page saying it's part of WikiProject New France or whatever then it gets rather hidden away and I think it just looks ugly, it's not that one wants to boast about the translation but other editors deserve to be able to see the information, I objected when the "small" came in to the default being changed thus the tag on lots of articles created before the change had their talk pages essentially changed by that, but I didn't win that one so that is how it stands. Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the main problems I have with translating from French Wikipedia is it has a very different style. Especially in biographies etc but any history article, it is always "unfortunately" this or "pleasingly" that etc, whereas English WP is much more kinda abrupt facts and that rather than these kinda bits of opinion. That is not criticising FR:WP I am sure that seems natural there, but in English WP it is much more kinda straight facts and none of this colouring, so all that has to be kind of taken out. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we keep the dead links until we or someone finds better links. I think Talk page is the right place for the translation notice, as readers in English will not so much care how the article got its start; it is others who care about that point and they can read a Talk page. A book in the news lately mentions another search engine that does not keep a record of past searches, so it needs different search strings, and might come up with more of the results you seek. I have not tried it myself, yet, but am intrigued about the balance between convenience of google "remembering" things about me, like generally where I am and what I might ordinarily seek to learn, and a search that ignores all that. It is DuckDuckGo, of course with a link on Wikipedia . Then again, I get radically different results with google searches when I make what seem small changes to my search strings.
My issues with translation from French to English, my competency being one step below yours, is to get subject and verb straight, like who is the niece and who is the aunt. I got one of those right I think, while you corrected another, where my effort missed the point. The value of multiple editors. Well, the one other country in which I have interest now, they would say Hvala lepa for your efforts. (Slovenia) --Prairieplant (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Standard of living in the Gilded Age[edit]

You asked about compating standard of living. Historian Peter Shergold (an Australian) has taken the economists' definition of standard of living and cost of living and compared two major steel cities (Pittsburgh in US and Birmingham in England). He first estimated annual incomes for skilled and unskilled workers in each city. He looked at actual family budgets in the two cities. He found the local prices for each basket item (pounds in England and dollars in US). The standard of living is what an average family could and did actually purchase every year (food, housing, clothes, leisure, etc). He found that American skilled workers could purchase about a 65% bigger basket of these goods than their English counterparts, while the baskets for unskilled workers were about the same for the two cities. Shergold's is the standard scholarly work & is often cited. --as shown by google citations. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rjensen. Then I suppose my small changes to the sentence were correct. 65% more stuff, including food, that is a lot! The Gilded Age article is interesting, first time I happened on it today. So much happened in those years, I can see. I had not thought about the meaning of Gilded as being a bit an insult, just a veneer of gold, hiding less desirable events. Hoping to return to the article, soak up more. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another O'Brian page[edit]

Hey, FYI, I just created The Last Pool and Other Stories this morning on a whim, and if you want to add anything, that would be awesome. Sadads (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sadads that is a good article. So cool to see the review from 1950. Now I want to read those stories! No isbn or short story box (I suppose Wikipedia has one, to match novels box and biography box and so on), or a publication history. Just that one printing? Forgot to sign my own post, so doing it now a week later. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship templates[edit]

{{Ship}} and its associated templates were created for the benefit of editors writing articles. There is no need to change them to standard wikilinks. Please desist from doing so. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots, you will have to send your orders to the other editors who put the ship lists in the articles on Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. I have nothing to do with those ship lists. Please desist from unnecessary posts. This topic is more than over. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read my post. I was not commenting on that issue. I was commenting on this edit where you replaced {{USS|Chesapeake|1799|6}} with [[USS Chesapeake (1799)|USS ''Chesapeake'']]. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Mjroots, The Fortune of War is part of the Aubrey-Maturin series of novels. This is the last word, bye, have a nice day. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead Man's Folly[edit]

== Dead Man's Folly ==Yes, I made more than verb tense changes. Hence the "clarified" notation. No, I did not make additions that duplicated what was told at the end. I broke one paragraph into two, but that was rearranging sentences, not adding. I did not "add" anything beyond fixes for clarity and verb tense. I get the feeling you didn't really look my changes and just arbitrarily decided to undo all of them. Douvaine (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Douvaine

Douvaine Sorry to upset you. I did read your changes to Dead Man's Folly carefully. The plot summaries for Agatha Christie stories have a bad habit of getting longer, not shorter, and I saw the change in bytes for the article was an increase. Plus I saw text that was in the denouement, the end of the summary, repeated in the opening. I look to keep them shorter, as Wikipedia's rules on plot summaries favor so strongly -- they like no more than four paragraphs and some editors will want a low word count as well -- less than 800 words for sure. The summary as it is now has 881 words and is in 8 paragraphs. If I erred, I do apologize. When I work on those summaries myself, I try really hard not to say parts of the plot twice in the summary, as one way of keeping it shorter. It was easier to revert, yes. I figured whatever needed saving from your edit could be done again. It is hard for me to keep the summaries short and accurate, trying to get a main theme, and not include all the cool plot devices she uses, all interesting characters. WP:PLOTSUM has some of the guidelines for plot summaries, see note 3 about length. There are good plots summaries written for novels far longer than one by Agatha Christie, so there is hope for success on staying accurate terse and interesting. I read your piece in the Talk page for the article. I hope some of the guidance from Wikipedia helps. As to pronouns, in general they refer to the last noun mentioned, so look for the last female name mentioned before "her" and you will have that settled. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Zacharie Cloutier[edit]

My corrections to the Zacharie Cloutier page were deleted and an the old version of the page was restored that includes broken links and unreliable sources. The explanation given was that "family trees done for famous people gather data from many public sources" except those trees that are linked that I deleted do not source any reliable public sources if at all and are not done by professional genealogists but amateur researchers who should not simply be trusted at their word. If they wanted to properly cite the information, then they should put those public sources in the footnotes and references section instead. I was simply trying to have a higher standard for source material. I apologize if I sound defensive, I simply run into this problem quite often.
For example:
Reliable sources:
Footnote #6: "Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online" - article cites published work by the University of Toronto in collaboration with Laval University and cites reliable government sources and professional genealogists.
Footnote #10: "The Pioneers" - the PRDH is a database based on the research program in historical demography that was created by professors at the University of Montreal.

Unreliable sources:
Footnote #3: "Genealogie of Zacharie Cloutier" - there are two "sources" listed on the bottom of this page which include:
1) Brøderbund Family Archive #110, Vol. 1, Ed. 4, Social Security Death Index, U.S:
Neither Zacharie Cloutier, born about 1590, nor his immediate family ever lived in the U.S., by the site's own admission, as the U.S. wasn't even a country until about 100 years after Zacharie Cloutier's death in Quebec and the Death Index only includes those who have died since 1936.
2) Family Tree 42568:
A personal reference to a random family tree of no significance most likely generated by the software or system the user happened to be using at the time the information was uploaded to the site.
As for the "Mayrand Family Assocation*" that created the site, it works in collaboration with other visitors of the site and tells them that, "We need your help, add your family, translate a page or two, help us correct errors." Some of the individual profiles on this site may offer more reliable sources, but the one specifically cited for Zacharie Cloutier does not.
Footnote #13: "Bloodlines of Descent from Zacharie Cloutier" - list no sources whatsoever. Rootsweb is just a free website where any and all users can upload their own version of their family tree that is not fact-checked by the website and is based on a user's own research which may or may not be inaccurate or misleading.

I'm not saying these types of sites don't offer valid or accurate information, I'm just saying that they should be used as a general guideline or jumping off point to find the actual reliable sources only and not, in and of itself, and an actual source.

Footnote #5: "ZACHARIE CLOUTIER and SAINTE DUPONT" PDF - Redundant link. The Footnote #4 site already links to this PDF as well as others in addition to better explaining where it came from and who created it.
Footnote #11: "Hillary, Meet Your New Cousins: Angelina and Madonna:" - doesn't mention Zacharie Cloutier whatsoever nor does the article this article cites in the Washington Post, though at least the Washington Post article has some more information on who collected the information and where you can find it, making it a better one to reference.
Footnote #14: "Genealogy Louis-Stephen St-Laurent" - this page gives no indication that this prime minister is related to Zacharie Cloutier.

Broken links in Footnotes Section:
2: "delmars".
Broken links in References Section:
Monument commémoratif de l'arrivée de Zacharie Cloutier en Nouvelle-France, University of Laval website, Retrieved on May 27, 2007
Maison Charest (House originally built and lived in by Cloutier), University of Laval website, Retrieved on May 27, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcastle13 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kcastle13 If you have the Washington Post article link for the New France ancestry of those famous women, then please do insert that one, or add it.

It is perfectly fine to used the same source more than once in an article, if the source supports more than one point. It is recommended. If it is exactly the same source, then Wikipedia has a shorthand for that, using the ref name notation. If it is a book with pages and the pages are different, then the source needs to be copied with the correct page number for each point to be supported.

I do not know what you mean by broken links. If you mean a dead link, the Wikipedia term for url that goes nowhere, the simplest first step is to mark the link as a dead link between two sets of upper case curly brackets { twice dead link } twice. A bot will come around and add the date to the dead link. Then people watching the page can hunt for live references or see what went wrong with the link. If you mean something else, like a typo, then why not just fix it?

Your concern about the Mayrand site seems odd in the context of Wikipedia, which is asking for improvements constantly. The family data used, members of the Cloutier family that emigrated from France to New France seems correct, matches other sources, so why not? The mention of the US Social Security Death Index as a source in the tree looks like something that shows up on every page of a large tree, even if it was not used for the family shown. It is a new and reliable source for US deaths since Social Security began, and the family who made the tree and is descended from Zacharie Cloutier emigrated from Canada to the US in the early 20th century, I believe. One problem with English Wikipedia articles on New France settlers is that the best sources are in French, and it is good to have both the text and the sources of an article in English Wikipedia in the English language. As better sources arise, then those will be used. Some of the articles begin as translations from French Wikipedia (e.g. Olivier Charbonneau) and editors work on finding more English-language sources. It seems you are new to this, based on the list of contributions you have made since August 2014, and you do not have your own talk page set up yet.

Sorry you were offended that I reverted your changes, all but one. Removing references without giving those who did write the article (I did not write it, but I read it) a chance to correct what you cannot easily correct yourself is rushing ahead too quickly, especially when you do not have other references to put in place of what you remove in whole. I have added the authors and date written for a couple of the sources, as the initial editor did not take as much information from the source as possible. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hain Celestial[edit]

Please have a look at this. Have a look at the news article I linked. Can I please ask who provided the 'organic' certification? Which government agency? If it's the food & drug administration it won't do since the judge has already ruled that the FDA is not reliable when it comes to these things (see [1]). Also please be mindful that the company's own claims on their own website is a primary source and is not acceptable per wp:rs and wp:npov and perhaps wp:puff. I understand you are looking for facts and not disputes, as am I--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Taeyebaar I do not see anything in the Wikipedia article as a puff piece. It is a bare bones descriptive article (a stub by Wikipedia standards), mainly listing the brands comprising the group. The court case is about personal care products, not about food, and only in California. I revised the Controversy section to reflect that, and put the references in cite web format. The food companies are not under challenge, at least from your sources, and they have the USDA certification on their products when the foods are organic. The article could use more about the dollar volume of the Group, if there are separate numbers for personal care vs food products, number of employees, location of companies in the group, etc. I am glad we are both aiming for facts in the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC) revised comment --Prairieplant (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prairieplant I don't disagree with most of what you have written. It mostly is about the company and it's products; however the use of organic or anything that gives a good impression of the products without proper reliable sources does make it appear promotional. If you can find a valid source that certifies the products as organic than that's fine. Calling some of them organic because the company has named it such is a sort of promotion. It should be verified that these products are organic. That's all I'm insisting on.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do not disagree, why did you remove all the changes I made? The stock analyst blog is fine, it is evidence that someone else sees the company in the organic food market. I think you are failing to distinguish personal care from food products. The various companies in this group that produce food do have the USDA seal on their products. That is the definition of organic in the US now, and since the federal law passed. I will restore what I wrote, and expect you to find references you like, use proper format to cite them, instead of leaving that work to others. And read them too. The food products are organic, that is not in dispute. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No that is not a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable to begin with. Somebody else stating their personal opinion is not a reliable source. I could open my own blog and state something with somebody else adding it as a citation on Wikipedia. That is not how it works. Please add some reliable sources. If you like you can shift the conversation to the talk page of the article and we can continue discussing it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

maps and WP:WATERMARK[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Clarification needed regarding WP:WATERMARK. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your hard work on improving the articles related to the Aubrey–Maturin series Dabbler (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Hundred Days (novel)[edit]

Hi, Prairieplant:

I am undoing your "undo" to the article "The Hundred Days (novel)". The redundant "ISBN" is necessary to produce the "magic link" to the "Book sources" page. It's a little ugly, and it's being discussed here. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your emotion-charged yet logical note on my talk page.

You seem to be the committee of one on this point.


Actually, I'm the choir, and you're the reverend. :-) I agree with everything that you wrote (with one exception noted below). Shall we make it a committee of two? The problem seems localized in Template:Infobox book. It needs to be changed so its "isbn" parameter does not require "ISBN" in the parameter value to create the "magic link" to the "Book sources" page. I don't have time because I still need to fix ~900 broken ISBNs. Do you want to handle it? You might also look at this discussion on the template's Talk page Template talk:Infobox book#Use abbr tag for ISBN?.

Where do we disagree? I think that the "magic link" to the "Book sources" page is HUGELY important. (If I didn't, I wouldn't work on these tedious, sometimes excruciating, broken ISBNs.) The "Book sources" page tells a reader where in the entire world he or she can find a copy of the publication...from Amazon online to a library in Spain. A second purpose--oftentimes the citation in a Wiki article has errors...from an incorrect title to a misspelled author's name. With a valid ISBN and its magic link, I can find the correct bibliographical information somewhere in the entire world.

In short, take a closer look at a "Book sources" page.

If you're not interested to fix Template:Infobox book, I'll kick start the discussion on the French Wiki page again eventually. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Knife-in-the-drawer My skills do not lie in the arena of how to fix a template, sorry. Learning that a template exists, and remembering how to use it, is more my speed right now on Wikipedia -- I learned in the last couple of months how to put the page numbers from three often-cited sources up in the text in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott, so it was easy to see it was the same source used repeatedly, and shorten the reference list.
The OCLC number (not the letters) brings me right to a page with full information on a book, and then a list of libraries at increasing distances from the zip code where someone thinks I live that carry that title. Clicking on the digits of an isbn brings me to the same page as the letters ISBN in that Animalia book page, the title as ISBN spelled out. How is it that you reach the book itself, from isbn, when I can do that only from OCLC digits? -- ah now I found a new page (new to me) with the title Special page Book sources, reached by clicking an example string of isbn digits on the Help:ISBN page for Wikipedia. I never saw that page before, from clicking on the blue digits of isbn numbers. Now I see the page you mean. The Book sources page could use a simpler introduction for dummies like me -- a sentence that very specifically says to click on any of the links below to see a full citation for the book. Some links sell the book, some links are libraries, some are university libraries. The text being so general up top, I did not grasp right away that I would find what I wanted with one more click. I expected it on that page, like OCLC. I tried it from Blue at the Mizzen by Patrick O'Brian, which has a ten digit ISBN, and it worked, straight to the Book sources page for the book, and ISBN is written only on the left hand column of infobox book. Now, I hope you tested The Hundred Days (same series of books) first. The first editions of that series ended before ISBN 13 took over, just re-issues have the longer numbers.
So, I am more educated about the ISBN searching, that it requires another click on the long list of sources, to see what book it is, and assure it matches the one in the article (as topic or reference). I understand how much work you are doing to clean up broken ISBN in references, very slow work. Now I can test if a reference by some prior editor has a correct ISBN, matching the book title. But I still need google to use the book title and author to find the ISBN for Publication history section in an article on a fiction book, for example. Sorry, I was rather emotional, because the whole ISBN stuff has not been easy to understand without a guide, and your reverting popped up out of the blue, opposite to what I have understood about good form for infobox book terms the last few years. I am not sure what I am saying yes to doing, as to fixing broken ISBN numbers. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Prairieplant:
Some quick thoughts from your comments...
  • You can get to WorldCat (i.e. oclc) from the Book sources page--I think it's in the second group of links
  • I agree with you (yet again :-) about the wordy intro on the Book sources page. Normal editors cannot make changes to the Book sources page; we must request changes. Last week, I had to cajole to get ".es" added to the Amazon links.
  • You wrote: "I learned in the last couple of months how to put the page numbers from three often-cited sources up in the text" Good for you!!! Whenever I must fix the same ISBN more than once in an article, I add a template at the top of the article, telling whomever "See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source"
  • If an ISBN is broken, the Book sources page displays a big, red error message
  • the infobox book template will get fixed eventually!!!! :-)
Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hundred Days (novel) Part II[edit]

Wikipedia's guru just showed me the solution to the ISBN situation with "The Hundred Days (novel)". I think you'll like it. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very nice, and it works, too. What is your magic trick? --Prairieplant (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I went through the whole Aubrey Maturin series of novels and used this feature. It worked for all but The Mauritius Command. The isbn is correct, I double checked it with a printed source listing all the isbn for the first editions, so I do not get why it does not work in the infobox book. Some error I made that I cannot see?
I checked the numbers on Book source, realized whoever put the isbn in first time around, put the Norton first edition for many later books, not the Collins or Harper Collins first edition. I usually left what was there, but noted it was Norton's first edtion, now I know to click that second time on that confusing Book source page! --Prairieplant (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Natzweiler-Struthof Concentration Camp photos[edit]

By any stretch of the imagination, the photo that I removed (Struthof.PNG) and replaced with the image (Natzweiler-Struthof Concentration Camp Main Gates.JPG) that you placed in the body of the article, is a poor photographic image. If it was an archival photo, I could see using it in the lede, but it is an image from 2001 taken on a foggy day, with low contrast, poor resolution, unclear subject composition and does not enhance the article. The thumbnail (Struthof.PNG) snapshot probably should not be in the lede anyway - few articles have an image, especially an unclear one, in the lede. I ask you to reconsider placement and inclusion of images to enhance the article, rather than getting into an editing war. Thanks for your consideration. N0TABENE (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE Yes we do see that photograph very differently. I see a black and white image that shows the original gate (or rebuilt, I do not know) and the later monument to those who suffered or died there: the old horrible use and the new use. It is a sharp image, not fuzzy. I am not sure what you mean by poor resolution. The composition, unclear to you, is very clear to me. Yes, different eyes on the same photo. Your photo shows a blue sky day with the gate alone, as one might encounter it while touring Alsace in the summer. I am not sure about having photos in the lead at all, which is why I cut it down from the original three photos in the lead, to one. We might resolve this by using info box concentration camp, taking the photo out of the lead and putting it in the infobox. Yes there is such an infobox, it is in the articles for Dachau concentration camp and Auschwitz concentration camp and possibly other articles too. Wikipedia is always a step ahead. In the Dachau concentration camp article, in the first section of text (History), there is a photo of the gate against a blue sky, similar to the one you took. And there are photos throughout the article. Oh, it is hard reading the concentration camp articles, though I know about them! Back to business, can you take a look at that info box, see if we can set one up for this article on Natzweiler-Struhoff. There is an article called List of Nazi concentration camps that shows different numbers for estimated prisoners and estimated deaths at Natzweiler-Struthof. How to reconcile those? I appreciate your post to my Talk page, so we can improve the article and not argue too much about photos. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The image you do not like is in use on ten Wikipedia pages, 4 in English Wikipedia, the rest in other languages, including 2 Franch pages, 1 Slovenian, 1 Portuguese, 1 Hebrew and 1 Italian page. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Google doodle[edit]

If you want to war over that google doodle being mentioned in the article on Agnes Martin, perhaps you should take it to the Talk page. I read the brief discussion you linked, which seems to include the opinions of a few and no tallies of articles about men and women compared to google doodle about noting men and women. Wikipedia marks some articles by putting them in Did you know..? on the Wikipedia main page. Do you routinely delete that from the article's talk page? Google honors people, not articles, by new artwork to honor the person. I sometimes know the person, but like so very many people, I go to the Wikipedia article to learn about someone new to me. The articles are usually edit-locked for the time the doodle is up, to discourage the many people who thoughtlessly edit the articles. Do you think it is an insult to the person's memory to be remembered? Is that the case? The arguments at your link were somewhat convoluted, that you will delete mention of a google doodle, and a link to it, for articles about women because if there is a google doodle about a man, it is not mentioned in the article about the man. If that is true (and you provide no evidence), why not add mention of the doodles about men, as your grand Wikipedia project instead? At any rate, the text has been knocked out and added back in twice now, so it is time to make a stronger case at Agnes Martin as to why that real event about her in popular culture must be censored from the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No the question is one of due weight. I have not chosen to make an exhaustive study of the number of articles on men and women which feature this factoid, but if you simply do a search you will see that it was included a number of featured articles on women, but not of men. Please do not revert this type of edit thoughtlessly, it is WP:Trivia. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

This is official notification that you are edit warring at The Moving Finger. You are now at the limits of WP:3RR – a policy you should read carefully. Should you revert again I will not hesitate to report your actions in the appropriate forum, where there are several steps of administrative action that could be taken against you. – SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Thirteen Problems[edit]

On the Blood-Stained Pavement in The Thirteen Problems by Agatha Christie: I wonder why you removed my statement that the disappearance of the blood stains is never explained. I did not say that this is the main mystery. All I wanted to point out is that this is a flaw in the story (which I had read very recently before making that entry). The story tells us that Joyce Lemprière first had seen the blood stains on the pavement (and we know from the ending that they were real) but it also tell us that she looked a second time later and there were no blood stains. How they had disappeared, is never explained -- just as I said (this is awkward, as it is very difficult to remove blood stains from the pavement, once they have dried in and even before, moreover the murderers would have had to expose themselves in cleaning the pavement, which would take a long time). So that is a weak point of Agatha Christie's story, one of the very few she has at all. I thought it interesting to give a hint at that.

Krenska (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Krenska Sorry I am so long in replying. Lots of things are not explained in those stories by Agatha Christie, my general remark. The plot summaries are meant to explain what is there in her stories, and be terse. This is a challenge, I find, to be terse yet still capture the essence of the plot. With the short story collections, the summaries, all in a row, often seem longer than a book! Your sentence sounded like something a reviewer might say, so then it belongs in a Review or Literary Significance section, but it would need to be said by a reviewer in a Reliable Source that could be cited in the article. Not that I think you are unreliable, but Wikipedia has a real preference for what they call a Reliable Source, printed or on line by a place with editors, etc. My shorter point, in the title of my change, was that it was the presence of the blood stain under the two bathing suits that was crucial to solving the mystery, not how the blood got cleaned up. If the woman was lost in the sea, there would be no blood dripping from her bathing suit hanging out to dry, but there was. It seems easy enough for the murdering criminals to clean the blood away once they saw it too. Does that make sense to you? --Prairieplant (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Prairieplant I do not think that the blood stains were very crucial to the solution of the mystery, as they appeared as a possible illusion in the story told by Joyce Lemprière. On the other hand, the fact that Joyce seems to check shortly after she saw the blood stains and they are gone, adds an element of confusion that is not cleared up by the solution and, in fact, is unfair to the reader. The story telling is such that the reader believes Joyce to be checking whether her impression was right not a few hours or a day later, but half an hour after she saw it. It is highly improbable that the criminals can clean the blood away so fast -- they'd have to notice first and, as I said, it is difficult to clean blood from a pavement. (And it would have to be done secretly.) Regarding terseness, I have nothing against it. But in the article on "Death in the Clouds", a mistake of Agatha Christie is explicitly mentioned (real blow pipes are about five times as long as she describes one). I thought, her mistake in this story, albeit less severe, should also be mentioned. --Krenska (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Krenska Joyce telling the story did not solve the mystery, Miss Marple did, (as did the police on other evidence of the insurance claims) and she relied on the blood stains dripping from the scarlet colored swimsuit. Christie's stories have a lot of "red herrings" in them, evident as such only when the solution is clear (at least to me). The eerie thing of Joyce putting the blood stains in her painting, without really being aware of seeing them, that is part of creating the mood. Miss Marple hits right on the criminals not realizing there was blood on the red swimsuit; Miss Marple's mind immediately went to murder and disguise as the obvious explanation to what Joyce saw, even before Joyce encountered the same couple a year later, confirming it. Agatha Christie may make mistakes of small facts, but not in her plots, in my view. And it is fiction, always important to remember that. If there were a mistake, for the Wikipedia article, it is best to find that said by a Reliable Source, not any old editor like you or me. We can still think through her plots and enjoy them more, from thinking how to do a concise summary, and finding or reading reviews. Wasn't it Christie herself who reported readers writing to her about that story on the airplane, with the blow pipe? So she told the story on herself, then invented Ariadne Oliver as a character who is a writer of mysteries, who gets all sorts of complaints from readers, and she makes a joke of it. Is that logical to you? --Prairieplant (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Prairieplant Of course, Miss Marple solved the case. And certainly the blood stains were presented in a way as to help her in solving it. However, I do not think that the blood stains are crucial to solving the case. It was very clear early on that there had been a murder, who had been murdered and who were the murderers. Miss Marple would probably have found out all this without any blood stains. What I am complaining about and that is why I made that remark is that something which would have been clear evidence (and later was declared clear evidence) became poor evidence by having the blood drop on stone and not explaining how on earth the murderers could remove it. Blood is notoriously difficult to remove from clothes and any porous material. Whoever would have wanted to remove it would have needed hours of scrubbing. Therefore, I expected an explanation, either that there had not really been blood or a brilliant alternative. Nothing came. Which moves the story from one of the better problems (a lot of atmosphere) among the thirteen to one of the worst. If Mrs. Christie could not come up with a brilliant solution of the blood-on-stone problem, it would have been easy to make the blood drop on sand. In that case, fast removal is trivial: take a shovel, remove the sand, distribute new sand over the place. Anyway, I thought it interesting to Wikipedia readers to have that flaw pointed out to them allowing them to think about the implications. But I will certainly not insist on putting my observation back on the page. (As to the blow pipe, you are right: Agatha Christie had been told about her mistake by somebody and later made Ariadne Oliver reveal this mistake as appearing in one of her stories.) --Krenska (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Krenska This line is from the summary in Wikipedia, calling it pavement not stones: "The men in the Tuesday Club feel that there is very little in the story to go on, but Miss Marple points out that they do not appreciate the point about clothes as she and Joyce do. The bloodstains were on the pavement, dripping from one of the bathing suits, which was scarlet in colour." Pavement may not absorb the blood; it is not saying porous stones, just vague, general pavement. There is a reference to the Spanish destroying the Cornish village four or five hundred years earlier and the blood of the landlord of the inn soaking in, never washed away -- but the village was rebuilt after that total destruction. I do not have a copy of the book, so I found a google books version on line, for the text on pages 52-53, where Miss Marple makes clear she has solved the mystery before Joyce tells the events of the following year. Maybe the point about the presence of the stains is clearer. I am glad you understand the odd ways of Wikipedia, what goes in the plot summary (some editors have told me there could be a satisfactory article about fiction with no plot summary, just the commentary of others; not that I agree with that, but that editor meant to emphasize the importance of those Reliable Sources) and what belongs in Reviews or Literary Significance or some other section of the article. With this collection of stories, the reviews as quoted in the article do not make comments on each story but the book as a whole, not helping much on the stories one by one.
"I, too, think you are just a little unfair, Joyce dear," she said. "Of course, it is different for me. I mean, we, being women, appreciate the point about clothes. I don't think it is a fair problem to put to a man. It must have meant a lot of rapid changing. What a wicked woman! And a still more wicked man."
Joyce stared at her.
"Aunt Jane," she said. "Miss Marple, I mean, I believe—I do really believe you know the truth."
"Well, dear," said Miss Marple, "it is much easier for me sitting her so quietly than it was for you—and being an artist you are so susceptible to atmosphere, aren't you? Sitting here with one's knitting, one just sees the facts. Blood-stains dropped on the pavement from the bathing dress hanging above, and being a red bathing dress, of course, the criminals themselves did not realise it was blood-stained. Poor thing, poor young thing!" (end of excerpt)
I thought it was a very good story myself. I had not figured it out when Miss Marple did, not at all. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Prairieplant I have reread the whole story now, in order not to recollect things incorrectly. And I still think the story does not work. "Stone" was only a generic for me, I am not an English native speaker, but I do not think that it is any easier to remove blood stains from pavement (as long as it is not made from plastic, which seems to be out of the question here) than from "stone". The reference in the story to blood that cannot be wiped away for years is based on superstition, but there is of course a realistic background: it is difficult to get rid of dried-in blood stains completely.
Anyway, here is the course of events. Joyce is painting in the afternoon, with the swimming suits hanging from the balcony. She notices the fisherman and tries to paint him, before he moves. He comes over talking to her, she continues painting and suddenly notices she has painted blood stains where there should not be any. She looks over and sees the real thing. She asks the fisherman whether he sees them, too, but he does not care to look and wants to talk her out of her perception. So she is standing in a way that she can oversee the place, while he is probably turning his back to the balcony.
Dennis arrives and joins in the conversation, telling that he is missing Carol. Joyce notices the woman (Carol, in reality) to take the bathing suits off the balcony, so she still oversees the place. From what is told about the conversation, it may have lasted a quarter of an hour up to half an hour. Then Dennis leaves, he and his wife drive away. Joyce now moves over to the pavement where she saw the blood stains and does not see any. Nor does the fisherman, who still is with her.
Dennis could not have washed the blood stains away. So it must have been his "wife". But the place was in full sight of Joyce! It is highly implausible, the "wife" would have dared such an action; it would be much more likely that she postpones the removal of the blood to later (for example when she returned as Carol), hoping no one will see it in between. Even if she was daring enough, she would not have had more than a few minutes. Joyce did see her take in the bathing suits. It was very likely that she could not be detracted for very long from looking at the place. Moreover, Dennis at that point was not even aware that there were blood stains. Only Carol may have noticed them. So Dennis certainly was not trying to detract Joyce, hence Carol would not go unnoticed when scrubbing the floor.
Therefore, it seems very unlikely that there was time to remove the blood stains. In particular, there was not enough time to remove them cleanly. Now the story says that Joyce looked "closely" and could not detect any blood stains. Nor could the fisherman. But what does the floor look like when you have tried to scrub something away that takes an effort? In the case of blood, the most likely thing is that there is still some dark remnant from the blood, but that there is a bright ring about it, where you have cleaned off all the other dirt that was there. Even if you have succeeded in removing the blood, the bright spot must be there, and Joyce would have been perceptive enough in the situation to notice.
The way the story is told, there seems to be really no other explanation for the missing blood stains than that they were only an illusion. Then Miss Marple's reasoning would have started from a wrong premise, but she combined all the other facts correctly to arrive at the correct answer. In this case, the blood stains were not crucial for the solution, they did not even exist, although their imagination was crucial to trigger the train of thoughts that led to the solution.
You said that there are often unexplained features in Agatha Christie stories. That is true. Nevertheless, I can quote Hercule Poirot in saying that an explanation is only an explanation, if it covers all the known facts. I seem to have thought more about this problem than you, because I realized that there are facts not covered by the solution.
Your explaining away of the removal of the blood stains, which is the part that is missing from the solution to make it fly, reminds me a bit of the way the culprits in the Columbo films explain away details he observes. They always give plausible-seeming explanations, even manage to make him look dull, but their explanations really don't work in detail. He continues to investigate and finally everything fits.
As you say, you removed my addition to the text for reasons of terseness. But it was only a short sentence, not affecting the terseness of the whole presentation at all. Nevertheless, we are already discussing the issue for a (too) long time. I believe that the sentence was an improvement over the existing text (which I left untouched otherwise), because it opens up a whole universe of new speculations about the story and alternatives of interpretation. It also points out a possible weakness of the story that should not go unmentioned. So I think you should not have taken the liberty to remove it. It was a valuable contribution, not one to be light-heartedly dismissed. But I am not going to fight wars over this kind of Wikipedia entries :-). I might fight over a scientifice question, being a scientist, but I will not bother too much with entries on fiction books.

--Krenska (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Krenska No need to argue, we agree on that. My reasons were terseness and that you are well into plot analysis, which Wikipedia wants from those Reliable Sources, not from editors like you and me. If you found a published review of the story sharing your views of it, then you might add it to the article, but not in the plot summary. Rather, in the discussion of the plots, the reviews, or some other section of the article. I hope that point is clear. I do think the blood is real in the story, and some water-diluted blood dropping on pavement could be removed by a bucket of water, in my view. That is why I think it is not important. You have another view, and that is fine, and why Agatha Christie has such wide appeal. It is amazing to learn you are not a native speaker of English. My changes are never light-hearted. The articles on novels often have the problem of plot summaries that are too long, so I look at a change for what it adds, when the summaries already need to be shorter. Nice to talk with you. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Prairieplant! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:14, Friday, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better[edit]


First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)