User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 4

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

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions.

That favour[edit]

As you volunteered... Could you have a look over An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. I've expanded it since Awadewit's comments on the peer review having managed to get hold of a tattered copy of the only comprehensive book on the subject. I have a little to add on influences, and some pics of Frye's mezzotints, but any comments would be appreciated and a little copy-edit wouldn't go amiss if you feel up to it. Yomanganitalk 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Vienna[edit]

Hey, I just want to say that having worked on the original Siege of Vienna page, and having seen it now after all the work you've put into it, you've done one Hell of a job. Really outstanding. Keep it up! Wally 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Chekhov vandal[edit]

Thanks for the message, but I'm not an admin. You can report vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if they are actively vandalizing and have received a final warning. This particular one seems to have gone away for the moment, so there's no point reporting him/her right now. Nice work on the article, by the way.--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Just a note to say that the contemporary visionary sentence is already in, in a later paragraph; I put it there as it seemed to work well with the post-mortem reputation commentary. Of course it fits where you have it too. I hesitated to revert you but wanted you to be aware of the double reference. Mike Christie (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your response on the FAR talkpage. I suppose I did feel a bit like that back around the time I wrote The Country Wife—that the love and care was a beautiful thing. But now I think we need a whole different culture on FAC and FAR/FARC, one that feeds back some love and care to the article writers. (Those unrepentant wretches! Won't bother to keep their star! Won't jump high enough when FAR cracks the whip!) I still feel motivated to try to write good articles, but not to put them through the Fearsome Featured Footnote Factory anymore, especially after my last FAC experience, and now this FAR nomination. A perfect one-two. I don't think I'm alone in this. Well, I know I'm not. In the short perspective, that's not a big deal, the absences won't even be noticed. (Depressingly impersonal place, Wikipedia.) As long as the community keeps growing at the rate it is, the influx of new contributors who put their heart and soul into getting their first FA will surely keep up the number of nominations on FAC, and of new FAs. But I suspect that once these editors have a few FAs under their belt, they too will tire of the ungracious feedback. What I think is the more and more ungracious feedback. :-( Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

I won't list my credentials, because I'm quite sure that such a list would simply be picked up and transported to FAR, but I have concluded that either:
  1. We have a different class of article -- perhaps "academic standard" or "standard" or something of the nature
  2. We have a different process of selecting featured articles, where the suffrage is curtailed and the methods altered significantly to avoid formalism over substance
  3. We redefine the meaning of "FA" so that it no longer means "best" in any sense (as the processes there now do not have much of a connection to quality of what's inside)
or there will be no more from me. Giano has already sworn it off. I have in its present form. Bishonen has in its present form. I know that Paul August has in its present form. Now, I'm not a paragon of virtue or the master of quality, but I think we as a group certainly are a bellwether. The atmosphere surrounding writing, or ever having written, a featured article is so toxic as to make one entirely indifferent, at best. Geogre 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You could take over the Wikipedia:Good Article process, you know? :-) By the way, why is this section titled Lothlorien? Surely not a reference to the fading Dreamflower of the FA process? To quote Treebeard: "Lothlórien they call it. Perhaps they are right: maybe it is fading; not growing. Land of the Valley of Singing Gold, that was it, once upon a time. Now it is the Dreamflower." Hey, now you know why I don't spend more time writing on Tolkien articles - I'd be putting in quotes everywhere. :-/ Carcharoth 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've now read the inordinately long discussions at WT:FAR, and the Lothlorien quote was not at all as I guessed above. I'm wondering whether The Scouring of the Shire might be a better analogy. Anyway, I can't tell, but the process seems to be alright. Carcharoth 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. I do indeed recognise the reference. Hang on a mo... "they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lórien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make" - I'd never thought to compare that to writing Wikipedia articles! It is an interesting analogy. Carcharoth 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia is Laurelindórenan. And the evileyed-blackhanded-bowlegged-flinthearted-clawfingered-foulbellied-bloodthirsty-morimaite-sincahonda... burárum...?
A Elbereth Gilthoniel, silivren penna míriel... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, don't tempt me to extend the analogies further. :-) Morgoth, Sauron, The One Ring (no, I haven't pipe-linked those). Carcharoth 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk: George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore[edit]

Not being a historian I would not dare to edit a featured article. Moreover, I wasn't convinced that the article itself was wrong, it just wasn't precise enough. BTW, congrats on the article and I am considering translating it into Polish wiki. Qblik 03:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read your edits and I find them very helpful. Thank you! Qblik 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Poke, as requested. Yomanganitalk 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and...if you have any spare time, could you cast your eye over Four Times of the Day (There's some heavy mocking but I think I've avoided torture or death in that one).Yomanganitalk 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
...No, I just remembered there's a dead cat, so I'm not out of the woods yet. Yomanganitalk 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare[edit]

William Shakespeare is up for peer review here. I was wondering if you had time to give it a look. I did what I could, but I feel that my review was not what it could have been, due to the recent knock on the head. The editors seem a tad resistant to my suggestions as well. I am tired and I don't want to respond to them anymore, but I feel that Shakespeare is such an important page that I have to do something. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I failed to notice that Anne of Denmark is now featured! Well done! Are you working on anything in particular at the moment? Carcharoth 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading John de Critz when you first created it. It is quite a bit longer now, and really fascinating! I don't have time to look through it in detail now, but one quibble is that it seems to be more about Jacobean portrait painting than John de Critz himself. Have you considered an article on the wider topic? I loved the bit about court negotiators at meetings exchanging miniature portraits of themselves. What would we do today without cameras, eh? :-) Carcharoth 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, John de Critz seems as good a peg as any on which to hang this sort of stuff, and you do tie everything back to him eventually, so my quibble is only minor. Carcharoth 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was Somer. I've never been good on artist names. I used to think art history was boring, but I'm slowly beginning to appreciate it more. The red-link stuff: it is satisfying isn't it. Look at how the Kirk o'Field article started. The picture in that article is amazing. The bit with the infant James sitting up in his cot praying: "Judge and avenge my cause, O Lord", immediately reminded me of that portrait here, showing an older James praying in front of a memorial to Darnley with a similar motto, this one beseeching the Lord to "avenge the innocent blood of the King". It makes you wonder how much of that was propaganda, and how much of it really was young James being indoctrinated into some kind of unhealthy revenge mindset. I'm tempted to use the Kirk o'Field article over on the WP:BLP ArbCom case as an example of Jacobean tabloid journalism! :-) Incidentially, I see Conrad Vorstius is a stub created by Charles Matthews, though neither that or my John Chamberlain (letter writer) have expanded much further. Oh well. Carcharoth 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to the "murder mystery article"! Thanks for the link to the bird pump painting article - wonderful to read. Makes me want to do something similar for a famous map. I wonder which is the most famous of the historical maps? Ptolemy's world map, the Fra Mauro map, the Hereford Mappa Mundi, or others from Category:Old maps of the world or the list at Ancient world maps? Carcharoth 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
PS. Just in case, as I know I sometimes forget to check page history and only look in recent sections, I added a comment to an old section above. The Lothlorien section. Carcharoth 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: FTC[edit]

The main page for featured topics is Wikipedia:Featured topics, the critiria are at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria and the disscussions happened at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates after being nominated with the nomination procedure. The nominator should have added a banner on the talk pages of all relivant articles, but it looks like they only added one to the talk page of the main article of the topic. Even if the wikiproject had been notified properly, the topic as nominated was a long way away from passing; it looks like the nominator was trying to nominate far too broad a topic. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind and supportive comments. DrKiernan 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That you've come back has made my day; I've been smiling ever since I hit Wikipedia. The encyclopedia benefits enormously by having editors like you around—and there aren't really so many who can write properly sourced articles in a professional manner. As for administratorship, I don't ever intend to apply, myself. I find administrators very willing to help me when I need them, which is relatively rarely (main page is very upsetting, though). All the best. qp10qp 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness regarding the Francis Bacon debate[edit]

Thanks for your kindness. It appears that civil mutually respectful discussion and debate is not as universally practiced on Wikipedia as one would hope. Incidently, as someone who has studied Francis Bacon in depth for the last 42 years, I am convinced by the evidence that Francis was not a homosexual - practicing or by inclination. The only fact that has been pulled out of the muck and mire of factional fighting by the self-proclaimed enemy of Francis Bacon in Parliament, Simonds D'Ewes, is that individual's insults and calumny against Bacon - in a private diary entry. Aburesz 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Qp10qp, is the non-removal of the reputation section going to be a deal breaker on you possibly supporting the Shakespeare FAC? I proposed a compromise, which is that we leave the short paragraph in for now then discuss after the FAC whether or not it should be there. As I've said, I'm not fan of these theories, but consensus was to have that short paragraph in. I also don't want this issue keeping you from supporting the article at some point.--Alabamaboy 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. --Alabamaboy 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I should also note I made your suggested changes on the lead citations. The only one I didn't make was note I about the Gregorian calendar (which is another point a lot of editors question about those dates). Since this note doesn't really break up the flow of a sentence, and since so many editors raise questions about the date, I thought it'd be a good one to keep.--Alabamaboy 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare again[edit]

Thanks for the copyediting work! RedRabbit1983 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen articles with much worse prose pass the FAC vote. The lead has a couple of annoying sentences, but the biography is close enough to FA standard. I've written a list of things to be done on the talk page, if you're interested. It's not comprehensive, but it singles out problems. It's best to copyedit the article piecemeal—there doesn't seem to be any other way. I, too, am overwhelmed, and I am already too familiar with the article to be useful. RedRabbit1983 13:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just an expression of opinion, neither uncivil nor a personal attack according to the definition in policy. Note that I was clear in saying that this was my opinion (IMO). It seemed better to be open than to be evasive. Bear in mind that the policy is designed to stop peole insulting eachother. There is nothing wrong in saying that an editor's position is irrational. Paul B 02:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that she is being so obstructive about this issue, despite having earlier agreed not to make an issue about it, I don't think it's unreasonable. The FAC is taken over by it, despite the fact there is no actual doubt that this has been a matter of debate. Paul B 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The most recent comment was "I would say that the concerns have barely been addressed. There are still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them. Moreover, how many readers are going to click on all of those notes? It is not an elegant nor a responsible solution. Smatprt keeps claiming that there are reliable sources for these claims, but I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford" This is palpably untrue. There are many notes, and anyway, there is no dispute that Marlowe, Bacon and Oxford have been proposed as candidates. Even mainstream sources accept that, including Schoenbaum et al, so this insistent denial of undeniable facts seems to me to be irrational. How can one say in one sentence that there are no academic citations and in the next object to footnotes because no one will read them? Aren't footnotes citations? Paul B 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I accept that roman numeral notes are clumsy, but I think you miss the central point. She says that there are "still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them...I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford.". The fact that Bacon, Marlowe and Oxford are proposed candidates is discussed by the authors who are cited, and has been since Friday. Paul B 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries[edit]

Yeah, it did take some time, but hey, the goal is FA status. The way I see it, there are a million ways to get there, and we only have to agree on one. As for me, as long as it hits one of those million ways, who cares? I might go into the history and move some of the info to an authorship page or two, though. I don't know if Awadewit will be satisfied, though. She turned me down flat, and said we needed sources in support of every candidate. Do we have that? Wrad 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Are you happy with my revision? AndyJones 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I've done some digging. I'll raise a question at the talk page, in a moment. AndyJones 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Against the wishes of everyone, the issue of authorship has become irritatingly political. As an interested party, what do you think we should do? I would prefer the matter be only mentioned in passing, but the debate has dragged on so long that even I am willing to concede. Three sentences in a long article should not sink an article's chances of being featured. Can't we give the Anti-Stratfordian dogs a little play pen at the end of the article? After all, at the least the article would be stable. RedRabbit1983 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll put aside my ill mood then. Thanks for your invovlement. RedRabbit1983 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Vinnie[edit]

Digitalis purpurea2.jpg

Hey, Qp, thanks for the note on my userpage during my break; it was a kind gesture that made my day and gave me a smile. Browsing your userpage gave me a needed lift:

"You know, Lady Francis, there's not enough kindness in the world." Round Midnight
Gardening is like editing Wikipedia: some of your efforts come off; much is wrecked by the vandalism and good-faith edits of nature.

After a week in my garden, it's in much better shape, but I'm envious of your foxglove and have given up on mine after three years. My hollyhock didn't come back either, and the woodchucks have gotten most of my echinacea, tulips and lilies, so I replaced all with things that haven't appealed to the woodchucks and bunnies in the past. My garden is better than before; I just had to learn to live with the destruction of the woodchucks and find work-arounds. Thanks again for the protective fist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I'm much of a gardener; I lost the pincushions this year, too! Anyway, I cut my watchlist in half; focus on what I can grow without killing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Should we renominate William Shakespeare once copyediting is finished, as suggested by BenB4? Also, can you list the sections with defective prose? There are only a few sections that bother me now. Well done on brokering a compromise for the Authorship section. RedRabbit1983 08:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I confessed another identity to Awadewit. Now you have identified an even earlier one. It must be my peevishness that gave it away; it follows me into whatever names I use. *sigh* RedRabbit1983 10:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I expect it to be ready in six months, then! Don't worry about my previous usernames; I am not ashamed of them, just tired of them. I was curious about how you made the identification, though. By the way, I've decided to take my hands off the article. There is too much to do, and I am no scholar of Shakespeare. I'll leave it to your capable hands. RedRabbit1983 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I used one account briefly to write a hoax article. It survived speedy deletion and there was talk of improvement. Eventually, I owned up to the hoax: admitting that no celebrity was born in Woop Woop to a prostitute mother and an alcoholic father. I can't remember the name of the account I used. RedRabbit1983 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Progress report[edit]

How do things stand with William Shakespeare? RedRabbit1983 07:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've had enough of the article. I've been copyediting it on and off for six months, mostly the first half. Most of my edits have been sporadic. I would be happy to hand it to another caretaker. I might go back to reading featured articles while the FAC nomination takes it course. RedRabbit1983 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


A lot of that section was written by Alabamaboy, so you could ask him. Or you could check the article history, as I'm sure it would be in there as well. Wrad 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Shakespeare[edit]

I just wanted to invite you to join Wikipedia:Wikiproject Shakespeare. Our project is pretty new, and we have many editors of all different levels of expertise/Shakespeare fanaticism. We would love to have you as a valuable asset of experience with promoting articles to FA status and dealing with the scholarly atmosphere. Editors like you are few and far between, and Shakespeare is poorly represented on wikipedia given his influence on the world. If you have any questions about it just ask. Wrad 04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Having your name on the list just makes it easier for me when I send messages out to members (i.e. for collaborations or other important events/decisions), but I think I can remember you. Welcome aboard! Wrad 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Guardian/Observer article[edit]

Thanks for your comments about John Constable I notice you edit Shakespeare too so maybe you will consider adding this new item Were these the Two Gentlemen of Madrid? to his external links? it's an interesting read. thank you Peter morrell 09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now posted a small referenced comment in the place you mentioned. I will ponder the John Constable matter further in due course. regards Peter morrell 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare FAC page[edit]

Odd. It's listed neither at WP:FAC nor on the article talk page yet, but two other editors have commented (per edit history) and seem to think it's improved. I'll watchlist it, but if it doesn't get listed at FAC, Raul will never see it anyway. Gimmetrow 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it didn't get posted, to be honest, and I didn't appreciate how my previous support was copied and pasted to this one. I want us to all be in it together. The editor who did it, though, meant well and seems to have done it out of ignorance. Wrad 02:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Style issues for Soviet invasion[edit]

There are some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) I feel you'd be better at dealing then me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 ??? --Ghirla-трёп- 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As always, I am greatful for your enormous help :) I am not suprised to see expected names pop-up in support of the 'Soviet Union was perfect' POV, but indeed, in the past they had not managed to detract Raul or other editors from seeing those arguments for what they are. It's hard to ignore personal attacks, but than Vlad has a history of such behavior. I hoped that past warnings and blocks would educate him, alas... anyway, I agree we should work on improving the article. Out of the points made so far I think only one has merit: we can indeed mention that part of pro-Soviet support came from the growing tension between ethnic minorities (Ukrainian, in particular) and Polish government. Unfortunately, Minorities in Poland is still missing (althougho I tried to give a little picture in Historical demography of Poland), but we can lift something from Tadeusz Hołówko. That said, I really haven't read anything about any serious Belarusian activity - but I'll see if I can dig up anything. PS. I will try to expand Belarusian minority in Poland with historical info.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) PS. I found an interesting article, unfortunately in Polish - published on the pages of Belarusian minority in Poland ([1]). Of relevance to FAC discussion: there is no mention of any armed or even significant opposition (or executions...) before 1939; while in 1939 some Belarusians welcomed the Soviets, they were primarily poor peasants and communists activists - actually it appears all 'organized welcomes' (the ones we can see on Soviet propaganda photos) or pro-communist partisants (which did form - but not before 17 September 1939) were organized by the Soviet-Belarusians communist activists who were in Poland for that purpose. The article nots (and Davies concurs) that most Belarusians were passive - they did not activly welcome the Soviets, but were not opposed to them; for them it was little more a change of one occupier to another (or perhaps even that is going to far, over 90% of them were poorly educated peasants who might have even not thought in terms of 'occupation', 'independence', and such). The (mostly poor) peasants, however, were looking forward towards ideals of communism (parcelization of rich lands, etc.); intelligence, while not united behind Soviets, welcomed unification of Belarusian lands and population under a single regime. Overall, I think we could add a sentence or two to the aftermath, but I don't see any other actions we could seriously take.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was some accident, but this edit of yours reverted edits by myself and several other users, including fixing a broken ref, adding ref, adding new info, fixing a picture, ilinking some terms... I will let you fix it before I do any changes I planned. I guess you clicked and edited an old version by accident?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd bet you clicked on an old version instead of the current one. Or maybe it's one in a million database glitch, I've seen strange stuff before. Don't worry - it should be rather easy to reintroduce your latter edits.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, undo is strange. I use it on commons only, since here I have a handy roll-back feature, so I don't know that much about it. And I do multitask on wiki, particularly to relieve stress after reading certain comments and such, I feel I need to 'do something', but I don't trust my judgment to keep if I stay on the discussion/article that generated those feelings, so... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We used to have a photo of such staged welcome, but it was deleted due to some copyright violation :( I'll let you rework how to be neutral and not confusing, but I'll repeat from the article: any organized welcome (with flowers, people gathering, banners, etc.) was organized by Soviet agents, in case of Belarussian villages, member(s) of Belarusian SSR communist party. The population might have been indifferent or somewhat supportive, but by itself it was not doing any active welcoming.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really need to open this can of worms? --Ghirla-трёп- 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you be more precise?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me award you the official "Piotrus "yes-men" award. :) On another note, I received some interesting comments about the article on my talk, and replied here, you may be interested in this tiny discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On reference mess: personally I think that references are up to current standards (or above), but yes, they can be improved. That said, the major problem I see is that we have both full and partial refs: full used by me (with author first and second names, full title, publisher, date, isbn, pages and link) and partial by you (with second name and page only). I'd prefer to see full refs in every case - this saves the read the need to find them in the ref list below (and it also saves the editors time to add refs to both partial and full lists). As for the Polish refs, I am always happy to reformat them better, explain or discuss - you just need to show me how they should be reformatted (or other issues with them), and I will do my best to address the problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On references, point by point:
I dislike PDFs, but a PDF source is better then no source.
Google Books: as you note, they are helpful to some. I certainly disagree that they are a problem, and I have featured and seen featured many articles with Google Book links. I really don't understand why some people have problem with them :(
Edukacja humanistyczna... that I understand, the title was improperly translated; fixed now. I will check every Polish ref to ensure full title and publisher translation is given.
Kampania wrześniowa na Polesiu i Wołyniu... fixed.
Encyclopedias: are a reliable source. Sure, I prefer to cite academic works but if sometimes an encyclopedia has the right info, why not cite it until such time that we can find the academic source? Particulary on Polish history I find this is often needed, as unlike Western academic papers, few Polish ones are online, so often I just cannot easily access Polish academic works (and English don't go into the needed level of detail on some aspects of Polish history). Then online article from Polish encyclopedia is a reasonable compromise, I feel.
Russian refs: I didn't add them, and I cannot get any Russian-speaker to translate them or format them, I'd suggest moving them to talk if they refuse to contribute to the article.
Telegrams. We could split it into several refs, one for each external link, but I don't think such multiplications of citations is needed. The current refs refers the reader to a collection of primary sources - maybe, if you think it would be better, we can convert this into a note, because of its non-standard format?
obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich - flimsy it might be, but what's wrong with that?
And I'd really like to merge the 'References' into citations. This would also address one objection - by Poeticbent, IIRC - that combined 'notes, citations and references' are too long. Not to mention that its puzzling why some, but not all, authors are ilinked (I can spot several that I know have articles on Wiki).
Drastic measures: could you be more precise? I'd at the moment oppose removing well-formatted Polish references, as I believe 'the more, the merrier'.
Looking forward to fixing other refs; -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree on order of quotes and editorial comments (which should be avoided, and they can be confused with notes). You have convinced me that the list should stay, but I will ilink some authors and add some publications; is this a 'book-only' list, or do we list articles? What about 'academic-only' or not angle?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, go on and try that, I'll restore stuff if I will be convinced its necessary and we can discuss it further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fisher: I guess you found the PDF file; it appears the entire Center for Study section is offline and has been for few weeks now :( Four issues:

  • passing the town to the 27th Tank Brigade: indeed, the pdf doesn't mention the bridgade, but mentions the parade and Germans withdrawing,; check Military_of_the_Soviet_Union for a (Russian) ref to the same event mentioning the brigade
  • parade - mentioned
  • Katyn - lots of refs, after all, main subject of the article, and gives the 21,857 number actually
  • discouragement of the research in the Sov. block - "Katyn was taboo"...

Very interesting article, I do recommend reading it. I will answer others when I come back, gotta go offline for now :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vickers: it's a ref for the Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski being the second biggest battle of the campaign. I have no reason to question it, but I couldn't find a better source to confirm it (there is plenty of refs for Bzura being the biggest, but as always, second best is mostly forgotten.). That said, now that I reread the source it claims it was the second biggest tank battle. Hmm, all things considered, perhaps we can remove the entire claim without any significant loss in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Book: see here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish specialists suggest that the actual figures were as high as 3,000 deaths, referenced to Sanford, p 23. Is he using the word 'specialists'? As somebody else noted in the review, it's rather strange, historians is more common...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a quote would be quite justified here. On the other note, I think we are doing great progress with copyediting, if only all of our reviewers were interested simply in improving the article, this would be a very pleasant FAC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with [2]; it's a nice academic review of a nice academic book, a good back-up reference, fully online unlike Google Books with their high rot tendency. Please consider restoring.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with backing Stachura with the review? It gives another source for a relatively controversial piece of info, and academic review in an academic journal is rather reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Śledztwo... I'd keep it since I prefer to have more refs and it is a good reliable source, but the fact is indeed referenced with other sources.
Davies. God's Playground is a great book, I highly recommend it. I have the Polish version (two volumes, indeed) at my place currently so I can double check anything if you want.
"The Ukraine and the Present War". I think it's a good quote for that point, but if you can find anything better to replace it, go ahead. I don't think anybody raised any objection during the FAC about it?
"The Death of Chaimke" - I am not happy with that ref neither, and indeed we can find better stuff.
Review. Again, I prefer direct links in support. For PDF, try one of the free viewers listed at List_of_PDF_software#Microsoft_Windows.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Śledztwo... Blame bureaucracy for the LONG title :(
Davies: I'll add the biographical details shortly.
Ukrainians: what about [3]? Some other links to look at: [4], [5], [6].
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Subtelny's quote is justified in main body? All other quotes have been moved to notes; I see no reason why his should be an exception?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

recent changes on William Shakespeare page[edit]

I wondered what you thought of all the recent changes to the lead section of this page. It seem to me that several new editors have come in and made numerous rewrites, resulting in the loss of a lot of hard work - especially by you. I realize we have not been in agreement over the authorship issue, but that aside, these recent changes have to do with the rest of the article, so I wanted to approach you for your opinion. In the last day or two, it seems the article has gotten worse, not better. Because I am a controversial editor, I hesitate to restore the earlier FA work that has now gone missing for fear people will question my motives. If you feel these changes are for the better, I will defer and not quesiton them.Smatprt 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, for the record, I merged short paras in the lead, since WP:LEAD states 'no more than four', and few big ones look better then several (five or six...) smaller ones.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable source?[edit]

I noticed Soviet invasion... cites in one place an author whose reliability (particularly in that publication) is questionned here. It's not very urgent, but I'd appreciate your thoughts.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, because of this... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Henry[edit]

Hi! I know these kind of things in history might not be most interesting for you, but Bishop Henry is running for FAC, and there's a problem that the text used in the article has not been copyedited, and is not very well written. That has been complained in the FAC-page, complains, but no-one to fix it. So if you have any spare time for this, some copyediting by a native speaker of English would be very appreciated. I notice you're quite preoccupied with WWII related stuff so if nothing else, just dropping by to say hello to a comrade helping alot in FCW. :-) (Weird by the way, the article has died, no real edits after its appereance on the main page) --Pudeo 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WB Yeats[edit]

Hey Qp10qp, I realise you are busy as one of our most industrious editors - I've been following the William Shakespeare page, and I saw your work on the FAC Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). But if you have time help would be appreciated on closing the FAR for William Butler Yeats. The bio content is complete IMO, but needs a copy edit. I have text files of sketches for "critical analysis" and "legacy" sections that are near ready to move to mainspace. but I need a copy eitor and help in general. I understand if you are otherwise committed, so no worries either way. Ceoil 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Nothing urgent, particularly as I know you don't like multitasking, but at some point in the future, I'd appreciate your comment at Talk:Jogaila#Polish-Teutonic_War_.281431-1435.29.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

that's all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Hah, I am planning to FA Józef Piłsudski around the fall, so... :) On the other note, although it's not directly about Soviet invasion of Poland, perhaps you may want to check one of my sung poetry translations. I should actually translate the one about Soviet invasion... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Of course the original has some rhyme :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


I have started a draft of my guide to copyediting. I might have to call upon you later for input and criticism. RedRabbit1983 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see![edit]

Hackneyed expression I know, but thought I'd drop by and see what you've been up to. I've been ferretting around stubs and copyediting some articles, including Sarah Fielding, Ramsay Heatley Traquair, David C. Baulcombe, central retinal vein, and John B. Macy. I'm also trying to nurture a rather large biographical project at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, with some gory details at User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. I've missed some stuff out, but having written this, I think it would help me to write a little monthly summary of what I've done. Do you ever find that helps keep track of things? Maybe I just need to organise my watchlist better, or focus on one thing instead of flitting around. Anyway, let me know if you have any big articles you are working on. Carcharoth 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"tasks appear out of the blue on Wikipedia and set fire to one's backside" - LOL! That is very true! Good luck with the Shakespeare work. Those sort of articles are difficult because nearly every section has a "see main article" bit, which can get very distracting after a while. As for my broad range of interests, that's a bit misleading as apart from the anatomy one, the common thread is biographical - people and the story of their lives. Endlessly fascinating whichever country and century you are in. Let me know when you get round to the Jacobean murder mysteries! Carcharoth 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Hungry, eh? [7]


How do I fix this sequence:

Public records indicate that Shakespeare commuted between London and Stratford during his career. According to tax records, in 1596 Shakespeare lived in the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, when he was in London.[48] ?

I believe that Strunk and White would not be happy: "Public records indicate that... According to tax records... Shakespeare." The sequence is unbalanced. RedRabbit1983 07:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Next question

How do I fix this:

He was granted the honour of burial in the chancel, not on account of his literary fame but for purchasing a share of the tithe of the church for £440.?

"not on account of... but for" is stilted for obvious reasons. RedRabbit1983 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


I think your latest edit to William Shakespeare has a copy/paste error in it. The pseudo-ref <sup>[[William Shakespeare# note-68|[73]]]</sup>, attached to the sentence “The early histories, which rely heavily on the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, have been seen as justifying the Tudor monarchy, concern the evil results of weak or corrupt rule.”, needs fixing. I couldn't from a quick glance tell for certain which ref it should be pointing at. --Xover 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Marriage graf[edit]

Look at that again. I changed who issued the marriage license for accuracy but it is unwieldy as a result. Tom Reedy 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was too much after I got done, and I hoped you might be able to cut it down, but the diocese would not be the issuer of the license. I've been comparing your edits with what was before, and for the most part they are very good and more conscise. I am not yet done with the biography section, and I'm going to have to change some of your changes to avoid repeition. For instance, I'm putting the information about the tithes in the later years section because it relates to the reason he is buried in the chacel, so I'll have to go back up and edit the section you added that to. No biggie, though. As a whole, the article is light years better than it was when I first saw it, and some of it approaches the quality of a print encyclopedia. Tom Reedy 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also see some opportunity for reader confusion in this graf: In 1599, some members of the company formed the syndicate that built the Globe Theatre on the south bank of the Thames, just outside London, which they leased to the playing company. In 1608, the partnership leased an indoor theatre, the Blackfriars, for twenty-one years. The venture proved a success and added to Shakespeare's growing wealth.[1] Already in 1597, he had bought and renovated New Place, the second-largest house in Stratford; in 1601, he invested in 107 acres of arable land near Stratford; and in 1605, he had bought a share of the Stratford tithes, which brought him £60 a year.[2]

My understanding is that the Burbages already owned the Blackfriars, and it was the Globe syndicate that took it over as housekeepers, who then leased it to the playing company. The Stratford tithes, which I explain in a section to come, brought him a net profit of £40 a year, not 60. Tom Reedy 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A step up[edit]

What would you do if I were to nominate you for adminship? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are admins and admins. Personally most of my admin duties involve using rollback button on vandalism, and every few days blocking an anon ip or deleting some vandal-created article - so I just do what I do, write content, and occasionaly nudge something or somebody with the mop while I am at it and can help. Are you sure you would never use those tools? Was there never a vandal at Willie S. whom you could have rollbacked and blocked?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. OK. IMO==Punctuation== Why do you use a semi-colon to set off a dependent clause? Tom Reedy 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. It is much better now that you've cleared out the brush. I'm currently checking cites. It is tedious, and I've gotten busy the last few days, so it's going slowly. Tom Reedy 11:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Those errors about her children and Quiney being a hatter were mine. It was a late night. If consistency in the refs is critical, more work needs to be done, cos all those quoted passages are going to have to be stripped out. Also, as I said earlier, I don't see the necessity of three cites for every fact. I do think a variety of sources indicates wide referencing; we don't want all Schoenbaum. Tom Reedy 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy at my job the past few days and have only been able to check the cites down to No. 35. I hope to be able to finish checking the Life section cites tomorrow, but I'm going on holiday beginning Saturday and I'll be out of town for a little more than a week. If I don't finish I'll let you know, but I do need to tell you I don't have Wells's Oxford Shakespeare, Bentley, Kastan or Adams.

I think you should rush the FA application, cos it appears to me that Mamalujo has an agenda and I don't know how long the article will be stable. I sent a scan of the monument plaque to Andy Jones, and he'll put it up shortly (I don't know how to do that yet). Cheers and good luck on the app. Tom Reedy 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not quite correct: Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day; but it was not until the eighteenth century that his reputation began its rise to the heights it enjoys today. This is: Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but it was not until the eighteenth century that his reputation began its rise to the heights it enjoys today. And this is: Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day; it was not until the eighteenth century that his reputation began its rise to the heights it enjoys today. I think the comma version more elegant. Tom Reedy 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. OK, I will. IMO the semi-colon gives too much of a paude. 2. Right. This is a summary, as concise and accurate as we can possibly make it. Tom Reedy 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm on board. The article is definitely better. Wrad 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was you[edit]

earl of Somerset - that lowercase Earl is a dead giveaway. I just ran through the Shakespeare article (I was looking to see whether he had any descendants, which the article answered very nicely, thanks). If you are still working on it, I left a couple of comments in the text and I also think you should look at the linking as it seems rather random; things will be linked a couple of times in quick succession and then not again later on. I changed the A.B.Somebody format to A. B. Somebody, but I as I got to the end I noticed that seemed to be intentional, so please change it back if there was a reason for it. I found the section on the tragedies in Plays a little wishy-washy. I don't think I'd have a much better idea about them having read that than I would have done beforehand. Hamlet seems to be separated out because his tragic impulse is not to act, but at the same time it tries to lump his tragic theme in with the others. It says "until that flaw finally destroys the hero and order is restored" (which in itself is a rather generous reading of many of the bloodbath endings) and then we have Desdemona being butchered which doesn't illuminate the point, and "unrelieved cruelty" in King Lear, which would seem to contradict it. The article is top-notch on the whole though, and fair play to you and the other authors for attempting it Yomanganitalk 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits[edit]

I disagree that combining short refs and full citations works well on Wikipedia, nor any other place. In consideration of the poor reader — myself included — attempting to decode a block of text with 15 commas, 6 parenthesis, 3 semicolons, and a few plain colons and periods thrown in for good measure (the numbers are illusory, of course)… Citations work, and the reason for standardized formats for them is, due to the reader's ability to disambiguate the first “text, more” as the author name by the fact that it's at the beginning (etc.); and this scales somewhat to combined refs provided there aren't too many and they're sufficiently simple and regular. When you intersperse full citations with shortrefs the shortrefs simply disappear in the noise.

However, your point about Scholarly practice brings in mind WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, a biographical book, or a traditional journal article. The reason for short refs — primarily — is to save on the limited space available for footnotes in a paged media such as a book or journal article. This doesn't really apply on Wikipedia. Ditto on combining references. Always using full cites has the advantage that the reader always has the full details available, rather then having to trawl through Chambers' 20 odd pages of sources he uses short refs for in footnotes (or Schoenbaum's endnotes). There're certainly drawbacks as well; which serves to point out that the issue isn't clear cut and intrinsicly obvious!

This is what I meant when I refered to a lack of a consensus standard on the references format. All these little details (comma vs. semi-colon, number vs. roman numeral, etc. etc.) should be — and, I'd previously assumed, were planned to be — hashed out as part of the “Standardise references” point on the todo list. I'm biting my tounge to avoid reverting the arbitrary changes to the references that are called “standardising” when in fact they're expressions of personal preference. Well founded and widely held preference, but preference none the less. You yourself have “standardized” references to indicate multi-volume works in at least two different ways (as I recall from watching the change history), and, I'm fairly sure, am diverging from scholarly practice — the argument you bring in the opposite direction here — in replacing the roman numerals with plain numbers in the volume numbering.

That's not a critcism of your work — Far from it! — rather a plea to re-examine assumptions about what reference “must” look like.

That said, my edit was actually intended precisely to combine the triple- and double-refs in the Death section into a single footnote — deliberately leaving Tom's alterations of my original full cites as they stand — and the splitting of the combined short/full cite a mere aftertought. I find I'm somewhat annoyed by the implicit assumptions applied with the word “standardize” in relations to the references here, but since I strongly suspect I'd be in the minority in wanting full cites and extensive use of citation templates and because this is a miniscule point in the big picture, I'm chiding myself to stillness on this topic.

Please do feel free to revert that particular edit! It was made in good faith, and in a debate I would defend the reasoning behind it, but it's a minor detail; despite what the length of this reply might suggest. :-) --Xover 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Nevermind the latter. I see Tom has allready reverted that edit… --Xover 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Text boxes vs. jpgs[edit]

If you send me your e-mail address I'll send you some jpgs which with to replace the text boxes. I agree they're ugly, but I don't know yet how to post images and I'm too close to going on holiday to care enough to learn right now. Tom Reedy 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Chambers, William Shakespeare, Vol. 2, 67–71.
  2. ^ Wells, Oxford Shakespeare, xviii; Bentley, G. E (1961). Shakespeare: A Biographical Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press, 36. OCLC 356416.