User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 8

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

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions.

Louvre at FAC[edit]

Hi, thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the FAC of the Louvre. I addressed your comments (see here). Inititially, I had been concerned about the length (this particular section was always the most fascinating to me, also) so I was trying to keep the article short. However, now that you have brought it up, I expanded the section per your suggestions. I agree, Lescot should be given more space. Please let me know what you think of the edits, and again, I thank you! Lazulilasher (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

for your kind words on my RFA and also all the help with William Wilberforce. I will get back to it soon, after I have recovered a bit from the stress of this week. I look forward to working together on Learned Hand too! Thanks again.--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tudor portrait artists[edit]

Dropping by to let you know that I've just read William Scrots (weird name), which I instantly recognised as an article started by you! :-) I just linked to it from National Portrait Gallery, which I just expanded, mainly to add a list of the exterior busts. Similar to what I did at Frieze of Parnassus. Any Tudor people in that list? Anyway, I see you are steering towards Arthurian areas at the moment. My next big project will be uploading pictures from a recent holiday. One of the places I went to was here, where I took loads of pictures. I also read a history of France, and kept thinking of Catherine de' Medici and her building projects, when I was reading that section of the history... I should probably ask people to do a wishlist next time before I go on holiday in the Loire Valley! It was the first time I had seen those French chateaux. Each one I saw was from a different period and instructive in its own way and with its own appeal. I was rather surprised though, to see that our articles on the chateaux (see Template:Loire) are not that good. I know you did that article on Catherine's building projects (I see that Catherine de' Medici's court festivals was started a few months ago), so I thought I'd mention this to you, but I'm going to ask a few other people as well, including those who write about architecture. PS. Forgot to mention that I only found out after leaving Amboise, that Leonardo da Vinci was buried there! Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Helping out with this and that is a good way to recharge the batteries before plunging back into what you really want to do. It can be very distracting though! I have a problem in that I have far too many pictures and it will take an age to sort through them. Sure, only a few pics will end up being used, but hundreds of pictures is sometimes a bit overwhelming. I did get a nice one though of the rather flowery and noble statement made by Henri, comte de Chambord, and engraved in marble, declaring that he would not give up his allegiance to the white standard borne by his ancestors before him, ie. he would not rule under the tricolor. And that was the end of the French monarchy, the last hope of restoration gone (though I'm sure it was only a faint hope). It's in French, so I have to find an English translation somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And I thought there was a French architect on the frieze! Frieze of Parnassus <-> Philibert de l'Orme <-> Catherine de' Medici's building projects. That was beginning to bug me. Glad I sussed out the link. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Valois Tapestries[edit]

I somehow missed your April work on the Valois Tapestries. Well done, and thanks for the additional images! - PKM (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yellow starch[edit]

Yes, I am interested in an article on Yellow starch. Was the fact that Turner was an accused poisoner who made her living from yellow starch enough to doom it from fashion, or did the King outlaw it? Have to research that...!) We have several portraits showing yellow-starched ruffs and cuffs in the Commons (Mary Radclyffe, Isabella Rich, and ?Dorothy Cary). - PKM (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Carr is wearing yellow starch. Do you want to start this and I'll jump in? I have to travel on business, may not have a lot of time the next couple of weeks. - PKM (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen Bess[edit]

Have you seen this BBC story? Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone has already added the information to Elizabeth I of England, which I am going to have to remove. Who would go to Alison Weir and Tracy Borman to verify a painting? See the comments that I will shortly make at Elizabeth's talk page. qp10qp (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh. Lucky I didn't add that then! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help[edit]

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Avonian Willie's ghost rises again[edit]

Shades of Tutankhamun! Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Elizabeth Bentley[edit]

I'm glad you liked the article, and thanks for the kudos. I confess I'm rather proud of the work I did on that one. RedSpruce (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ping[edit]

You have mail, by the way, as long as your spam filters haven't eaten it up. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley featured topic[edit]

I have started the long trek toward the Mary Shelley featured topic. I plan to do the "easy" articles first. :) I have put up Maurice for peer review, if you have time to look at it, fellow Shelley expert. The "Themes" section is the most worrisome section right now - I found it hard to join together the little bits of information that I did have. Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I already read it and thought it was fine. But I'll have another look.
Rather you than me with the featured topic, but put me down for Matilda. I'm already collecting sources. qp10qp (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men up for peer review, if you have time. Organization was horrifically difficult for this article. All suggestions are welcome! Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the weekend. qp10qp (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team[edit]

Do you think we need to alert FA-Team members on their talk pages that new projects are underway? They might not all be watching the FA-Team page. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so. But I am really really reluctant to taking anything resembling an organising role. qp10qp (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC history section regarding France[edit]

Hi Qp10qp, I have been looking at your suggestion for the history section some more. I know I said I thought it was too long but honestly, I dont have a better version. Would you be willing to add your text and reference it? I might add that I dont think it offers much more useful information than what is already there. I added some more comments on the article talk page where this is discussed and provided the full quote from Duffy's Saints and Sinners. NancyHeise (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More on the three comets[edit]

I found this on the three comets, which is a treatise talking about the "III late comets", and it dates them as November-December 1664, January 1664/5 (is that a way of indicating that what we would call January 1665 was, in those days, both 1664 and 1665 - maybe a New Style/Old Style issue?). The third comet is dated April 1665. Some nice doom-laden quotes as well! Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrots - Edward VI portraits[edit]

Can you help on this. I'm fairly sure the one the article says is at "Hampton Court" is not - but this one is, or was till recently. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley[edit]

I'm probably not qualified to offer a true peer review of this article, as I don't have most of the references provided. I've read through the most recent version, though, and it looks extremely good. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley and FAC[edit]

I have finished all of my pre-FAC stuff. For me, it is all about peer reviewers and what we need to finish up from the talk page. After that, I think I can say I am behind the FAC nomination. Just so you know, I am leaving for Wikimania on July 10, so we should plan around that - either before or after. Hope you are doing well. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! Could I just apologise for not reviewing Lives yet. RL is quite demanding at the moment and I am not finding enough time for Wikipedia. I'm hoping Thursday evening will be good, but, whatever, I won't forget. qp10qp (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a Skype peer review with Shoemaker's Holiday tonight and fixed things as we were talking. I still have a few issues to fix from that. I've also asked a few other people, trying to drum up another review or two. We'll see what happens. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Henrietta Maria[edit]

I think you should have a look at the Henrietta Maria article. Someone has changed her birthdate. I have always seen either the 25 or 26 November 1609 date but somebody has changed the date to 16 November.jeanne (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right; it is usually the 25th, sometimes a day or two later; one or two sources might give an earlier date but they'd be very much in the minority. As usual, it's about sourcing; if you ref a date—better still, with a double ref—it will be much harder for anyone to change it. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your article on the Wives and Mistresses of Henri IV is excellent-really professional and highly-detailed. My sincere complimentsjeanne (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Well, it leaves out much of what appears in the individual articles, but I only included what I found in the sources. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Miniature[edit]

May well be true. It's very hard to tell with these things. *sigh* Do what you think best, it seems this be a minefield. If it helps, if you check the previous version, you'll see I cleaned up the black-and-white version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. as I said, there's always Image:MaryShelleyEaston2.jpg as a fallback - I got Awadewit to send me a higher-resolution scan, and cleaned it up as best I could. Sorry if her skin is still a little blotchy, but it did take about an hour of manipulation to get it to that level =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ovals[edit]

I used an oval select, kept tweaking until it was pretty much exact, then inverted the selection and hit delete. Not, perhaps, the best way - but a successful way!

If you don't have an anti-aliassing selection tool, I'd suggest selecting just the very edge of the oval and applying a slight blur. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Cold War[edit]

Alright. I'll pull up some stuff and leave it on FAC. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please. Like I care about what Sandy said. In a good way. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wives and Mistresses of Henri IV[edit]

Seeing as I'm shortly going on my holidays, I shall put your article up for nomination when I get back, at the end of summer. That way, I'll be around to answer any queries. It's a very good article and needs to be a FA. As for PHDHistorian, I am so embarrassed about our on-line brawl, so many people saw that. I wasn't angry about his rejection of Jane Grey's DOB, it was his tone that infuriated me. Oh well, at least I learned an important lesson. I shall never argue over anything so trivial, especially with an academic who will always win in the end by dint of the massive arsenal of references he has at his disposal against my pitiful resources. I've a few historical biographies, while academics have university libraries to fall back on! It's rather like attacking a tank with a bow and arrow. Anyway, if you think it gets hot on historical articles, go over to the Kennedy assassination, or Irish articles, even rock music pages!! My first arguement was on the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page because I included Oswald's ancestry, which led to an exchange of words over his guilt or innocence. I tell you. Lol. Good luck on the article. As I said, I'll nominate it when I get back. Cheers and best wishes. jeanne (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. This will give me more time to polish it up. By the way, although the nominator is supposed to answer questions, I'll be there with my books, so you won't be put on the spot. Have a good summer. I think PhD was different from the usual academic, since he only began his PhD late in life. That's quite rare and probably explains why he was so proud. If he had stayed, I was going to nurse him into contributing his expertise rather than just complaining, because expertise he genuinely did have.
By the way, your title above is much better, but I am conscious of how the searches work. I want people to notice the article if they type in "Henry IV of France". qp10qp (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I just automatically use French names for French people. I've got French blood in me so I'm a bit of a Francophile. I cringe when I see Jeanne anglcised to Joan on many of the articles. Yes, PhD certainly was an expert on Jane Grey and the Tudors. I'll give him that. He should have stayed on and rewritten the Jane Grey article. I had no intention of editing that page again. I certainly wasn't going to attack it with astrological references!LOL. I'd only edited it once, by the way. Good luck with the article. Cheers.jeanne (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Shelley[edit]

Thank you. Excellent article, by the way. To continue the theme, we don't see many articles of that quality! I believe I should register an opinion at the ... what do they call it... featured article candidacy. ;) Isolation booth (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've guessed who you are, as well. But mum's the word.
Many thanks for the review.
qp10qp (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake for editing FAC articles. All I really wanted to do was read the Shelley, but then habits took over. :) Over and out. Isolation booth (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Alte Buecher.JPG The Collaboration Barnstar
For a wonderful partner on Mary Shelley! Thanks so much for all of your hard work researching, writing, and copyediting. You were always willing to go the extra mile to track down that odd fact about Shelley's life (was that really Percy's heart in her desk?) You were meticulous about language and insistent that the article be accessible. I thoroughly enjoyed our wikiwork! Awadewit (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New Polish article on FAC in need of some copyedit[edit]

Polish culture during World War II. Perhaps you'd like to look at some Polish history FAC content again? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sad to hear that. But I understand your position :( I do hope that none of the users who made you stay away from the Polish articles were actually Poles? In any case, perhaps you could answer a simple and non-controversial grammatical question raised here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

David Loades[edit]

I'm glad to hear his volume is wonderful. I thought it likely, but didn't want to go too over-the-top in my praise, as I haven't seen it. I gather you've done a lot of work on the Elizabeth article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! The autobiography would of course be more useful for sniffing out his Papist POV :) Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha! qp10qp (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Gabriel, yes, I worked on the article for its FAR. But I'm not overinvested in it and am not opposed to adjustment, change of sources, etc., where necessary. My own view of the settlement is that it was a typically English bodge up. qp10qp (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth on mainpage[edit]

Hi. The General's on the mainpage tomorrow. I'm travelling so can't really keep watch; would you be able to do so? Many thanks and hope all's well. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 08:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noted that and will keep an eye out, though I'll check every so often rather than try to keep cerberan guard.
(I imagine you secretly tapping this message out from some remote rebels' camp high in Colombia, or whatever.) qp10qp (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and hehe. If only... Right now I'm in a rather different terrorist hotspot. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch as well, but I have to rely on you for the research, Qp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hand[edit]

Yes, I am glad the end is in sight. I have been finding the last chapter or so pretty heavy going and I am super happy that I don't have to plough onto the end of the book in such detail! I am dead impressed by how quickly you managed to get through all you have... it must be pretty bizarre working backwards! BTW, I am going to mess with one of your later sections to bring in some info about his marriage that would go better there but that was in an earlier chapter.Slp1 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, really. I mean they were all so innocent and prudish, what with never kissing until they were engaged and what have you. I myself was rather convinced by note 83 on p 712 that the rumours came later, and from people who weren't there, and those that were there thought Frances a bit of an ice maiden, and as a prude also against that "sort of thing". And when I think of family stories about some of my elders, I realize how much of a different world it was (at least in some communities) and how utterly immoral, and thus impossible, infidelity would be. But I agree, very nice not to have be bothered with prurient titillation here! --Slp1 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting help needed[edit]

On a short, non-controversial article I nominated for GA: Election sejm of 1632. Because it is such an obscure topic, majority of the sources are Polish, so you don't have to worry about them. And the article is as far as I know really non-controversial... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh if only you knew[edit]

[1] This made me smile, and may well explain the dichotomy of fascination and repugnance I feel whenever I read a serious dispute! Risker (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I jump to the conclusion that you work in a court or a hospital (or some combination of both). qp10qp (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's just say that dispute resolution is a daily activity for me. It's why I find it so enjoyable to wander into all sorts of articles on just about any topic (i.e., it's different) but at the same time feel drawn to the activities in which I have past success (i.e., it's a comfort zone). After a spell of dispute resolution, I "reward" myself with a nice stretch of copy-editing popular culture articles. I should probably get a life. Risker (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we all. For me the dispute-resolution instinct works itself out in comparing and analysing sources for articles, which I find much more stimulating, and in the occasional article-content discussion (which I walk away from if it gets too adversarial). Actually, it's a slight regret to me that such superb source investigators as Carcharoth, Durova, and Kirill switched largely from article research to dispute research. On the other hand, Brad was in his best place in dispute resolution and arbitration: what a horrendous shame that we've lost him. qp10qp (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey! :-) I fully intend to continue random switching back-and-forth between the two. If I do ever get too involved in the Wikipedia namespace, just prod me (no, not the proposed deletion process!), and I'll try and refocus. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

BE[edit]

Could you check my conversion of Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men to BE? I may have missed some stuff. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine. I changed one "-ize" to "-ise", even though the former is OK, really. Some of those blighters can be spelled either way in BE, but I can never remember which. So, for me, one "-ise" fits all.
You're winning Tony round these days, I see! Whatever next? qp10qp (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it Greek roots, the -ise/-ize stuff? Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have the lists somewhere, but it solves all to use -ise every time. qp10qp (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur FA nom[edit]

Hi, I don't suppose I could ask you to pop over to the King Arthur talk page and approve the FAC nomination, could I? I've fixed the references but apparently we need you to give us the go-ahead :) thanks a lot! cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Qp, there's quite a kerfuffle at Talk:King Arthur (and at WT:FAC); since you're in a different time zone than I am, if you get on Wiki while I'm asleep, and if you concur the nom is ready to move forward, please go ahead and revert the FAC and reinstate the nom. I'm afraid Hrothgar cyning has been caught in the midst of an outburst that has been somewhat fueled, and I'd like to let the dust settle a bit and make sure everyone is on the same page, since the talk page discussion definitely wasn't clear at the point I removed the nom. As one of the primary contributors, if you want to reinstate the nom before morning my time, please do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It might also help future cases if you say to Sandy whether you considered yourself a "primary contributor" in this case. That appears to be the basis of Sandy's actions, though I do recognise that any case where there has been misunderstanding would be better with a clean restart. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you're on; I'm still up; shall I go ahead and restart it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please.
I don't like to see the good guys arguing with each other, so I hope all will be mellow from now on. To infinity and beyond! qp10qp (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Most strange situation. I'd planned to go ahead and restart, but am concerned that some still haven't let go, and now worried it will overshadow the FAC. I guess you tried to tell me long, long ago, didn't you? This will actually be easier on me; reviewing and watching for all of this extra "stuff" was an effort in terms of messages left, edits made, checking and doublechecking things, etc., while moving premature noms that fail to archive is really only one step, so much easier from my end. Thanks for weighing in and have a nice Sunday ... I'm sorry if I've let you down by not handling it as Raul would have :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you did fine. You wanted to make sure all the main contributors were on board, and that is in the rules. I don't think it will spill onto the FAC. Honestly, it's just a flutter in the dovecote. qp10qp (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the thread on FAC talk about how to assess main contributors, I think it has been overlooked there that your thorough and varied methods of checking noms surpass any possible counter. It's clear to me that the misunderstanding this morning arose not from your underestimating the talkpage information but from your giving it full weight, since several of those with high edit counts had been discussing the article and its submission to FAC for a long time. Clearly, as you always do, you were taking all the factors into consideration, and you delayed the nom because you didn't feel everyone had been consulted at that time (as opposed to over the previous month). Since all main contributors have to be consulted, what you did was self-evidently in process. I can understand why you are upset at the implication that you went by the edit counter alone: quite plainly you did not. From other FACs, it is apparent that you take biased editing and other complex factors into account as well. I still think it was a very small matter in itself, but it must be deflating to be misunderstood to that degree and by so many good colleagues who, in the best of faith, failed to grasp that you were obliged by the rules to stop the nom until other main contributors were officially on board. qp10qp (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, Qp; I've taken most of the day off after being up all night because of my obligation to sort the situation as quickly as possible, so I'm just now seeing this post. I can't express how grateful I am that somebody, at least one person, gets it. Look at this most thoughtful advice a nice chap once gave me about how to handle FAC; that fellow seemed to understand me well, too, but I'm afraid I've let him down, so for pennance, I will practice holding my nose all night. Being misunderstood and falsely accused is something that I might not ever handle as well as Raul does. Thank you so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi :) Just re-read the article again (and the peer-reviews and talk-page) and wanted to say thanks to you personally for all your work on it whilst I was away: it seems really tight to me now and I am very grateful, you must have put a lot of time in :) Anyways, fingers crossed! Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is a fantastically good FAC delegate. Thorough, sensitive, hard-working, everything you'd want. The project is indebted to her, IMO. I don't understand the deep entrails of this little storm in a teacup, but I don't have to to see that it's trivial and unnecessary. I hope this all passes soon. TONY (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion - to fix the "in universe" that comes from having a fictional character along side of a supposedly historical one, the historical information would need to stay here, with a mention in the lead saying that this is about the character as seen in literature. Then it would need to start with Monmouth (of whom Garboty claims as the true origins of Arthur and the one that we cannot speculate on where he got his idea of Arthur from). That way, it would look at Arthur as he develops in version after version. Then it would become a cross of this and this (but a lot better than that second one). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


You might be frustrated with me, but I highly respect your eye for FA review and it would be appreciated here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for helping to make King Arthur one of the finest articles on Wikipedia! Without meticulous editors like yourself, where would the encyclopedia be? Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Crumbs, if it wasn't for you, I don't think I'd ever get any barnstars. Much appreciated. (But here's a secret: I'm not a member of the FA Team.) qp10qp (talk)
Thought you were when we chose this mission! Oops! Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm a pathological non-joiner. qp10qp (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

KA[edit]

Thanks :) I've ended up in too many of these kind of endless spirals when I used to help folks on usenet, so I felt this was the best course of action. It is a tad frustrating, of course, insofar as it is tempting to carry on and refute each of the new points and arguments he/she makes (which would be relatively simple), but that would just feed the troll (so-to-speak) and I suspect that I'll never convince him/her, based on said past experience. I'll just have to trust whoever closes the FAC, as you say! I certainly don't see any merit in specifically referencing or refuting in the article the various claims re: the origins of the name and possibility of different historical Arthurs underlying different poems etc, if that is suggested. They are without any support from those who work in this field and there are many more-deserving theories that should be included if we were looking to expand the article before we would come anywhere close to mentioning these ideas e.g. the Sarmatian theory of Arthur's origins, which does at least have some academic support. Anyway, thanks again, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, Qp, you don't have to do that tedious work; you can ask User:Brighterorange to run his script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Only takes a sec: drop it in Word, search, change, check. But I expect this is fallible. qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious -- any idea how long these FACs go on for?! It's beginning to eat into my writing time, lol! cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be over pretty soon, I think. They only go on much longer if there aren't enough supports or if there are items unaddressed. Don't let it eat into your writing time; I can look after it from here on, if you like. Just glance in every now and then, in case something technical has cropped up. Also, do have a word with user:SandyGeorgia, who will let you know if she is waiting on anything.qp10qp (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Still getting through my morning watchlist; yesterday, there was some question pending as of the last time I checked (can't remember what), and Hc had mentioned he had to get off the computer and left it to others. I need to see where that stands, and if images are all resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) If I knew how to award those banner-things I'd give you one too :) Let me know if I can ever be of any assistance. (Or if you have any ideas on what to try my hand at next, after those pesky book chapters are finished!) Warm regards Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing is to choose something you would enjoy. I'd like to see Alfred the Great or Edward the Elder sorted. Those might be a bit late for you. Anything about the fifth century, either in Britain or Europe, would be interesting—highly complicated, but something an encyclopedia can do is give readers a guide through that sort of minefield. Bede needs doing (user:Mike Christie, who has done lots of early Anglo-Saxon kings, is thinking about having a go at that one). All the best. qp10qp (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Alfred sounds interesting and I have plenty of material on him, hmmm... Thanks for the suggestion :) cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored Material[edit]

I restored a bunch of deleted material to the Bacon article (some of which you contributed to). It is bound to be reverted by the "owners" of the article, so you might want to have a look and weigh in/keep an eye out. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've never edited the article. My approach is to work for some sort of consensus on the talkpage first, rather than end up fighting over edits. My interest in this talkpage is that I think the arguments there are quintessentially illustrative of a key problem with Wikipedia: that it is possible to produce a completely misleading article while appearing to follow the policies and guidelines on sources. I think we are in for a long haul. qp10qp (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This Is Just To Say[edit]

Hi Qp10qp, just a note: on my monitor/with my browser, the first word of the text "The Basement" wraps around to the right side of the Seascape study with rain cloud. This could be fixed by placing {{subst: clear}} immediately below the image. Cheers Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done: I used to have that, actually, and I don't know what happened. Somebody read my userpage? I'd better update it then, as it was originally supposed to be a gardening diary.
If you come back, could you possibly think of a more lyrical title for this thread, as I take a certain aesthetic satisfaction in reading my TOCs. I am thinking of publishing them as a book of poems. qp10qp (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This Is Just To Say

I have moved

the image

that was on

you userpage

and which

you were probably

admiring

over breakfast

Forgive me

it is delicious

so dark

and so tempestuous

--William Carlos Ling.Nut 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so much better. Now that you understand the house rules, can I offer you anything from the icebox? qp10qp (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I like Boddingtons & Draught Guinness, but usually only have access to Taiwan Beer... if you're not into alcoholic beverages (and I shouldn't be–my broad mind and my narrow waist are exchanging places), I'll take a nice cup of oolong or green tea. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You speak French, right?[edit]

Interested in helping to copyedit and check over a translation of Félix Houphouët-Boigny? This project was brought to the FA-Team, but we are short on French speakers, apparently. My French is meager, so I'm recruiting far and wide (well, perhaps not so far). Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do often have to read French material, but I am laboriously slow and try to avoid it if I have to. If I'm honest, I don't think this would be the best use of my time, but please come back to me if you can't find anyone else. qp10qp (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood. It is slow for me as well. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sleep?[edit]

Do you ever need rest? I am five hours behind you, I presume, and I am off to bed now, so it must be VERY late for you!! Great editing today, BTW. There is bowing in the wind and standing your ground (to mix my metaphors), and you've done both with grace, which is good to see and learn from too. Dors bien, when the time comes.--Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had my first lie in for a month this morning (in fact all morning), and so I've been full on. I haven't been up this late for ages, but I get buzzed at FAC. I find it quite exciting. I think I will be dorsing very soon, though. Nighty night. qp10qp (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand[edit]

Hello Qp10pq. I supported the FA nomination of the article Learned Hand. NYB wanted to promote this article to the FA status. You worked so hard for this article. Good job! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand[edit]

I commented at the FAC page, but I also wanted to leave a personal note here. In evaluating this candidate article (the first upon which I have commented), I also took the occasion to look at the underlying concern regarding Newyorkbrad. I have to say, I am impressed not only with your work on this article, but also with the tribute that you've created in doing this work to Nyb. From what I can tell, the circumstances surrounding his leaving were incredibly unfortunate--even sad--and the work that you and others did on Learned Hand is a great legacy to leave behind for Nyb. Keep up the fine work. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One feels helpless when such things happen. Writing an article is rather irrelevant, I'd be the first to admit, but it's a gesture, anyway. Thanks for your review; it's much appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For the barnstar (my first!), and for the compliment and the laugh. I wish I could have observed the scene in the garden. Perhaps you could draw a picture of it like the fantastic one on your userpage. Or possibly I should just rely on my imagination. Yes, I think that's the answer.

Unfortunately I am too tired for struggling with graphics and other complexities, but instead offer a heartfelt thank you and congratulations for the massive amount of reading, understanding and writing you did on Learned Hand. I don't really know why this article was so important to me, but it was. I suppose it was the need to make something good come out of something so awful. I am glad to have been able to do my small part in the project and to have worked with such an able and collegial editor.

You realize we don't have a vowel between us? Thanks again and Congratulations!!! --Slp1 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review?[edit]

Hello, I don't think we've met before, but you've kindly listed yourself as a peer reviewer for history during the period 1530 to 1630, and so I wondered whether List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford (dealing with events between 1571 and 1622!) might be of interest, if you have any spare time. Many thanks in advance, BencherliteTalk 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. qp10qp (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question and asking for help :)[edit]

Hi, back in May you reviewed the Louvre article for FAC. Specifically, you were able to identify certain areas which were lacking regarding the structure itself and the history through the 16th-17th century. Since then, I've tried to augment the article a bit and was wondering if you'd take a look? I'm particularly concerned with the points you mentioned in the FAC and if the article is balanced enough between detail/length. If you're able to help, thanks very much! Lazulilasher (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Join the conversation[edit]

Hello again, Qp10qp! Awadewit and I are coordinating a podcast conversation about writing and editing Wikipedia articles. Since we know you to be a conscientious and thoughtful editor, we'd like you to be part of the discussion. (It will take place via Skype – all you need is a headset and the free software.) If you're interested, please visit the scheduling page and indicate your preference. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very kind of you to invite me, Scart, but I'm not really up for things like that. Haven't even got my computer plugged for sound. qp10qp (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hilliard picture of Elizabeth I at Jesus College[edit]

You may be interested in reading the article about the discovery of the Hilliard in the 1993/1994 Jesus College Record. Strong has authenticated it. If you send me an email, I'll scan the article for you. Thanks again for your comments at the peer review, incidentally. BencherliteTalk 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Strong has authenticated a lot of things and is very often wrong. Yes, I am interested and will send you an e-mail, though owners of paintings are of course biased in favour of authenticity. Anyway, it's an interesting painting in its own right, Hilliard or not. qp10qp (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ping, you have mail. Enjoy! BencherliteTalk 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Which picture is this? I've been out of touch for a while.
And whoo-hoo!!! on the new wording for the PD-art tag; thanks for being the first to point me over there! - PKM (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(After a quick high five) It's the picture at the top of List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford, which Bencherlite has up for FL at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford. I fear I indulged my usual vice for wild amateur art criticism at the Peer Review. qp10qp (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At least you didn't say "Oppose as the photo caption is based on an unreliable source"! Thanks for the kind words, though. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure I have a better quality image of that painting that I can scan, the trick is remembering where! Thanks. I'm sure Strong attributes it to Hilliard in Gloriana. Will check. FYI this one is also at Jesus College, but is certainly not by Hilliard. - PKM (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And i am wrong on both counts; if I have that portrait in color it's not in any of the obvious places, and it's not discussed in Gloriana. Ah well. - PKM (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't find it anywhere, either. I assumed I'd seen it somewhere, too, because it has the pose of the Hardwick and the face of the Armada patterns ... but, no. qp10qp (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's in Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd' but in b&w alas. - PKM (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloak[edit]

Missed it - I was at Hänsel und Gretel at Glyndebourne that night. I agree - powerful stuff if well done. It's up there in my Puccini top 3, along with Bohème and Gianni Schicchi. Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC[edit]

You asked to be informed when I nominated List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford at FLC: the discussion is here. Regards, BencherliteTalk 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawkins[edit]

It will be interesting to see your proof that Hawkins was not a slaver-trader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course he was a slave trader. It's just that we don't have to call him "Hawkins the slave trader" in that context. It's like saying "Francis Drake the pirate" or "Queen Elizabeth the virgin". Any labelling has to be appropriate to the context. qp10qp (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You might have added, "Queen Elizabeth the slave trader". See the Plymouth Council

web-site, which is quite frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted. qp10qp (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson[edit]

Qp, do you want to have a look at Samuel Johnson before it hits FAC? It's getting close, I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm deep in reading for the Edward VI FAR, and I don't want to break that. I tend to be deeply mono-articular, I fear. qp10qp (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proserpine (play)[edit]

Proserpine is up for FAC. I would, of course, value your review immensely. Awadewit (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On my list for sometime in the next few days. qp10qp (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a moment, perhaps you could look over the closed FAC and see if your concerns were addressed? You didn't have time to respond! Also, I can't find a citation for the Nitchie discovery of the 1832 publication. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, I was just looking that over. What held me up was the need to come up with some better wordings, and I still haven't been able to. Even so, I don't think that a creative writer "emphasises" things: they might focus on things or point them (there's a mot juste out there somewhere, but it escapes me), and it is non-fiction writers that emphasise things, I think. The only other thing is Percy's feelings about his children; this could be solved by simply removing the opinion on him there. (Obviously, I would never accept that men feel less deeply than women; they bottle up more.) The Nitchie information is given in a note in The Journals of Mary Shelley, p. 317. Other than that, all I can do is offer my congratulations for the FA and spare you any more of my nitpicking! qp10qp (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When you return, can you check the PBS biographies for any information on the two poems in Proserpine? You are more familiar with those than I am. I'm coming up short on sources for those two poems and I don't want to look at all 2,000 sources on the MLA database. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in Holmes (the Bieri hasn't got to me yet). Edmund Blunden's Shelley (1946: 240) has: "Almost certainly Keats would have enjoyed some new lyrics which Shelley wrote with a particular object during 1820. Mary had been varying her writing of novels with the composition of short verse plays. She was in the favourable position of being able to command Shelley to supply them. For the first piece he wrote the fable of Arethusa and Alpheus with splendid life and grace, as well as a song in Ben Jonson's manner to be sung by Proserpine gathering flowers". I don't rate Blunden's biography at all, as you know. Nothing in the Cambridge Companion to (Percy) Shelley. qp10qp (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)