Jump to content

User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

MM comments/questions

I have questions. Here, the article talkpage, the sandbox talkpage, inline comments? Advise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, but expect delay. Working on a Cézanne stub thats going against me. Trying to distill meaning from descriptions that are almost as abstract as the work. Sigh. Ceoil 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been too brain dead recently to parse the meaning of the Hemingway/Cezanne stuff. Good source but impossible to understand. Re MM - the article says the canal view in the St. Catherine panel matches the St. Joseph panel. Shouldn't that be the London/MM panel that has the canal view? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind. I see. That needs to be rewritten I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually not, after all. That piece confuses me. I need to spend some time looking at Ward's reconstruction, but Catherine isn't on that side of the altarpiece is she? MM shows the bottom of the window and the canal; Joseph the top of the window but not the canal. Presumably Catherine's is a different window but the same canal. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I looked at Ward's reconstruction. Catherine is on the far left of the panel; Mary on the far right. So that bit needs some work. Do you have Ward or should I resend? Can't remember. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Basically. Its the continuation thats key. I dont have Ward anymore. Lost along with my entire music collection, remember. <sad face> Ceoil 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Not lost. And the continuum is wrong. I think. Sorry about the music collection - that's actually quite tragic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I had a brother back from Bristol over the weekend, and we had a long conversation how easy access to music through broadband devalues your appreciation, and makes it all less special. I recommended he deleted his collection and start again. Its cathartic, and makes you realise which things are wheat and which are chaft. If that makes no sence, I mean the internet let us obsessive gorge, and we loose perspective. Ceoil 21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense actually. Now you can start new. Re - MM and resemblance, Ward thinks Catherine and MM are based on the same model. I need to reread, but I can see the resemblance. Is that worth mentioning at all? You have her resembling the Werl piece which she does in dress and the way the sits, but the face is not at all the same. Time to go before I get too obsessive and ruin your article. BTW - have you found Ward? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the lead, and what to distill there, and definatly that the eyes are diverted, probably from a male gaze. See also Street in Venice, which reminds me of the MM a lot, but I only just realised why. Ceoil 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just working my way through that section. The diverted eyes and the book I think are the most important. I've always quite liked Sargent, and that's a particularly nice one. She's all drawn in on herself, separated from the men. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Not surprised, they dont look like very nice, presentable men. And such dreadful trousers. Ceoil 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to look at it more closely. They almost look like vampires, capes, hats, dreadful trousers. Anyway, below what I was trying to post.
I've tried to combine like with like and restructured a fair bit, but have gone as far as I can. If it looks okay to you, we should move it back. I won't get back to it until next weekend. In the meantime I want to think about what to do about the beginning of the Altarpiece section; I think it's a bit abrupt. I'll re-read Ward and hopefully can get something from there and rework that section later. Also, I thought there was more in Ward that could be added, but forgot to take notes when I last read through the entire article, so need to do that. Btw - am wrong about the model - it's not MM & Catherine, it's MM & the saint in the Campin painting that Ward thought was the same woman. I do see a fair bit of polishing to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I havn't been the mood for heavy lifting, but I was looking closely, and if you'd carry this work [1] onto the article proper, that would be great. Sorry for being a lightweight. Ceoil 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Done Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Might want to think about adding the hair to the lead too, with the book and eyes. Here's an image, possibly for the gallery, MM w/ lots of hair. File:Piero di Cosimo - Sainte Marie Madeleine.jpg. Anyway, done for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And another. File:Adriaen Ysenbrandt - The Magdalen in a Landscape - Google Art Project.jpg. Really done now. She's all yours. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks v much. I have a few more sources as of later today (on order from waterstones), so I need to do a bit of work yet myself. I didn't expect you to do so much heavy lifting while I was frittering, but anyway, its appreciated, FWTW. My next few weekends are all taken up with birthday meals, and occasions, so it'll be a while yet. Last thing I wanted to was to pressure you. Sorry about that. Ceoil 07:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote on your page, I was in "I'm in a deadline" mode and went to work. But, that was the best thing to do b/c I wouldn't have had time for a few weeks otherwise & now it's done. Somehow I forgot you were waiting for books - so it still may need another restructure when you're finished adding. Re Riggr's comment on the talk page - I think the description should come first, but the images are a problem - so am leaving it you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Acknowleged. tune. [Executive summary]: You are a rock. Ceoil 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It's very pretty. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you'll be busy for the next few weekends & it will be a while until you get back, I'll plan to get SAR ready, and will nom as soon as I'm back. FWIW. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly keep the pic from The Descent, its relevant to the text and looks very well in the context. Good association. Ceoil 18:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't like the caption I wrote, and I had to trim back the caption for the Campin to make it fit. I'll put it back and let you work on the caption. Also, months ago I'd read that the fur in the dress - or the nap - symbolizes sexuality. The book is here page 157 if you think we should use it. TK (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it was used, yeah, but i cant read it from here. I'm gonna have another go at the lead. Ceoil 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't used, but might have been used for the article you cite. I can always add it in if we need it. Don't know what to think about the lead; I'm around watching though. Btw, I have a link to a high res image - do you need it? Am not uploading anything if I can avoid it. Thanks for the painting - very much me at times. TK (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Re link, yeah, I can add on commons, ta. Ceoil 19:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and copy in the images so we don't edit conflict. I'll send the image - need to remember where I found it for a source. TK (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you ready to copy in the modified Icon/g section, its a great imptrovement, I'd say ready. Ceoil 19:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought I had this morning. Will look. TK (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Done now with the images. TK (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Got it and uploaded. Its far better than what we had. Thelast 10 minutes were very productive! Ceoil 20:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just realized though that the "small triangle of red" refers to Catherine. I can't see it either. The new MM looks good. If you want, I can try to distill the iconography section into a para for the lead - would do it in the sandbox. TK (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, two sentances would do. I think after that the lead will be grand. Did you see the left alignment on the bio? I wonder how long that will last. No way could that be at the right, but its a black swan, and many here are so requlated and this IS THE WAY, sigh. Ceoil 20:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the question that's disappeared (??), I've just pulled up Ward to re-read. I thought there was info re the transfer there as well. Am still thinking about the lead; I think the addition of the reading might be enough, but will work on it a bit. Re van der Weyden, when I was gone I had a longish conversation with someone who is an art historian who saw the The Last Judgment - apparently tucked away in an old building in the south of France. He told me it was the most beautiful altarpiece he'd ever seen. So now I'm fascinated by that too. TK (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ask him if hes seen any Hieronymus Bosch alterpieces. They are spectacularly beautiful, in their own way, just unbelievable to look at, spell binding. The last judgement is great yeah, and I'm looking forward at some stage to this. You dont get it from the lead repro, but the costume and expression of the woman are amazing. Christ looks a bit glum though, but thats his problem. Ceoil 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the Braque Tryptich - another woman with sad eyes. He said the colors in the Last Judgment were the most amazing he'd ever seen. Apparently that altarpiece has never been moved, so it's an interesting story. TK (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Prob more interesting agian is how it ended up in the South of France. The travel of the deposition from Holland to Spain is a story in itself. Ceoil 23:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That and where it is. It's here in a hospital for the poor and apparently not moved since it was placed there. Interesting to know how these commissions came about and how the paintings were transported. I'm intrigued enough to start digging to see what I can find about it. TK (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
They were usually more spoils than commissions! Ceoil 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

More ItsLassieTime socks

I don't know if you still update Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, but that will need to be updated with the above accounts, if applicable (one or two were merely VOAs). –MuZemike 17:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a lot of accounts. Funny, I was thinking today that situation seemed to have calmed down, but I guess not. They may have learned to stay off pages I watch. As soon as I have a chance I'll have look at the accounts and contribs and update the CCI. Thanks for letting me know. TK (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the contribs, I don't see a lot that's problematic. The worst could be Jack and the Beanstalk, but you've reverted there and I've see they've learned how to use quotations and attributions. TK (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sack_of_Amorium/archive1

I left a note at the bottom. I reviewed your copyediting ... thanks much, great work. I'm going through now trying to respond to your questions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it shortly. Thanks. TK(88) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't There Something Pompous About Your User Name?

You're a pretentious little bitch and some day it's gonna bite you in the ass -- if it hasn't already. LOL!

FAC

I will taqke a look later today - thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't be surprised if the rude post above were from a sock of LassieTime. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No hurry. I need a moment or two to recover. The problem with threats is that they work. Personally I think we should stubbify all the work ILT has done - except the FAC & GAs we've rescued. Anyway, I sent it to the ILT SPI. This what I get for changing my sig - I think I should go back to the full sig again since it's so pompous! TK(88) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No threat. Just a heads up. It's my observation that pompous little goody goodies who expect kid glove treatment and smelling salts at every turn usually "retire" to open a new account under another name. If I were you (thank God I'm not) I'd just mind my own little business, stick to my own little articles, and stop running to all the big strong men around the place for shoulders to cry on and scented hankies to cry into. You sound like someone who was raised in Miss Longfellow's School for Young Ladies where your greatest challenge was making French knots for petit point pillow shams. Hahahahaha! Tower4Sitz (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't really mind cleaning up your work because it's good. And you know it's good. But these posts are taking things a bit too far. I happen to like Jack and the Beanstalk and was sad to see that it might have to be stubbified, but honestly haven't the time to check your work. So, I think it's time for the work to go. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reported him to ANI; didn't want to block him myself since I was feeling really annoyed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, just read above, is he a known sock? - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just confirmed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Probably not necessary to go to ANI - they'll be blocked anyway. I'm stepping away for a few minutes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you want me to delete the attacks and semi-protect your user and talk pages to keep IPs off? I almost blocked the sock on sight - passed the quack test - wish I had now. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's see how it goes. See the message below - I've brought Jack and the Beanstalk back to the state it was before ILT edited it. Yes, they do good work. But it's often plagiarized and the rest of us can't spend our time fixing for them. You and I may have made a mistake salvaging the Potter articles because it validates their work. I'm not sure protecting my page does much good because I think there are a lot of sleeper socks still that would be able to edit here anyway. But certainly they've targeted me - not you or Moonriddengirl or MuZemike - so let's watch and see how it goes. I'm annoyed because it's such a timesink and I'm trying to work on Nikkimaria's Fac comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually my edits to Jack and the Beanstalk have been reverted. I'll revert once and take it to talk, but this needs to go to an admin, or to Moonriddengirl or someone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

reverting Jack & the beanstalk

Hi there was multiple value added to the page you reverted, current contributors prefer you organise a discussion heading inc. reasons before reverting...if thats okay, wiki isnt a totalitarian system:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.53.99 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted all the edits made by a banned editor per WP:BAN. Anyway, I'll post it to the ANI thread and let the admins deal with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
218.144.53.99, your not so hot at this. Threats and insults tend to ruin your fun, in case life had brought you this far without you noticing. Ceoil 01:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP address was me and I added some of the value...it was good value as we ascribed correct genre, its a folktale and so on, you can read my discussions...what can you do about the bans made too...the article was just getting beyond a C grade when you reverted it to a D-

There were no threats or insults made, wiki is user generated and if an entry is verifiable, which multiple of them were, not just my own, many people were taking great care and collaborating, why delete and create trouble where none existed?...it shouldn't be deleted, that would be totalitarianism, but as explained by the talk page owner, she/he is going to let the admins deal with it, which may be the mature way.

Responded on the article talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. :) Thanks for drawing my attention to the ANI report; I've replied there and will keep an eye out for your response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I just posted the list. I hope we didn't edit conflict!. Anyway, thanks for protecting my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Gracious, what a pluperfect example of douchebaggery. Lest I be the only editor to encounter this...more fun for you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Always love your phrasing Moni - pluperfect douchebaggery indeed! At this point I'm all for wiping out their articles. The mistake I made was to to rescue the The Story of Miss Moppet because it passed FA - but I'm thinking of asking Sandy to strip the star. Need to talk to Ruhrfisch first; he helped a lot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I am OK with stripping the star I always felt a bit torn about the article being an FA. Sometimes a person who gives up admin priveleges will submit to a second RfA to get them back - what would you think of a second FAC for Miss Moppet? That would also recognize all of your work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been torn about it too. It seemed a shame to lose the content, but maybe it should have been stubbified. Let's ask Sandy or Raul to strip the star and then when we both have time re-nom together. You put a quite a bit of work in yourself. I'd also maybe want to take some time to really comb through the history to make sure we removed all the plagiarism, and then maybe we can rev-del Suzannne/ILT's edits. In the past, I've been opposed to anything so draconian, but draconian might be the path to take here. Anyway, I think stripping the star is the first step. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Given this, this, and this, I think I need to document all of this on Sandy's page now and ask that the star be stripped. We do agree on that; once that's done and things calm down a bit we can decide how whether and when to re-submit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gwladys: Book - page #s

Hi, we're getting a long thread going on the Gwladys discussion page - and it's seeming that you haven't seen my comment on the discussion page or in the article itself: I am working the page #s for the book now. It was my first two responses back to you - that I agree that they need to be updated.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been edit conflicted three times; I've been multitasking doing other things; but will get back there in a moment. I'm trying to read A History of Wales to at the moment to see if she's in there. I'll post back to Talk:Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam in a little while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no worries, I have PLENTY of info about Gwladys. If you could let me finish fixing the refs, I think you'll see that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No big deal. I was simply asking. Go on ahead. I'll have a look back at another time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! Once Sitush is through over there I'll finish up - and then just ping you back here. Good catches!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the page watched & will take a look when I have a chance. Am a little tied up at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I've misunderstood you

The way you're presenting your case on SandyGeorgia's talk page really does look like you're trying to punish another editor who's upset you by having an FA star attributed to them removed. Don't misunderstand me, I think you've got every reason to be upset, but this isn't the right way. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think that serial plagiarism, wiki-stalking and harassment is fine - then fine. I think Uncle G should have rev -deleted the page at the time, but FAC was reeling from the Grace Sherwood scandal. I tried to help, but at this point am damned tired of the consequences and if you think I'm being vindictive, that's fine. All I see is that we shut our eyes to plagiarism to protect the FAC process (I'm included in the 'we') and we encourage the same behaviour over and over. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you might imagine that I condone serial plagiarism, wiki-stalking or harassment, as I can assure that I most certainly do not. And I see nobody shutting their eyes to anything. A truth that may have escaped you though is that plagiarism is – mistakenly in my view – allowed on wikipedia, so long as there's some kind of acknowledgement somewhere. Indeed I had an argument about plagiarism fairly recently during a GA review IIRC, where I refused to accept it. But you have to look at where each article is now, not its genesis. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Because you think I'm being vindictive when in fact all I think is that we need a clear policy. If the policy is to revert on sight, then it would have been impossible to scrub Miss Moppet, it would have gone straight through FAR, and probably be stubbified now. I am trying to make a point - we should have zero tolerance and everyone should know it. I shouldn't have to put up with this shit because someone is dishonest, or argue with you, who I consider a friend. They cheated and the page should go. And then no one deals with it later, no one cleans the mess, and we all get on with our business. And if I tell you that accusing me of wanting a star hurt, then I'll get another ten messages about being a pretentious bitch and needing smelling salts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand, I'll leave you alone now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Just to let you know I've watchlisted this talk page, and if you need any admin help with any of this harassment you're getting, please feel free to drop me a line any time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: the same here: It's been awhile since we last talked, but I just wanted you to know that you are one of the best wikipedians I know. Wikipedia would be much worse off without you. It seems now that for every edit I make I find myself embroiled in some ridiculous editing dispute, and the only thing that keeps me coming back everytime I feel like leaving the project for good is the fact that there are editors like you. I'm hoping that telling you this at this particular time may make a difference to you.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I think I'm getting a handle on it. Had my page deleted because articles were being vandalized, so hopefully that will stop, and as you've seen Moonriddengirl protected my page. Maunus, I still watch your page and have noticed you were upset. I actually meant to stop by but was busy with something else, and well you know how it goes. But I thought at the time that you should go back to your linguistics articles - you're such a good content builder! Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I weighed in on Sandy's talk page - sorry that I have not been around much today. Please let me know (by email if need be) if you want anything protected or watched (or just to vent). Sorry about the real life issue too. I am fine with FAR, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's all fine now. I've left a message with Moonriddengirl, so hopefully we can have the edits deleted. I truly didn't understand the FAR process and always knew the copyvio/plagiarism was still in the history which was problematic. Real life sounds worse than it is - just makes me cranky. The harassment makes me cranky too. Anyway, I will feel much better if Susanne/ILT's edits are deleted. I don't really care what happens after that. If it's good enough to keep the star, that's fine. If not, then that's fine too. But from now on my strategy will be to delete and revert instead of rewriting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear things are better or at least not worse than just making you cranky. I am fine with FAR. Another option for copyvios would be to put the article in user space to work on it there (remove it from article space). By the way - just cranky?!? You are tough! My father had a kidney stone years ago and I rode in the ambulance with him to the mergency room - told him to squeeze my hand when it hurt and thought I was going to need a cast by the time we got there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Putting the article in user space is a good idea. But let's wait for a little while and think about what's better, deleting edits vs. revdel. Re being tough - I think it's a matter of having this happen every year or so. I've gotten used to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I see now that you have been having a rough time. That probably explains some things that I couldn't get a grip on before, given that I was already aware of your major contributions etc. I hope that it all goes away and remember ... the last sentence from this film. Best. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I missed all this, am just catching up now, but it seems an awful pity, and a poor reward to trying to help and rewriting. But dont take it personal. Its not against you as a person, its an almost mindless, and frankly, pathetic vent of anger. They chose the easiest and most obvious targets and aspects. Anyone can do that, children even. Dont take it personal. All the reaction from other editors shows that your vervy much respected, and we are all allowed to, and often do, get upset from time to time. I hope you have perspective, and know you have friends here. On and congrads on the recent FA promo, would not have been half the article with out ya, and I'm proud for ya. Ceoil 15:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello back. And thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If I was you I'd switch off from it, and work away at SAR. Self preservation. I see Riggr is helping there - he's a good un. Lucky you. Ceoil 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You've turned me blue. Yes, Riggr is helpful. I think I need to restructure that page a bit. Am having some problems concentrating atm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Un fortuniatly I'm gone for the rest of the evening, but I'll talk to you tonight. Stay on SAR is my advice for what its worth!!! Best. Ceoil 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I will. Later. You just caught me on my way out actually. I put up a pic instead of having a blank page. Not that bad being red though - you were for a few days. . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, its almost cathartic or something, dunno. But in a dispute, its best to keep guns blazing, though I know your reason for deleting and I would have done so myself. You have a lot of people watching out for you, so a few random acts of vandelism, or a few cheap insults, ach, whatever about them, eh. Carry on as before, helping out and voluntering and writing FAs. Although, Hemming was gay was a bit odd, given he was about the most macho writers not just of the 20th but any century. Your not up against a very impressive mind, it would seem. I wish that plagerising troll would target me instead of you, it would be amusing to me to smack them down! Ceoil 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It is very cathartic. Hemingway was a jerk, but a good writer. I'll send ItsLassieTime your way. I'm sure they're watching this page. But then I'll get comments again about being a fainting tearful woman needing a shoulder to weep on, blah blah blah. Anyway that's not my biggest problem at the moment. There's other stuff. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Best defense in these situations is to ignore. There is a lot of wisdom in dont feed the trolls. I'm not very wise, and would toy with them, but thats another story. Send them on!! Ceoil 16:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not very wise either. That makes two of us. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with what has been going on, but in watching this page (for our conversation about Gwladys), I saw some of the comments and I'd like to echo what Ceoil, Sitush and others have said. Hope you get feeling better and the issues that have bubbled up cool down! Best of luck!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Carole. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Happy to see things are calmed down...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So am I. And thanks for stopping in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stepping in and saying hello. Hello, how is all. Talk to me. Ceoil 01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Better. I'm taking your advice and working on SAR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed, already knew. I was worried there for a moment, the FAR thing was a pity; your better than that, it was bending to lowest expectations. Dont do that again. Ceoil 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So was I. I don't understand what you mean by bending to lowest expectations. I still think it should go to FAR, but at this point think, whatever. It should have gone to FAR off the bat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I'm unable to articulate in any clear fashion what I think about all of this, but it's best left behind. Haven't been feeling great - prob adds to the confusion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No you articulated fine, even with severe headaches. Thats ok, allowed, you are with friends. Ceoil 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing the subject - I've flipped sections around in SAR after some of Riggr's comments last night. Can't judge whether it's better or worse. If it's better, and I keep it that way, I'd need to go through checking links and such. What do you think? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Btw - because of the edit conflicts, I saw what you wrote. I just didn't understand some basic Wikipedia rules, but get it now. Also not headaches, if you read up page in the previous section you'll see what's happening, but because it's already on WR enough of that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing on WR is just Mattisse being Mattisse; that is a semi coheriant pain in the arse (these days). Ignore, everybody else is. She has no traction there, and they seemed bored by her. Soon they'll be exasperated, and that will be the end of that. Ceoil 13:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that & not really bothered by it. Much better today & working on the fine comments Riggr left on the SAR talkpage. How are you, btw? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Grand. A bit bored; listening to a few albums I downloaded during the week, but not really in the mood for wiki work. I have lots of books, well 2, on Ingres from London that I want to add to my bits and pieces on him, but can't really be bothered. Too busy listening. So I'm just aimlessly poncing about. Not really sure what to do. Might start a fight with Malleus Fatuorum. Ceoil 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm bored too. Btw - meant to ask you ages ago - now that you've finished MM, do you want a pdf I downloaded about the Braque triptych? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes please. Here is some amusing footage from the mid 80s[2]. I somehow forgive Gainsbourg, I suppose because I adore him and everything he did.[3] Ceoil 14:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-30/Featured content Ceoil 14:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh that's beautiful very French. Whitney is funny - but that's what she gets for going on an French talk show. And as always, MM is elegant and beautiful. I'm so pleased for you - six months is all it took ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The french dont pull punches, and think what he was up to was puncturing her veneer, that smiley big hair big teeth everybody is wondeful thing is very american, only happens over here in the glossy hello style magazines, talk shows tend to be very ironic.[4] He wasn't very nice, but this is the guy who had Brigit Bardo and Jane Birkin. Tips hat in respect. Ceoil 14:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. The Britney one is funny - she dealt with it better. When we leave America, we all become ugly Americans. What can I say. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No its not that, I'm very fond of most Americans I know, and I know a few, as are most Europeans, its yer media and how it presents are the problem to us. I fully realise ye are fustrated by the bland media as we are, but we do NOT project that on to ye citizens. If that makes any sence. Ceoil 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. Myself, I've given up watching television b/c truthfully I cannot stand it. I get what I can from the internet - but the media is controlled by advertising and a variety of other things, and is basically terrible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

Glad to help - I know that FAR (like everything) needs reviewers, so I don't want to overburden it. No one else on Sandy's page seemed to think it needed to go there, so as long as no one else sends it there, I am fine with not doing so either. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

congrats

Congratulations on your latest FA. The sun also rises. Riggr Mortis (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

... so it does. And you beat me - I was on my way to your page to give thanks for the prose help. The page is much better than it was a few days ago, thanks to your suggestions and tweaks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
According to 1001 books you have to read before you die, which I flipped through at the library, the title "The Sun Also Rises" is an ironic reference to Jake's "problem". I don't know if I believe that, from your article, but how should I know. :-) The reason I'm here is, I'm wondering if you have access to this JSTOR item and would mind emailing it, pursuant to the Poor Man's Reference Accessibility Act of 2007? Thanks, Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've read that too but having editorial control left it out. Maybe it should go in? Dunno. Anyway, no need to grovel. Expect mail delivery in the a.m. Truthkeeper88 (talk)
I, also, demand my rights under the 2007 act. Ceoil 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Mail deliveries all around. Check incoming. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
and my congratulations on a well-deserved star too! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help, congratulations :)...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations aswell, though you must be getting sick of this now! Great work though, you sailed through....Ceoil 19:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It did sail through - and surprised me. But a nice surprise. The Hemingway/Cezanne connection was nice to have - thanks for that and for the only splash of color on the page. Anyway, yeah, I am sick of this atm and don't actually have anything to work on so decided this was as good a time as any to take a break and re-charge. Van Gogh, eh? Should be a challenge. Remember Ezra? But you have a crew which will be helpful. That's what we should have done last summer. Anyway, stay in touch. I'll be checking in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Re VvG & Ezra; once bitten twice shy. I've seen 'major' bios try and get through there, and its never pretty. But if you dont push forward you stagnate and I suppose I might as well give it a shot, not so much nominating, but working towards ready for nominating. I've talked about it enough after all. Huge work needed, but there is the guts of a fine article, its pretty much compenhsive at this stage, but the main things are sourcing and clean up. There is still lots of trivia, asides, FRINGE, and useless detail in there, and it creeps. Cut a lot last year, and much is back now. I have books, lots of books on Vincent, so relatively optimistic, but afraid I'll get my head cut off on this one. But work towards, yeah. I dont suppose you'd join us? Ceoil 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(Waking up before dropping off) To get something as big as Vince through would need some v strong editors to emmerse themselves for quite a while. I can vouch for Liz, Modernist, but would need ya in there too. zzzzzzzzz. I imagine we'd pick up others along the way. zzzz Anyway, miss retired; night <cough, hint cough>) zzzzzzzz. 01:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Gaa! When I find myself dragging home a stack of books from the library I know I'm in trouble! Unlike Ezra and Hemingway, van Gogh has lots of subarticles which is very helpful in terms of shoving out stuff, but I do see some things that will need to be addressed before FAC. I think having a group involved is the best idea for these major bios and honestly I'm kicking myself for not insisting you and Deor (and Modernist too) join me with Ezra. Anyway, yeah, I'll help. But, I am busyish for the next few weeks and want a bit of downtime, wikiwise, to recharge. I'd be happy to help with MoS, sourcing, structure - all the things I do fairly well. Also, re your comment about comprehensive - I have to re-read, only scanned quickly, but it seemed lacking in some places and overly detailed in others. I have some ideas, but will put them on the talk page later. Nice of you to keep me around, btw. I know this is all a ploy .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not 'miss retired' - it's 'miss I'd-planned-a-short-break-before-Ceoil-enticed-me-back'. With another page about another insane artist. But, I agree with the not letting it stagnate point, and to prevent the creeping it's best to lock it down with a star. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The time frame in my mind is three or four months, at least, if we're to do it justice. I think the page is dry at the moment, too factual: did this did that, went here went there, not a lot of colour, wider context, and not much life breathed into him. The guts are there, but it needs to be weaved better. And a lot of the sourcing is dreadful. But its a good team, with form, so I'm kind of excited, wiki wise, for the first time in a while. A major bio like that.....Ceoil 20:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think three or four months is about right. In some ways I see in it some of the mistakes I made with Ezra - straight chronology, did this, did that, as you say. It needs more of a narrative, more color, fewer factoids, & some very strong weaving. It will be beautiful when done, and a strong foundation is there, so much easier to build than Ezra or even Hemingway - that was a mess when I started on it. I'm still working my way through and making notes. Will post some ideas soonish, but want to read all the way through first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm still working my way through. It's so sad. Can finish reading through tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Its not sad enough yet to my mind. The page is detatched yet if that makes sense. Ceoil 05:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
When we're done it will be sad. I'm not as familiar with the story as you are & haven't worked my way through but see the potential. Very strong potential. The page is detached but can be fixed with work. And good sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
<Email> Ceoil 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Another FA

Hello. As I see, you are replete with Hemingway books so wouldn't you improve another article of him? For example, The Old Man and the Sea (one of Hemingway's best novels) really needs work. I would help. TGilmour (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats for FA, DYK approved

Congratulations for your Featured Article! And, thank you for the idea for the DYK for Albert Looking Elk, Juan Mirabal, and Albert Lujan... it is approved and "good to go."--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats, and congrats to you for the triple DYK. Things like that impress me - I'm so slow to start new pages. Anyway, I only had time to copyedit one of them, but would be happy to swing through the other two if you'd like. Just let me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, damn. I'm AFW for a while, and your latest FAC is promoted in only a few days' time! Congrats! I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'm sure it's splendid. María (habla conmigo) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to get through so quickly but I think people are getting the idea that we need reviewers. That reminds me, I'll have to keep at the reviewing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

VvG Talk Page

I'm a little more than confused and hurt. I am not (nor have I ever) suggested that we use templates for the Vincent van Gogh article, but it seems that's a hot button. It concerns me that after three months of very heavy work on Vincent van Gogh articles it seems like I'm a stranger in a strange land.

For the moment, I removed the notes about what I would work on because it seems like I was stepping on toes. I am totally perplexed how this has blown into a big issue. I should have been clearer that my question about the refs wasn't the part about templates it was the part about "this page". And, bolding it was probably not the best way to emphasize the point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We're just getting organized and it will take a little time. I was the one to mention the templates - just so we're all on the same page that we can't use them. Templates are a very big issue on Wiki - people either hate them or love them, but completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. The biggest issues I'm seeing are structural and then prose. At the moment I'm coming at this as though I'm reviewing a FAC, but actually not at all as stringently, so the comments are comments we would expect to see at FAC if it went up in the next week or so. Take a deep breath & let me take a deep breath and get back to reading. I need to have a look at some of your pages too. I wanted to get some of this stuff up today because Ceoil doesn't edit during the week, but I suspect he mulls things over. The rest of us will have week time to work things out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The ironic part of this whole thing is I never said (or even thought), let's use templates. The part that's hurtful is that rather than reading what I wrote, there was an assumption that I was in for a fight - or was fighting. It was very disheartening based upon the amount of effort I've put in with Modernist's help -- and that I had for the most part switched to using bibliographies and short refs for books. It leads me to believe that there's much more going on than "templates". If I did something that made you felt stepped upon as the lead for the rework, I apologize. Your point about taking deep breaths is a good one. You all can sort out whether you think I'd be a valuable member of the team for some short term search and find efforts - and I'll think about how important it is to feel valued. I'm not looking at taking on several months worth of work at this time (as I said about a month ago in the Visual Arts wikiproject talk page.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
No no no. You're taking it too seriously. I get very concerned about page size - well actually it's a valid concern. To keep images, to built the text, we can't have templates. I was just saying, and not really thinking. Honestly, I was out of town when you and Ceoil had the template conversation so completely not in the loop regarding that. Templates slow load time & that's an important consideration. So when you asked about adding, I said go ahead and add, but only put author & page number in the ref. This isn't a judgment of anyone's editing preferences, I just think that it's easier upfront to get it right rather than changing refs - and I'm expecting there will be lots of refs. Also, I was in reacting mode - multitasking, doing too much, and just throwing out answers without thinking. I have a bad tendency to do that. We'll need you for the content, for sure. We'll need a full crew on this, it's the only way to do it. But just understand that it's really hard to get a core biography like this through FAC. In fact it's one of my pet peeves about Wikipedia - the important pages are harder to finish than less important pages. Doesn't make sense, but it's true. I think Ceoil's estimate of the time frame is about right - the more you start digging in, the more issue come up. I've yet to bring a page to FAC that I haven't spent about six months working on.Ernest Hemingway took nine months. This page is in relatively good shape so it won't be that long, but I like to be conservative with time estimates. Ceoil gets cranky & I do to. Don't take it personally. 21:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate some of the things you've said - it makes sense. I hope now we don't have to use the "T" word again on the VvG biographical article. (as an aside, I thought all the updates to the VvG biographical article I made were in short form, not in template form, but I'll go back and check and correct to increase the likelihood of not using the T word for the biographical article).
My concern is that this isn't the first time that I've tried to explain things and there's been an assumption without really reading my words. That's hard not to take personally. I was happy to pitch in on some work - and was all revved up to go today - more as a thank you to Modernist for all of his support. I'm not looking at getting into a several month commitment which I communicated on the VA Wikiproject page awhile back to focus on most needed activities. I am not looking to get immersed in VvG again the way I had been and more to the point a real job that pays money.
Let me think about it overnight, and I'm hearing that there are things I could do in the short run, which I may be up for. I just will check in a little more with you to ensure it's where and how you're wanting it to go. For instance, my thought was to use a [User:CaroleHenson/Vincent van Gogh article workspace|sand box to lay out and more easily work some of the timing info], since I think there's going to be cross-over, but maybe I jumped too quickly on that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason it often takes so long is that the money paying real jobs to have tendency to get in the way. I realize you're ready to go here, but do you understand that, as a non-van Gogh, objective reader, I'd like to get through the article and make comments. I'm really busy in real life at the moment, and will be for a few more weeks, so it's slow going for me. I don't really have a problem with you starting to add if you want. But I'm being real honest, stuff gets shuffled around to make pages FAC ready, so don't be disappointed if something you added today is gone tomorrow. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could happen. It happens to all of us, and we shrug out shoulders and move on. Anyway, continue with the deep breaths. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
@TK: May I encourage you to continue to provide input on the VvG biography. The points you have put together on your User:Truthkeeper88/Vincent van Gogh sandbox are all well worth while. Just because you are mainly interested in literature shouldn't be a reason for shying away from art. On the contrary, both are closely related. Wikipedia invariably benefits from a range of opinions on a given topic. Don't quit on the basis of a minor misunderstanding which now seems to have been resolved anyway. - Ipigott (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I seem to have a fascination for the mentally unstable artists - whether writers or painters. I'd like a few days to collect my thoughts on how to approach this work, but thanks for the encouragement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit request List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books)

Hi! As usual, I'd be very happy if you did to this list what you usually do with NT of Japan lists. I split the list of writings: books in two parts. This is about books originally written in China by Chinese writers/authors/poets. There are three sections: Chinese manuscripts (=written in China and subsequently imported to Japan), Japanese manuscripts (=copies produced in Japan), Song printed editions (=printed in China and subsequently imported to Japan). bamse (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Great edits so far, thanks. Some feedback:
  • [5]: Yes, in Japan. It is kind of implied by "Heian period" (which is a Japanese, not Chinese period), but would not hurt to make it explicit.
  • [6]: Meaning has changed slightly. Initially "early" referred to the time that books were lost. As far as I remember the phrase "lost early" is what references use. Chinese literature is very old, and I am not sure that "early literature" is what is meant here. In my understanding "lost early" could mean "lost soon (=a couple of hundred years or so) after publication" or lost in pre-modern times (maybe 1000 years ago or more). Honestly I am not sure about this point. Anyway "early" is a bit vague and could possibly dropped from this sentence to be on the save side. bamse (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, realized that on both. I think the "In Japan" should be added to begin the paragraph. The other one, I knew I'd changed the meaning, but was trying to tighten a bit. I'm only on my first pass and reading through, and actually about to take a break. Go ahead and revert the one about the early literature - I'll restructure it later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I "reverted" and thereby accidentally reverted all edits you did afterwards. Please give me a moment to restore them. As for the sentence: "the majority of works held in libraries consisted of Chinese works and scholarly collections were dominated by Chinese secular works"; what is meant here is that there were mainly Chinese works in libraries (of any type) and that there were mainly Chinese secular works (=basically everything minus sutras as far as I understand) in scholarly collections/libraries. bamse (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'll be back in a little while. I like to take my time during the first read and think about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. It is all yours again. bamse (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on recent edits:

  • [7]: Known at least to Prince Shōtoku, i.e. known by at least one person in Japan (main point here is that these books existed in Japan at the time). In the 6th and early 7th c. there were few literate people in Japan (most of them likely of Chinese or Korean origin), so there were probably not a whole lot of people who knew these works, so "well known" might be misleading. There is some issue in references discussing whether these works were indeed present in Japan or whether Shōtoku used secondary quotations from compendia. If you think this issue is important I could add a footnote.
  • reverted this edit: "scholarly collections" is meant to be understood as "libraries of scholars", i.e. as a subset of libraries. Does this make sense?
  • [8]: The new version might be misunderstood in such a way that the Tang Dynasty ended in 1192 (which is not true). Correct is that the second peak started in 1192. The whole timeline is: i) no imports until 400 AD (except for inscriptions on craft items), ii) some few imports until late 6th century (little interest and few literate people in Japan), iii) lots of imports until ca. 900 AD (=Sui+Tang Dynasty), iv) fewer imports in mid to late Heian period until 1192, v) lots of imports (including printed books) after 1192 (=second peak in Song Dynasty). Roughly the first section (3.1 Chinese manuscripts) corresponds to "iii", the second section (3.2 Japanese manuscripts) to "iv" and the third section (3.3 Song printed editions) to "v".

Rest looks very good. I'll have a look at the expansion of the lead now. bamse (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I summarized the section intros in the lead. Let me know what you think. bamse (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I trimmed out a phrase & tweaked slightly. I've only skimmed though and will be gone for a while. Will go through it more thoroughly later tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Very good! Will go to sleep now, so take your time. bamse (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominated. Please bookmark this. bamse (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

VvG II

Indeed. TK sorry, you were doing me a favour with a very thoughtful review, which was really apreciated, but instead of engaement on the substantive issues you got sucked into a vacume of attrition and recrimination, and other things I dont know how to, or want to, define. Pity, but thats life. I think its best to put the page on hold, get some perspective, and ignore (given the wall of text above and the apologies your were forced into just to protect anothers ego.) Usually art history is about the least troublesome area of wiki, but in this instance I'm walking away. Ceoil 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Up page I did say something about 'remember Ezra?'. I don't think it's an issue of art history - something about these core biographies makes it impossible to finish and lock down into an FA. It's a pity for the project, that's for sure. I agree, let's put it on hold. That's why I blanked the sandbox for now. Yes, lots of apologies and I didn't think I really acted any differently than I normally do; lots of energy to write the wall of text. I'd rather not go through that again. The good thing though, is that I've read the page (never had before), learned a lot, and a review exists if anyone wants to move forward in the future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, its a step in the right direction to close it down for now. Dormant for now. This might appear a bit at odd to your ears, but listen to the way it seams together in the end. o Lord. Ceoil 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a better version !?! A lovely ballad, and music that gives me goosebumps. Thanks so much. Will listen to the other version. That's a tune that deserves to be listened quite a few times. Not at all odd. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is better. Thanks. Made my day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I get goosebumps each time as well. A perfect transition between generations and a baton change between traditions is how I hear it. Here is someting darker, sexier. [9]. Ceoil 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry the darker, sexier has to wait. You've thrown me into the 18th century borderlands & I'm not ready to leave yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-line

Hi TK, I was trying to figure out how to send you an email - and I couldn't figure it out. I understand your points to the recent post on my talk page, so I'm fine. If you, though, want to have the opportunity to work out anything between the two of us that you think would be helpful to put this behind us, please send me an email, I am game for that off-line.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To send email, click the "email this user" on the left. Thanks for the offer but I keep wiki-business on wiki. I only use the email to send or receive files about pages I'm working on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the email user tip.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

Hello, The Sun Also Rises is a consummate article, but lacks infobox. Shouldn't you add it? TGilmour (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. A lot of people don't know that they're not required. I don't see what it adds to the page & I dislike them. See WP:DISINFOBOX. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. It really can provide some useful information and help the reader to save time on more mundane things. I added it and pelase consider improving it. And please see the talk page. TGilmour (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It passed FAC without it. See The Red Badge of Courage which also doesn't have one. Many pages don't and they're not necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Many pages don't have but a plethora of have. TGilmour (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not required. Anyway, let's see what other people have to say. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's, but please see my post on the talk page about England and the UK. By the way, I've seen your edits in Vincent van Gogh article. Are you preparing it for FA? Sounds good :) TGilmour (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed. It's England - not UK according to the sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And what about eminent Dutch painter? TGilmour (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no general requirement that articles have infoboxes, and as Truthkeeper88 noted, it passed FAC without one. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As have several others [10], [11], [12], ...Modernist (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
While I believe infoboxes may be useful in highly technical/scientific articles, in which there is just so much info -- usually in fiddly numbers and equations -- infoboxes are largely unnecessary in high quality articles about works of art, literature included. Everything a reader needs to know is located and readily accessible in the lead. Drive-by infobox additions to FAs are kind of annoying, btw, so I'm glad this is being discussed. Does my non-conformist heart good. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I opened a discussion on the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Question

As far as the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, a simple scan of a book's cover (for example, File:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.jpg) is public domain if the book cover is public domain itself. That is, the photograph does not have any kind of copyright (this is probably not the case under UK law, but that's a different matter). However, a photo that contains any kind of artistry (for example, a Google search threw up this) has a copyright of its own which belongs to the photographer, meaning such an image would only be public domain if the book cover was public domain and the photo was public domain. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was afraid you'd say that. So if I don't own a rare book myself to scan and a simple scan doesn't exist, it sounds as though an image can't be used. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. It's worth looking for one, though- check Google Books, Project Gutenberg, Google Images, etc. Worst comes to the worst, contact people with access to decent libraries, or send out emails to people who have taken photos which are not simple scans asking if they're willing to release them into the public domain. There may even be cases where you could crop the picture- something like this image, for instance, while copyrighted, could be cropped to just a book cover, thus removing any claim the photographer may have, but that isn't quite so simple... If you have any particular cases, I'd be happy to help. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
See Indian Camp at the bottom of the page. I'm planning to take it to FAC in a few weeks. After your last reply I removed the image of book, because it probably belongs to the bookseller. I'll look around to see what I can find, but this will be hard. 1925 publication date. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A non-free book cover will rarely need to be in any article other than the article on the book anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is a related conversation going on on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I can write a FUR for this because the article is about a the short story published in the book - without the book, no short story. But I'll live without it. Thanks so much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) My understanding is that if the photo is a faithful representation of a two-dimensional work, then the photo itself is not judged to be original enough to qualify for copyright. So this image would be fair use for the book cover, but not the photo itself. Is that right? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ruhrfisch - I'd forgotten about that one and I have the link to it in my sandbox. If it can be used I'd upload it but I'm still not totally clear on this issue. That's why I use text boxes in articles about literature! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ingres

I thanked you on my talk for the pdfs you sent during the week. Then I blanked my talk, so you might have missed that. To be clear, thak you very much, they are a great help. I've been a bit tardy this weekend, fighting and talking to Modernist mostly, so they are'nt integrated yet, but will be and soon. Ceoil 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've only sent one and I'm not sure how much help it will be. I can send any of these. Just let me know. I did see the response but having already sullied one unblemished page, decided to leave yours all tidy. For now. Oh, and great conversation with M. Good tunes. I've been listening, but now am dealing again with the issue of putting images in a page about modernism. It's almost hopeless. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As you said its more for Mme Rothschild than Bertin, but the Rothschild painting is close to my heart and will have its day on wiki. I have a lot of books that cover it, but not the energy, so far. Oh and sorry for dragging you into the Vincent thing. Was a pity. Ceoil 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for being so bossy. Can't help it sometimes. I get very focused. And yes, it's a pity, but forgotten now. No need for you to apologize for anything. I like the Baronne, but wonder why she's not a Baroness? As though I know anything about French aristocrats! She'd be a lovely page to do, and she has an interesting history - or at least her family. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Focused is a good thing, but you saw the way the wind was blowing, I'm sure. I've been down that road before and it leads to nowhere good. I took as much as I could, saw it would never end and just cut the chord. Re Mme, no her painting is v interesting in of itself, it was painted at an important cross roads of art history, and bears all the hallmarks. Its very much tied up with this lady.[13]. Im such a lazy bastard, need to do that page, really. Ceoil 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did, and not much more to say about it. You did what you could. Re the Baronne, you can only do one at a time. Distractions don't help either. And you're only here on the weekends, mostly. I wouldn't worry about it, it will get done. It's very beautiful. Personally, I'm only interested in the dress, which was a big deal from what I read in the file I sent. But being a socialite, anything she wore would have been a big deal. And portraits were a big deal too, but the dress? The dress had to be perfect. Oh, and btw - the edits at MM - will probably undo those, just so you know. We had a ref system, Nikkimaria passed us through FAC. There's absolutely no reason to change, but changing and making mistakes makes more time wasted for us. Just thought I'd let you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be around mid week for a while, MM reignited my faith in wiki, in collaboration. My focus is on Bertin, but I would love to take a shot at Vincent. We had a great team lined up. Myself and M have been taking about it for a long time, and I had been shoring up books, lots of books. A very interssting story is there, tinged with all the good and bad of humanity all its strenghts and weaknesses, lots of humour and drama, hopes and crushed dreams. Robert Huges and David Sylvester especially really nailed Vincent's personality in a forensic but warm way and thats the way I would have gone. Drat. Ceoil 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
MM was a great collab. I've been wondering who to drag into a novel article with me - I was all lined up to go with van Gogh. And it was a good team. And it would have been fun to get one of those big pages through. I'm busier this week than last; very free for a while afterwards. I'd enjoy a big project. Drat is right. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You know I've dealth with better from worse and come out the other side smiling. I would love to do it, really, but not without your, Liz's or M's help. Its off my watchlist at the moment, but I know M is ready and waiting, and I owe him big from the years. Ceoil 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Liz & I should probably get to know eachother - I see her around, and have seen the work she's done when Awadewit was around. Very impressive. With a screen-name like KafkaLiz, I think I'd like her very much. At any rate, let's give it some thought. If we have the time, might not be a bad idea to give it go and see what happens. But both of us have pages almost ready for FAC, so prob get those done first? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Suppose. Race? Ceoil 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want. But I'll win. I'm ready to go now, but I'll be too busy until the end of next weekend, so it has to wait another week. But you'd prob get through FAC more quickly than I would. Okay, yeah, we can race. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly being serious :) No worries. Ceoil 01:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If you like, I can judge the winner. (Not regarding the race, but just in general...) Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd win the race; I'm faster than he is. He's better though. You can judge if you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If you'll forgive my butting in... Thank you for the compliments, and I've thought we might get along well since seeing your work at Ezra Pound. I thought you did a really brilliant job there, so thanks are long overdue... Kafka Liz (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TK, thanks for the offer re JSTOR (I hope you don't lose access to it). I looked at the link you provided and don't see any articles that would seem useful as references... of course it's hard to tell from the first page. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed this stuff from a friend of ours? Would make Riggr blush. Or swell with priode, I not sure how it goes with him. Riggr is sound, but Canadian, you see. Ceoil 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I did notice and wondered what that was all about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Hemingway newspaper article

I just read this very interesting article on Hemingway in The Independent and thought you might find it useful (and interesting too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is interesting. I'm happy to see that almost everything they have is in our article. But they have the liberty to speculate. He came from a very dysfunctional family and I think fought depression and the urge to kill himself all his life. I like his earliest work the best - and I think it's eerily prophetic that the first short story he had published has a character who commits suicide in a particularly unpleasant manner. It is strange for a woman to like him, but it's the prose that really gets to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit last NT list

Hi! The Chinese books National Treasure list is still at FLC (probably for a couple of months more), so no need to rush with this one. This is the very last of the NT lists in need of a copy-edit. It is about Japanese books, i.e. books compiled in Japan by Japanese authors. Let me know if you have any questions/comments/suggestions. I am going to expand the general intro (at the top) a bit (probably today), but anything below "Statistics" is already finished. bamse (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bamse - this is the end of the Japanese endeavor? Anyway, I won't get to it until late in the weekend or next week. I'm out for the rest of the week. I have a quick question though - I took a look at it and wondered why so many citations after some single sentence statements. Just curious. I'll touch bases when I'm back & have read through it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Take your time. As for the citations, I think that's due to the way I generate those texts, by first collecting statements with citations and then writing the text. Probably most of those lists are a bit overcited. I'll have a look through the text before nominating it at FLC and will prune some of the citations. And yes, this is indeed the last of the national treasure lists and the last step to a featured topic. bamse (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Done with the general intro and therefore done with this (and all) national treasure lists...Hurrah! Of course if you want me to change anything, please tell me. I'll remove overciting and fix over/under-wikilinking after the copy-edit. Thanks! bamse (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hurrah indeed! That was a enormous undertaking. Give me a bit of time to get caught up and then I'll take a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW (something completely different), do you have an idea about a better hook for WP:DYK of Civil war of Wa‎‎ than ... that the Civil war of Wa was ended when the shaman queen Himiko took control of the Wa states?? I was thinking of adding (or replacing) something about her bewitching the populace ("took control of the"->"bewitched the populace of the"), but am not sure how to express that this statement is based on (superstitious) old sources and modern historians don't believe in witchcraft. How about adding "...that according to (source), the Civil war...bewitching..." ? Which hook do you prefer, the neutral historically correct or the superstitious one? bamse (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like: .... that according to the Book of the Later Han the Civil War of Wa was ended by an unmarried woman who "bewitched the populace."? I haven't ever put a quote in a DYK hook, so not sure how that works. Anyway, I'd add the link to the Book of Han, and somehow work in that she was associated with magic. I'm terrible with hooks to be honest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, still need to expand the prose of that article a bit, since quotes don't count apparently. bamse (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It has been accepted for DYK. I suggested your hook as alternative. bamse (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It'll be [[Template:Did you know/Queue|on the main page on June 26, from 7pm BST. bamse (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't forgotten your copyedits - will get to you when I'm done with Oslo. I'll watch for your DYK. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright. The Chinese list already got two reviews (one support) but will probably still need a couple of weeks. bamse (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll have little access to internet until mid-next week, so won't be able to respond to questions, etc quickly. bamse (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cover discussion

Would you care to comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Eragon_cover_image_discussion ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it on my watchlist but haven't had the time to read through. I'll have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Truthkeeper88, for your helpful comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1. I incorporated your suggestions, and made some additions to the article. Perhaps you could revisit? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Belated

No worries about belatedness, TK - I am the queen of belated responses, generally (much to my chagrin, and to the irritation of even my most patient friends). Re: Pound... I know you did tons of good work on the article, and I was quite dismayed that it didn't get promoted. I confess I'm not 100% familiar with the objections - was it truly a lost cause, or might it be worth another shot?

In any case... I agree that we seem to have a lot of common interests and ought to work well together. That Sargent has always been a favourite of mine... :) Anyway, to cut to the chase, I am definitely looking forward to working with you. I have access to a pretty decent library (finally), so... if there's anything you are looking for and can't find, drop me a line: I may be able to find it and scan it (so we can all see work with it). Anyway... let me know. Good to meet you at last, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Vincent, I think we need to put it on hold for a while. I need to familiarize myself with the bios and want to build a good bibliography, so it's early days yet. Re Pound - the truth is that I rushed a difficult topic and brought it to FAC too early. I've thought about going back to it, but honestly, it's a ton of work, and it really is hard getting the big biographies through FAC. He's a contentious figure too. And I was dealing with some unexpected health issues at the time, so it seemed a good idea to fold. I love that Sargent - it says so much. About women, about men, about going it alone. Finally, I think our friend Ceoil is very cranky tonight. It's a shame. I'll think I'll give it up for the night. Tomorrow's another day, as they say. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've a bunch of Pound stuff here in my personal library, so... That said, I understand the difficulties of high-traffic bios, and of his in particular. We can come back to this one, I hope. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have Pound stuff in your personal library I might hit you up. I've been thinking about working on the writing style section. Awadewit had some suggestions that I need to pull out of my archives, but I have another page I'm trying to finish at the moment. Let's see how it goes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, why this revert? [14] It's a reliable source, accessible to anyone immediately (ie. not an off-line book), and fully supported. We're not limited to using just one source per fact, and that's a good article to incorporate in. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the text it's citing came from the article referenced, not from the recent article in the newspaper. There's no reason to have both. It doesn't have to be verified by an online source; it has to be verified by the best source, which is the one I originally used, not the one you added. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Have you seen this? Hemingway-Pfeiffer timeline...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about that site, but the timeline is useful. Re this edit I reverted, he was breaking up with Pauline at the time, planning to marry Martha, and I'm fairly certain he wasn't in Arkansas during this period. There are extensive discussions somewhere in my archives trying to pin down where he was when for the writing of For Whom the Bell Tolls, but most of it was done in a hotel in Cuba and in the Sun Valley Lodge. I need to expand Pauline's page, so the timeline will be useful for that. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw that and I reverted here also - [15]. I found the timeline while I was reading about Aldous Huxley and his second wife Laura Huxley. Apparently Huxley was fond of the Ménage à trois he enjoyed with his first wife and Mary Hutchinson [16] and later lived with second wife Laura and Virginia Pfeiffer who was Pauline Pfeiffer's sister. After Aldous and Virginia died, Laura raised Virginia's granddaughter as her own child. The story peaked my interest because its strange, unconventional and complicated...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I spent some time here: Compleat Angler Hotel back in September '72...Modernist (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting gossip & the hotel looks nice. Apparently Hemingway met Ginny (Virginia) first; she then introduced him to Pauline. I haven't gotten to Pauline's page because I don't have the affinity for her that I have for Hadley, although couldn't tell you why. Anyway, I'd wondered what happened to Ginny - now I know. On a separate subject - I've been reading bits and pieces about Vincent, and was struck by critical commentary saying that to him nature symbolized god. It reminded me to some extent of Emerson's essay Nature. Have you ever read anything to say that he was inspired by Emerson, or did both men simply get to the same place, one with words, the other through art? Also, I was looking at some pictures of his paintings and I was struck by how the colors were applied in a similar manner to some of the wood-block printing that I wrote about in Edmund Evans - and apparently he was influenced by woodblock printing and engraving. This is all interesting stuff to me, but will take a while to synthesize. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
From further reading it looks as though Ginny Pfeiffer was living in LA and she befriended Laura who later became Huxley's 2nd wife. After a fire destroyed Huxley's house Ginny took them in, and they lived with her until she died. She adopted 2 children and Laura adopted and raised Ginny's grandchild after Ginny died. This link [17] is the tip of the iceberg to VvG's religious connections; and this link Japonaiserie (Van Gogh) is the tip of the iceberg concerning VvG's interest in Japanese woodblock prints also see Ukiyo-e - read the myriad ancilary articles we've done (mostly Carole) about Vincent in the template. My take is that the connection to Emerson is synchronistic as is mentioned here [18]...Modernist (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been working my way through them and reading bits and pieces here and there off-line. I'm familiar with Ukiyo-e after last year's excursion into 19th century printing. The link mentioning Emerson is interesting - I think you're right that it's synchronistic, but it's so obvious, at least to me who knows Emerson's work very well, and van Gogh's not so well. I didn't get from reading our article that painting was a religious experience for van Gogh, and would like to weave that in; would be nice to weave in the proximity, in artistic / religious philosophy to Emerson, but need to dig a bit more. I've also read he was influenced by Walt Whitman - and I can see that very much. Anyway, I have lots of bits floating around in my head that need to come together. Not there yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
After doing battle with the local library's semi-automated system I picked up the phone and ordered this from ILL. Should have it in a few days. We have so much in the subarticles, which is good, the problem is how to adequately summarize. At least in my mind, that's the problem - writing summary style, but with warmth and compassion, and color, and all that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several good books especially about VvG and religion [19]...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That's helpful thanks. I have a pdf too but can't open it - most annoying. Sometimes when it's really humid my computer slows to a snail's pace - don't know if it's the wi-fi or what. So, I'm picking at this slowly, but it's all beginning to make quite a lot of sense in my head. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I did a search of the VvG letters for Whitman and Emerson and nothing for Ralph Waldo Emerson or Emerson but this for Walt Whitman:[20]...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting: "He sees in the future, and even in the present, a world of healthy, carnal love, strong and frank - of friendship - of work - under the great starlit vault of heaven a something which after all one can only call God - and eternity in its place above this world. At first it makes you smile, it is all so candid and pure; but it sets you thinking for the same reason." It's nice that his letters are available on-line; very handy. I'm struggling with computer problems at the moment, but running all this through my mind at the same time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Doreen Granpeesheh

Hi Truthkeeper88,
I recently created and wrote the Doreen Granpeesheh article and someone posted tags up saying its written like an advertisement.
So I reread it and removed the word "reknowned" which was used several times in the article.
This may of lead to WP:POV (nothing else seems like POV in the article to me); however, I don't see how its written like an advertisement.
Also it says the official website is not reliable so I will have to find more reliable sources.
In the meantime, do you mind helping me fix the structure of the article and make it not look like an advertisement which I don't really understand?
Thanks, I'd appreciate it.
ATC . Talk 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

I went ahead and deleted the image file. You should be able to upload the new image with the old file name. You could also have uploaded a new (2D) version over the old image (and then I could have deleted just that). Did not see the latest on ILT's latest socks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I could load the 2D version & given my penchant for image problems, thought I shouldn't try. Thanks - I'll load it in the morning. Best for me not to say anything re ILT who I'm sure is watching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I was bold and uploaded the 2D version I found from the University of South Carolina. Feels good to do something other than peer reviews and deletions. Hang in there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have to write a FUR for "Indian Camp". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny how things work - thanks to your link above, I went and read Indian Camp and wound up reviewing it at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Sadads/Biography in literature

Hey, I started User:Sadads/Biography in literature while doing research on The Great Lover (novel) because my tutor had me reading in context of the novel about biography in relationship to literature. Do you think it is mainspacable at this point? (I am pretty sure it is notable) I would appreciate any input you have or your help on expanding it, whether or not it's complete enough to go live. There might be a joint DYK somewhere in there for a little bit of help expanding it :P, Sadads (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely butting in here, but your summary of bio in literature looks useful. I'm not sure about splitting it out as a separate article though: "Biography", like many broad-subject articles, is not particularly developed (critically), and it's the perfect place for a subsection treating what you've written above, IMO. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little busy at the moment, but it looks interesting. I'd take Riggr Mortis' advice - he's a distinguished wiki editor who's been nice enough to whip my prose into shape and in the process is taking an interest in literature (I think). If he says merge to Biography, then I'd merge. I think merging is a very good idea - otherwise we'd have two articles when one good one would do the trick. I'll be less busy in a few days. Need to decide what to do about your GAN too ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the merge sounds good. I didn't realize just how poorly developed the Biography article was. This evening I will respond to the rest of the GA questions, I have my last tutorial in a handful of hours, so I don't have any pressing obligations for the next several days. Sadads (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Duuuuu...ude!

Relax man. Sorry about your bad day. I'm on your side. Yada yada. I'm just trying to tone down my trolling and narcisism as I actually agree with Sandy that it wastes (good) people's time. Now, you work on that jacknife cutter and I will deal with a very boring aviation article! I just feel bad if some young kid is trying to do the right thing and we blow him off at FAC! Go Wiki, go content! TCO (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll relax. I do think your comments are valuable, and I like the things you say about core content so it's not necessary to hide on the back page, is all. Just so you know, and not to embarrass you, but I'm actually one of the few women on wiki who don't really exist. Go figure. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Three things

(1) Ignore the rubbish above from the retarded and not long for this wiki (2) discombobulated is not a word and you know it, lady (3) That is all. Ceoil 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discombobulated is a good word. I've been listening to the requiem from your page - goosebumps again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh and happy to see the work on VvG. Finally. I'm reading a lot at the moment and will be ready to jump in a few days. I'd like to spend a few days of immersing myself in reading completely, and only be here to tend to "Indian Camp". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Your should really report TCO to the check users. Only warming up on Vincent, long road. Ceoil 02:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not reporting anyone anymore. It only causes more problems. I know you're only warming up. It will be a long haul. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious

What's your interest in the 1952 Winter Olympics? For myself I have none at all, except that I stumbled across it at FAC and decided to try and help with the prose, which I sometimes do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I rarely edit in areas that I know well. I like to learn new things and it's challenging to tackle a page about which I know nothing. Oddly, I know a lot about winter sports. Also, I think it's an area under-represented on Wikipedia, and the article is well-done, aside from the prose. But as I told you earlier, it all made perfect sense to me - which only goes to show that people shouldn't review topics they know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I often review articles on topics that I know, particularly computing articles at GAN, which are almost uniformly crap. What I hardly ever do though is write a computing article, although I have done a few on early steam-driven computers. Anyway, back to the 1952 Winter Olympics; it's coming along, and I think with a bit more work it might make it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll have another go at it later. Some of the subarticles are quite good and I want to look at those. What I meant about reviewing, is that some of the military stuff, or weather stuff, of electronic games, which I never review, probably could do with an outside eye now and then. On the Olympics page I know the history well enough that I really was looking at the content and just spaced out or something. Dunno. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that if we both keep chipping away at it, then it'll be OK. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm about chipped out for the night. I've tightened considerably and done all the sections but the "Opening ceremonies". Would you mind having a look over my fixes and fixing more if needed? And btw - thank you for doing this. Your work is appreciated, even if you're rarely told that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I know my place here. At the bottom of the pile. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not, not really. You could walk away, but you'd miss it, and what you do here is valuable. I have some very bad days, when I wonder why I scrub articles, when I think this is the biggest timesink of my life, but I keep coming back. The difference between us is that very few people know I exist & mostly I like that. It is hard having a reputation here, whether it's a good rep or bad. If I were you, I'd keep my head down for a while, and carry on doing what you enjoy. Don't worry about the people. Or at least try not to. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I was only ever here for one reason, to share information. As for keeping my head down, well, I just find that I can't tolerate injustice, hypocrisy and dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have another window open at the moment, am reading another site, and feel quite ill. Make that extremely ill. I make my battles against hypocrisy, dishonesty & injustice in the real world. Sometimes here, but not as much. It's only a website. Often a very sick place, but a website. And it's a place for me to do things I enjoy - research, write, etc,. - so mostly I put up with it. As I've told you before, when I can't stand it, I walk away for a few days. Anyway, I've had enough for tonight. Thanks again for pitching in on the winter sports. I'll give it another run-through in the morning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't underestimate me. I battle against hypocrisy, injustice and dishonesty just as much in the real world as I do on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, I apolgize. I've had a bad week in real life and have been here more than I anticipated, all of which seems to make me more incoherent than usual. I never meant to suggest you don't battle hypocrisy, etc in the real world. I meant, for myself, I have enough of it in the real world, that here sometimes I try to avoid it. That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

1952 Winter Olympics FAC

Regardless of what happens I want to extend a big thank you for all your help with this FAC. I know you've gone over and above and once this is over I'll distribute some stars, regardless of the outcome. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I don't mind helping at all. I've made a few more fixes this weekend. I think you're very close and might be able to get this through, so keep at it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway seated in 1925 with the persons depicted in The Sun Also Rises

The Sun Also Rises is a 1926 novel written by American author Ernest Hemingway about a group of American and British expatriates who travel from Paris to the Festival of Fermín in Pamplona to watch the running of the bulls and the bullfights. An early and enduring modernist novel, it received mixed reviews upon publication. The novel was published in the US in 1926 and in 1927 in England with the title of Fiesta. The basis for the novel was Hemingway's 1925 trip to Spain. The setting was unique and memorable, showing the seedy café life in Paris and the excitement of the Pamplona festival, with a middle section devoted to descriptions of a fishing trip in the Pyrenees. Also unique was Hemingway's spare writing style, combined with his restrained use of description to convey characterizations and action, which became known as the iceberg theory. The characters are based on real people (who are pictured) and the action is based on real events. (more...)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
for fixing my poor English in all those Japanese treasure lists. Thanks a lot! bamse (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, Bamse. Nothing wrong with your English. The content has been amazing and I've learned a lot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Styles

I reverted your change to Template:Styles. That template was a sidebar included near the top of articles, so changing it to a navbox (generally included at the bottom of the articles) is not ideal. Since it stretches across the whole page, it was causing serious problems for articles like The Elements of Style.

If you want to turn this template into a navbox, you will need to 1) get consensus for the change through discussion, since this appears to be a widely used template; 2) move all instances of it to the bottom of articles (using, e.g., WP:AWB). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see what links to it using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Styles (or just going to the template page and clicking "What links here" on the left-hand toolbar); there's no need to edit the template to do that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. Anyway, I apologize for editing the template. I still think it should be changed to a navbox instead of sidebar, but will leave you to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not involved with this template at all so I don't really care what form it takes, and won't be taking the time to edit myself. Like I said, if you think a navbox would be better, you are welcome to start a discussion about it and ask for the opinions of editors who are more involved with it than I am. My opinion is neutral, as long as you make sure to move the template to the bottom of the page everywhere it's transcluded (probably using AWB). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

Hi. I suggest changing the citation style of this article to Template:sfn. TGilmour (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No you cannot. See WP:CITEHOW. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting you to alter the entire article's citation style to sfn. TGilmour (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That's never done, at all. It's like a very rude suggestion. We keep the citation styles that are in place. Please let me get on with my day so I can tend the article tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You were right when said that there will be big activity on Hemingway next two days. How will we be able to cope with it? TGilmour (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore it. The vandal fighters will help on the main page. Once it's finished, everything can be put back in order. At the moment I'm tidying the articles - some I haven't looked at in months. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I'll be watching. TGilmour (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A Hemingway WikiProject

What do you think about creation of WikiProject Hemingway? TGilmour (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No one's interested. People have tried. Too few people writing about books, good books, American literature in general. And it's too much work, because every article needs a ton of research. The Wikiproject novels is mostly dead, so a Hemingway project wouldn't go anywhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Whop whop and congrats, well deserved. Ceoil 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice milestone...Modernist (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. It is a nice mile stone and it's a page I won't hesitate to admit that I'm proud of. We'll see what it looks like by this time tomorrow - though I'm thinking most people aren't really that interested in Hemingway anymore. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Btw - I think Bertin is looking very good. Ready to nom soon? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Hemingway biography gets about 280,000 hits per mo [21]...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that went on the main page, with pending changes, the first day of pending changes. Was an absolute nightmare. This will be a walk in the park in comparison. It's nice to remind the world that we had a good writer like he him, though his personality wasn't so great. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No with Bertin, the background and sitting sections are still muddy and confused. Saving cash for sources. Prob is the euro seems about to crash! All the cents I saved will be gone! Ceoil 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you searched to see if anything is on JSTOR? I'd send it to you. Don't talk to me about no money - is a big reason I'm home on the computer a lot and not out spending money. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Had hoped to be in London again in two weeks, but no, alas. Bills. I have a resonable gross income, but at net and after morgage, forget about it. Food or petrol might be a problem, or sorry no austerity measures. Ceoil 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Same prob here. Lots of taxes, lots of bills. Been looking for a better paying job for about a year, but nothing. So, serious austerity measures. That's why the librarians know me so well. Without books and a computer I'd go a little crazy. Depressing conversation, this. Liked your vid of Dylan btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Lots of death in your edits (I'm bored and stalking you). Is this a new preoccupation or something I've never noticed before? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My congratulations on the Main Page too! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very slow which is good. I was thinking about pinging you. Do you think Indian Camp needs an image review? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the image review that is there is OK - you might want to either ping the reviewer (and ask if any issues remain) or post something to that effect on the FAC page (I believe all image issues have been resolved). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Was just wondering. I think Sandy's reading the FACs now. It's probably too late to ping Nikkimaria and I don't think she knows as much about the EH situation as you or JMilburn. I'll wait to see what happens. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just posted on the FAC expalining what I learned about the PD Hemingway images from the JFK library, which should help (I hope). Sorry for the budgetary woes Ceoil and Truthkeeper. Wiki is a "cheap date" (insert pathetic attempt at humor emoticon here). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's easier for Sandy if she knows that info. The budgetary woes are endemic I think - and we write an encyclopedia. For free. Go figure. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. I am not flush with cash either, though I get by so far. Ah, altruism. Good night, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! bamse (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Owl Woman picture

Hi, regarding the very nice picture on p. 161 of Hyde's Empires, Nations and Families, I cannot screen grab it here because the pic is truncated in the GBooks viewing window. Nor can it be printed; nor is the book available in the UK.

Is there any mileage in the source cited in the caption to it? That is, "U.S. 30th Cong., 1st sess., 1848, House Ex doc no. 41." This appears to be some sort of congressional paper/report/record of proceedings and so might be visible online in the US. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look in the National Archives but didn't find anything. I'm sure there are databases that have this stuff but don't know enough about how to find them. I can see the entire image (I always forget the "I can see what you can't" situation) so will screenshot it and upload a bit later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Seen your msg at the article TP + the upload. Fantastic, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for peer review

I have recently listed Horrible Histories for a peer review. I saw that one of your specialities is children's literature, the genre into which I would most likely place the series. I was wondering if you would give the article the peer review that it is in such a dire need of. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Question to an admin

It is an odd set of edits. I am not sure, but trust your instincts. Probably best to get a check user request in. I will do so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're around. Can you turn me red again? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this, but thanks to Wehwalt. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
SPI turned up nothing (though there seems to be some sock vote stacking on Commons). I made the PD License template on Commons and J Milburn has double checked and tweaked it. I added all the Commons images I found from the JFK Library to a new category and have added the new license template and update image links and other information to several imgaes there - see here for an example. Will work on more images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the SPI - perhaps a bit of an overreaction on my part but it made me uncomfortable given some of the previous stuff, so I decided to back off a little. Thanks very much for the work you've done on the EH images. Lots of clean-up needed there - many of the urls are wrong b/c of changes to the JFK Library - so that's a project to be tackled. The template will be very helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

M'Kay?

[22] Va bene? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Long story but I'm having my page deleted. I'll ping you about it later. Thanks for asking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kk. Just checking. Here to listen if you need it. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Decided take off a few days and to slow down a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

The Olympics Barnstar
Truthkeeper88 - your input on the 1952 Winter Olympics article was above and beyond the call of duty. I appreciate the collaborative effort it took to get this article through FAC and you are a credit to the process. I hereby award you the coveted Olympics Barnstar for your work. It would not have passed without your involvement. Thank you!!! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This is beautiful. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu

If you have pdfs, questia links etc send them on pls, have interest in this now, definatly. By the way what the hell is up with Liz and her user page, she is worse than me with links! I think incorrigible is the word, ha ha. I'm older than her and male so I get away with being compulsive about having tunes there. And I'm luck in that Cas knows the way I am, indulges me, and then just deletes my user page every year or so. Ceoil 15:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to have you on this with me. It's an interesting story with nice images to go with it. My intention is to fill the page with enough text to support lots of pictures, along the lines of what I did with Edmund Evans. I'm still digging (haven't been into questia at all) and am parking what I find in the sandbox. Feel free to dig around in there or post on the talk page. There's a Harvard mag pdf that you can access yourself; only one file from Jstor at the moment. I'll send that on a bit later - am a little busy at the moment. Mostly I'm using google books and taking notes as I go along because the pages disappear - don't know which pages you can see, some crucial pages I can't see. Btw saw about the arrival of your big book & am thrilled for you. It's always exciting to get new sources - at least for me. I'd only vaguely noticed the changes to Liz's page but didn't log in at all for 3 or 4 days and have been spending most of my time since lost in the sandbox or searching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no didnt notice the sandbox work, when I switch off during the week its total, but see it now and have it watchlisted now. Searching is about the most satifying thing in the wiki process, the excitment at geting hard to find material is second to none. Certainly more fun than cmting on AN/I or getting you voice in on a RFa, just so that its there. Ceoil 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, searching for sources is one of the most satisfying things - especially for something like Lady Murasaki, and yet I've been finding bits here and there. It's fun. I'm hooked on her story and in the idea of the court intrigue, the literature she wrote and the art about her. There's plenty for a very nice page, but needs to be taken slowly I think. I've sent out a Jstor pdf to you and to Bamse, who I see has added more to the sandbox. He's the Japan expert, I'm a complete neophyte, but know a bit about the literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at the paper. Not sure whether I am a "Japan expert", especially when it comes to literature, but I try my best if help is needed. BTW, very happy to see that the article has already improved quite a bit! bamse (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just saw that Indian Camp just got its well deserved star - congratualtions! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed it last night; nice to log on today to see it promoted. Thanks so much for all your help and for reviewing it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Indian Camp a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)
This is funny - thanks so much. At this rate, one story at a time, one book at a time, I shudder to think how long it will take to get through them all, but nice to see that people notice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Indian Camp, I noticed while off wiki during the week, was watching season 3 of Breaking Bad to recap, and saw the promotion. Though: Yes. I suppose I knew it would pass, hence being lax, but here it is anyway: well done, deserved, your certainly on a roll here. Ceoil 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm done rolling - spruced up a few pages I had littered around. SAR was the only really newish thing I've done. It always amazes me that you get shows I can't get here - for some reason I've lost all the channels I used to watch on my cable, which is beyond annoying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank god for torrents. Season 8 of curb is great so far, the second season of Louis so far, and trying Justified though it seems episodic and hokey so far. Too hero based. Ceoil 01:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't want to hear about it - seriously. Went to the cable company in person last Sat to yell at them and pick up some kind of a magic box - they were closed. No tv for me. I'll have to wait to watch online. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
here. Offensive in all sorts of ways, but in a good way. Ceoil 01:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. A lot. Btw - am desperately in need of image help for the Lady Murasaki's page. I don't think the image of Sei Shonagon is right - the source link is dead and everything I can find on the web for that image points here. I have found others, parked in my sandbox, and need advice about which to select and download. Also am hoping to put yet another into that section - more text coming - but am having difficulty fitting them. Now I know what you go through with your pages! Gaa! Oh, and also somehow want to add the image of the fan at the top of this page. Be warned, many other images planned - but no space. What to do? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Har, now you know how myself and Modernist feel trying to find text so we can justify images. The images to text to ratio. We both push it to the limit by nature, and gallerys are a great thing. Modernist has a very good sence of these things, ask him for advice, where I would have to think about it, for him its institive. Ceoil 06:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm discovering that I need to find text to justify the images. Usually I write text, put in some images, have them removed, and am left with text only. This is about how many sentences do I have to add before another image can go in. I have a gallery planned, and maybe should start it now, but am still thinking about the words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What I'm trying to spit out is if you're still interested could use help with this page. I think it has a lot of potential, but I'm floundering. And wondering whether you have an opinion image wise on any of these to be uploaded.[23] Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You can get away with all of them in galleries. Author is more than 1000 years dead. Look at what myself and Modernist did with the images on The Disasters of War, a mini gallery with three images opening each sub heading when the works were being discussed, and then a largish gallery at the end. How big do you expect the page to be. Its going to be extreamly beautiful either way by my reckoning, very well chosen, looking forward to it. Ceoil 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a lot more text than I think I'll have, though you never know. All the sources begin by saying we know nothing about her, and then have a lot to say. I'm thinking I'll be eking the text word by word. Will think about the galleries - maybe instead do something similar to what I've done in Edmund Evans. And of course, I'm still finding images - a thousand years of images. Happy to be away from her for a little time. Sometimes copyediting clears my mind. I see you got a barnstar - hurray! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't answer the question - haven't a clue how big the page will be. I'll add until I'm done adding, that's how I tend to work when I'm not overlaying a big page like EH or EP. I think it will be beautiful, yes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It better be lady. Pretty as this. Ceoil 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; that is pretty. Sounds like a challenge - now I'll have to make it truly beautiful. I'm about to switch gears back to the 10th century after a little VvG pruning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Peer review question

First off, thanks so much for doing some peer reviews. My strong preference is to make comments on an actual PR page (as opposed to article talk pages). That said, I have done both - I just think that a PR page is more accessible for anyone who wants to improve the article, especially if the talk page gets a lot of edits and the PR comments there get archived and lost from view.

Peer reviews are archived by a bot after 14 days of inactivity (no major edits). Once a PR is 30 days old, it will be archived by the bot after 2 days of inactivity (again minor edits do not count as activity). One of my wiki chores is checking the bot's archiving each morning - if an article has been archived with few or no comments, I just undo the archiving (which buys the PR another 14 days in most cases). Anyone can do this, so if a PR is closed "too early" it can be reopened just by undoing the archiving. All archiving does is remove the PR from transclusion on the the main WP:PR page. I have always thought it was fine if people continued to work on a pR after it was "archived" (say a long list of things to do is on the page, it is fine to check them off as they are done).

In the specific case you asked about, (if it were me) I would ask them to let me know when all the copy edits etc were done, and then make a new set of PR comments. Tha said, if you see obvious major problems, I would be fine with noting them (as long as you are copyediting, avoid sandwiching text between images - just a random example). I also think in this case, where you have experience with prior versions, that it is fine as part of the PR to say I would have kept the sentence / paragraph / section on topic X.

Since you said you were a neophyte at PR, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Dispatches, which Finetooth and I wrote about common issues seen at PR (sort of my internal checklist when I review). Hope all this helps and please ask if you have further questions. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll do what you've suggested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another round of peer reviewing for Korkoro

Hi! You have peer reviewed Korkoro when I listed it a month ago. I restructured the page as per your suggestions and here it is for the second round. Would you be free enough to look into it? morelMWilliam 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I peeked at it and it looks much better. Won't have time to get to more a look for a couple of days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. Take your time. morelMWilliam 06:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Very busy in real life, but hopefully tonight or tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your comments. I saw your comment in the box office section. But the link makes it very clear that in US it got released in just 1 theatre. That is also believable, going by the revenues it generated there. But I may be wrong. Could you cross check?morelMWilliam 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed your comments at the PR - and I can believe that a small indy film was only released in one theater - but, in my mind that's actually notable, so I'd mention where it was released. I'll have a look at your edits fairly soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I found the theatre name in a reference and now added it. Have a look. Box office mojo says it got screened in 2 theatres at its widest release phase. I couldn't find the other one. Might come across that later.morelMWilliam 02:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. One name is good - I'd assumed it would either be New York or LA, and for an indy like this was thinking NY. Good find. I see it's being swept by copyeditors too. Let's see what Nathan has for comments, and then I'll swing through again, but am watching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a small query. The copyeditor removed the numerical figures related to Porajmos and also the countries involved stating that that belongs in the Porajmos page. I am not fully convinced as if this article goes through a FAC, then it is expected to be all sufficient for a reader to know all about it without any external research. What is your say on this? Also, the background section looks a bit too small now. morelMWilliam 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started a thread on the talkpage and the discussion should go there. I'd leave in at least some of that material, but they might have a good argument for deleting it, so let's see where it goes. As for FAC, I honestly think you should finish this round of peer review and then consider taking it to GAN first. It's had a rapid expansion, and the more eyes on it before going to FAC is helpful, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's not a lot, could you sweep through Je suis né d'une cigogne. The page has no scope for content addition as the journals that reviewed it failed to archive them and what is there in the page is all that is available. Also check the disagreement am having over its DYK hook in the articles created on July 19 section. Thanks. morelMWilliam 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm probaby persona non grata at DYK at the moment, although I did see that thread, and I know what needs to be done. I need to do some paying work for a few hours, and then will have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Cool down

Please cool down, and leave your edits in place, he's over stayed his welcome...Modernist (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take that trolls remarks to heart...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not angry, only being pragmatic.We've offered six sources, and whatever is offered in the text will be wrong, so I decided to remove those edits (which can always be put back) and disengage. I've unwatched the page for now. This is a little aggressive and not a situation I want to be involved with at the moment. I'll leave it to you and Ceoil - whenever he's back. You guys know the topic better - I was just tidying, and shouldn't have bothered to address the cn tag. As for the description of the death, that was shaping up to be a battle too, so I thought it should go for now. Am cool, but distancing myself. Btw - I've been working on a wide monitor that I haven't had access to for a while, and I have to tell you, visually it's the most beautiful page on Wikipedia I've seen, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Big screens make a difference...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday's cool-down was to see whether the situation would continue. Looking at the edit history this morning, I see it hasn't stopped. Because some form of dispute resolution has been threatened, it's prob best to work out on talk page, before being hauled to ANI for not using primary sources. So, I guess I'll re-engage. I don't see this stopping. More eyes are needed, asap, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree with you here Truthkeeper, "my pages" is not so wise to say... --Eisfbnore • talk 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It was directed at the person making the edits - a blocked user who is socking. I can't change the edit summary, and point taken, but the fact remains, if you look at this persons contribs, these are pages to which I am the primary contributor. I wasn't claiming ownership, but I don't like this kind of harassement and it's been ongoing for a while. That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I fully sympathise with you, and I certainly don't condone the trolling performed by the Taro socks, but the word "my" is like, um, giving them ammunition. --Eisfbnore • talk 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who Taro is, or that these were their sock. Look, I've spent considerable time on both of those pages - the Murasaki page has taken a lot of work, research, etc., and I'm planning to take it to FAC, but if you want to take over, fine. Using the word "my" is irrelevant, TGilmour, or whoever he is, has a different sized monitor than I have, hence all the tweaking, and quite honestly just likes to bother me. As I said, won't take responsibility again for any content created here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't mean it that way. I am a great admirer of your work with Hemingway topics on WP, and I fully support your procurement in choosing the number of ref columns in the pages you author. I just said that the word "my" is a little unfortunate. Nothing more than that. --Eisfbnore • talk 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitten drop

Hey TK, Sorry you turned into collaterel damage in the ongoing flamethrower war re: DYK. You're not responsible for the miscommunication there, and your nominations and reviews are very much appreciated. I hope you won't be discouraged from continuing to contribute. Kitten and I got yer back.

Khazar (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


It's a very cute kitten & thanks. I'm not discouraged - only mad at myself for making a mistake. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK

TK, could you glance here? It appears as if you verified that hook, but my take is that you verified the first hook, yet they ran the alt hook. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't comment on the hook. If I remember, but can't find it, the hook was something about a water board - can't remember if an alt hook was there or not, but if there was I wouldn't have looked at it. My understanding is that they use the first hook unless a compelling reason exists to use the second, and I didn't say anything to the effect of not using the water board hook. Looks as though it was changed at some point. I'm afraid I forgot to watch the page - only checked to see if the issues I raised were addressed, which they were, and I didn't watch as it went through the pipe line. This was stupid though and my fault to for letting Demiurge challenge me to review a DYK. This one I'll have to take the blame for. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is more than one hook there, it should be specified which ones are approved - reviewing for the hook fact citation is one of the main things a reviewer is supposed to do. A bit of an own goal in the endless DYK/FA brawl. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a very apt way of putting it. I always think alt = in case the first isn't any good, and I didn't comment on the hook. Was looking at the content. Anyway, my fault entirely, and I apologize to everyone for getting involved. Stupid of me. I blame it on the heat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
We all still like you, TK. Thanks for trying to help out. I am trying to learn to be better at detecting plagiarism and close paraphrase, do you have any good tips for an amateur? As I told Sandy, mostly I just Google a phrase or two. Sharktopus talk 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sharktopus, I'm really tied up at the moment, but as soon as I get a chance I'll drop by your page with some suggestions. Apologize for the delay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration

You could drop it into GA now, while you work on the article. Not sure if it would drive you crazy or not. Maybe try to get someone you like and respect like Malleus to snag it right away for review. Article seems long with lots of well formatted footnotes.TCO (reviews needed) 03:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but honestly am up to my ears with big topics: a mad artist, a 10th century woman novelistl, and I'm not the most patient sort of person. It's too hot at the moment to think anyway, and I'd have to get a load of sources for it. Knowing the stuff is one thing, but imagine the sources it would need. And the background section alone would be a killer, John Adams, John Hancock - Adam's letters to Abigail - just to name a sliv of what would need to be done. I don't think topics like that should be rushed or done for prizes - they have to be done out of love, passion, or pure masochism, take your pick. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Now you've got me thinking. The summer heat in Philly, Adams' complete joy when they finished, Jefferson's amazing writing, the traveling from Virginia and Boston back & forth to Philly. It's a page that needs to sing, and that's a hard task, to say the least. I've had a look at it and think it needs a lot. Going back to 10 century Japan I'm afraid. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm going after the GA T-shirt then.  ;) Will leave the FA singing and $$$ to you. Dropping it in...now. Looking forward to getting my ass kicked. (Good for me.)TCO (reviews needed) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

TK, I totally don't want to take this plum from you if there is ANY chance you will take it. Like working your way around to it. SRSLY! You are the person better equipped to do the work. Plus, I like you and feel bad when you get a little Wiki discouraged with all the kerfuffles here. And I have a LOT of t-shirts! So please ask for the plum back...if you want it. The GA would be easy, no? I would even support you in whatever way needed (work, review, moral support, staying out of your way, etc.)TCO (reviews needed) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TCO - you go for it. If it goes to FAC it'll need a team and I might be up for it then. I'm in the middle of trying to write a page that really interests me, and trying to deal with a dispute, so I feel as though I have enough of my plate right now. I've already watched the GA page, so am not uninterested (not the double negative), but hate to drop one page for another. If I weren't working on something, I'd probably be more inclined, but not now. Let's see how it goes at GA. I can help with copyediting too - that's easy lifting for me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at MorelMWilliam's talk page.
Message added 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

morelMWilliam 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, Claude is a French character. He is not Romani. morelMWilliam 20:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I read it as he was. Might need to some clarification - do we know why he's attracted to the Romani? Is it at all explained in the film? If not, don't worry about it. I'm on my way to your talkpage with some final comments. Give me a moment to gather my thoughts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The earlier version read something like he preferred the nomadic way of life to the confined life of the orphanages which got tweaked to its present state. Also, the plot ends with him 'choosing' to go with the Romanies. morelMWilliam 20:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for mentioning. Will try to retrieve that and then tweak it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've retrieved the original and tweaked. You're almost done. I need a few moments for a final post, which I think I'll put on the peer review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Last NT list at FLC

The Chinese books were just promoted, so I nominated the Japanese books here. bamse (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another promotion, and good luck with last one! I'll watch it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Time permitting, may I distract you from the Lady and ask for your advise on the close paraphrasing issue noted here? bamse (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll reword it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I left a note at the nomination page. bamse (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the fixes. Concerning Giants2008's issue with "single most impressive achievement of Heian civilization", do you know of another (less enthusiastic) source which points out that The Tale of Genji was the highlight of Heian period literature? bamse (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think your offer to attribute it is the best way to go. Although seemingly peacocky, the statement is true and I think for an overview analysis CHoJ is the best. I'd planned to use, on her page, this statement that you put in my sandbox: "She is both the quintessential representative of a unique society and a writer who speaks to universal human concerns with a timeless voice. Japan has not seen another such genius. [p. 445]". I do have a few other books I haven't even looked at yet, so will check as soon as I have more time in a little while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keene, Donald. The Pleasures of Japanese Literature. (1988). New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-06736-4. He calls The Tale of Genji "the supreme work of Japanese fiction" page 81
  • Bowring, Richard; Peter Kornicki. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Japan. (1993). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40352-9. "By far the most important prose work of this period [Heian], The Tale of Genji (1010 ?) was written by a lady-in-waiting called Muraski Shikibu." page 129.
  • Both are university presses and good sources; both say essentially the same thing as what you have in the article. You could triple cite, although I did notice the removal of all the citation overkill last night. But this might be a statement that requires more than one. I'll post these on the talk page too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I attributed it now. bamse (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. I hope it helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And, btw, in case you don't know already, if you do use the statement (CHoJ p. 445) I put in your sandbox, it should also be attributed to Helen Craig McCullough. bamse (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I might have that wrong. I think I put Shively, but need to tidy all the refs. Also, hope you don't mind, but I'm borrowing a small section, but have attributed to the article and will rewrite to fit the MS page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't mind at all if you borrow. I am happy if you find it useful. bamse (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

V

The archive thing I meant on V's talk wasn't to underplay what happened, and for sure I wasn't around and did not take the brunt. Ceoil 13:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the page. I think Modernist and I have been collateral damage, and it's fine and good that you've apologized and that you and FightingMac are now on friendly terms, but I lost a bit of skin and will take a while to recover. You're my friend and you did ask me to help with this page. So far I've never turned down a request from you, and don't think I ever would, but this has taken a lot out of me, from the beginning. I'd still like to make my way through the page, as I've been trying to do for a weeks to get a sense of what needs to be done. I've found other places that need sourcing, and I think you might consider doing something about that so I don't have to spend to much time scrambling through books satisfying every demand when it's over 100 F, and life is miserable without air conditioning. Sorry if this is not cheery, but it's been a hard week and you often are gone and miss a lot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I will underscore that TK has been magnificent during a very difficult 100 degree + heatwave, I do want that entire page archived clean by the way. TK your long response was unnecessary IMO and I just want that stuff behind us...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ty...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh, and thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Death in the Afternoon (cocktail)

Hey. You're obviously better read than I am on Hemingway, but everything I've come across mentioning the cocktail ties it to him. I admit that a lot of sources may have just assumed he invented it because he submitted it to the book, and perhaps the sources aren't the best for historical information, but I also came across this. Probably not reliable as such, but it implies that Hemingway did claim to invent it. If you can remember where you read that he was shown it by someone else, it would certainly be a useful addition to the article, even if just as an alternative to the claims currently offered. Also, I would like to see it on the main page, as I think it's a great DYK. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm so sorry, I completely forgot I commented on this. Thanks so much for pinging me. I can't remember the source, one of the Ezra Pound biographies, probably Humphrey Carpenter's that I don't have at hand, had a section about EH & EP & absinthe. EH drank a lot; EP didn't drink and so on. And also, what did strike me and I do remember, is that was about the time when absinthe was changed from real absinthe to a sort of watered down fake absinthe. Anyway, my issue is that NYT says he contributed the recipe to a book - which is different than inventing. Just change the wording to submitted, and the hook to something like ".... was a drink EH popularized...." blah blah. I've found that the problem with EH is so many people know so much that you might get hit when it does run on the main page if the current wording isn't tweaked a bit. Do you want me to clarify this over at DYK? Btw - it's a great little piece and interesting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain in was in this book, but no preview. Go with what you have. I've commented at DYK. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I've offered an alt. I guess him actually inventing it does come across as a bit of a tall tale... J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll go have a look. Btw have a favor to ask - as an uninvolved admin, would you be willing to delete this page? The user has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Or does it have to go to MfD or something? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I've commented there - made a small suggestion to add the date which is in the sources & beefs up the hook a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Gisborough Priory DYK

Thanks for doing a review - I've posted some comments for you at Template talk:Did you know/Gisborough Priory. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I see that Moonraker has checked it off, so nothing more for me to do. It's a nice page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Chocolate, Marshmallows, and More Besides

The Great Big Giant You-Sweet-Thing Award
Roses are red / Marshmallows are yummy / You posted something incredibly helpful on my talkpage / As a small return, here is virtual joy for your tummy. Sharktopus talk 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks - an after dinner treat! I'm glad you found the link to be helpful - it's actually a very helpful site. Feel free to spread it around. I've posted it on my user page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK review template

Hi, so you mean "copyvio" should be merged into "Plagiarism/close paraphrasing"? If so, could you show here? Tony (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done it; please check. Tony (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. I'm not seeing that reviewers understand the definitions of the terms, and are ticking without without actually checking. When I went through last night I found it redundant to tick the "Plagiarism/close paraphrasing" field and then again the "Copyvio" field, and I know the terms. I think a person who is unfamiliar will simply tick. I'm not really sure how to deal with this - I'm inclined to tell you to have a field that's called "Copyvio" without the plagiarism and close paraphrasing. But since not everyone understands copyvio, I'm not sure that would work. You could try adding a colon so you get something like this, "Copyvio: close-paraphrasing/plagiarism". Dunno. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

I am watching it now, but was not before. The editor has been around since March, so I assume a check user would have picked this one up too, had there been any sock puppet issues. I will leave a note on their talk page asking them to add refs too. Thanks and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fisch, CU is not infallible, and often behavioral evidence is used for socks who know how to evade CU-- in other words, don't assume here :) I personally haven't looked, so I'm not saying one way or another ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, ILT usually adds refs and too close paraphrasing - this seems to be mostly copyedits. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It's gone from this to this. It's a significant expansion without sources, after having been scrubbed. MuZemike recently CU'd this user. I returned the biographies to the library but I guess will have to get them back to check against the newly added text. In the least it needs a refimprove tag.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
THanks - I was lazy and only looked at one screen's worth of edits on the article history page. Will add the refimprove tag next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just going through the edits - this is an interesting edit [24]. An attributed quotation was removed, a lot of text added, and then at the very botton a judgment made about a critic. I haven't looked at the article, but if that's still there, needs to be removed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you asked Muzemike to take another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems like it was fairly recent when I gave him a list to check and frankly was surprised this one came back negative. I'll shoot it to him again, but think first I'd like to get the book from the library. There's a very definite writing style / copy-from-the-book style apparent in all the those pages, and I've been so distracted lately haven't had the time to take a good look at the page. Also, for today at least, am taking a more laid back, wikipedia doesn't need me approach. Btw - I'd checked three of the DYK's that went up on 00.00 utc last night. I looked at them again on the main page and still didn't see problems. Today will be another day I suspect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Off-topic of Ms. Potter but on-topic what you are discussing: DYK is doing a lot more to work against copyvio/cp/plag (new template and lots of recent rejections based on such problems.) Perfection is hard to come by, but we are trying. Nor should your unhappiness with a few people at DYK be evidence that everyone who values the project is hostile, uncaring, and deserving of your attack. I hope your interest in DYK will continue to be helpful and productive, as it has in the past. Sharktopus talk 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not really off topic of Beatrice Potter. Have a look at The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and look at the edit history and the number of contribs I added (myself, I haven't even looked) and Ruhrfisch added. This contributor added hundreds, possibly thousands, of pages. Clean up is a Herculean task; for months I worked on the pages, achieving very little. To bring it down to DYK - we don't want perfection, we want acknowledgment that a problem exists, and quite honestly in my mind it's a project wide problem. Because we remember the specific editor who worked on the Potter and thousands of other pages, it's a little more easy to spot and catch now. But still hugely time consuming. That's what's needed at DYK and help should be welcomed. I had been expanding an article that has been put on the backburner, which makes me very cranky. Anyway, I hope this adds perspective. I doubt I'll check back to DYK - felt the reception to be very chilly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would help if some of those resisting efforts to address the issues at DYK read the history and contrasted FAC's approach to the issue last October with DYK's (typical) response? Oh, I forgot ... DYK doesn't have archives, so we can't find their reaction, and even if we could, it's a whole new crop of regulars every three months. Never mind :) Well, here's the FAC archive from The Day After and here's the ANI discussion. DYK got, and continues to get, defensive or to deny the problem or to say it's not their job or to misunderstand/misstate what copyvio vs. plagiarism etc is: FAC got busy and got to work on it (well, in fact, didn't FA regulars write the plagiarism dispatch? :) :). TK, unwatch DYK now: what will be will be, they will either change or not, and additional input now is not going to make a difference :) Last time it was deflected with QPQ reviewing, still in place, this time it was deflected with a burdesome checklist template. I do want to do some amount of work to make sure that Hathorn is dealt with, since the amount of garbage that is on Wikipedia is just irritating, and that one editor is enabled by DYK to continue for so long and do so much damage is just wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please come back and please be happy even if you don't come back

Hello, Victoriaearle. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sharktopus talk 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the email and apologies for not responding. Real life issues have kept me busy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont think the best way to react is by surrendering. You have too much invested here to let a random mental case ruin it. Come back is my advice, you have friends here. Ceoil 05:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion will only stoke the fires IMO, and lead to accusations of conspiracy. What I would do is forget it and continue as before as if nothing happened. Best not be defeated by a cranky fuckhead. O and for some reason when I came across Isabella de' Medici's article, I thought, TK would be interested in that (sly laugh). Ceoil 19:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely interested in Isabella. Am not defeated; have been busy, but am trying to carve away time to get back and finish up the writing lady. Durer's parent's is looking very nice btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Do what is best for you, but I hope you come back. By the way, the user in question has been blocked and the objectionable page deleted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The user has been blocked but I see has posted to your page as an IP re Beatrix Potter. Thanks for the message. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

Starting a new thread, but in response to this for whomever is interested. I've finally had a moment to look at the page and compare a few passages to Lear's book. It looks as though it's well summarized, but in my view will need specific page numbers because of the Susanne/ILT situation and because of issues we found here. I know the refimprove tag has been questioned, but given the history of these articles I think it's warranted, only as a reminder to check the text. I'm very busy IRL at the moment, so am happy to have anyone else take on the task of providing the cites. I suspect some of the material also came from the Taylor books, which I don't have at hand right now, so can't check those. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dürer Portraits

Hello. Are you able to get a copy of this. T'would be great. Ceoil 01:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks interesting. You should know that I'm a bit interested in his engravings and illustrations, and am becoming interested in the parents. Anyway, I sent it - still getting in, keeping fingers crossed. Oh btw - let me know if you need any help with the German source. I can help a little, or Bamse for sure could help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sound, got it thanks. I'm also interested in the parents, might spend more time on them. The drawing of his mother is exceptional, and there is a heartbreaking story to it. I'm not sure if I'll do an article on it, or a bio instead. We'll see. Also I owe you a copy edit this weekend. Ceoil 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you're putting it to good use and that you're on a roll. The Lady Murasaki is yours this weekend and thanks. Be warned that it will be hard going - very poorly written. Somehow the page has gone a little awry, don't know what happened. Bamse posted useful comments yesterday to the sandbox talkpage and I need to reconcile some discrepancies from the sources. I suppose I can't expect a bio about a woman who lived 1000 years ago to come together immediately - but I've given little attention to the quality of the writing and now need to distance myself to regain perspective. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to pull you away from the good work you're doing on Durer at the moment. Have had a quick look at Murasaki - definitely needs help. I know nothing about the period and very little about the subject - all apparent in the writing. So help/collaboration very much appreciated - but when you have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ta for the Durer edits. Ip 81 seems to be gone, I dont known what to say about that. I think in the way he treated yourself and Modernist he was one big prick; totally out of order. But I hate leaving people with hard feelings, and am sorry I was not able to get through to him. Thems the breaks, best forget and move on I suppose. regretful tune. Ceoil 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the regretful tune. No need to thank for Durer edits. I was stalking and catching up with the work you've been doing - it's nice. I'm a little fascinated with Durer - don't know what to think of him. Gorgeous and arrogant and oh so talented. I'll have to read his bio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Any musician or artist worth their salt is aware of their talent, and would not take the risks that set them apart if they did not. Durer was very famous indeed in his day, but still kept it real, although I havnt figured out why there are no self portraits after 1500 --JNW or Modernist might explain that to me. I suppose that after the Munich painting where do you go from there, its so damn perfect. By the way, there is big debate between my self and aoife as to weather the dude from the national (mr regretful from the link above) has warmer voice than the guy from tindersticks.[25] I say not. And I'm right, no? Truthkeeper my friend who always backs me up? Ceoil 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Not answering re National vs Tindersticks. Too tone deaf. I think you could be right about no self-portraits after 1500 - that would be hard to beat and he wanted to stop when he looked like that. Dunno. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As non answers go, sigh, I've had worse. Your wrong of course, but good night anyway. 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I did things to the gallery, but messed up the cronology. Dont go to AN/I just yet, give me time to figure it out and go through commons. Its a stunningly beautiful page, its worth saying. Oh and thanks for the help with Dürer's mam, I'm fustrated by that page, I had a lot more but lost it all in a crash. Fuck. Same thing happened to ya, here is a very nice positive tune as comfort [26]. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Between servers going down and lightning hitting too close to the house that made me turn of the computer mid-edit I lost a lot of work and was frustrated, but at least not electrocuted. I like what you've done with the gallery. I'm thinking the gallery should have only images of her - I have others to upload that aren't on commons. I might move the Genji related images to the Genji page. Thinking. Oh, and don't thank for help with Dürer's mother -I wanted to work on something else for a few minutes to clear my head and I like reading your new pages. Truthkeeper (Talk) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
She was a very comlicated and spohistated person, and it seems all sorts of motivations and projections were later tied onto her. I dont have my head around the page yet, but facinated. Ceoil (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of things - re Barbara, do you have enough to get a short biography out of it, instead of shoving all into the picture pages? Just a thought - sort of like Dorothy or Olivia - the women behind the famous men who are never much mentioned but themselves have an interesting story. Re Murasaki - thanks very much for the gallery work and copyedits; I think I've fixed per your inline comments; still deciding about uploading more images. Finally, the message below has only now sunk in - TFA on Monday! Not a great day for me. Oh well. Oh and thanks for the compliment re the Murasaki page; it's about 98% done but the last 2% is always hard. Truthkeeper (Talk) 22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Its a truism that the last 2% is always the hardest when you are so absorbed and blinkered, but it pays to have friends. I'm still gathering Barbara info, no idea where it will go. But I know where you are coming from; have always been tempted to turn La Leocadia into a bio. A fascinating person, no fool, model for perhalps my favourite Goya painting. She was a strong person and I think kept him going for years, when otherwise he might have just died. She put up a hell of a fight over the inheritance, but in the end was left with just her middle age, and noting from the estate. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia is all about putting on the web obscure and encyclopedic pieces that are impossible to find elsewhere. If you were to write a bio of either one of those women it would prob be the best piece on the internet and there's some satisfaction in doing something like that. I like doing biographies - I become interested in people's lives and like digging for the sources. Changing the subject - just found a very long file re Genji art and am about to add a small piece to the Murasaki page - I'm afraid the focus could easily shift to the art and away from the biography. Please tell me if it looks as though I'm straying. Am totally blinkered at the moment. Truthkeeper (Talk) 00:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you'll like this but taking the risk anyway. These guys had gigantic balls to play electonic music in 81 when all and sundry expected them to just play old Joy Division songs. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about New Order. Never sure whether I like them or not - so I guess that's a lukewarmish response. Btw - will be following you in the sections you've done on MS, to respond to the inlines. Truthkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Dude, how can you be on the fence about things like this. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hah, it was a challenge for you to give me something better, and you did. Much better. Truthkeeper (Talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
My dear, you know Im a sad bastard when It comes to music; thats about one of 200 new order tunes I could have picked from the top of my head. Im not joking. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I know you're not joking, and I'm so far outclassed as far a music is concerned by you and Modernist both, that it's beyond pathetic. That's why you give me tunes, but I don't give you tunes. I learn from both of you. Truthkeeper (Talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Eh I wasnt tying to flatter myself there. Im am, in reality, a sad obsessive bastard; no joking. Hundreds of New Order songs; that cant be healthy surely. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well for sure I prob shouldn't have admitted to you I was on the fence. But you did ask, sorta, so. I have a serious book obsession - though I've been trying to wean myself, not very successfully. They multiply - in corners, on furniture, spill out of shelves, they just pile up. I'm not sure that's healthy. But then all of us who hang here on the weekends, especially as much as I have today, when pushing to the end of a page, begin to question our sanity, don't you think? Truthkeeper (Talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 22, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Magdalen Reading

The Magdalen Reading is one of three surviving fragments of a large mid-15th century oil-on-oak altarpiece by the Netherlandish painter Rogier van der Weyden. Completed sometime between 1435 and 1438, it has been in the National Gallery, London since 1860. It shows a woman with the pale skin, high cheek bones and oval eyebrows typical of the idealised portraits of noble women of the period. The woman is identifiable as the Magdalen from the jar of ointment placed in the foreground, which, according to the Gospels, she used to clean Christ's feet. The background of the painting had been overpainted with a thick layer of brown paint. A cleaning between 1955 and 1956, which removed the overpaint, revealed the figure standing behind the Magdalen and the kneeling figure with bare feet protruding in front of her, with a landscape visible through a window. The original altarpiece was a sacra conversazione known only through a drawing, Virgin and Child with Saints. The panel was purchased by the National Gallery, London, in 1860 from a collector in Paris. It is described by art historian Lorne Campbell as "one of the great masterpieces of 15th-century art and among van der Weyden's most important early works." (more...)

Images

I hope you like the templates. I think the page looks more organized and solid...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it does too - it was bothering me an felt too image heavy. This breaks up images and text better. Only one thing - the three images at the top of the "Court life" section are of the three rival poets - do you think they should be moved to the "Rivals" section below, or okay where they are? Certainly I would have had no clue how to do that. Thanks so much. Truthkeeper (Talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Done :)...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being difficult. Now, on my screen there's a column with only a single word of text between the 3 women and the other image. Does the template always have to be below a section header? I might have to tweak the text a little because honestly a few of the sections are a bit long anyway. Truthkeeper (Talk) 19:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Move the stuff around - I have lots of other stuff to do today, Ceoil's playing with it...Modernist (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I really like what M has done; the grouping under "women poets" esp. I am moving things around, but after food for tought. This is fun. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the templates too and am clueless how to set those up. It's required a lot of moving around - too many images and still not enough text. But it looks much better. At the moment am using the smaller screen laptop - the one that showed a three word column on Durer's parents. I think it's hard getting it right for different screens. But I like this format better than mine. Thanks a lot Modernist. Truthkeeper (Talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

FT

Hello! Just wanted to let you know that I nominated the National Treasure stuff at featured topics. bamse (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's an enormous achievement and you should be incredibly pleased with yourself. The internet is the richer for these lists. Truthkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Olivia Shakespear

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Olivia Shakespear. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. That's a nice surprise. Truthkeeper (Talk) 13:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victoriaearle/Archive_5&oldid=1145835940"