User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 3

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


GOCE Newsletter

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now reached the halfway point, and here's what has happened so far.

  • Requests Report - Good news! The number of special requests waiting to be edited has been reduced drastically, with almost all of the remaining items having editors committed to getting them done. Good work, people!
  • Target Report - ɳorɑfʈ's initial target of reducing the backlog of articles for copy edit turned out to be unrealistic insane, so a new target was set: we hope to reduce the to backlog to less than 7,500 items in the queue by the end of the month. The number in the queue was 7,950 as of close of business yesterday.
    • If we "concentrate our firepower" we can wipe out Jan, Feb, and March 2008, meaning the drive will have cleared four months off the backlog queue. Please consider copyediting from one of these months.
  • Rewards Report - We now have some clear leaders on the board in all three Gold Star categories, and many people have qualified for the various barnstars. It is not too late to participate, as it takes just 2,000 words (pre-edit) to qualify for a barnstar! Don't wait! Start participating today. Remember, the ultimate winner is Wikipedia.
  • Notice to Participants - For those who have indicated that you will be working on certain articles on the drive page in your respective tally box, please ensure that you complete these copyedits as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your participation so far!

- Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk)

This newsletter by Diannaa (writer) and SMasters (writer and typesetter).
Thrown onto your doorstep by ɳorɑfʈ on a red Huffy bike.

Writing Magnifying.PNG

Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Thanks very much to all who helped with the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive. We were very close to meeting our target of 7,500 articles remaining in the backlog. Our most shining success is the incredible reduction in the backlog of Special Requests. That part of the project saw a drop from 62 articles in the queue, some dating back to February of 2009, down to a stunning THREE, all of which were being edited at the close of the drive. The Special Requests page will now be a great resource for people looking to tidy up their article in advance of a GA or FA nomination, instead of a place where articles go to die.

Moving forward

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 May

The drive has not only forced a great leap forward in reducing the backlog. It has helped promote the Guild, and led to a greater awareness of the level of vigilance required to keep the backlog manageable. Ideas such as charts, graphs, and barnstars helped motivate editors, and meeting other users helped quell any feelings gnomish editors may have had in the past that they were toiling all alone. Keep up the good work people!!


Almost everyone who participated will receive a barnstar. We will be handing these out over the next week or so.

  • Five people will receive the highest award for word count (80,000 or more), the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star: Bullock, Diannaa, NielsenGW, S Masters, and Torchiest.
  • The Order of the Superior Scribe (40,000+) goes to Auntieruth55, Bobnorwal, Kojozone, Lfstevens, and Mlpearc.
  • fds wins the Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (30,000+).
  • The Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar for 20,000+ is awarded to A. Parrot, mono, Truthkeeper88, and The Utahraptor.
  • the Tireless Conributor Barnstar (12,000+) goes to dtgriffith, Laurinavicius, and Quinxorin.
  • Buggie111, Brickie, cymru lass, liquidluck, noraft, and Yellow Monkey get the Cleanup Barnstar for 8,000+ words.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar for 4,000+ words goes to Annalise and fetchcomms.
  • The Modest Barnstar is awarded to Theo10011 and The Tito.

Gold Star Award

The Gold Star Award goes to the top editor in three challenges: Number of special requests fulfilled, number of articles edited, and number of words. Here are the final results.

Final results: Gold Star Award:
Requests Articles Words
1. SMasters (17) Torchiest (250) NielsenGW (150,360)
2. Bobnorwal (13) Diannaa (212) Diannaa (136,200)
3. Bullock (9) kojozone (76) Torchiest (125,000)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk)

Writing Magnifying.PNG

DYK for Chromoxylography

RlevseTalk 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

request for assessment

Hi Truthkeeper88! Not sure if I've ever talked to you specifically before, but I see you around the assessment department at WP:Novels a lot. Could you do an assessment on The Maze of Bones, please? I've done some work on it, and my adoptee is a major contributor there, so I don't feel qualified to assess. Thanks! (my adoptee, HereforHomework2, posted a request, so please strike that and note your assessment if you do choose to do this) PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi PrincessofLyr! I've had a look and think it's almost to C, but not quite. Left a long note on the talkpage. I'm happy to help with the project or with assessments, and will keep an eye on the article. Thanks for asking! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Thanks a lot for the assessment and great suggestions for improvement. You've been doing really good assessment work. Just as a note, when you reply to an assessment (to note that you've done it or comment, whatever) use #colon not multiple colons. It throws off the numbering system if you just leave colons. PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you figured that out - wondered why it was doing that. Not a problem with the assessments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And thanks also for nudging me in the direction of the mop cupboard - I hope I don't let you down. TFOWR 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Replacing a black cat with broccoli? Is this the new you? Have to think about this - seriously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the evil CommonsDelinker stole The Cat; I merely replace The Cat with a cat. The whole userpage will be replaced soon, just to scare you even more (or provoke even more thought): User:TFOWR/Sandbox (work in progress). Still got the broccoli... until The Cat can be found ;-) TFOWR 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Too bad about The Cat - it was a particularly good cat image. Nice image of broccoli - but, it's just not the same if you know what I mean. Seriously, though good luck. I've noted you dove right in - though the new subdued user name is not as easy to recognize either. Oh well, such is change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the subdued sig was more I fancied a change - no one commented during the RfA, so I reserve the right for it to return! I was getting quite silly with it towards the end - I liked the "idle vaporings" sig, but I was changing it for the sake of it, mid-way through threads... there's a Main page or ANI thread where the sig changes three times... Anyway... it may return! TFOWR 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The idle vaporing was a little long, but I've always recognized your sig with the red - maybe a single red letter to remind yourself of the flag that was once red. Or a red talk thingie, since your sig doesn't have one now. I like the new userpage - nice clean layout. Btw - who would have expected that edit summaries were an issue! Surprising the things one learns about this place. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Aye, I know what you mean about the edit summaries - it caught me by surprise. I have been trying since then, I'm avoiding Lallans in my edit summaries (on the basis that outside Scotland no one will find them remotely helpful...!) but I've not given up on the humour or the length... The sig now does link to my talk page, I figured talking was what most people wanted. Don't know what I'll do with the sig - I'm thinking maybe have a bit of red, ideally the "R", but I haven't worked out which part would link to what, yet...! TFOWR 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for doing all that editing to The Glitch in Sleep! Derild4921 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have any. I'll keep it watched to see how it's coming along.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC reviewing

I haven't made it all the way through FAC today for pr/ar, so I haven't seen the FAC that concerns you and can't speak to any interactions between you and the nominator (I'm deliberately responding here before looking at that so I can offer general advice that won't be seen as a judgement on that FAC). Some nominators do not take constructive criticism well. In fact, some take it downright poorly and loudly castigate the reviewers for daring to not see things their way (which always makes me wonder - why would you solicit third opinions if you aren't going to be receptive to the feedback?). On the flip side, some reviewers are abrupt, which can seem rude to someone inexperienced at FAC and cause an irritated reaction. In our previous interactions, though, I've never seen you be rude, despite provocation.

When as a reviewer I've encountered a sharp pushback/rudeness, I generally disengage from the conversation with a note on the FAC that the nominator and I disagree on whether my suggestions have merit. Then it's up to Sandy to take into account my statements and those of the nominator and determine which one gets more weight. It's never productive to argue with an angry/offended nominator - neither of you is likely to change the other's mind and it clogs the FAC page and scares off other potential reviewers who may agree with you - or with the nominator. Don't let one poor FAC experience drive you away for good. (Think of it as character building - like Catholic Church, which I'll get back to after the reviewer right thing is taken care of) Take a break, and when you come back review one of the WP:BIRD articles or one of Ucucha's rat articles - the articles are generally excellent and their nominators genuinely appreciative of feedback ;) Karanacs (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I agree with all you've written above. Initially I wanted to remove my oppose with the comments, but at this point others have chimed in, (as you say, it clogs the page) and I don't want to have to refactor the entire page, so I'll just leave a note as soon as I get the chance. That's what I needed to know - how to get myself out of it. I won't be gone from FAC for long, but some interactions leave a bad taste and as there's so many other things to be done with good interactions - Catholic Church, Ezra Pound, Edmund Evans - I'll be busy. Btw - loved your rant today! In case anyone is wondering, I'm leaving the image of the Lady of Truth until I've decided how I feel about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Ernest Hemingway

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Seek advice re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3

I will be glad to take a look at it - oddly enough Noraft also asked me to. I did a peer review and had some comments and unresolved issues at the previous FAC, but have no reread it carefully since then. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the extra set of eyes. It's possible I'm off-base. But, am not crazy about the responses, so will not continue the review - and if it appears that I'm wrong I'll happily strike my comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
After a very detailed review, I have switched to support. I found several things in refs already used in the article that were not in the article and think all of the important ones are in it now. I did not look for refs not used in the article. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've unwatched the page and been busy elsewhere, but will have a look. My biggest concern was 1(b) and 1(c). I put in the oppose with the hope the article would be developed more and I could support. Unfortunately I think it was perceived incorrectly which is a shame, because I like the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a look and it's much better. This source tells us the Catholic congregation worshipped in a temporary interdenominational church from 1899 until 1934. I read German, so have read in that language. Don't know how the English translation comes across. From the same website, is information about the style of architecture used in the building of the city. This is information that would be helpful to the article. Given this essay, I think it's best not to interact with Noraft unless s/he wishes it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I also read German (I linked the translation of German in the FAC as not everyone does) and agree that would be a useful addition. I noticed later in the same article it also said 11 German fathers remained in Qingdao when the Communists took over Als die Kommunisten am 2. Juni 1949 die Stadt besetzten, lebten noch rund 70 Deutsche (inclusive 11 kathol. Patres) in Tsingtau. I may be bold and add that. The essay bothers me a lot. If you don't mind, I will bring it to the attention of SandyGeorgia, who always wants to know when FAC reviewers are [insert word here] (initimidated? harrassed? attacked?). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, having you add the information is a good compromise. From this source already used in the description of the rebuilding of the town, it would be easy to recast that sentence something like this: A German brewer who moved the Tsingtao to start a brewery describes the resettlement of the inhabitants before the city was rebuilt with European style buildings: "The so-called Marktstrasse (Market street) was nothing more than the old main street of the Chinese village of Tsingtao, and the buildings lining it were the former homes of fishermen and farmers. Having sold their property, they resettled their homes and fields in the villages further east."
The essay bothers me very much because it's a form of intimidation. The article is much better now because I opposed and asked you to look it over, and I've spent time that could have been spent elsewhere. That said, in future, I'll think twice before reviewing and being honest. The canvassing hasn't helped either [1] [2] (both pages are on my watchlist) in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I got busy in real life - I will leave a notice on Karanacs' talk page next as I see that Sandy is busy now. I am too tired to add anything to the article right now and not mess it up, but will work on it this weekend. Take as much of a break as your want / need, but I hope that aren't permanently discouraged from reviewing, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm very conflicted about what to do. Karanacs' advice was to disengage, (a few threads down) [3] and after thinking about it, I believe that's best. You've put quite a bit of time and effort into this review, and offered good suggestions that have been acted on. I'll return to reviewing when this entry closes. I hope it doesn't seem as though I'm being unreasonable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
More details in here as well about early congregation. See page 106. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) I have put the notice on Karanacs' talk page - since she is not active on weekends and Sandy is busy, it may be Monday before anyone comments on it. I plan to not raise the issue otherwise. Thanks for the other finds - I think I will wait to make additions to the article until the FAC is done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer, I will remove the notice from Karanacs' talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I think the post to Karancs' talk page is appropriate. Perhaps I don't really understand the function of a reviewer (which is the reason I've considered stopping for awhile) but I started with a comment to the effect that more information was available. That comment wasn't acted on, and after waiting a few days, and reviewing the article and the sources, I opposed to indicate more work was required. Four hours later additional reviews were requested at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010 talk page. Had I not stumbled across the essay (and I don't remember how that happened) I would have stayed with the review and continued to make suggestions. I agree the essay may have been to vent, but better would have been to engage constructively with a reviewer. Instead a reviewer left the article, and hasn't reviewed others during a period when I have time. So, the essay created a ripple effect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I see a reviewer's job as working to make the article better (which is why I think most of us work here). Most of my own reviews are in the peer review process. When I review there I try to be thorough in my review (point out all major problems), but when I review at FAC I try to be comprehensive (point out all problems, period). I know there will always be things I miss in my reviews, which is why I am glad FAC requires multiple reviewers. I usually only review at FAC if it is either an article I felt was ready or nearly there from PR, or if it is a subject I really am interested in, or if I am asked.
That said, I had an incident where I opposed at FAC over the article using the two most modern book sources in a very limited and cursory way (as if, say only snippets of the books had been available). The nominator responded in a less intimidating way than the essay and I took a break from FAC reviews for several weeks. There have also been times when I scaled back my PRs. This is supposed to be something we do for enjoyment, and if it is not fun, then do something else for a while and see if you feel like reviewing again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You may not remember, but you gave me good advice last fall [4]. All a reviewer can do is give advice; at that point it's up to editor to take the advice or not. In the St. Michaeal's FAC I ignored the MoS problems with the intention of adding those later, as I thought the bigger problem was lack of development. On some level we need a mechanism by which a reviewer can oppose an article because the article simply isn't ready. Then the delegates can clear the queue, the editor may choose to work the article, and the reviewer can move on. The result should never be intimidation. Anyway, I've moved my comments to the talkpage to unclog the page - had stayed away until last night and found a very long page. I'm slowing down here for a few days to be refreshed and happy for Ernest Hemingway as TFA during the week. Thanks so much for you help and wise words! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)



I hope you'll keep this around (just for kicks). Smallbones (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just happened upon your user ID and thought that you might keep the old lady around. Given the apparent bias against her in Wikipedia policies, I keep her on my user page along with "Liberty Enlightening the World" just to remind myself. If anybody else should keep her around, I'd figure it would be you. BTW, I have no problem with WP:V. Smallbones (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll definitely keep her. She a reminder of the honest truth, the naked truth, all good things sometimes shoved under the rug around here. Thanks for sending her my way! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had no idea that "Liberty Enlightening the World" was another name for the Statue of Liberty! There's a building in Glasgow, an old Co-operative building (sadly now private housing...) that had a statue of the same name on top. The things you learn by stalking other editors' talk pages! TFOWR 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet I was almost blocked for upholding truth yesterday. She's a good reminder of what we try to achieve here. A few times I've considered changing my username, but truth and honesty are essential to me, so she's a good reminder. I've decided to remain truthkeeper, which is also an Anglo-Saxon kenning of sorts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, remember that verifiability, not truth, is the goal: perverse though that may sound. In the end, though, sticking to WP:V saved the day yesterday... for which I for one am very glad ;-) Incidentally, if I had one small suggestion relating to yesterday, it would be - ask for help sooner. I'm always more than happy to look into stuff like this, even if the best I can offer is a few posts on relevant boards (which, admittedly, is more than I managed yesterday...) TFOWR 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but whether true or not, had the information been reliably verified it would have been put in the article before the FAC run. As for asking for help sooner, it should have been taken to the talkpage after the first revert, as I asked in the edit summary and as I requested on the editor's talkpage. I followed your advice re: WP:BRD - rewording the information, formatting the sources, but keeping commented out until verified - which was perceived as a revert and reported. In my view the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to add the information. A google search does not verify, it simply captures search terms without context. Had I been blocked, I would have done what you did last fall - which might not have been the worst thing in the world. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Butting in - I'm jealous - Smallbones gives you a gorgeous "naked Truth" (literally). I got a stone latrine. Sigh, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with latrines! TFOWR 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a naked Truth, but for consolation, I might be able to get you some images of Ohiopyle State Park. They're not mine, but I have a friend who took nice pictures during a camping trip last fall. If you're interested, I'll see what I can do about getting access and uploading. Replied above re the other matter. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed TK's earlier comment. True, and it's a shame this has blown up just before TFA. Wikibreaks are no bad thing: there are more important things in life, but I'm reminded of Bill Shankly's quote, which I'll paraphrase: Some people believe Wikipedia is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that. ;-) TFOWR 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I always photograph latrines in state parks and forests I vist (and was a co-nominator of an April Fools' DYK on the six latrines on the NRHP in the Black Moshannon State Park Historic Districts). I would be glad to see more pictures from Ohiopyle, thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to characters...

What information is necessary for characters in novels or stories? I'm trying to rewrite Ranger's Apprentice along with Mrflabulous and we're trying to fix the characters section first. We have down the main charters we're going to include here, but I'm not sure what we should keep or need to add in. Thanks in advance! Derild4921 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Working on a fantasy series is a challenge. The best we have, I think, is The Lord of the Rings. Have a look at how characters are treated in the article. My advice to keep it as succinct as possible, and maybe spin out daughter articles. The problem you'll run into with a fantasy series that might not be well-known is being challenged on notability for the separate articles. I worked a bit on the Steven Erikson article. His work has a ton of characters, and the nav bar at the bottom of his article links to other articles. I'll warn you though, some of those articles have been deleted as non-notable lists, so it's a tricky situation. I'm a bit busy with something else at the moment, but will have a look and think about it tomorrow. Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem and thanks for the advice! Derild4921 01:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict...

I'm done for a while, so please feel free to proceed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Will have to return to it later because I have real work to be done. Almost there! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Better German Translation of a Title?

Hey, thanks for all the changes you've made to St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. They've really improved the article. Since you read German, I was wondering if you could provide a better translation of the title of one of the sources: Mission und Macht im Wandel politischer Orientierungen: Europaische Missionsgesellschaften in politischen Spannungsfeldern in Afrika und Asien zwischen 1800 und 1945. I machine translated it, then modified that a bit where I could discern meaning, but there were a couple words I didn't know, so my translation came out clunky and awkward: Mission and changes in political power in the guidelines: European missionary societies in political tensions in Africa and Asia, 1800–1945. That "in the guidelines" part baffles me; I don't know what it is trying to say. Perhaps something along the lines of "Guide to mission and changes in political power: Political tensions of European missionary societies in Africa and Asia, 1800–1945"? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably better as Missions and Power and the shifiting Politics of Asia. My German is good enough to read and create a summary for the article - but I'm no longer fluent. However, I do know a German speaking editor we can consult if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain about the title above. Have begun to capture some translations as I'm closing down tabs. The information from I'm certain about - it's fairly easy to read. Let's have all the questions in one place and then bring in a German editor, if that's okay. I'm just logging off. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I need a translation of the full title (before and after the colon), and the colon needs to appear in the translation, so if you want to take another crack at it with those parameters, that would be great. And sure, we can save all translation tasks up for an expert to have a single go at it. Good thinking. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

May I give it a try? How about: "European missions in areas of conflict in Africa and Asia, 1800–1945" for the second part? The first part is a bit more tricky, so I had a look at the introduction on google books to see what it is all about. Apparently what is meant is: "How was the (religious) mission related (connected/intertwined/....) to (political) power and how did this relationship change with the change of political orientations (i.e. political views in society)". Not sure how to put this into proper English, but maybe it is useful to you. bamse (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you! Now we just need the first half decoded. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
How about: "Mission (singular!) and power under (or "during"?) changing political orientations (or "views")"? bamse (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bamse! Glad you showed up - was going to send Noraft to you today. Thanks for the help with the title, my brain shut down, but it did seem tricky to me. Could you have a look at the rough translation I've done: bottom of last section in my sandbox. It comes from this book, bottom of page 106 to top of 107. Also, information in note 319, page 106 looks useful. Your input is more than welcome and you may find the topic interesting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As for your translation, it basically looks good. Just some nit-picking...
106: Bartels became pastor in Tsingtau in 1898 (context suggests that he also moved there around that time). He first bought the plot (not sure if that's important) and then Anzer chose the hill. I have no idea what a "Prokur" is. There is de:Prokura but I am not sure that's what is meant here.
107: The Heilige Geist Kloster came into being (not "stood"!). The "Kloster" was run by Franciscan nuns. The hospital was suggested by the colonial administration (not by "Bartels", though he might be a part of the administration). For this (i.e. for the establishment of the hospital), Bartels was supported by other priests, specially trained lay brothers of the SVD, and the Franciscan nuns (the latter for instance in nursing, but they also worked in teaching).
essence of note 319: In autumn 1898 Anzer had Bartels appointed as pastor in Tsingtau. Anzer also commissioned Bartels with planning and constructing the catholic missions. Bartels initially stayed in a house that belonged to a taoist temple. "Daneben" (could mean "next to it" (in space) or "besides" (...ensconcing himself)) he had a provisional chapel built which served until 1902 as a place of worship/service for the European inhabitants. Every Sunday Major von Lossow ordered about 100 men to go to church.
I am somewhat interested in the topic, but unfortunately don't have much time to do a lot about the article. If you need help with some other translation, I'd be happy to help though. bamse (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not a speaker of German, I'm good at recognizing cognates. Heilige Geist Kloster = Holy Ghost Cloister (Kloster is translated by online translators as "Monastery" but that's not appropriate for women...cloister or convent is preferred, and as cloisters are usually built for enclosed religious orders--which these Franciscan sisters are not--convent is probably best). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks Bamse!
  • Noraft can you take what I have below and combine with Bamse's translation into a section, or do you want me to do it?
    • My translation: Father Bartels moved to Qindao in 1898. He built a temporary church and then, on the hill chosen by Anzer, had a printing house, a (Prokur ?), and a missionhouse built. (p.106) On the hill stood the Heilige Geist Kloster for Franciscan missionary with an adjacent school. Bartels suggested a Catholic hospital and was a proponent of bringing in more priests and specialized SVD friars. (??) (p.107)
  • Essentially the added information is that Anzer chose the hill, appointed Bartels, commissioned him with planning and construction. Bartels lived in a house belonging to a taoist temple. Provisional chapel and printing house built. Men ordered to attend church on Sunday in the chapel.
  • Also, the from what I've been able to glean from page 250 of the Architecture book is that the mission house had a chapel, which is why I keep carping about it. Best to be specific. The sources suggest the place of worship was actually a provisional chapel adjacent or attached to the mission house.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Yes, the mission house had a chapel. I've stated several times that the congregation worshipped in the mission house prior to the cathedral being built. Will get the translation you two have put together into the article in a few hours. I have to step away right now. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Take your time. I haven't had time to review everything and am too busy to give it the focus it deserves, so would prefer myself to wait a few hours. Honestly, the bigger obstacle at this point is getting an image review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Have added the new information. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd

Hi TK, you participated in the 1st GWD if I remember rightly? Would you be up for joining the 3rd? My plan is to work on Hawley Harvey Crippen, but I'd imagine you're largely drama-free and content-heavy (!) so this should be much easier for you than me ;-) TFOWR 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did participate last year, only in sense that we tried not to bicker at a certain article. Happy to join. Will watch the page. Should warn you though, that I'm planning a wikibreak at some point soon, which may correspond with those days. You'll know if I'm gone. Thanks for asking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you sir.

Cwill151 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Trackers Task Force

IB Diploma Programme

Placing link to this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY/Archive here so I can find it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I can't really bring myself to crack a joke, I feel fairly drained and I haven't done anything. If it helps, I'm feeling pretty confident about applying WP:DUCK to cases like this; I can then punt it to WP:SPI for review, so if I'm out of line no harm gets done. If I'd been more on the ball here I'd have beaten Elockid to the punch... TFOWR 14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong has been diligent about submitting the reports. Report was submitted last night, so although it seemed fast, it sat for awhile. Looked like it was winding for another spate of ugliness, and I'm happy to see the block. Whenever that user shows up, I'm reminded why I stay pseudonymous. That was a good example of incivility. Thanks for jumping in. Did you read the blog post referring to "zealots"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw HelloAnnyong's good work today for the first time: I know you told me about the indef block and the socking, and I'd had a look into the block before, but the sock puppetry had kind of not registered for me. It was the IP's question to you that gave it away for me, but after I'd posted about WP:CIVIL I saw Tvor65's comment, and realised I was pretty late to the party ;-) I've not seen the blog post yet - I'll take a look now. I reverted the IP today because two editors I trusted had already reverted it, giving reasons, and the talk page discussion didn't seem to have gone the IP's way. TFOWR 14:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry - had seen it late yesterday. I think it's probably safe to say that I'm less excited by it all than ONY appears to be. TFOWR 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't look at it yesterday after seeing "forum discussion" in the URL. Had a look today, and was surprised (but shouldn't have been) to see this brought elsewhere. Anyway, it's done for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ditto with the surprise (that shouldn't have been). The style appeared unchanged; the casual battlegroundery, the "aha! I haz gained a major victory over what you just said!"-attitude. 1964 or 1967 - we should all hang our heads in shame at that horrendous, horrendous error which threatens the very existence of Wikipedia... ho hum... TFOWR 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The irony is that whenever the battleground "you are wrong you are wrong" pops up, I check the sources and find information I've left out, and in the course of cleaning the mess, more and more information is added. Was just having a look at the IPs edits - the Harlan Hansen information has been systematically removed for months, so from what I can guess is that Wikipedia must not reflect involvement by an American educator in a nasty socialist international educational program. Very tendentious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Toy book

NW (Talk) 06:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tiny copyedit

Hi! I updated the National Treasures of Japan article with a treasure which got designated a couple of days ago. It is not really important, but if you have some spare time, you could have a look at the two sentences (last paragraph of National Treasures of Japan#Historical materials) that I added and fix if necessary. (Still slowly working on the sword list, but I first need to learn a lot of new terms in order to understand the references. That's why I created Glossary of Japanese swords, mainly as a dictionary that helps me in reading.) bamse (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fascinating glossary. Haven't the time at the moment, but when I log in again will read it. Nice work. I've done a quick fix to the National Treasures article, but was thinking today that I need to get back to it and fix more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the glossary, it is still growing as I stumble on new expressions. Not sure it is an interesting read; I'd rather recommend to use it to look up stuff, but that's up to you. Feel free to add to it, or to suggest expressions that need to be explained. bamse (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the copyediting. I'm running through after taking a few days break to try and get a clear eye on this article. Hope I'm not getting in your way. Thanks again, ceranthor 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten very far. It struck me that one of the problems with the article is there's not much about the 1916 earthquake itself, but you have a lot of background about earthquakes in that region. I stopped because I thought it might need some restructuring. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Hi. I noticed this. I very strongly disagree with this sort of editorializing. Can you justify this in article talk, please? Thank you. --John (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it on the talk page. The octopus does not predict anything. The octopus mere choses food from a box. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Careful, you're on the verge of entering WP:TRUTH territory, ironically in view of your screen name. Seriously, if there is anything other than your opinion behind this, now would be the time to say. --John (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't care if you change it, but I don't really like being threatened as I'm trying to write an article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Threatened? Who is threatening you? I made some changes, and justified them in talk. You (partially) undid my changes and I was asking you to join the discussion in talk. I seriously hope you didn't find this process to be threatening! --John (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Careful, you're on the verge of entering WP:TRUTH territory is just a friendly reminder to my talkpage? I boldly reverted and in fact discussed first. I have never found WP:BRD to be threatening. Bringing it to my talkpage with the first word of "careful" sounds like a warning. Had you read my comments on the discussion page? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I don't deal in veiled threats or the like. That wasn't a warning and I am far too involved in the discussion to dream of taking any administrative action against you, nor do I think anything I've seen you do merits such action. However, having read what you wrote on the talk page, I wonder if you could enlarge upon your rationale for your proposals there. --John (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made two edits to the article which I reverted and yet you mention administrative action? What have I done that merits administrative action? As it happens I generally enjoy my time at Wikipedia writing articles, which is what I've been doing this evening, but now I'll unwatch the octopus article and log off. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't bother about John; he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I was writing, which is sometimes hard and requires a certain amount of concentration. It made me stop and log off, and now I'm just really confused. What have I done to warrant mentioning administrative action? Why are those words even used? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's just John's style. He's a sanctimonious, hypocritical bully. It's nothing personal. Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So now I have an article with half finished sentences that I haven't copyedited and I need to stop for the night. All because of an octopus. Stupid. I'm too thin-skinned for this place sometimes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Truthkeeper. I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings. I was just trying to get you to expand on your talk-page rationale. There was never any mention or threat of administrative action from me. If you've decided not to edit the octopus page, maybe that's the best for now. The article is looking not bad, thanks partly to your work. I'm glad we've got rid of the scare quotes. See you in article talk, if you change your mind. --John (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

John. For the record, these edits from three separate editors are essentially the same as mine. [5], [6], [7]. I haven't done what I consider work to the article, nor do I expect to be back at the talkpage. As for administrative action, I'm at a loss why the phrase was even mentioned over quotation marks and an octopus. Also, if you were wondering, I came to this article after seeing an edit summary or some such from Mbz1 are their talk page which is on my watchlist. Sometimes I copyedit Mbz's DYKs, so I popped in to have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I was not pleased when I saw at the article the scare quotes removed from the verb "predict". That made it look as if the octopus actually is predicting the outcomes of the games, a horribly silly idea. I would have added the quotes if I cared enough to edit the article, which is basically an in-joke. If the newspapers use the term "predict" without the scare quotes at least they should be mentioned in the article and the usage of the verb should be attributed to whichever source uses it without the quotes. Otherwise we make Wikipedia look like MAD magazine. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I absolutely agree with you. I removed them based on John's first comment in this thread, and given the follow-up that no administrative action was warranted, I believe I made the right decision. That said, I think such comments tend to have a chilling effect on editors, which in my view isn't what Wikipedia should be about. At any rate, I'm leaving the octopus article to its fate. Others can get involved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point about the mention of administrative action, even in a benign context the mere mention of such action can have a chilling effect, as you mention, on any intelligent and perceptive editor. Take care and sorry for butting in like this on your talk :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Glitch in Sleep

Hi, I've tried to add in any info. I can find at all in the article but it seems a really long way from GA and I'm not sure if it can ever reach GA now. What do you think I should do to help this little article climb up to GA? Thanks advance! Derild4921 00:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've bumped it up a notch and will have a closer look later tonight or tomorrow as soon as I'm finished what I'm working on at the moment. I still see an unformatted url that needs to be fixed. Honestly, some articles I abandon after a certain point because the sources don't exist to improve more, or I get sick of working on them. Often I'll return with fresh eyes after a few weeks or more, and find mistakes or more to write about. Thanks for reminding me - I'm sorry I didn't reassess earlier. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassessment! I stopped editing the article for a time because I couldn't find anything. Then a few days ago I started searching more things up and found a lot of new information. Thanks for your time! Derild4921 12:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That has a tendency to happen. I've left a list of suggestions on the talk-page so you have a list to follow. Don't ever hesitate to ping me with questions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For uploading pictures how do I know if it is fair use or not? I can find a lot easily on google images, but I have no idea how to tell if it is fair use or not. Derild4921 13:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See this for acceptable fair use. The cover of a book can be used to illustrate the article about the book. But you need to write a fair use rationale when the image is uploaded. You could copy the rational used for File:Hunger games.jpg. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Source review request

Hi, I have a co-nom at FAC - Tosca. Would you mind doing a sources review for this (I obviously can't do this myself!)? I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a couple of comments. I'm still seeing the inconsistency with the page number spacing, with some refs showing the spaces and others not, but am certain it's a browser formatting issue, so I have to assume they're all correct. Thanks for asking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up behind me

I assessed Riders of the Purple Sage and totally neglected the importance rating. I didn't even look at it! Thanks, PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Seemed a bit odd. Definitely a start article. Btw - have you ever done a FAC review? I have an article at FAC that needs to be reviewed. It's about a 19th century printer who worked on children's books. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't. I'll read through it and see if I have any comments. I'm fairly good at copy-editing, but not on an FA level. But I'll take a look. PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Do you think this amount of improvement on Dawn (Warriors) would make a DYK? Brambleclawx 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have to have been expanded from 4000 bytes by five to about 20,000 bytes in five days. So, no, it doesn't qualify. It's hard to get an article that's already that size expanded enough for DYK. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. Thanks, Brambleclawx 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Google book citations

Are you doing the google book citations by hand? You know there's a gadget called "reftools" in preferences which will fill in the forms from a seem to be missing some of the isbns.Smallman12q (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the actual books, am not using gbooks. The convenience links aren't really necessary for Evans' book because it's not available to preview on gbooks, and it's useless because each library has a different digital copy with different isbn, but no preview. I had to wait a month to get the book, and the library wants it back and I have huge overdue fines. I haven't added a convenience link to Saltman either because it's not available for preview, and the book can be found via the isbn. Also, I've commented out one section you added because the information about the large print runs and the blocks being reused is already there, but elsewhere, and sourced directly to Evans, so I want to re-read to make sure it's not redundant, if that's okay. I'll reword the lead and then comment at the FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I usually link to gbooks if they have snippet searches...but if there's no search/index, no need to link like you say. So you went the extra mile to get the physical books=P...I usually use online databases...but physical books are still the best. I do enjoy some of the victorian illustrators...there work is far superior to that of the modern children's book which are encumbered by superficial cartoon characters. Feel free to comment out what you need...just move the sources to another spot. Cheers. Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Used all real books. Huge library fines. But most of the on-line sources are derivatives of the books. Need to fix the mess I've created. For featured articles it's not necessary to have multiple sources unless the information is controversial, which this article isn't. I'd like to reduce the clutter a bit, but wasn't planning on doing this today and am needed elsewhere. I'll get back to it later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're OK?

I'm guessing nothing too serious, but best wishes anyway. TFOWR 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had confirmed yesterday that I have a significant vision loss (not a surprise given the mistakes I've been making!) and need eye surgery. In the meantime, I have to try to avoid screenwork. Easier said than done as both my work and my hobbies include reading and screenwork & I'm in the midst of expanding a few articles. I'm weaning myself away slowly. Lurking, reading, but not as much editing. Thanks for asking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am really sorry to hear your news, and can only imagine the distress this is causing. I hope this will mean only a temporary loss of your services to the project, and that after surgery you will be able to resume writing and reviewing. I'd particularly like to thank you for your recent efforts with sources reviewing, which have been a great help at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. It is distressing. I enjoy the work I do here, but if I slow down to prevent eye-strain, I think I can continue. We'll see how it goes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
TK, sorry to hear about the problems with your vision. But I hope the surgery and recovery both go well, and that you're feeling great and back up to full capacity again soon! Best wishes and warmest regards! • CinchBug • 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cinchbug. Looks like I won't have surgery scheduled until September, so Wikipedia will have to put up with my many mistakes until then. But, as I've indicated above, I'll slow down, and also spend more time working in a sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet more stalking...

This issue is, I think, the same as this one. I took a look at your talk page history earlier and it still looked broken so I said nothing, but when I looked again just now it looked OK so I'm guessing whatever Fuhghettaboutit did must have fixed the problem.

Sorry, I'm really not monitoring every edit you make! Honest! TFOWR 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you stop by to chat, or stalk my edits. I assumed somebody had redirected the boxbottom template and it was only a matter of time before it was fixed. That kind of a tweak is not minor. It was weird to log in and find the page squashed to the side. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured you wouldn't mind, but I did feel a little self-conscious that that was two posts here in a row - prompted by your edits to your own userpage or talkpage ;-) Anyway, I'm going to stop now and go to bed! TFOWR 01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, if I put up edits like that, I'm bound to get questions. I had my eyes dilated yesterday and couldn't see at all for hours; didn't know what today or the next few would bring, and occasionally somebody stops by to ask a question or to ask for a copyedit, so I thought I should post something instead of disappearing altogether. Please, don't ever feel self-consious about posting here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To Smallman regarding the e-mail to a specialist inviting a review of Edmund Evans & possible de-listing at FAC

I'm posting this here so you can read the two threads above. Essentially I'm not currently in a situation to do much editing, so if Ms. Lundin does in fact accept your invitation to edit and/or review Edmund Evans my reaction is to remove it from FAC at this point. If changes are necessary I won't be able to make them for a few months. Even small edits such as changing the date formatting as I did recently was quite difficult. As this is only my second FAC I don't know how to manage having a specialist review. Certainly I don't think it's a bad idea, but I think the article should stay stable during the FAC process. At this point it might be best to contact one of the FAC delegates and ask to have the article de-listed. I don't know whether I have talk-page stalkers, but if I do, perhaps someone can advise. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're going to need eye surgery...that's very debilitating =[. With regards to Anne Lundin, it appears that she retired in 2008...however she may still do a review. If she does a review, I'll post the results to Wikipedia:External peer review. From there I'll incorporate what I can into the article. However, as the article stands now, it should still qualify for WP:FA. If there are changes needed...I have enough time to make any modest changes that should arise.
On a personal note, I hope you do get better...your contributions are greatly appreciated by those of here at Wikipedia as well as the silent masses who peruse the articles you have greatly expanded/created.Smallman12q (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to withdraw just because an expert might turn up; she may love the article. During the FAC review of the Donner Party we were lucky enough to attract input from one of the leading authorities on the subject. It was a tricky ride at times, but it didn't derail the FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the tricky ride that worries me. Though honestly I feel the article is in good shape. Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:External peer review - I didn't know that page existed, and thanks Smallman for the offer to help if necessary. I'll take a deep breath and continue the process of weaning-myself-away-from-scrreenwork. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll add something about how Crane later did illustrations more for adults than kids...(source).Smallman12q (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've purposely not written about all the work by Crane and the others, because I felt it was better suited in the individual articles, and to keep the focus on Evans' biography. Just so you know my reasoning. Also, there's quite a bit of information on the talk page regarding the structure of the article. It might be a good idea to post to the talk-page as a number of editors were tossing ideas around at one point, and may still have it watchlisted. Do we know for certain that Evans printed Faerie Queen? Seems I've looked this up, but can't remember what I found. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Faerie Queene...not sure.Smallman12q (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Should we add a "selected printings/engravings" for edmund evans?Smallman12q (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fairie Queene is not on the list. I've added some. The full list is quite long, and I was thinking it would be better as a separate page. Would be nice to have images associated with the books, which would have to be found and uploaded, but it could be quite beautiful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It certainly would look a long list though=D

Some other that could be made later:

Smallman12q (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In my sandbox under the bright blue cap titled "Children's Illustrations" is a table I started with the idea of making a list of children's illustrators. Realized I'd run into copyright problems for the 20th century illustrators and stopped. But, I think a tweaked format like that the one I started could be used to turn some of those red links blue. We have enough illustrations from Evans, Crane, Caldecott and Greenaway to begin a list that could be added to with time. Gutenberg has many of their books, as do various libraries, so it would be a matter of finding and uploading. I'm finding myself spectacularly uninterested in Burnett and am only finishing the article because I started the expansion, but I'll leave it after I add a bit about her reception and so on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine...using a table to list their works will do...I'm going to improve some other stuff in the mean time...(haven't received a reply from Anne...either she doesn't check anymore or her email changed=( )Smallman12q (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So I got reply from Anne Lundin today (I listed it at Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Edmund_Evans_Expert_Review)...she said,

Excellent article! I corrected the date for Greenaway's UNDER THE WINDOW which is 1879. - Anne Lundin

So the article must be pretty good. Well done, truthkeeper.=DSmallman12q (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting. I'm glad she approves. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You might want to add her praise to you for your work on the article: My pleasure! Congratulations on your exemplary piece, rich and full. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Done...being the main contributor to the may want to put a response...(ie. bask in the praise=D).Smallman12q (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure it needs a response, as it was praise with no criitcism. Having made a professor happy is good for Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You did get one date wrong. Shame on you! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I'll do a better job when my eyes are fixed. Until then, Wikipedia has to live with my mistakes. Btw - thanks for the copyedits, the biographical information from Oxford on-line, and the support. Much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. I hope your eyes get sorted out soon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Should we add {{Victorian children's literature}} to Edmund Evans (and also add Edmund Evans to the nav template)? The template looks like:

Smallman12q (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, have you decided for what date to list it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests?Smallman12q (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes the template should be added, with Evans name in the template. Thanks for finding it. Feel free to request a TFA date. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
August 21 sound good?Smallman12q (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Also, because I'm very picky, do you mind moving the quotation out of the ref and into the notes section. I'm not quite familiar the syntax you used for the other note. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed reference. It's done with WP:REFNEST.Smallman12q (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Under the Window

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pound article

I see you're currently a leading editor on the Ezra Pound article. Haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but wow. If Wikipedia had more articles like this in the humanities, its reputation would skyrocket. (Love the ready-for-80s-rock-stardom photo from 1920, too.) I had the extraordinary experience of reading the Cantos many years ago in a small seminar with Donald Davie, who thought the later poems evidenced the deterioration of Pound's mind. "Stupid, suburban prejudice" is quite insufficient a recanting: the eternal dilemma of whether the life taints the work. Beauty is difficult, Yeats, indeed. But his ear for the innate rhythms of the language is unmatched, for me. Thank you so very much for your contributions here. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that compliment landed on this page exactly at the moment I needed it. It's only the first draft. I usually spend months on an article before I'm happy with the content, so I expect it to change quite a bit until I'm happy with it. Pound is complicated and fascinating and very hard to write about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Very much so, which is why it's impressive if WP can have a good article about him. I'm glad I followed my impulse to leave a note. Best,Cynwolfe (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad you did too. I've been following your little drama with PMA. I ran into him at at another article, and found I like his dry wit. Not everyone understands his style, I think. I hope you don't mind, but I've stolen something from your page, as it is the best description yet I've seen on Wikipedia. I'll reword, if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything I post to WP is free for the taking. (Besides, none of the substance was mine anyway.) As for the other, an interesting study in human nature. Indignation is an unfortunate habit of mine, so I understand losing the "dign" part too well. But anyone who doubts PMA's ability to exercise rhetorical restraint should read this masterpiece (the warned editor was me). Although the value of a single editor should not be dismissed lightly, half my vehemence at the tribunal has also to do with the deplorable tactic of trying to silence opposing voices through WP:CIV. I mean, who's the better companion at dinner: Norman Mailer, even if he's spewing sexist bile, or somebody who largely shares my politics but covers his ears and says la-la-la-la every time I tried to parse something contrary? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree with you, and I commend your fortitude for jumping into this. Arguments such as these give me a headache. The inability to understand what WP:Synth is, and the deplorable lack of knowledge is rather interesting to watch from the sidelines. I suspect, though, there is some sort of logic behind the seemingly illogical behavior, which is that a point needs to made. What the point is, I can't quite see. Anyway, thanks again for stopping by. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagism FA delisting

I don't believe Imagism qualifies as FA material per our more rigorous standards. It was made FA in 2005, and reviewed in 2007, but it seems lacking compared to other FA articles. Should I seek to get it delisted or leave it as is?Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nicely written and the information is correct. My inclination would be to leave it as is for now. I'll watchlist it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cats and such

Hey, Truthkeeper, I'm on vacation at the mo -- I see from the banner up above that you're also trying and failing at the whole "must stay away from Wiki during vacation before friends and family members disown me" thing. ;) As for the novel-related categories thing, meh. In fact, that's kind of how I've always felt about categories: "meh". Sorry I can't be of much help; from a quick glance, however, I definitely agree that separating novels according to one individual's idea of what constitutes a defining factor (place, race, subject matter, etc.) of said novels is a bit screwy. Sometimes a highly complex book can only be described by its place of origin, right? If there's resistance from those wanting to move things around, RFC may be the most logical step. Carrying out such a discussion at WP:NOVELS is useless, as the project is gasping for breath as it is. Enjoy your vacation! María (habla conmigo) 02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I modified the wording so that cross population and removal makes sense and follows more closely to what is happening at British novels Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#New_proposal, sorry if I seem stubborn, but categories really bother me when they aren't navigable. Sadads (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In my view discussion and achieving consensus is one of the five pillars. I'm not the only person who disagrees with this move but you're implementing it, so the RfC is moot. I will recategorize the novel articles I've worked on that have been changes. Most novels fall into multiple categories but that is no longer reflected in many of your edits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fire and Ice (Warriors)

Hi, sorry for a late reply, I have gone through with a copyedit though I am not very good with improving "prose". The main thing is that I'm not really sure what prose is. Can you help me understand prose and improving it? Thanks!

Work your way through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing a little bit at a time. Prose is the word for any writing that's not poetry or verse, so it's a fancy word for writing. I'm happy to give writing lessons, but probably best to do it on the article talk page. I'm trying to take a wikibreak (and being spectacularly unsuccessful) this week, so give me a few days to get back to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know how you feel about failed wikibreak, I've failed about two of them. I'll read that article soon since I'm watching some tv now. Good luck in your surgery, hopefully you'll be back quickly after it. Derild4921 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Swords... at last

Hi Truthkeeper! Long time no see. As usual I need some copy-editing help. This time for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). Hope you have time. It is a bit more than usual, as there is text not only in the intro but also at every subsection which needs to be brushed up. Take your time, I still need to write a little text for the "Sword mountings" subsection (this should not interfere with the rest of the text which is about swords only) and have to edit the tables a bit. I added a bit extra information to the subsections, because I felt that without it, the list would be a rather dry listing of similar looking items (without images that are hard to come by). If you think it is too much text, please let me know. Also, if you think that part of the intro section would be better in some of the subsections (or vice versa) let me know. Another thing I am not so sure about are all the technical terms in some section which are explained in the "Jargon" section at the end. Do you think that this is too detailed or special? I could reduce the jargon terms a little by replacing some terms (hamon -> temper line, mihaba -> width, kissaki -> point,...), however it is virtually impossible or very cumbersome to write about a sword or style of swordmanship without using any jargon. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bamse! I'm trying to stay away from Wikipedia - the reason is explained in this thread above. Also, just to let you know, I'll be traveling late next week into the following week. However, if you don't mind that I work slowly, I can give it a try. The lead looks fairly good - just needs a few minor tweaks. I've only read the first two subsections, and my first reaction is that it's hard to read - not because of the jargon but because of the notes attached to the jargon. A little too much blue, although I'm not sure it would bother me if my eyes weren't as sensitive as they are at the moment. My immediate reaction is to treat the notes like linking - present them on the first occurrence, and not again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, best wishes also from me. Hope your surgery will go well and that you recover fast. It's perfectly fine if you work slowly. I'll think about how to deal with the jargon links and will maybe ask at the MOS page. bamse (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are pretty quick with your copy-editing. Just one minor issue: you changed "assisted by" to "the result of" in the sentence "The change in blade shape was the result of the introduction of horses...". In fact there were curved blades before there were horses. However with the introduction of horses, curved blades turned out to be even more effective and the curvature was refined (blades became more curved). That's what I meant by "assisted by". bamse (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that sentence. The page was loading slowly, so I swooped through, which is unusual for me, but it needs another pass or two. Will fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pound's legacy

You know, I should probably have you throw a pail of water on my head while you're at it. No, wait, reading that lucid, balanced, intelligent piece of WP is much better than that. That's really excellent work. (And I'm so pleased you were able to mention Donald Davie.) I hadn't heard Arthur Miller on the subject before. Hope to look at that more fully sometime. Flory's displacement interpretation is quite good, quite sobering and resonant. Really makes me want to get back into Pound studies. I truly enjoyed reading this, and I thank you.

Oh, one tiny thing: "The national outrage at Pound supported suggestions to have him hanged or shot" was a bit unclear to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't angling for a compliment, but I'll take it! Thanks. Yes, you found the one sentence that bothers me. I thought it would be good to mention that Kenner wasn't the only one involved in Pound studies at the time - hence the nod to Davie. Flory's work is recent and extremely impressive - I'm having a difficult time keeping myself from leaning entirely on her, but know I need to use a variety of sources. I'm preparing the article for an eventual run at WP:FAC, and it's really difficult cramming everything, with all the relevant literature, into 8000 words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I know you weren't angling! My remark was spontaneous and heartfelt. And about that sentence, I've attempted half-dozen revisions and discarded them all. I don't know why the thought is so resistant to good syntax; it's actually quite clear what you mean: "The national outrage at Pound was such that there were suggestions that he be hanged or shot," which is as precise as I can be for the meaning, while producing a dreadful concatenation that, if asked, I'll deny I ever wrote. I even tried splitting it into two parts, which led me to consider whether a lack of an actual agent could be the problem. I like the phrase "national outrage," and yet it's abstract and impersonal; when I tried to make an independent clause somewhere, I found that "outrage" was sort of doing double duty as verb and noun, leaving nobody to do the suggesting. "To have him hanged or shot" is such a dramatic and effective "payoff" at the end that I like keeping it there. (Sorry. I hope you have a high tolerance for this sort of obsessing.) If I could guess, I'd say that in the interest of concision, you compressed away who was doing the suggesting: editorials in newspapers, perhaps? Organizations of some kind? Yet when I say that, it seems an unimportant cluttering detail. (Sorry, I'm going on and on; these kinds of syntactic difficulties fascinate me.) Best wishes on your FA quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed "national" for now, and will let it cook. I do like "that he be hanged or shot". I've compressed an entire page of a list of who and what were outraged - media, critics, writers, commentators, and so on. Sometimes a few days away from a sentence like this is all it needs to suddenly become clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

David Giammarco article

Hi Truthkeeper,

I wondered if you could help out on a David Giammarco article situ. The article seems like it was written by Giammarco himself or his management team. I took out the advertising and peacock language citing NPOV re WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION and marked up the text to make it Wiki friendly here. Greatwhitetv (Giammarco, I presume) has reverted the lot, including the WP syntax. I would rather not get into an edit war - it seems like it would go that way. I'm fairly new to all this. Your help or thoughts would be appreciated. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I try to avoid these situations, but you're right in your assessment. I've left a welcome message for them, and tagged the page in need of references. If it's not referenced in a few days, then I'd suggest taking it down to a stub. I'll keep an eye on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Warriors (novel series)

Is it necessary for the plot section to be cited with the books themselves since in the separate book articles it is accepted the summary is taken from the books. Also, do you feel that the plot should be cut shorter since in the previous GA assessment that was one of the problems with the article. Thanks for your help as always! Derild4921 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to cite the plot summaries. The summaries should be very short, particularly in this type of overview that links to the individual articles with more extended plot summaries. Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent message on my talk about the tone I used when helping improve the Paul the octopus article in July. I want to formally apologise for communicating with you in a way that disturbed you, even though I stand firmly by my position on the content issue. I hope I shall do better in future. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

You've done an excellent job thus far of expanding Ezra Pound...let me know when its ready for a review=D21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the compliment. It's still got a long way to go. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've sent you a few articles on Ezra Pound that may help.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll retrieve them in a while. I'm fighting size on that article, so can't put in much more, but maybe will be able to swap out some sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You still have room to add pictures and quotes...have you considered adding:

"Pound's crazy. All poets are. They have to be. You don't put a poet like Pound in the loony bin."

— Ernest Hemingway

=DSmallman12q (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Still working on explaining his writing which is about as confusing as the writing itself. Ceoil owes me a lead, but I'll take a stab at it myself. It's topping 8000 words which I think is the limit for a Wikipedia article, but some trimming might be possible. I like the Hemingway quote, although I've used two already. Is it from Hemingway's letters? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I found an attribution source here...there are some more attributable quotes here. You also seem to have neglected to mention that Ezra pound was tone deaf having the "organ of a tree toad". I'm going to try to make an article on transversality tmrw/monday. Great work thus far on Ezra do have room though to sprinkle in a dozen pictures/quotes to add some pizazz to the article.Smallman12q (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I purposely left out that he couldn't sing, because I'm writing down to the bone at this point. When I work on these big articles, I usually make three or four passes, adding layers as I go - I'm only on the first pass here. (Also intended to add that to the article about music I started) Most of what I've done is to add sources and rewrite accordingly. This is an article that's been around for a long time, and tended by others. In the end, I may leave it to them to finish. We're using only the best scholarly sources. I'll try to find the original for EH. EP only died in 1972 and the estate owns the images, so not so easy to add them. I'll keep an eye on your article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The quotes list their source...such as Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961), U.S. author. Quoted in New York Post (January 24, 1957). said of Pound's detention in St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, DC. should consider including some info from the DOJ's investigation of Ezra Pound...they have decent biographies and some amusing interpretations. Also have a look at User:Smallman12q/sources where I listed a few more sites for him. Great work thus far...he was a fascinating character...though a bit aloof at times. As for could always add quotations...there are quite a few about him...Smallman12q (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You should provide a better source for File:Ezra Pound 1945 May 26 mug shot.jpg. It appears to used in the back cover of Ezra and Dorothy Pound: Letters in Captivity, 1945-1946 and it appears he didn't want the photo to get out...Smallman12q (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. It was in the article when I started and I don't know who uploaded it, but I think if it's an U.S. Military image, which it is, it's PD. But as you know, I'm not very good with images. Maybe post to the talkpage and see if others who've been tending the article know anything? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hit a wall with Pound and had to stop. As far as reviewing is concerned, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to take it to GAN to get feedback, although I'm not really sure about anything regarding Pound right now. I do know I'm not done with the research, and some of the sourcing is still dodgy. For some reason I was feeling pressured to get it done and felt as though too much was coming at me from too many directions, which resulted in some spectacularly bad edits and a bad case of eyestrain. I may have a bit of time in the next few days to work on the content, and then I'll be traveling for a week. In all honesty I can't imagine getting it to an FA review at least until September, perhaps even later. I have surgery scheduled for mid-September, and the last thing I want is to have to worry about a tending an FA nom, so the next six weeks will be a good time to let the article cook and to regain perspective. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Take your time...patience is a virtue=D. I'd also like to suggest that you mention that the controversy raised by having the Library giving Pound the Bollingen Prize is the reason that they were "forbidden" to give it out again. Also, you could make a timeline of Ezra Pound based on this chronology. You've done an excellent job thus far...I wish you well with your surgery!Smallman12q (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You should also point out that Pound used the pound sign "£" as his signature and monogram at times.Smallman12q (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was lost in the sandbox. Yesterday I added a note that the Library of Congress were no longer allowed to give the prize according to a congressional hearing. So that's already in. The book of letters looks interesting. I might have time to get a look at it tomorrow, otherwise it will have to wait until I get back. Thanks for finding it. Add on: might put that information in with the £/ Joyce mtg in Italy - that needs an overhaul. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Random Break

You might also want to expand (add a few lines) regarding the effect his early life in Idaho may have had on him.Smallman12q (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty fascinating subject and would be a good thread to pull. Hailey is interesting in that the money that came out of the area made a very few people extremely rich, most notably the Harriman family - I see Wikipedia doesn't have an article on them, but the Harriman related articles we do have is for the same family, and their fortune was made in the Hailey area. The mines were actually up the road in Ketchum (yes, where Hemingway put a bullet in his head one summer morning!). Funnily enough I've walked past the house pictured in the article and almost went in - one of those weird circles in life. I'd prefer not to the Boise Weekly as a source - that area tends to have an editorial policy of writing to attract visitors - but I do have a Tim Redmund essay that I haven't yet read. Pound left the area at 18 months, so he wouldn't have remembered it, and I don't see any evidence he visited (have to check the Hemingway sources, though) so it's hard to tell how much impact it had. Certainly the Silver Boom was extremely dramatic - our only article is Colorado Silver Boom. Fortunes were made and lost, towns grew and disappeared quickly. The silver magnates are families that still have money and power, and a few towns like Hailey, and Aspen survived. But, there are lots of ghost towns in the west from that period of history. It's interesting that Homer Pound worked at the mint, and that he moved to Italy to be with his son; I don't see any evidence the Ezra's parents disagreed with his philosophy - but maybe it's out there and I haven't found it. I'll be gone and entirely off-line until the end of the weekend and maybe into next week. On my return I'll dig to see what I can find on this subject. Thanks - it's an interesting angle. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
A lengthy reply...but interesting... There's an article on Wood River Valley...but its a stub. There's also one for Hailey,_Idaho...but it doesn't mention much in terms of history. I agree it shouldn't be used as a source (Ppound as a "progressive Republican"...pfft) ...but its an interesting read. Enjoy your weekend=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Scarlet Letter (The Ending)


I am not sure why you deleted my addition to the Scarlet Letter, I posted it for a college assignment. If your really disagree/dislike it that much please wait until after August 16, 2010 to delete it again. My class end date is then and I should have been graded on it. I don't mean to offend anyone it was just my personal opinion of the Ending.

Thank you J Rockwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrockwell3 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A reply has been left at your talk page at User_talk:Jrockwell3#The_Scarlet_Letter.Smallman12q (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite question...

Hi mate. I've had a few times recently where it would be useful to use named refs, but with varying quotes. Kind of like {{Rp}}, but where the quote changes each time, instead of the page number. Does such a template exist, to your knowledge, or am I going to have to use a new, unnamed, ref each time?

Not hugely important, so no hurry, just thought you might have come across something that might help.

TFOWR 09:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would need to see an example. How can the quote change but not the page number, unless it's from the same page? A little confused here.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the page number thing is a bit of a red herring. I'm thinking more with {{citeweb}}, where you use the same webpage for multiple cites, but quoting different parts each time. I need to go offline for a bit, but I can concoct an example later if needed. TFOWR 12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The quotation doesn't have to be embedded in the citation template. Simply add the quotation with the named ref after it. I think what you're asking is whether the quotation should be embedded in the cite template, because that field exists. I never use the quote field - I always delete it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I'm still red-herring-ing [sic] ;-) I've stuck an example of what I'm trying to do in User:TFOWR/Sandbox. For some context, you could take a look at the horror that is: User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Oman_and_Gwadar! I'm using one (or a few) URLs as refs, but I'm wanting to provide a quote for each ref to back up what I'm citing. It may be that it's just not possible - it's arguably not really necessary - but it'd be nice to do if at all possible. TFOWR 13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Anything is possible. I always use quotes to support what I'm writing. I can't really tell from the first sandbox what you're trying to do - do you mind if I edit it? I'll have a look at the Oman sandbox. It's usually easier to tell from the context. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Anything is possible. I like the way you think! ;-) Re: sandbox - go for it. I'm using it as a menu to my other sandboxes, and a "scratchpad", but everything important can be recovered from its history anyway. TFOWR 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Changed the syntax. Once the source is named: <ref name ="xxx">author, name, publisher, and so on</ref> then for subsequent occurrences only the <ref name = "xxx"/> tags are necessary, but if you don't close the ref with the slash you get a big red error message. You were using more tags than necessary. Does this make sense? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly. I think I'm confusing things by talking about quotes. I've put another example in the sandbox (I was going to {{talkback}} you, so I left a comment there, but basically I'm now thinking the solution may lie with the notes-and-references magic you performed some time ago - the "quotes" are for the cites themselves - hopefully it'll be apparent from the new sandbox stuff). TFOWR 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I need an example. If you're trying to put a note at the bottom of the page, that's an entirely different situation. I'll be away from the computer for a few minutes, but go ahead and cite the Oman article, and then I can fix the cites as you want them to be. We can use the talk page there, unless it's being moved with article. It's much easier for me to work with real examples. Also, for notes at the bottom of the page, look at the syntax I used in Ernest Hemingway. You have to set up a group thingie for that. I can do that, and then you can copy the syntax. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
D'oh! Looking at Ernest Hemingway my first thought is that that's exactly what I want (Footnotes and Sources). (My second thought is - I should have looked at that first...) I'll dig into the cites and make sure, but I think that may be exactly what I'm after. The Oman stuff has now been pushed into the article-proper by Begoon, but it could do with more refs so the issue remains. Anyway - thanks for this, apologies for the noise! TFOWR 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that the article is in place with the refs, I see what you want to do. I'd still recommend against using the quote parameter in the cite template. I but can set up the article with the notes section, and then you can follow the syntax for other occurrences. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I set up the notes section and moved one of the notes into it. Will do the other. That article has quite a bit of potential - interesting. I'll swing through with a copy-edit if you don't mind - later. These days I have to step away from the monitor frequently to prevent eyestrain. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bit of an update to all this - I've not actually looked further at Oman yet with a view to sorting out the horrors there, but I have done some work on something that's been in my sandbox for forever... Ethel MacDonald. I didn't intend to completely rip-off your Ernest Hemingway method, but the footnotes provided a handy way to deal with disputes in the sources. I'm a lot happier with the article now. And it's all your fault! So - please accept this:

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For service above and beyond: because I never asked you to delve that deeply into Oman, but you did anyway, and your help assisted not just with that article but with another too. TFOWR 00:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR 00:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a nice surprise. I'm actually planning to get back to Oman for more reformatting. I'm really happy to see you've written an article about a Glaswegian anarchist. I like the Harvard style short notes because they keep all the junk out of the edit window, and for longer articles such as Hemingway and the mad poet it's easier to keep track of the sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've got to be honest - the article was there before me - all I did was cite it. It was sourced, but not inline - and providing inline cites helped throw up a few problems (when did she meet Aldred? Is she from Bellshill or Motherwell? etc) - but better editors than me did most of the work. But aye - Harvard-style is great. {{citebook}} - too much noise when editing. "The mad poet" ;-) Glad I wasn't on my morning coffee when I read that! TFOWR 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing like coffee ruining the keyboard! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried simple reading glasses (which can be bought without prescription)? No matter what's wrong with your eyes ultimately, reading glasses make your eye THINK it's looking at far-away-things when it's really looking a something closer. So it should work. So long as you're not looking at something SO close as to require normal "accommodative esotropia" in theory (by the laws of physics) your eyes CANNOT tell the difference. And even then you can close one eye and get a perfect correction. SBHarris 01:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that will work. Probably best if I don't put out my entire medical history here, but we know what's caused the problem. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Hamish Henderson! Don't take it to seriously (I suspect if I continued to use that one source for cites I'd stray into copyvio territory...) as I was playing around to see if I could understand the new referencing magic and also seeing if I could wedge quotes into Harvard cites (I can!) but this is now my new favourite citing approach - makes cites really precise, and keeps clutter out of articles. Man, you really earned that barnstar! TFOWR 08:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

American historical novels = ?

Hi there. I have no vested in the novels you recently untagged as American historical novels (Devil's Brood and the other two in the trilogy), but I'm unsure how to reconcile your deletion of the cat with the descriptions of those books as historical novels published in the USA. Are you saying they're not historical or that they're not American-historical? I wonder if the category needs to be more carefully defined, since it could refer either to books from the USA or only to books about the USA. Which was your opinion? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OOPS!! I just saw that you raised this discussion elsewhere--I'll respond over there. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they were published in America but also in the United Kingdom. Not sure how place of publication defines the subject of the book. I think I'll ask to have the pages deleted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't delete them. Someone else might be able to add to them down the road. Your question of what to do about books published in both countries is really good and needs to be addressed. A related question would be what to do when British authors publish with U.S. companies and vice versa. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They only exist because Sadads wanted to copy them out of the main article during the GA review. I'm happy to give up the Good article listing. They aren't notable and little information exists on them. Much better to have in one article. Besides, already copied back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Pong. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, deal. Angsty poets causing me angst, maybe? Btw - have you seen this nice comment? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have; nice to feel appreciated, no? Its stray comments like that that make all the hard work worthwhile. You have readers. Ceoil (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, the way you are twisting and developing the page in the last few days is very impressive. You are giving air and light to a paticularly difficult bio; you had all the facts, time lines, dates and all that dry stuff down about two weeks ago, and its really only from that point that you can make a page stand out. My opinion is that you should treat this a long project; what will make the article special will be the colour you add over the next months. Ceoil (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Twisting is a good description - the number of edits made yesterday is almost scary, trying to place things just so. I've been in a sandbox shaping the legacy section. Maybe better than the current section? Very tricky to balance EP's legacy - the hatred, the complexity, the innovation. Am traveling in a few days and then very busy when I return, so, yes, it won't be finished very quickly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
trying to place things just so. I know what you mean - I mosly work on articles about paintings and so balancing and placement of imgs and text etc and having the page look right is about 50% of the work, but the most rewarding. It comes at the end of the hard work, which is the stage you are at now. My hoenst openion is that you should step back from it for a while, and come back with new eyes (not an intentional pun, I actually typed that without reaising and only spotted in preview ;) and a detached prespective. I suppose its not a concidence, but I see a lot of parells in difficulty with this and the page I hope will someday be my magnium opus - Francis Bacon. Both had severe personalities, and both had a bleak, almost cold, outlook that infused every inch of their output. With both you need to know the man to know the work. I see you have weaved this in at points in the bio, actually very skillyfully, but I think it needs to be more pronounced again. I've not resolved it in my mind yet, just thinking out loud here. But all that is down the road. Step back, come back, and I'll give you any help needed. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely need to step back and regain perspective. Had to do that with Hemingway several times. It's very valuable being told to step away. But ... in my "I'm almost there" state-of-mind, (knowing I won't do much here for the next few weeks) I think I'll finish adding a few bits missing from the legacy section (maybe today) and then copy to mainspace. I have another set of books to be returned and once gone hard to get back, so in a sense that sets the pace as well. Your comment about knowing the man is important - the weaving in of the little information is the hard part - partially because the finding of the nuances in the sources is time-consuming. I wouldn't mind seeing some trimming, to free up space for the adding of the little bits. I had a go myself, but ended up with choppy prose that I hated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
O and its my habit to give out songs to friends - JCC always make me laugh; this Coronation Street / retro-futurism hybrid might work if you need cheering up. Talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that did give me a laugh. Later - will gone mid-week this week until maybe mid-week next week. Thanks also for the offer of help above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I often find that the colour is easiest found in synopsis, magazine outlines, or collected essays. Bios tend to be dry and focused on fact, where as short copy tends towards the writers openion and broad insights. For example, it might be difficult to find humour in Van Gogh's life, but Robert Hughes and Simon Schama have both recently written fantastic essays that breath so much life into a well worn and and almost monlithic story. Tragedy + time. What I'm saying is that seeing as most of the hard facts have been established, you should try skimming these sources for quotable annecodotes and attractive turns of phrase to keep readers engaged. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I faced the same challenge with Hemingway. Once the facts were in place, had to bring it to life a bit more. Essentially the content is done and the page now needs attention from copyeditors. I think I'l only have time to sporadically check messages in the next few days, but when my time frees up I'll search for nuggets of color. I am fascinated by the story of the women and am considering squeezing in a few more details about them. Btw - sorry, but had to take down Hilda's image - she didn't survive the consolidation of three sections into one. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Re Hilda pic, all I can say is gaaaa. I am dissapoint. More on thoes women would be great, and not streaching the point, I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
She's still there, but commented out. So sorry - was afraid it would be disappointing. Regarding copyediting - asked Deor b/c I'd been snappy earlier, but no response. I like how you loosen up the prose - do mind keeping at it? At this point the more I fiddle, the longer the page, so am thinking maybe I should just pull the plug and list it soon. Is it ready? Be honest ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I might have scared Deor off; I'm thoughtless like that sometimes. Comes from years with the wiki visual arts people - we guys and gals are hard as nails. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the thin-skinned lit people? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm too nice to say ;) Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was a bit of a set-up, although I am thin-skinned, sometimes too much so for Wikipedia. Actually, I snapped at Deor, so I don't think you're the culprit there. Btw - I can get the dabs and the final polish - am more concerned about the overall impression. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The overall impression given is very strong, I read it again last night and this morning and was well impressed. Its densly packed and comprehenisve, but readable and engaging all the way through. All aspects are covered, I think you are good to go, and best of luck! I'll watch the FAC and help when I can. bty - the dorothy pic is not appearing for me today, but that some times happens. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the polish and the comments. I've rewritten Paris and will move to the page later (actually have real-life stuff to do!) You're right, Dorothy is gone. Btw - what's your opinion on these MoS issues: imagism or Imagism? Cantos or The Cantos when referring to the long poem, and Cantos or cantos when referring to the separate pieces of the long poem? The sources are oddly inconsistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Imagism, The Cantos, cantos. In VA, movements are always capatilised, as are series. cantos singllar are just a form. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Will change. Have an eye appt tomorrow and am having eyes dilated so no screen work at all for most of the day. Just found out I have a TFA on Saturday. I might list it on Sat. while I'm babysitting Edmund Evans. I'll let you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Pong. Ceoil (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You're keeping me busy this morning! Haven't had a chance to look at me e-mail yet - I've just left a msg for Awadewit. With the c/e in place, a content review is a good idea too. Will go check e-mail. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
He he, sorry about that, I dont really sit on my fingers. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Responded x 2. Read both. It's all good. With Malleus doing the c/e, I'll spend today looking for images in early books. There's a slender chance I can have a photo taken of the Hailey house, but need to send some emails. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak over?

I'm assuming it's been a week so...User talk:Derild4921#Your articles please?:D Derild4921 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans

Evans will be on the main page on August 21, 2010.Smallman12q (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, must of missed this in the flurry of messages earlier, although I noticed the date had been added to the article talkpage. Was hoping you'd forgotten about this; will go give it a polish. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't so bad...though some more info could be added from "McNair, John R. (1985). "Chromolithography and Color Woodblock: Handmaidens to Nineteenth-Century Children's Literature". Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to know if you plan on expanding the impresario's triumvirate of protege's...that is after you're done with Ezra Pound and his mind-altering poem The Cantos.Smallman12q (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It was very easy for a TFA. Although I think I my first experience wasn't exactly the norm: Ernest Hemingway going out with Pending Changes days after PC was introduced. That was a bit of a nightmare. I remember reading that article, but haven't the vaguest idea where it is in the mess that's my office. I've been printing stuff b/c I can annotate it; the downside is that I lose it. Will have to find it. I do remember thinking it was interesting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit disappointing to see Evans only got 19k views...Smallman12q (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Victorian children's book printers aren't very interesting to most people, unfortunately. Still, it's a nice article, and worth having done. Sorry for the belated response - took a day away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign post Tutorial

A good short article on referencing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial and my personal cite page User:Jeepday/Cite JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this will be very useful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Berber

There's a proposal to merge the Atlas lects of Berber, in case you're interested. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your great work copyediting articles even though you're busy in RL, this barnstar is for you! Derild4921 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Derild! I don't mind helping out! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Big improvement

That was a big improvement You may have given me the courage and motivation to continue with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did promise. And my recent ramblings on your page had what I needed for Ezra. Workhouse was just a mess - but I find that when I flatten out, then it's easier to start fresh. Good luck with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I tell you what; when I get discouraged with workhouses again, and you get discouraged with Ezra, we'll just swap articles for a while and have at it, :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I can understand being discouraged with workhouse - too many sections. For some reason I don't have much problem with organization. Fitting together all the little pieces from many sources, adhering to each source, and then achieving a good flow, is where I tend to struggle. On workhouse, I'd actually flatten the sections at the bottom as well, but those are easier to do. Done for the night now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm almost completely the opposite, so we might make a good team. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of citations on Jacob Epstein

Please do not remove references simply because you cannot verify them online. References do not have to be accessible online to be verified. Use the library. Yworo (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the title of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry is "Jacob Epstein (British sculptor)". Did you miss that? Yworo (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats

Sorry for re-adding that infobox. I thought the reasoning on the talkpage by Ceoil was not good enough. Thanks for providing the link WP:Disinfoboxes on the talkpage. I read through it and understood that this infobox had no references at all so I agree it isn't worth keeping. Minimac (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message. I've gone through the history of article and it's not had an infobox in over 3 years; but Ceoil would know. Yes, the WP:Disinfoboxes page is interesting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You've been doing great work, these types appear from time to time, I thought your idea this morning is good and if I can navigate into a template I'll give it a try. Ty and Litho are also adept at creating templates...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This is such an annoying distraction. I worked a bit on the Hemingway template, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with them, but at the moment I want to try to push through finishing Ezra. Then I'd be happy to help. I'm just sorry I started this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A well thought out Modernist template is just a great idea, if its one for the a later date, I certainly help. Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It would need to be well thought out, but it would be nice to pull together all the modernist articles we have. A good future project. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Those romantics have a good one going, along the lines Modernist is suggesting[8], we could gut that and evolve. <cough> After christmas, of course. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
As opposed to this [9] for the modernists - which is pathetic. Once set up, wouldn't be that much work to plug in the individual articles. Seems that christmas is a long way away - no telling what can be done between now and then... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I was thinking and adding it to this one or just re-doing it: [10]...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm re-reading - In the lede so far I'd like to know his son and daughters name; and what I think of Pound when I think of Pound - was of an utterly loathsome character but alas a great poet; I'd almost like to see in the first paragraph something that reflects how controversial he became. I'll add wlinks as I go; feel free to delete whatever you don't agree with...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read. I've added the children's names, and sketched in a draft of a new paragraph at the bottom. Later I'll work on integrating it into the first paragraph. This one is a challenge, as I'm sure you can understand. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The lede has improved. Excellent job so far; although as I said I utterly detest Pound. A little of my own experiences - I remember speaking with Allen Ginsberg in Canada in 1966 and listening to Allen speak about Poetry; so I'm not surprised that Ginsberg and other writers were so kind to Pound, although my sentiments are more in line with Arthur Miller. The Bollingen Foundation was the publishers of an english version by Richard Wilhelm (and the best version) of the I Ching which has a strong base in Confucius philosophy. While that is in my opinion one of the greatest books I own; I wonder if the I Ching was one of the books Pound carried around. I also think Bob Dylan is by far the greatest poet of the 20th century and he mentions Pound in Desolation Row which you might want to add to the legacy section...Modernist (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the valuable feedback, and for reminding me of Dylan - will try to get my hands on a copy of it, or pull it up online. Your post is somewhat of a blast from the past - I lived in Boulder for many years; Ginsberg was the poet in residence and every apartment coffee table had a copy of the I Ching. Hadn't thought of Pound carrying that with him, but it's an interesting thought. Still tweaking the content. I've pretty much given up trying to understand what he was thinking in the 30s and during the war, but need to present some sort of cogent explanation. My biggest fear has been leaning too far in either direction - Pound the great poet or Pound the monster. Certainly the sources to exist to go either way, so it's a balancing act. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd forgotten how good Desolation Row is. Am afraid to admit though, Bob Weir's version is the one I know best [11]... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Sent you an email. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Am that way too. Good luck with these articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Tune for the disheartened

Keep on going until late September. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I am a bit disheartened, but intense editing on these big articles will do that. I had an image approved for the Paris section (which does make me happy) - I think there are still questions about the images of the women, but haven't the energy to deal with it at the moment. I filled in some gaps last night, and I've tried to improve the flow a bit. If you or Malleus want, it's probably ready for another copyedit pass. I have found a formatting problem with the blockquote that will need to be fixed at some point. I wanted to have the content in place by the end of summer and it seems I managed to do so. Am taking a break from Ezra, but before the books have to go back to the library (in a few days) if I have time I'd like to expand Dorothy's article. Thanks for the help and encouragement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll give another copyedit pass at least, but next week is a bad week for me work-wise. For whats that worth. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad week for me too, work-wise. When you have time. No hurry. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a page?

TFOWR - am thinking about having User:Truthkeeper88/IB Sandbox|the IB sandbox page deleted. I've just blanked the content. Can you think of any reason we need to keep it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Use {{db-userreq|1=your reason here}}. Access Denied 04:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't. There are a few edits from ONY, but that formed one signed comment which you promptly removed/relocated, so I'm assuming it didn't make it into an article. La mome made one edit, to correct a few typos, which may have made it into the article but I doubt attribution would be a problem there. I'd say it's safe to delete. TFOWR 07:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd imagine La Mome's edits did get into the article. Was actually more concerned about keeping the content ... the second it's deleted you know what will happen... but I'll get rid of it. Btw - have you seen HelloAnnyong has an RfA? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Blimey, I'd seen HA's RfA and kept meaning to drop by - I've just realised something like 5-7 RfAs have passed and I've missed them all. Dammit. TFOWR 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Goya & Pound

Thaks for the edits on Witches' Sabbath. I could sure use a good copyeditor there if you have the time. I know its not a very plesant picture to look at, but it conveys well if you know the period and has an excellent back story. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was just poking around at some of your stuff. I have a question though - why is the image on the left? I realize the devil is facing right, but all the women (and there are a lot more of them) face left. Have you thought of repositioning to see how it looks? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of inversions in the picture, and in the related Witches' Sabbath (Goya, 1789). I find it 'sits' better left aligned, and its strangeness is best conveyed by placing it in an unexcepted position on the page. I expect a lot of flack on this, but I've though it out. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean by inversions and placing on an unexpected position. You will get flack for it. Definitely. Be prepared to defend yourself - vigorously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Im looking forward to it. I never fancied formulaism. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my computer crashed - too many windows open or something like that. Half my edit didn't save, which is odd. I'd added something to the effect that it's a really interesting shape. Also interesting that not all of it survived. Makes you wonder what else was there. Anyway, I'll be happy to pick at when I can, in a few weeks or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No rush at all. Weeks, months; grand. Your a very strong colleborator, it would be great to have you on board when I do push. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely be there to help when you push. Probably poking around earlier. Copyediting is about all I'm good for after Pound. Gotta log-out - I seem to be having technical issues. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Its late. Normal tranmissions to resumne shortly. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Re Pound: no response from Sun Valley about the military uniform image. They probably haven't a clue about it. I've tweaked the article again and asked Malleus for some more copyediting while I'm out. Suddenly very impatient ... Still waiting for Awadewit ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm anxious myself now too. I like the idea of a focused section by section joint copyedit. We could wait forever. & ping. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
God, I hope not forever ... I hope to be back to editing in a week or so. One thing: that his father worked at the mint is important, but I guess that needs explaining. Will have to see if I can find a source to back it up. Later ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of blinding you forever, I'll renistate that from the notes. Not tonight; long long day, and though its only 25 feet (in old money) from here to the bed, I might or not might make it at this stage. If you dont hear from me in the next week; 911 pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it for now. I realize what's clear to me might not be clear to a general audience . I need to dig some stuff out of sources, but can't at the moment, so ... let's leave it. Once your time frees up and I'm back to editing we can clean up the article and make a push to finish. I wouldn't want you to need rescue from exhaustion. It's only a wikipedia page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't there use to be a para on Dante on the page? Also do you think Noa should be mentioned. Hope you are well otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about an entire para, but you're right, there was once something about Dante. Must have gotten lost in one of my mad trimming sprees. Thanks for reminding me - that's a big oversight and needs to be added back. Not sure about Noa - don't think it's ever been in the article, and maybe better for The Cantos page. Still can't edit as much as I'd like ... Thanks btw for the copyedit. I'll have a look at the comments and fix and add Dante. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ib dp

Hi TK88,

I'm semi-active and can help out. I have a new job in China so I don't have a great deal of time but will do whatever I can. Candy (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Candy, hope the new job is going well - I'm envious, China is one place I'd like to go but never have.
Anyway... get ye over to User:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB_Diploma_Programme. I've been using the time-honoured technique of pulling made article text into the lead, sans refs, and with a dash of copy-editing. I'm certain you can do better ;-) TFOWR 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
@ TFOWR - Nicely done. I've added a few in-line comments for suggested fixes. The last sentence in the first paragraph needs tweaking, but maybe will be fine when the inline comment is incorporated. I'll have a go at it later if needed. If you and Candy agree to the text, then it's a go.
@ Candy - good to hear from you! China - very cool. Have a look at TFOWR's text and if he doesn't mind and we need to, maybe we can take the conversation to the sandbox talkpage. As soon as we get this nailed down, let's paste it in and reply on the the review page. I'll be completely gone after Wednesday for some days to a week or longer - not quite sure how long. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've addressed - to an extent - the issues you raised. The exam dates, I think we could lose them altogether - dates - and hemispheres - being too much detail for a lead (IMHO). Take a look at my recent edits: at least one needs some sanity checking. Better writers than wot I am should probably take over, and I'd agree we should probably move to the review page (no objection to either of you working still in my sandbox, though). TFOWR 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Popped in to congratulate Truthkeeper and would like to extend congratulations to you two as well! I haven't looked at the lead or played in the sandbox yet. I'll check it out and see if it's not too late to edit if necessary. Candy, good luck in China with your new job! TFOWR, Truthkeeper and Candy-A pleasure "working" with all of you. Let me know if there is something specific you would like me to do. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks LaMome. I think, finally, as TFOWR said on his page, we have closure. A year later ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm hoping to take Into the Wild (Warriors) up to FA class. I've added a Style and writing section, but I'm unsure of what to do next. I'm thinking of adding a Genre section if I can find any sources. I'll ask for a copyedit at the Guild, but besides that I have no idea how to proceed. Do you have any advice? Thank you. Derild4921 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Derild - apologize for the late response. You might want to have a look at Lady of Quality which is currently at FAC and watch the process on the nomination page. I'm thinking you need to add some information about genre to your article. Can't help you now, but when I'm better will add some ideas to the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh right your surgery. :/. Hope you feel better soon. I've found a lot of sources on the google news archive but they need subscriptions. Is there a website like accessmylibrary I can use to get free copies of it? Derild4921 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You probably have access to databases through school or your local library ; ask the librarians. If not, let me know and I'll e-mail whatever you need. Next week. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
TK, just butting in here to echo Derild4921's "hope the surgery went well" comment. Obviously it didn't go badly ;-) but I hope you recover fully soon. All the best! TFOWR 14:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks TFOWR. Last night I made the dreaded mistake of an inadvertent roll-back while looking at my watchlist - so, probably best for me to stay away for a while until I can really see what's on the screen. Addictive, this place! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

not urgent: National Treasures ancient documents

Hi Truthkeeper88! Hope you are doing alright and everything is/will be fine with your eyes. Just wanted to let you know that List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) is basically ready for FLC from my side. As usual it needs some copy-edits. Please don't do it before you fully recovered. Take your time. bamse (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bamse, you've been productive. Will let you know when I'm back to active editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanksbamse (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Prefer not to have columns"

Here, is that because the columns are too narrow? You can use "colwidth=X" instead of specifying the number of columns, which, I believe, doesn't work on some browsers anyway (I'll need to check, but I suspect if I go back to the previous version of Ernest Hemingway I will only see one column - I'm using Chrome). Not sure if this helps... if you have a different reason for hating multi-columned refs, far enough! TFOWR 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Nope, I lied - I see two columns in the old version. Have to agree with you, one column is better, but I guess a reader with a really huge monitor might benefit... TFOWR 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • These days I'm getting really annoyed at the differences in browser rendering issues. I'm still on Safari - Firefox is too slow - and need to eventually to make the switch to Chrome. Actually I was going to ping you to ask which browser you're using these days. It's annoying to spend time formatting, only to see the formatted piece on a different computer rendered differently and looking a mess. I don't think when editors add changes (such as adding columns) that browser rendering is taken into consideration. Safari won't, no matter how hard I try to force it, render the citations in a column, so for me it looks weird to have a section without a column and another with a column. For the sources it's simply easier to scan without columns. Anyway, my rant of the day. This is an issue that's been bugging me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • HJ Mitchell (talk) got me started on Chrome: it's very quick, takes up less "on-screen real estate" than other browsers, and seems to have similar plug-ins to Firefox. I'd noticed the same issues with Firefox that you have - it gets bigger and slower with each new release. Chrome renders well, though there are times (despite my comment above) where it does have problems with columns. Back to sources/columns - with decent citations the lines are just too longs for multi-columns. (Oh, one final thing about Chrome: you can get it to create "desktop apps" from web applications: I used to have a "GMail" app shortcut on my desktop, and up pops GMail without any of the usual browser gubbins - it's just GMail. I'm back to Thunderbird for email now, but it was very cool). TFOWR 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Originally the I had no columns, then people started adding columns, but I prefer none. I needed find a source quickly and my were eyes spinning trying to deal with the columns. I've heard a lot of good things about Chrome. Are you still using Macs? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I flit between operating systems, but usually I'm on some Linux variant - I've been on Ununtu/Gnome for a while now. Occasional forays into Windows XP (I have a handy laptop with XP on it), but Macs not so much - I'm dependent on clients providing hardware. I can run up any Linux and most Windows on VMs (VirtualBox, mostly) but OSX requires Apple hardware, and I'm too cheap to buy myself some... TFOWR 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a problem with the templates, not (recent versions of) Safari. If you compare {{refbegin}} with {{reflist}} you'll see that the latter doesn't use -webkit-column-count whereas the former does. There's even discussion of this on Template talk:Reflist#WebKit Columns Support. This was discussed in June, and raised again in August. You might profit from dropping by User talk:Anomie and raising the point again, given that it's now September. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Uncle G for the explanation. Wondered if maybe that was the problem. Am trying to finish up an article at the moment, but once I'm done will drop by and have a look, and also play with the templates on other articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans' daughters

What were the names of Evan's daughters? All I could find was Etty evans. I'll add some more details this weekend.Smallman12q (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I returned the Evans book (had an enormous fine!) The description in the link might be from Spielmann's book and possibly paraphrased in the article - except the information about the drawing. Interesting, and not surprising, that a Greenaway drawing exists - just am not sure if this should go in the Evans article or be added to the Greenaway article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Jumping in (sorry), I think the image is more suitable for the Greenaway article. Ceoil (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Any chance you know how to find out what they were saying on Into the Wild from this source? Thanks . Derild4921 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Understood. Thank you for taking on such an important subject. I haven't had the chance yet to read the whole thing, but it strikes me as high-quality. I look forward to its return to FAC.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that I'd just copied the lead into my sandbox to start re-working, your comments came at the wrong moment. Perhaps reading beyond the lead to make a decision would have been helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) I did read beyond the lead, just not the whole thing.
(2) Make a decision about what?—DCGeist (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for being snappy. I had the impression you hadn't read beyond the lead, and honestly the lead has been worked on by editors of at least three, perhaps four, nationalities. Punctuation usage in regards to prepositional phrases differ. I meant a decision regarding the adverbials (prep phrases). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your note. Apology accepted without reservation. I'm glad you're feeling better, and I look forward to offering what further assistance I can toward perfecting an already excellent article.
On a personal note, Pound has some significance for me. He was a favorite poet of my father's—a proud Jew who also happened to like Wagner and Celine. My father passed away five years ago. Before he died, he was bed-ridden for nine months, having suffered a stroke that among other things, made it virtually impossible for him to speak. Luckily, he had many friends who would come and talk to him for hours. I'm not much of a talker, so often I would read to him. Working my way through a variety of material, I found that nothing seemed to please him so much as Pound's Chinese translations. They're beautiful.—DCGeist (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That's rather touching, thanks for sharing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That is a touching story. Looking forward to your help with the finishing touches. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


[12]. The FAC is going quite well overall I think, SV's review is just the close reading we were hoping for, and the new lead is much stronger. Apologies for not being around mid week, its something I can never predict. Next week will prob be worse tbh. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's comments are very good and keeping me busy. You missed my minor (or maybe not so minor) meltdown, but it looks as though you caught some of it. Not the best week and was thinking I was hasty about nominating. Malleus has been great and picked up the pieces. Another headache is building so I am trying to get done as much as I can at the moment. Thanks for the tune - first want to finish addressing SlimVirgin's comments. Am trying to stay very focused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
minor with a lowercaps m. I saw it, thing of nothing, there is always a feeling of 'christ what have I done' when you click save on the FAC page. Malleus is a good guy to have watching your back. I note SV is editing the page, great. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely minor, but in the past. It's good to have this many people on the article after struggling alone and having to bother you constantly. I haven't had the chance to check the history to see what's been done - am beginning to do so now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Very much minor, a hickcup. You should see me in full drama mode, dear I would put you to shame. Everybody was sympatethic, you are obviously very highly thought of. People are good natured by and large, they want to help out. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm realizing that. And we always knew this would be a difficult page, FAC wise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Give me a shout when you get back on line. There is a reason there are not many editors tackling difficult bios of this nature. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Am here, but will be in and out today. Left a message for SlimVirgin. She gave a fantastic review, which is what the page needed. At the moment I'm a little burned out with Pound and want some time away from the page to think about how to restructure or whether I even want to restructure. Ultimately I think it's better than this version, but I won't deny that on some level I've lost perspective. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
My honest openion is that a break is needed. You are on the verge of delivering a great page, but as often happens are too close to it at the moment. I recommend a forthnight in ibiza with a good book and full bodied, expensive red wine to clear the head. Relax, sip, appreciate the local talent. Believe me, I'm been in this situation before, and a break does wonders to refocus and shake dust from eyes. On top of that, the star means much much more when it is hard won, and approved by people who do not give support lightly. It goes without saying, and is taken as implicid Im sure tyhat you have done an amazing job here; dont let the fact that inferior road, hurricane, whatever articles routinly pass, I guess you are being held to a higher standard, and I think SV sees a potential that she is pushing you towards. Ceoil (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I've been fantasizing lately about a few weeks in Italy - Florence sounds good just about now. Good coffee in the morning, good food and good wine at night. If life were so simple. Really am not here for the star and am not sure I'll bother to relist at FAC. It's too hard to get the books and I need to return them. I'm sure I can find something else to work on, since in reality I can't really escape to Italy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont make any decisions now. I hate to blow my own trumpet, but this exactly what happened to me with The Lucy poems. Your too involved to let it go, and I would not be surprised if the page was not cropping up in your dreams (better for me this than you - I had Lucy, a hot 18c waif in my dreams for 6 months, Ezra is not the type I'd like to see lucidly appearing before me at 4.30 in the morning, though you milage may vary). Italy is just lovely though, I was in venice two years ago and florence about 12 ago; what can be said except that for me the highlight of the 2nd trip was flying over the alps on a very clear day. Breath taking. The venice guggenheim was something else as well, filled with Rotheko, Mondrian, Klee, Duchamp and espically Giacometti. The city is a tourist trap, but O my. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, if it doesn't get a star - give it a rest and take it up again when you are ready; you've done a big job - as Slim Virgin said of heavy lifting. The next step is with the sandpaper and the small brush when the time comes...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) No I don't dream about Pound and have not intention of ever doing so - that would be a nightmare, although in his earlier pictures he does have nice eyes, but they went crazy quite quickly. Not into crazy men. Florence is fantastic; never been to Venice and haven't wanted to because of the tourists. My experience with the Alps is a little more immediate than flying over - but flying to the west coast over the Rockies always gives me pleasure (hopping continents now!). I'm not making firm decisions either way, but I do know for certain that the books need to be returned to the library and without the books - well it's impossible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The research is done, I dont think there is huge need for books now. As SV says its about bringing out the colour. I know you have a good enough grasp of the material to do this. But it would be cruel to ask of it after an intense 6 months of laying the framework. You are not wonderTruthkeeper after all, but you do have a huge achievement in your sights. Also, Modernist is very wise (for an american!) and typically astute (for an american!): think the small brush. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Generally I have a very good memory and remember everything I read, but look at this. Eidetic memory or not, I don't normally memorize page numbers and the volume of reading is the thousands of pages so if something is challenged and I haven't the sources at hand, well that's a problem. I could buy them, but honestly am not that devoted to this page. Would rather spend the money on something else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You are being warned by an Irishman

"Eidetic memory"? Now see your still obviously thinking. I recommend you not think for a few days and just relax, decompress and enjoy yourself. If it tickles your fancy, you can join Sandy, Riggr and JNW, and troll the bejesus out of me. God knows, and concencus seems to be, I deserve it. Best. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help it - I read and it sticks in my brain. Okay will try not to read or think for a few days. Not that my job requires thinking and reading or anything like that. Trolling? me? what a concept ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I know you, you have a bitchy side, I've seen glimpses! What I'm saying is you need to decompress, and relax. When I feel under pressure on wiki I take all that energy and fire it at Riggr Mortis. Hes my whipping boy, and god bless him, he gives as good as he gets. We play tricks on each other, nasty at times, but its great fun. At times I'm basically a troll yeah, suppose, and while I dont expect you to be as I am, a good idea would be to chill out a bit and enjoy your friends.[13]. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Take the Irishman's warning, but if you're not going to stick with this then neither am I. SV's comments are just her opinion, they're not definitive, and I don't agree with all of them. I'll ask you one last time to let the FAC take its course and see what others think. As Ceoil rightly says, adding a bit of colour is easily done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed reply - I wanted to be able to articulate this well. I think essentially SlimVirgin's comments can be taken as a review from which to move forward. Real life stuff prevents me from doing this in a rush and frankly I don't want to do it quickly. I need to give up the sources and once that's done am locked out of re-accessing them from the library for some period of time. It's a good article - I know that. Have I seen worse get through FAC? Yes. Is everything on Wikipedia fair? No. If I'm going to make the fixes I'd like to do them well and without the time pressure - so I think it's best to archive now. Despite Ceoil's advice, I'll continue to pick at it, but slowly. Hope this makes some sort of sense, and thanks so much for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's your choice, but I don't see that there's much that needs to be done. What tends to happen is that once the FAC spotlight is turned off then work stops, so I think it's best to try and stick with it. I certainly wouldn't withdraw this if I was in your position, but then I'm not, and I obviously can't speak to your RL issues; you must do whatever you think is best for you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus is very wise (for an englishman). I suggested to you that you nom, so obviously I think the page is just fine. I thought it would be a hard FAC, but until around 7 this morning it wasn't. It was grand. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, those are very good points. I've just been looking over it and don't see a lot that needs to be done either. I'll feel an idiot and much too dramatic for my taste if change my mind again, so I think I might be locked in. In all honestly I probably wouldn't bring it back again. I do believe the difficulty of bringing a core topic to FAC is disproportionate and discourages the writing or improving of such pages. That, I think, is a pity and to the detriment of Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
He is wise. It was going fine. Then not. Now done. I have to run. Will return in a little while. Chat away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"much too dramatic", I hate to deflate you, but I would guess about five people are aware of this conversation. Chill. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "wise", more "battle-hardened". So TK, do I have your permission to strike your request that the FAC is withdrawn? And a promise from you that you won't bottle out again? Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Dramatic as in a lot of people watch Karanacs' page and I've done this twice and it embarrasses me. Malleus, if you strike, and I promise, you do realize don't you, that it's pushing me into a lot of work that I might not be able to get done. (Almost daily migraines!) So tell me honestly how much needs to done and is it as bad as I'm reading from SlimVirgin's oppose? Seems like she wants a complete re-work, or am I over-reacting? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I realise two things. The first is that if you don't push this through now then you very likely never will. The second is that SV's opinion is just one opinion. Why not wait to see what others think? Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really doing this for the bronze star - doesn't mean as much to me as I think it does to others. I am fairly tenacious though, so whether or not I'll bring it back - I can't answer. I think overcoming an oppose by a prolific FAC writer and reviewer is a steep hill to climb. As it happens, to degree I agree with the oppose - it's simply not been an easy page to get right. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm a "prolific FAC writer and reviewer" as well, and I don't entirely agree with that "prolific FAC writer and reviewer". Why not let the review run its course and see what others think? Where's the harm in that? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are and your opinion means a great deal to me. I have immense respect for the work you do here. I don't like conflict; I don't have the confidence I fix the page. Just looking at it now, and the refs are very messed up. It's a lot of work. As a neophyte Wikipedian I don't really have the sense of how long a review can run, and probably shouldn't give up so easily. I'm like Moni in this respect - I love the researching and building of the article, love sourcing a page that desperately needs it, grind my way through the writing with some degree of frustration, and hate the FAC process. Don't know where that leaves us. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Conflict has never bothered me and I've got confidence to burn, so all I can say is that if this was my nomination I'd be fighting for it, not capitulating in the face of one oppose. We're all different, but all I'd say to you is why not let the FAC run its course? SV has today fixed several of her objections herself anyway. I don't subscribe to the "let's take it away and work on it slowly elsewhere" approach; work on it in the heat of the boiler room and get the job done. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it should fall. I know the kind of editor TK is, and she is very similar to me. Tenacious, determined, and when she has the bit in her teeth wont let go...but a long view is needed here. SV has a valid point about colour, and I know well enough from knowing Truthkeeper that she can bring that out. Certainly the raw material is all there, Ezra for all his fuckwittery was at least a very strong character, and had a beautiful way with words, to put it mildly. I dont think that post FAC she will let it drop, actually far from it. But I think perspective is needed. I added zero to the content, but I feel as if my face is squashed up against a flat glass plain.[14] Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff SV wants was in the article and I hacked it out. What I need to do is this: I need distance from Pound, and I need to think very carefully about how it ended up the way it did. I need time. The main biography I used in the early section is by far one of the choppiest worst written books I've ever read. I need to do some more research and pull in some more sources. But first I want to walk away and have some distance from Pound, because the page is just too intense for me sometimes. When I worked on Hemingway, I took time away and put up a bunch of other pages and then came back with fresh eyes and a fresh perspective. That's what I have to do here. I need to work on something fun and pretty like fairies or book illustrations - something easy far away from Pound. I suspect I will come back to this - it's just that close. But not immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words Olivia. Sorry if all this sounds harsh, I'm speaking from my gut and want to draw you out. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing Dorothy first. Then we can do Olivia. The Dorothy stuff is ready to go and will be easy to write, I hope. I'm taking a few days away completely. I've promised help to a few people and need to keep my promises. I'll just cruise for awhile.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Good news, wash all this stuff out of your brain. Goodnight, and this time I am really off, about to collaspe, insominia is a tough break, best. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Told you I was tenacious. Just can't work with a my head in the vice of migraine (luckily not so today!). As it happens I seem to be at it still and it hasn't been delisted yet. For whatever that might be worth. Thanks to both of you keeping me company and for the moral support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ceoil, forgot to thank you for the tune - fits my mood perfectly at the moment ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking in...

Everything OK? TFOWR 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to redesign the userpage b/c I don't like it - I blanked everything and previewed and thought - 'wow, nice and simple!' So I left it like that. Am busy busy in real life and haven't much time for Wikipedia right at the moment. Thanks for asking though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries! Well, you did have me worried for a we bit there. And I have had to remove your cheatsheet from my toolbox... (Grumble grumble...) But glad all's well. And I endorse the minimal userpage approach. Though mine seems to have forgotten my long-standing opposition to userboxes... I still dream of one day having a userpage like this. TFOWR 09:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had some off-wiki issues that have caused me to be careful about my user-page. I've also been considering a username change, but am not sure what to do about that. Actually, I should probably send you an e-mail - you did once say that you were surprised we've gotten through this without resorting to e-mail. Need your advice, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's not so good. I've done a couple of post-username-change things recently, so I've pretty well-versed in it. My email is permanently enabled these days, so drop me a line any time. TFOWR 12:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I have. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Will start restoring content soon - wouldn't want you to be without a good cheatsheet! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! TFOWR 11:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's how engrained my habits are - when I want a citation template I go to my userpage, scroll down past my own link to the citation category, and then go to your userpage... I've got Cite web and Cite book set up so I can just copy and paste them - but I still end up going to your userpage! Thanks for restoring this! TFOWR 11:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You might want to fix that b/c there may be a big retired sign on my page in the near future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

re Ezra Pound

Just wanted to let you know that even though I'm rather busy in real life at the moment, I've been trying to follow your (and others') efforts to improve the Ezra Pound article. Good work, and don't think that just because I haven't commented or reacted too much, I haven't been interested in the outcome. Deor (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very busy too and have had to drop out for a few days or more. Thanks for dropping me a note - I've always been very impressed with your efforts to tend the article and felt bad about rewriting during the summer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a little poem by Myles na gCopaleen that may, I hope, bring a smile to your face:
My grasp of what he wrote and meant
Was only five or six %.
The rest was only words and sound—
My reference is to Ezra £.
Deor (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's funny - and true. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I read your comments on the FA criteria page... if you need to have a source checked, feel free to ask me; I have easy access to one of the world's largest libraries. Ucucha 01:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Ucucha. I've returned all my sources to the various libraries, but as soon as I'm allowed to order another book through ILL will order the Kenner book. I'm fairly certain that specific assertion was in a biography and either I didn't take notes, or tossed the notes. Nothing to be done about it now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. What a week. I had a really bad week, left work all five nights not earlier than 10pm. And while I was away things happened. I'm not exactly trilled. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, wondered what happened to you. I unwatched the article and a lot of other pages and basically took some time away to deal with burn-out and to regain perspective. It's not the same article as this one. In fairness though, I told SlimVirgin I didn't mind if she worked on it - but b/c I unwatched it, haven't been keeping track. Needs to be trimmed and some other issues worked out - like the images which we've already discussed. Except for needing a dinner break I have time to work on this tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


Just an FYI that I've disabled my e-mail. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice?

Truthkeeper, could you help me understand the passive voice? I know it's something about using words such as be, being was, were in a sentence, but what exactly does it do? Thanks! Derild4921 13:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Easier to show than to explain. Which article are you working on? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to help copyedit Flag of Bhutan. Someone has already gone over my copyedit so check the history. Derild4921 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You caught me as I was logging off. If I don't get to it now, I'll have a look a bit later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Derild4921 13:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


The main thing to remember is that the more than 40,000 readers who see the page every month - that's half a million a year - are now getting a far better article, even if you rarely get any feedback. To me that is far more important than what the handful of FAC comments said, good or not so good. That and the thought that college teachers the world over will be getting sick of reading your version endlessly presented to them! I've only ever done one FAC by myself, and that was spurred by the BM books prize (Royal Gold Cup - a nice self-contained topic). The rest of the time I just take articles to some level that satisfies me - often much longer than I'd first intended - & leave them there, and also join in FACs if I'm asked. FA has its place, but these days you can't without excessive dedication get several FAs on large topics. I hope the experience hasn't put you off too much. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I think it's great that students will be plagiariazing a much better article than the one that was there. This was always a long-shot and I was very aware of that. Doing a literary biography of such a complex character is daunting to say the least. I'm happy the article is well-sourced now, and generally happy in my involvement. I'm very happy with relationships made during this experience, and friends found. I am sorry it descended into acrimony at the end, but these things happen. It hasn't put me off - only pushed me back a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

As you asked, I've had a look at Ezra Pound. If I were reviewing it at FAC, I would ask for more information on his works and literary style. Because authors are famous for their works, I'm pretty intent on giving those works a large place in the article about the author. There are many ways to achieve this and different article structures work best for different authors. I see you've begun a "Work" section, but it seems quite limited compared to the rest of the article. I'm sure this is not what you wanted to hear after all of the debate about the article, but it is my opinion. Articles on major figures such as Pound are very difficult and time-consuming - the more people you can find to help you out, the better. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, and I realized I lost my way in the attempt to balance Pound the writer with Pound the traitor. I also think it might be useful to have guidelines in place for these complicated biographies of writers. Something along the lines of cap at X number of words, devote X number of words to biographical details and X number of words to the literary aspects. Anyway, thanks for checking in. I know how busy you are, and appreciate that you've taken the time to have a look at the page and respond. As always, your feedback is valuable. Hope all is going well - I'm thinking good thoughts for you in your job search. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would hesitate to give any strict guidelines because these big writers can be so different. What we know about Shakespeare's life fits in a few sentences compared to what we know about Pound's, so sometimes the number of words rule of thumb doesn't work. On the other hand, the massive speculation about Shakespeare would fill a volume. It has. :) (I hope the happy thoughts manifest into a job.) Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite of few volumes for the Shakespeare speculation. Good point. I do, however, find myself adamantly disliking articles that top 9000 words (in any subject) - so I think I need to stay away from the big topics, or learn to change my writing philosophy. I like to see pages written in a manner that make them readily accessible to a wide readership, and I'm afraid I'm more of a present-the-facts sort of person rather than a delve-into-the-motivations sort of person. At any rate, writing experiences such as these always present a good learning experience. It's early in the year yet for the jobs in your field - it'll start heating very quickly. I'm absolutely certain that you will have no trouble at all. I'll keep up the good thoughts for you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that anything much longer 8,000 or 9,000 words is probably too long - it is hard to read in a single sitting. Thanks for the encouragement regarding the job market - it's hard to come by! :) Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Sorry for causing you hassel. I got spooked and became defensive. Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologize. I told you I was thin-skinned, as it turns out I'm also not very savvy in the ways of Wikipedia. If I were more savvy I wouldn't have tried to keep some level of privacy about the circumstances that prevented me from doing the work SV wanted, which was terribly misconstrued. If I were more savvy I wouldn't have unwatched some pages and I would have stalked your edits and known what was going on. As I told Malleus, it's water under the bridge now - I just hope, unlike him, you'll still be willing to cross a bridge or two together on other articles. As I told Johnbod above, I don't like the way it ended - in fact it's made me very sad. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

I wish you all the best, and that you can leave Pound behind, and focus on the other excellent works that you have contributed here. I for one am going to miss you and I hope that you reconsider your decision. After a while - keep in mind how welcome your input will be...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Same here, thanks for all the help! Derild4921 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian Camp

Hi. I don't know if you're retired or not, but I just wanted to say that you've done some great work on Indian Camp. I created the article over a year ago, and I never thought that it would be as comprehensive as it is now. Very impressive work. - PM800 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice post. It's encouragement like this that will bring me back to that page. I'm not done there, but that tiny story, the genesis of Nick Adams, has such a lot running through it, and I still have to pull quite a bit of information and try to incorporate. Certainly better now though, for all the high school kids who are forced to read a story they hate so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont go

Re retired banner, say it aint so; I've become customed to having you around. This sound might like a very guy thing to say, but your the better person. I watchd the whole thing closly and no question or doubt, you are the better person. You have an integrity. Is so obvious I have headace already, jesus, potatoe withdrawl here. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty and blue and says 'semi-retired'. It's not stark black and doesn't say 'retired'. That means I can't make up my mind, but you know that already. Be careful hanging around with me, the headaches seem to be catching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont delude youself the blue is pretty, I'm arty and my considered openion is that its, not. I may be a guy an massively insentive at times, but pls dont go all 'semi-retired' and rubbish blue banner on me. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish blue banner comes down when I'm ready, though I did think with what's been done to your page on the thread I started, you've probably earned the right to do whatever here - including removal of offensive rubbish blue banner. Btw - haven't a clue why you're saying you're insensitive - seems to me you've been very supportive for months. That's not a small thing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
TK, you are a wonderful editor and Wikipedia will be the lesser without you. Please know you can always email me if you want to talk about anything - literature, Wikipedia, health, or the world. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Awa for the compliment. I actually miss having you around - but realize what an important year this is for you. Fingers still crossed for you and jobs! We need people like you in the humanities. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From an editor who has only worked with you a very little, but always admired what I observed, you will be missed. I hope some time off refreshes you and you'll find your way back here. Until then, best wishes in RL. PrincessofLlyr royal court 04:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Princess, I'll find my back - a break is all I need. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, fudge. I leave Wikipedia for a week to deal with personal crap and come back to find you and Malleus in a funk and wishing to retire :( Take your time and get your perspective back - I promise that it is possible To Do Great Things with great topics here, but the process can be painful. I'm not in any frame of mind to work on religious articles for the time, so Catholic Church will be waiting for you when you get back (don't let that scare you away!). I'm getting ready to channel my bad mood and aggression into writing about battles and other angry and depressing topics. Any angry books you feel like writing about? Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that I don't want to go into the CC article now. I just really need a break and mostly need to get the eye/headache stuff under control. Once that's done, I'll probably return to editing. I'll look for some angry books - have actually been treating myself to very trashy and/or romantic books recently. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, when I'm not in a bad mood I love trashy books. Julia Quinn, Eloisa James, Jennifer Crusie...geniuses at making me laugh. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And now that I think about it, romance novel still needs lot of work if you are ever in the mood. I started on it a few years ago but got scared at the scope. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go will be missed.Smallman12q (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your regeneration is the most important thing, but let me add my voice to the chorus of praise. I hope you return, on your terms and in ways that make you feel good. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
[15]. There is a v good story benind this song, almost nothing is known about Jandek, on whoes ablum it appears. He's been recoeding since the late 70s, 1-2 albums a year, but they just get posted to the record label, with no info, just a PO box for return. The first 17 odd were just a lonley voice and single string gutiar plucking, and gave the impression of somebody very alienated, and outside any social contact. That was for 17 -odd- albums and no info, name, nothing, just a few grainy b+w photos on the covers. Then this track - another person's -a womans no less!- voice appears for one song. But still no info. Nobody know who she is, or was, but lord could she sing. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the beautiful tune. I'm here today, tidying the page. Tried running the dashes script - four times now - and it keeps hanging. The page is too long and has too many urls. Just noticed you were editing when I got an edit conflict. I'm done for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Have books; will start addressing content soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you back, o really. I got a fright earlier, I was sneaking a look here and a bit there at wiki from work during the week, and and saw ominious clouds. Ouch. Then I saw yourself, Sandy, JNW and a bunch of others get merry and spill red wine all over my talk page carpet. Cheered me up no end during a workworkwork week, though I was too crank to join in, I'd prob have thrown the lot of ye out and called the POlice or at least yer parents. I know JNW is the ringleader, hes always been the troublesome one. Dont let him influence you too much, dont want to comeback next weekend a find you with with orange spiked hair, 20# doc martins and a ring in your nose. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Back for today. Not making promises, because if I can't work, I can't work. You did miss the party on your talkpage - too bad. That's what you get for working too much, too hard. People just move in on you. Yes, the clouds were very ominous - I think still ominious. We'll see. Will try not to be influenced by orange spiked hair, doc martin wearing, nose ringed editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work all over the place TK, not just on Pound. You do a great job and it's greatly appreciated. Span (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Span. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are tooling up or even feeling wild, here is classic meatpupperty, written by the people who more than anybody writ it in stone[16]. At a guess a dictionary or meetball definition of meat pupperty would mention SV and Jayjg. Old pros. I hope the irony of all todays conversations given this is not lost, cause it aint lost on me. Both have been disgraced. SV will play the vicim card, as is her habit, but its a tired defence. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It's the disgrace that's hurtful. I'm not into victimization. This is website. We come here because we enjoy it. When the joy is gone, it's time to find something to replace it. That, at least, is what I've been thinking for the past week or two. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I'm back in migraine hell - should last about three days. Stuff like this is difficult to respond to when I can't think. Prob will be out again for a few days. Later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I guessed. I've not seen you this cranky before. You go, girl. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've come to the realization that I very much resent being forced into a position of having to reveal and discuss real-life issues on Wikipedia. Either I'm here or not. If I make mistakes, there's probably a reason. If I'm cranky there's probably a reason. I'm leaving it at that from now on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


if I refactored your comment incorrectly - I thought you simply forgot to add the asterisk and newline, not sure why you want it the way you have it , but that's your call.--SPhilbrickT 00:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) However, it now looks like my comment is replying to you. --SPhilbrickT 00:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Duh, sorry, now I get it. I saw Oppose and Support and just assumed it was two different editors. My bad.--SPhilbrickT 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem - both a support and an oppose, but be in the same post by the same editor. Thanks - I would have undone the edit if you wanted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, but to try to make it up to you:
If you encountered a link such as the one you cite, and use the citation tool, it generates:
That's quite cool, and I'd use that. The problem is if I cite that book 15 or 20 times in a long article, then the it's a bit redundant. I'd prefer to see the full cite only once and specific page numbers in the footnotes. In my view it really depends on the article and the number of sources. Thanks the for the link to the tool though - I like things like that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
If I want to refer to several different pages of the same book, as I did in Oliver Filley House, I leave the page number out of the reference, and use the {{sfn}} template to include author last name (plus year if multiple books or papers) and page number. If you don't like having 15 or 20 separate items in the reflist, you can use the {{rp}} template. I have used that, although I prefer the sfn notation.--SPhilbrickT 11:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I use harvard style templates and add the gbook convenience link to the sources section. I'd rather not elaborate on the specific situation that triggered this RfC. But thanks, I'll have a look at the other templates. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)