User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 6

Korkoro

Hi! Thanks for remembering Korkoro. I have a few suggestions. I found the phrasing 'often undocumented' awkward. Does it mean the same as less documented? And the sentence that follows it makes it sound like every movie that dealt with had a French Resistance character. You get what I mean? It sounds like it is a norm to have a character representing French Resistance. Could 'generally' in the last paragraph of the lead be changed to 'in general'?

In the plot, the first sentence, that of Claude doesn't leave his orphanage 'seeking' the nomads. He simply doesn't like staying caged up in his orphanage and wants to be free. It is by chance that he comes across the Roma, who adopt him seeing this homeless young boy. I think this got messed up in the previous copyedit. Could you try rewording it to mean this? 'Lundi process the passport' - I think it would make more sense if 'in a way favourable to them', as she uses her power and helps the Roma this way. I think this too was taken in the previous copyedit.

In the development section, you reworded the last paragraph which now states that Rosier and Lundi modified the script, which cannot be as they are characters. The script was modified after its initial draft by Gatlif to change its style to that of a narrative, with Rosier and Lundi being the narrators. Should all the headings be to the left? In the current state, Development header is pushed to the right. So, shall we expand the background section slightly? You don't have to go fact hunting. I am ready to provide them myself.

Last thing, I would be out holidaying till tuesday in some remote place with no internet connection. So please don't expect any reply from me till then. Otherwise, I got my first Good Article listed. Some low level movie in one Indian language. It was more like pushing the not so dear one down the cliff first to see the outcome and now I am hopeful to let Korkoro go through the same. Am very happy that Korkoro got an editor like you as her friends since her near-stub stages. :) _morelMW^illiam 07:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Posting now for when you get back - I stopped because I had some questions. I've reinstated the sentence as written about the writing of the script, but am not sure it's correct - maybe it was changed in the earlier copyedit? I'll check the history. Not sure what you mean by the headers, I haven't changed those. Anyway, I think I'll wait until you get back in case I have other questions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Am back. I modified that sentence about the writing of the script. Regarding the heading, the 'Development' is pushed to the right by the picture. It has been the same since the beginning. Is that a problem? _morelMW^illiam 16:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the modification - that makes more sense. I added a {{clear}} template which should fix the header, though I didn't see the problem on my screen. I've actually been busy myself and have another piece I want to get finished, but now that you're back I'll work my way through the rest of Korkoro and if I'm making changes to meaning go ahead an post to the article talk page. I'll post questions as I go along. Won't get to it until tonight at the earliest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being very responsive. Pending tasks after a holiday, and I would be back backpacking this weekend too. So I have to pull all-nighters at my workplace till then which should explain my absence here. I need to clean up the response section. Could you please keep this on hold till am back on next tuesday? _morelMW^illiam 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush. Enjoy your time away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And am back. _morelMW^illiam 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have time to swing by later today to finish copy editing. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu

Started reading once more through the article. Will leave comments here if you don't mind.

• Not sure what the convention is, but "dera" in "Ishiyama-dera" means temple, so if you write "Ishiyama-dera Temple" it is kind of doubled. As for article names wikipedia uses Ishiyama-dera only. bamse (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd wondered about that and should have asked. I think I've fixed it - in some cases left as Ishiyama Temple (to make clear it's a temple), and in others as Ishiyama-dera. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I can do an image review this weekend, if that is OK. Thanks for asking, I took a quick look and the images are lovely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I finished the image review - most of the things I found are nitpicks, but a few images need better source information. Let me know if you neeed help with the image file cleanup work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I have most of it. It's frustrating that these were uploaded without source information. The monochrome ones I cannot find anywhere but still searching; one I've replaced. Will comment over there when done. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Liza Dalby

Hi, could you please give me your further thoughts on the article talk page? I would like to wrap this discussion up soon. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(Just to avoid confusion for others that might read this without having ‘background knowledge’: I comment here because of what Truthkeeper said at the Fiona Graham talk page - it's got nothing to do with John's comment above except for being about the same article).
Your cleanup was good and I really don't see the clear cut consensus the Anon claims - there was a discussion some years ago, but nobody was interested enough to change the wording at the time, so the article remained unchanged (and unsourced). It happened to agree with what the Anon at Fiona Graham's article thinks. Now the Dalby article is considerably shorter and doesn't agree with the Anon's view, but it's adequately sourced, so there's nothing wrong with your changes - if anything, other Wikipedians should thank you for the work you put in in! Until last month or so, when I read the (or rather: one of many, but I didn't know this at the time) entry for the Fiona Graham article at BLP/N, I, too, had never heard of both Graham and Dalby. Not knowing the persons involved isn't a bad thing as long as you're willing to look into the sources, because you'll read them without prejudice. --Six words (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Minotaur attack is its own reward

[1] Don't. Yomangani^talk 02:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

When I get done with the FAC, prob will for a while. Am very discouraged. I do like your edit summaries though, so might have to check in just to read them. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about why you don't always take articles to GA/FA really touched a nerve with me. My availability and energy can be spotty, and I know I don't always feel like pushing the articles I've been working on through miles of peer review. In others, I know I've done good work, but there's some reference I can't lay hands on or some aspect of the subject I haven't mastered and it's not ready to go further yet. I wish DYK could be a forum for recognizing that kind of work in general — "I wrote it competently and did the best I could with what I have but it's not there yet." But whether or not we get trinkets for that, when we're done writing, someone on the Internet can punch a few keys and learn things they wouldn't have been able to find out if we hadn't put it together for them. If we can do that, it doesn't matter two cents who wants to be our friend on talk pages or what kind of decorations we get to put on our user pages. Because we helped someone. I hope you feel better soon. Choess (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources is a problem, time is a problem, all of it is a big commitment. I'm about to run into a busy period work wise and sometimes I'd like to spend six months sliding so to speak, expanding pages 2 or 3 times and submit to DYK but I have a compulsion to fix a bad page when I find it, and none of those qualify for DYK. You are correct - it's about what we put out on the net and for our readers - not what we get back for doing it. It does discourage me though to see that DYK is considered a reward to creating new articles when so many bad articles need work - at some point the emphasis should turn more toward improvement and less toward creation of new content that isn't always great. I'll feel better - have just finished a fairly difficult page and I always feel down when I'm done with an article. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Campin

Many thanks for the pdf. I'm delighted and passed a copy to Johnbod. I knew there was a reason I like ya. To echo Yomangani, dont you dare. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a beautiful page & I thought you might need it so sent it on. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 12:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this my thanks [2]. Ceoil (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry didn't get to the tune - computer crashed again! Need to spend this weekend sorting out the problems if I can. Gaa! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm never talking to you again, spare me your puny excuses, human. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes you will. I'll get it sorted out and then catch up on all the tunes, just can't get to youtube at the moment for some reason. But, fine, be that way, if that's how you want it. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

[silence] <cough> [3] Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, be that way. I don't care. Nice tune though. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu

You picked a tough one, you must be a glutton for punishment. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. Don't tell Ceoil if he ever gets off his block, but that picture on your page reminds me very much of Dublin. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My ears are burning. Anyway, TK the old Shikibu‎‎ lead image looked better, the new one is fine indeed but lacking symmetry. Change back or I will never talk to you again, and put you on my list (between Pol Pot and Mao). Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's meant for the diary page but I wanted to see how it looked & didn't like it when I switched computers - but still thought I'd wait for someone (cough, cough) to say something. I know you're not talking to me - you keep telling me that. It makes me very sad, you know. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No its ok, now that I've gotten my way I'm taking to you again. So how are you, I see very productive, I'm very impressed with all the new articles, and they are so beautifully illustrated. Tune for you [4], a song that is certainly in my top 50 (sad male alert), and that I've prob give you before. But jesus christ can that man can sing. And also [5], unspeakly romantic fodder almost but not quite equaled here. Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy you're talking to me again - all I had to do is give in. Thanks so much for the oh so sad tunes. I thought I liked Roy Harper's better that TMC's but not sure on a second listen. I only have one new page and thanks for the edits to it; I've thought about submitting to DYK but have made myself persona non grata there, so it will sit, unseen, beautiful illustrations and all. But I blame Yomangani for adding the redlinks that I turned blue. Have been busy in real life - how are you? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks, working long hours again, up to my neck in sealth taxes and facing another heavy austerity budget in December, but happy enough. Ive noticed a few grey hairs in the last few weeks, but am remaining calm, they might go away again. I'm waiting for my local waterstones to get a copy of the Durer book JNW recommended, but its been out of print since 1997. I dont trust myself with a credit card so cant get over the internet, but they are being very helpful and ethink they can get in a few weeks or so.Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when I was in my early 20s the question of wheather harper's or this mortal coil's version was a better was a matter of life and death and a very heavy, polarises, long term late night discussion. I also once broke it off with a girl because she prefered the second to the (vastly superior steve albini produced) third Wedding Present album. I am that sad. Choose you next words carefully, dear. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously Harper's is purer and better, and when I listened to This Mortal Coil's the first time I didn't at all like it. The second time, to my surprise, I thought, huh, not so bad. Are we still talking? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just about, but a lot depends on whether you prefer the deeply affecting and utterly beautiful [6] to the poetic and forlorn and utterly beautiful [7]. I prefer this mortal coils version, even though Tim buckley is a favourite of mine. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well we may have to part ways & you go back to not speaking to me. They're both very different and mortal coil's is beautiful, but I prefer Buckley. You know when it comes to music you're asking the wrong person - basically tone deaf and all that - so you may have to think about giving me a pass. But if it comes to not talking again I guess I'll have to live with it. Sadly. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I know Modernist likes Buckely, so your in good company. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's something. And you're right in the piece you deleted, the key line is very different in the two versions. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, btw I meant to thank you for the edits to the series of articles on the Heian noblewomen. Until I get more specific feedback re Murasaki Shikibu not much more I can do there and working on the other pages gives me better perspective re the first page. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm full of admiration for what you've done with this, it's a very nice piece of work. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I could live without music, but I couldn't live without words or pictures. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that really means a lot coming from you. I needed to step back and now, finally, think I see where I went wrong with the organization. It's a tricky piece, little bits from sources sewn together, so much unknown, but interesting. I know what you mean about words and pictures - I'm the same. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PS - regarding the music - I do enjoy it and am lucky to have Ceoil and Modernist add to that to my life. It's an unexpected wiki perks. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I had a little tinker with it. Malleus is right, it's a beautiful article. --John (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. The prose definitely needs tweaking and I never know what to do about the split infinitives. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Japanese writers' templates

Category:Japanese writers' templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Empress Shōshi

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd forsworn any further involvement with DYK. Quitter! (or rather, Non-quitter!) Yomangani^talk 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all your fault. I can't resist a red-link, though I haven't gotten to Teishi yet - the sources are a bit sparse on her. I thought the Shoshi article turned out well enough to submit - so I did. But I had to review another article per QpQ and of course made a mistake! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, you have the Tale of Ise waiting to be filled too and I don't think I can take the blame for that. I'm bored with WP again now, so I'm off. Yomangani^talk 01:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that today - but I after this effort I'll need a break from 10th century Japan. Will come back to it later. I've enjoyed having you around - and thanks for all the help. You sure you don't want to stay a little longer? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw - I think I'll take a Wkipedia style !vote for the lead image for Murasaki Shikibu - do you have a preference? Ceoil told me above what he doesn't like, Johnbod prefers to see an earlier print, and I'm undecided. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. As long as a "restorer" doesn't get at it. Yomangani^talk 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Support, per above. Good choice, maybe even a great choice. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Phew - wouldn't want you not talking to me again. I like it and don't know how it got stuck in the gallery, but Yomangani makes a good point about restorers - I don't want it whitened or anything, looks good as it is. Btw - am reorganizing, rewriting and shoving around a few more images, but since you're here might ask for help. Johnbod mentioned a mini galley in the text and I don't know how to do that or what to add. What do you think? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about another mini gallery, the page is very well balanced between words and images at the moment, in my view. What are you thinking. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'm taking a break for about to think about it. I've just added another multi-image group to the 'legacy' section, which I like, so am thinking it's prob okay as is and prob doesn't need a gallery. Thinking. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a gallery is necessary. At some point I'd probably want to do a page on the genji-e art and then have a gallery, but not here. I do want to re-do the existing gallery and some more few tweaks are needed before I respond to Johnbod's points. Have a few thing to take care of first. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

Delighted!! Keep it up. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually delighted too, but for sure could not have done it without so many people pitching in to help. I don't want to tackle any big pages for a while; will prob spend some time tidying, or something. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging orphaned articles is easy work, or adding infoboxes. Pay is lousey though. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooo, now why I hadn't I thought of that? You're right it is easy work - will get to it right away. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Great job! Despite of the Genji Award, my contribution was minimal. bamse (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your contribution was much more than minimal; I was often lost in the sources and you straightened me out. I am happy with the result and everyone who helped deserves an award for this. It was a tough page to finish. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and many thanks for the lovely award from me too. I supported at the very end (finally had the chance to finish reading it carefully) - very nicely done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done and congratulations - lots of hard work; lots of learning...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an understatement. It's definitely the most difficult page I've tried to do, but I have learned so much. I think there are more pages to be written about the art, but I need more sources and a break from the subject before venturing back. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, but you can be proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am actually proud of the Murasaki Shikibu page. It was a lot of work, I learned a lot, and I like how it ended up. I'm very grateful to Johnbod - for some reason his comments pushed something loose in my brain and I was able to make the final push to bring it to the shape it's in now. I think in that respect FAC is very good - the feedback is necessary sometimes. I'm also proud to see how many people pitched in with help. It's nice around here when it works the way it should. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can I ask for a copy edit and general remarks on The Entombment (Bouts). You do hidden comments very well, so.....askin. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're askin. And nice of you to give me something to do other than delinking and pulling off useless tags - I'll have a look at it. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I just committed you to something else; John Keats, sorry. I've been watching the page develop for years and User talk:Spanglej seems committed able and knowlegable. But needs a guide through the review process, and as you are one of the last standing lith persons....share a project? I do have a few books and sources but prob not the knowledge ye guys have. I can lend a hand and know the processes, but its your area here. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I just posted on Spanglej's page - you two are making my watchlist light up. Yes, I'd definitely be interested in guidance for Keats, and actually Jabborwocky too, as I posted. Keats for sure is a good candidate for FA with a little work and I'd really be happy to see more lit pages being finished. He's a bit out of my area, but I do love his poetry. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Brillaiant. I dont see need for heavy lifting here, the article is fine, just encouragment, guidance and friendship. Thanks TK. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I had in mind. But reading the page would be a good place to start. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You doing me a huge favour here, but I dont want you to get distracted from other projects, its more that you know the subject matter, and I need your eye. Your only thanks will be [8]. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any other projects and the distraction is good. I'm a big believer in PR; don't think enough people take advantage, though I'm as guilty as anyone else for not reviewing and am in awe of the work that Brian Boulton and Ruhrfisch do there. I think Keats will benefit from PR - we can both do it to cut down the work or to give double feedback. It's an important page for literature and I'm happy to help see more lit pages making their way through the review process - not many are these days. I've just spend half an hour trying to place the few films scenes I can't remember from the vid - oh and nice romantic tune too! I like the images. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

He he re the vid; I though since I was asking a favour I might as well be charming. I agree with every thing else - B Boulton and Ruhrfisch, they are basically keeping that ship afloat. Brian has helped me more than once and Ruhrfisch is very good to you. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I ask you for favours all the time and am rarely charming. Will have to work on that I suppose. And yes, Ruhrfisch has been very good to me, especially review-wise. I've really benefited from his reviews. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a listen to this [9]. One of the things I like about electronic music is that there are no words, no intended meaning, its just about the joy of sound, and pure. This one has an amazing resolution about 2/3s way in, exceptionally clever and beautiful. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It scrambles my brain - dunno why, but very hard for me to listen all the way through. I tried earlier and didn't get far, and tried again just now. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, but to change track try this [10], dissonant but melodic at the same time. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. Needs to the listened to a few time, but beautiful. The dissonance isn't that noticeable to me. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a big fan of dissonance, that section is an uncharestic melodic passage from a work that in other parts is pure, delightful, atonal noise. Im always affected by a beautiful melody, but well a put together cacophony hits me on a viseral level above that. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another User:ItsLassieTime sock

• CharlesWTrowbridge (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's a fair number of pages. I spotchecked one and it was paraphrased appropriately, otherwise I'd suggest adding all these to the CCI. I'll check a few more - but I think our options are to punt to CCI where they'll sit forever, check and tag the pages as needed, or check and leave them if they seem okay. He/She is a decent writer and makes nice pages & I'm still bogged down with Potter from a year ago. Very prolific sock - a lot more prolific than I'll ever be. I don't know the answer to this situation. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Has it been added to the SPI? I thought I had that watched. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother with an SPI, but I'm in the process right now of deleting all the user's creations per WP:CSD#G5. –MuZemike 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that as another option, but it seemed a lot of work. Overall I think it's the best tactic since these are all new pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, for those who have doubts that this was ItsLassieTime, three more  Confirmed socks just popped up, one of them for the sole purpose to harass me:

• NFLSuperhero (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• VideoGameJunkie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• VideoGameJunkieMuZemike (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

One of the articles was recreated, which I re-deleted and salted. –MuZemike 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You realize that my page is watched and usually there are reactions, often not very nice, to this situation. The last time was here and at that time I decided I didn't really want to deal with this anymore, as far as scrubbing. Now you're a target and it's not really fun, because I know you've put a lot of time and effort into this situation. If we can't pin down an IP and block that, I just don't know what the solution is. I noticed one of the users you linked above received a barnstar, which is ludicrous to be honest, and also noticed another article I was looking at yesterday (about a poem) had been written by yet another sock of the same user and that's a page that will need to be scrubbed. All this scrubbing needs an entire taskforce and honestly we haven't the editors to do it, so I'm all for deleting pages, putting as much as possible on watchlists to catch him/her, but it's just so endless, don't you think? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that; this is not the first time ILT has harassed me in this fashion. In any case, I have blocked another IP range, which should help a little. –MuZemike 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems to have worked well in the past, if only for a few weeks. Since you're looking at them, I have a few more for you to check but need to dig into the histories of a some pages to gather them. Might as well identify as many as we can while we're at it. Here's a list, but some of these may be stale:

• EvgenySO (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HistoryAAI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Attn2detail (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

- Truthkeeper (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-stale ones seem  Unlikely at this point. Moreover, the edits aren't matching up much, though they revolve around Beatrix Potter. –MuZemike 23:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter is so tainted at this point it's hard to tell, but behaviourly one seems very duckish to me, if that helps at all in the future. I don't know how checkuser works so am only guessing here. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

EvegnySO was a spammer - some new iPad app using Potter's books. First there was IP spam, then that account - it is indef blocked. Doubt it is a sock of you know who. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking one of the above probably is - clearly MuZemike's IP block didn't work. I also think that answers the question about the rewriting of Beatrix Potter. An IP was working on sourcing and doing a good job, but has stopped. When I have time I'll get the books again and check the rest of the sourcing there. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi protected

I semi protected your page so new ILT socks and Ip users can't edit it. If you do not want your page semi-protected, please let me know and I will unprotect it (or any other admin can, if you want). Thanks for your and Ceoil's kind words above and sorry about all this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch - I think it's time for the semi-protection. Can't say I'm surprised; I expected something like this after the conversation above with MuZemike yesterday. And thanks to LadyofShallott for reverting. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, what scenery chewing. There's not a single thing I can say that would be deemed acceptable on Wikipedia. Haha. Wow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Wow. Thanks for stopping by - I've missed seeing you around. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbering

Thanks for all your feedback. I seem to have screwed up your numbering system and can't revert it. Sorry. Span (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I've actually never formatted like that and not sure why I did. I've fixed it & will add replies later when I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Murasaki Shikibu a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Keats questions

Thanks for your recent work on Keats. I wondering if the article would pass a GA without a themes section, or are needed for both GAs and FAs? Thanks Span (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd just walked away from the computer to mull over that very question. My sense is you're close if not all the way there for GA, and then if you decide to go for FA would need to do more work. The section currently called "Reception" discusses the romantics and his shift away from the "older" generation Wordsworth and Coleridge, so some of the style/themes information is there. Also the letters section, beautifully written by the way, also has information about his view of his verse, so I'm thinking you might be okay. Let me rummage around a few other articles to see what they had at GA stage, and I'd be interested in Ceoil's opinion on this too. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding to above - I've looked at the GA versions of a few poet bios that are currently FA. Generally there is either a themes/styles section, or a breakdown with critical commentary of individual works. My instinct is that the article needs something to explain to the person who knows nothing about Keats the style of his poetry - the odes, the longer romances, etc., and maybe something about the themes. Although he wasn't terribly prolific b/c he died at such an early age, he is very important, as the lead suggests. As such, we need to explain what set his poetry apart to support the assertions in the lead. The nice thing about PR is that there's no rush - it stays open for 14 days after the last comment (whenever that happens) and once it's closed you can keep working on the article. My worry is that if you do take it to GA and the reviewer thinks it's not fully comprehensive (and it depends entirely on a single reviewer) then you have a much shorter period to make the fixes before the review closes. I don't have a sense of how difficult it would be to write a themes/style section - I usually find them to be difficult because a lot of information needs to be synthesized succinctly, but what you could try doing is getting a draft of one ready, and if the GA requires it, when you submit, you wouldn't be scrambling to do it. At any rate, I don't see a huge rush here, the article really is very nice and doesn't need much more to be done, so take you time to think about it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. these things are good to know. I didn't realise there was a time limit on PR. Is there a rule (I haven't yet encountered) about lifting text and refs from other articles? I'm not sure a style section would be that hard as I know the work and crit fairly well but it does involve an entirely new and different set of reference texts. Is it right that this PR offers a view as to whether the article would pass or fail a GA/FA but is separate from the GA process? Span (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do seem to be very familiar with the material which is helpful. You can lift directly from other articles and in the edit summary write "copied from article title" and link the page. I won't offer an opinion in the PR - I'll mention what I think needs to be done to pass GA or FA. At the moment, I'm looking at GA, and privately I think you're very close. To reach FA the research has to be fully comprehensive - in other words all major points covered - and probably a little more MoS clean-up. The PR is completely separate from the GA/FA process, and in some cases I've done a PR pre-GA and again pre-FA. It depends on what you want to do. If that helps. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That does help. Thanks Span (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to see how what a GA/FA review is like, have a look at the pages linked at the top of my user page. Each article talk page has an "article history" - click on that to find links to transcluded PR/GA/FA. I had a very good PR for The Sun Also Rises; a good GA for True at First Light and Ernest Hemingway - which in my view the most valuable. For the FACs, I suggest looking at the most recent first - no matter how hard I try, I always miss formatting issues or something. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. I've been involved over the past few months with helping to work up Katharine Hepburn. The main editor has put it up for PR via the Biography Project (which doesn't seem too active). I wonder if it would be better to post it to the main PR page. What is your take? I'm hoping to focus on Keats revision this week. I'm just in the process of selling a house so it's all a bit wild. All best wishes Span (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It transcluded at PR so it's fine. House selling is no fun - don't worry about Keats, he'll keep. I picked up biography at the library this afternoon but don't know whether I'll have time to read it. I might peek at the Hepburn bio, but not sure if I have time at the moment for another PR. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, they all appear on the same page? So much to learn. To be truthful I worked on the article mostly last year so I'm having to reread the biogs to get back up to speed. It feels like meeting up with an old friend. The Motion biog is really quite wonderful (Andrew is a lovely bloke to boot) very supportive of the current British poetry scene. I grew up around the corner from Wentworth Place, so Keats is a bit of a local hero too, like a revolutionary great-grandfather. Your peek is appreciated. Onwards and upwards! Span (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a list at Peer Review and Hepburn is listed. I picked up Bate - was actually looking for something completely different but it was there, so I took it out. Thought I dip in when I can. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver Reef, Utah

Hello Truthkeeper, thanks for copy editing Silver Reef. I noticed that you changed the text to say something along the lines of "Silver Reef was established when John Kemple discovered silver..." The original wording, "Silver Reef was established after John Kemple discovered silver..." was chosen because, although Kemple found the silver in 1866, Silver Reef was not established until 1875, hence the "after". Everything else looks good, and I again thank you for copy editing Silver Reef. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, though it might not be a bad idea to stick the dates in the lead to alleviate confusion. If you don't mind, I might pick at this a little as I have time - please don't hesitate to revert any edits that change the meaning. I do know the area and oddly know a bit about western mining towns - alive ones and ghost towns, although I know more about Colorado and Idaho than Utah. But Colorado was a silver state too, and those towns are interesting - I haven't read your page, obviously, but am assuming that the Silver Act killed the town as it did so many others.. So, it's not too much of a stretch for me - time is my only problem at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Many factors contributed to the demise of Silver Reef, the Silver Act being one of these. There was also the Panic of 1893, water issues in most of the mines, a decrease in the grade of the silver and the price of silver, and an increase in mining costs (on account of the water issues and the ever-increasing depth of some of the mines). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Authority control

Hi Truthkeeper. I noticed that you removed a couple of instances of the {{Authority control}} template, which I had added to articles about authors. Not being keen on an edit war, I hope to convince you that said template actually serves a useful purpose. The background is found in WP:Authority control and the general article Authority control, but in short it a) links Wikipedia articles to the author name standardization of some of the major libraries, and b) provides metadata that enables external sites to discover and link to Wikipedia articles, the latter being part of the great, wet dream of the Semantic Web. I understand and share your aversion to link farms in articles, but I firmly believe that this template is in a rather more respectable category. There has been a proposal to delete the template, which it survived. Whether it should appear the way it does, or maybe even be left invisible, similar to WP:Persondata, is a different discussion. I look forward to reading your comments and won't reinsert the template until we reach some sort of agreement. Best, Favonian (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ugly, it's meaningless and in my view adds nothing. If the purpose is to link to major libraries then it should be designed to be a hidden tag. There's absolutely no reason to have it above nav templates. I clicked on some of the links and was really scratching my head wondering why it was there. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Abbey

Saw this in a review on new book on the Abbey, struck a chord:

"Neither Gregory nor Yeats had any desire to create a popular theatre, that is a theatre that appealed to theatre-goers. Their artistic endeavour was entirely self-serving, and as with all snobs, empty seats in a theatre imitated "artistic sucess". The Irish Literary Theatre was a personalised toy facilitated by the servants; Gergory treated the actors as she treated her housemaids at Coole; badly and distantly. Yeats simply ignored them, as he ignored anybody who was not an oxygen pump for his ego. The common people existed to endorse his low openion of them (a notion he shared with Ezra Pound). There is a statisfied crow in the famous call during the riots: 'You have disgraced yourselves, again.' Just as he expected."

Ouch, but with more than a ring of truth to it. The Yeats bio doesn't get it across, and I've mentioned it before but he choked Irish writing from the 20s until well after his death; there has been a lot of revisionism about him and it was rampant in the 50s, rightly, but it is still has not permeated the mainstream view. Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Was reading a book last week about the decades leading up to WWI which supports that notion. I decided to read about the period before reading directly about Yeats. The common people were insignificant. Someday we'll get around to fixing the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Better sooner than later TK, I had a good summary of that generation's protective means towards maintaining thir legacy, but leant it, dont remember to whom. I dont intend that we should preoccupy the articles with their subjects suffucating effect on later generatations, more that it should be mentioned that they were daunting figures and iconoclastic even before they died. It was not healthy for the up comers imo, but thats my just my openion, I wont push it. What are you up to these days. (hint hint, I could really do with prose help on the Bouts if you have the time or inclination, but the fact is I can't get it up to snuff with out you). Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid will be later. I have both volumes of Foster's biography on my bookshelf, staring at me, making me guilty, but haven't gotten to them, and prob won't for a while. I'm very busy workwise - working six days a week, trying very hard to carve out at least a day, or a day and half off from work each week. Wiki has fallen by the wayside - I simply don't have time. That said, I did start a new Hemingway page on Friday, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than I expected, so I'll pick at it slowly. I'll be around some evenings, some Fridays, and if I can get my weekend schedule under control, maybe one day on the weekends - but not much else until January. I think Bouts is fine - I'll go over it again later tonight when I have a moment. I did send some sources off to you that you might want to incorporate but I've only skimmed, so don't know how helpful. There were a couple of sentences I thought needed tweaking, but otherwise, not really seeing any issues. This is one you can do without my help, but I'm here when I can be. Btw - could have sworn we were fighting over a black banner on your user page a week ago. And I left you a heartfelt goodbye message - I'm happy to see you back, but honestly, these days I think wiki best in small doses, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Bouts - I've had a look at it, and something about the structure seems slightly off, not much but enough that it might need some tweaking. I might drag it into a sandbox to work on sometime soonish - maybe later this week. Want to think about it for a day or so first. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

input for The Signpost?

Hi, I emailed Bamse for more input about the new featured topic and the four new FPs, but s/he must be offline. Are you able to provide some info? I'll forward you the email I sent him rather than put spoilers here. Also, Crisco has done his best to explain the pic I've highlighted at the top. Anything to add?

User_talk:Tony1#New_FPs_.28Extermination_of_Evil_series.29

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-03/Featured content

Tony (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied to your email. I'm happy to see the series will be recognized - it's quite an impressive accomplishment. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PRs

Hey TK. I think I might call it a day on the two reviews. I have a lot of ideas to go on if I or anyone else wants to work them up to GAs. The house move and other big life projects loom and I need to have some serious biog/research sessions to get to grips with things again. This is probably best done at leisure. It would be great if you could offer some last thoughts on things you were mulling, like in Keats, whether you'd need more detail on the dresser position, the reception section etc. The point was really to know what areas of work would need to be addressed and I think I have an idea. I hope that makes sense and it wouldn't seem to too much of a fudge or a half-cooked project. If so maybe I could tie up some ends. Best wishes Span (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to let them go - it sounds as though you have a lot going on in real life, and as you say, these things often take time. I'm not too worried about the specifics, and don't even remember why the dresser issue jumped out at me, but I think it's something that can be resolved in a phrase or two with a little searching in a biography. I'm fairly busy myself at the moment, work and some other real life stuff, and not around as much either. If and when I come back to speed I might be interested in working up the Keats page, and I think Ceoil is interested as well (though not sure about how much he's around these days .... ) so we might give it a go and so how far we get. If that happens, we'll keep you in the loop and maybe between the three of us can bring Keats together. Often the big biographies are best done as a collaboration. Jabberwocky I'd let go for now - it needs more sources and but I haven't the time to pull them. When I do, I'll send some your way. Thanks, btw, for checking in. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all your feedback. Span (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Truthkeeper, I hope you're well. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. In case you were curious, yllosubmarine spoke highly of working with you and recommended I write this inquiry. Please let me know your thoughts by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shikibu Diary images

Hello! I remember we discussed it (but can't find where), but did not find the image on commons, so I uploaded this and a crop of it. Maybe it is of use to youbamse (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bamse. I uploaded one of them for the Empress Shoshi page but never put it to Commons. I've finally gotten the source I need for the diary page, but now I haven't the time to work on it unfortunately. Maybe I can get to it next weekend. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew that I saw it somewhere... At least the images differ in color and resolution, so there might be some use. Added a few categories to the old image to make it easier to locate. bamse (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The uncropped one is really very nice. I plan to add a section about the emaki to the diary article, so I can use the image for that, when I get to it. Thanks for the uploads. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Indian Camp

This is a note to let the main editors of Indian Camp know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Indian Camp" is a short story written by Ernest Hemingway (pictured). The story was first published in 1924 in Ford Madox Ford's literary magazine transatlantic review in Paris and republished by Boni & Liveright in 1925 in the American edition of Hemingway's first volume of short stories In Our Time. The first of Hemingway's stories to feature the semi-autobiographical character Nick Adams—a child in this story—"Indian Camp" is told from his point-of-view. In the story, Nick Adams' father, a country doctor, has been summoned to an Indian camp to deliver a baby. At the camp, the father is forced to perform an emergency caesarean section using a jack-knife, with Nick as his assistant. Afterward, the woman's husband is discovered dead, having fatally slit his throat during the operation. The story is important because it shows the emergence of Hemingway's understated style and use of counterpoint. An initiation story, "Indian Camp" includes themes such as childbirth and fear of death, which permeate much of Hemingway's subsequent work. When the story was published, the quality of writing was noted and praised; scholars consider "Indian Camp" an important story in the Hemingway canon. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm up to my eyeballs with work between now and Friday - won't be able to tidy or tend. And I didn't even get an orange message bar ... Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is one. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to know that it works. I see that your page is blank again - shall I come over and mess it up for you? And bombard you with orange bars? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm grand thanks. Bty, how long do I have with the Bouts PR do you know. I'm being a bit slow I know. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit. The page is closed 14 days after the last comment is posted but if you're not done you can work on it after the page is archived. I'm done with the Lady Murasaki for tonight so might peek at what you've done so far. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dont bother. All I did was helpfully wiki link England, the earth, Human, and depicted. And I contributed to wiki by converting the family guy ref to a cite template. O I and added a dinky orphan tag, although I neither like nor trust orphans in real life. Begging bastards. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You added a lot of blue - ultramarine, indigo and smalt. Smalt is a new one to me, so I learned something. O didn't you like start a new page that I nicely nominated for DYK - which is a very dangerous place for me you know, so it must have impressed me enough to venture into the lions den. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks. I see the dairy is coming along nicely. Great to see it develop. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Only because I finally have a badly needed source - um the diary itself, with a very nice introduction. The article - not good. I'm not pleased - but am beginning to see a form, and once I can grab that, maybe it'll evolve. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I suspected it might be the case that my bot's notices didn't send off notices, but didn't bother to check yet. I think I'll have to make it pretend it's not a bot or so (which should be possible). Sorry for not doing something about this earlier. Ucucha (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That was honestly weird - I do get message bars from other bots so that shouldn't be the problem. I just happened to be online and was logging out when I saw it on my watchlist, which was good because I was so busy probably would have missed it altogether. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Its unforgivable, frankly, a bot message with no orange bar. Does Jimmy know? Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should tell him? I don't think Ucucha should worry - I think it was something else. But what do I know about bots? Not a lot! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just got an answear from Jim - "I regard it as a Essjay's fault and I don't really have a problem with it". Ucucha is off the hook. Poor old Essjay, can't get a break. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it was me—when you make a bot edit, there is a setting that determines whether the edit is actually counted as a bot edit. I did get an orange bar now. Ucucha (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm glad I mentioned it. It is useful to know when a page will be featured on the main page. Anyway, glad you fixed it. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pounding away

I usually keep an eye out there; I think some low key additions are cool. Enough time has passed; I think everyone has done well there and eventually you guys should bring it in...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't a lot of time for it so it will be very slow - but not a lot is needed. Mostly it needs the style and themes sections and those require research and time. My forays into Japanese literature have given me a better perspective into some of his work, and the recent work on Hemingway keeps bringing me back to him. I think as awful as he was, his influence is sufficiently important to try to finish. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are busy IRL and its a long finger project, but I'd like to help if I can. Your good at mapping what needs to be done with large pages so if you could sketch out the remaining work needed, I'll take on a few things. Its an important and interesting bio for a number of reasons, and as we are all well aware needs to be composed carefully without shrinking from the person he was. I have a few wiki projects going at the moment but you can farm out bits and pieces to me. Modernist has a good grasp, so listen to him. Ceoil (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Have to read the page first. I think M is right - prob not a lot to be done. Just needs the section to be added that Awadewit thought it needed. I'll have to find her feedback. It would be nice to section it up. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's Awadewit's feedback: "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 think that's what's missing, but as SV said last night, needs a lot of reading. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of getting cross about the spaces in the article title of WB Yeats, to my mind it looks retarded, saying it here rather than there as your a resonable person, a calming influnce, and I'm not. Venting in other words... :) Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I dipped into Foster last night and noticed that throughout he uses WBY - with no spaces. That said, I don't think two spaces or two full stops are worth getting cross about. It's just another talkpage timesink; that's why I haven't commented. There will always be someone who won't like it - if it has no spaces they'll want spaces, if it was no periods, they'll want periods. Stuff like that is trivial and endless. I'm trying a new wiki approach - avoid article talkpages at all cost. Though I broke my own rule with Guy Fawkes Night, but I've unwatched it now. Anyway, that's my advice. Of course you're right. It does look retarded, but that's irrelevant. Vent away whenever you want. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more than that, its - sorry- americasition, an attitude enscapulted perfectly by RJ's dismissive cmt (it is, fuck off). Seeing as I, badly sure, wrote most of the page, I'm invested and cant let it sit. But venting here instead, sorry for the burden, but your a good listener and I'll prob be geand after I let it out ;) Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is Americanisation - you're quite right. But my question is this: how did it get that way? Why wasn't the page titled WB Yeats? Maybe it should go back to the William Butler Yeats? I understand that you're invested, but it's not worth a big talkpage drama without putting forward a solution. Let's see how it's treated in the pages that link to it, and what the common use is. I'll comment in a little while - am reading Ezra - which is quite good btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the full name on the page w/ redirects. W. B. Yeats looks awful to you - WB Yeats looks awful to Americans - so it needs a compromise. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, without wanting to apprear as a full on nerd - the puctuation I can live with but I would rather kill myself now than live in a world where the wikipedia article on W.B. Yeats has the intitals his first names spaced by spaces by spacers. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can live with the punctuation, then there's no issue. I'll comment on the talkpage. Let's just be bold and move it. When I was working on Olivia it was William Butler Yeats - how did it get to be W. B. Yeats? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I found it. I didn't comment on this because I didn't agree - so I guess I should have opposed. I'm a bit tied up at the moment - let me give it some thought. We should prob make sure there isn't a MoS rule about spacing initials. I'll comment there a bit later. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, you know me well enough to know that on wiki space I'm more of a doer than a talker; but the move would be over a redirect, and that needs special powers. If go off and revert vandelism for half and hour, would you nom me for RFA? Then we'll show these pricks whoes in charge. Dont worry about charges of clussion, once boss all this will 'dissapear'. I can handel Pedro, no problem. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When you start mentioning thing like "over redirects" I'm lost. A couple of things - Foster's bio is about two feet from me at the moment - the title is W. B. Yeats: A Life. With spaces. I assume you have his book - look at it. I'd be interested to know if the American edition is different than the British. As for powers - if we need an admin to make the move, then we need consensus. I haven't the time for it right this minute, but let's try for consensus for W.B. Yeats with no spaces. I'll compromise with that. Personally I prefer William Butler. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats a publisher thing, in the text its always W.B. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right it is a publisher thing. Sigh - I've been trying to give up talk page discussions - they so rarely go anywhere. Anyway, thanks for reminding me - I totally forgot to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you online. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Logged in 30 seconds ago. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I want your openion on the placement of images. I saw the work during my visit to London last April, and it really floored me. I know you like the Descent, also a very evocative painting, and I've squeezed in two repros from it. I want the page to be full of tears and filled with pathos but worry about overkill. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Last I looked it was a little squeezed - but that was about 10 edits ago. I'll have another look. I like the gallery. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you take out anything, see what happens if you bring them all down to thumb size and then slowly boost up from there. I'm getting some text squeeze, but would rather not see any taken out. Still thinking .... but that's the first thought. Or try a double image for the two detail images to free up space. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to seem pretentious, the piano line from this is the same thing. And it was that tune and vid that got me thinking about Cézanne's decriptions of snow.Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean about the descriptions of snow. It's one of those very desolate sad tunes. I think we discussed once before - about the warmth of the voice. Which is very warm. Btw - was interrupted and had to cancel out, but tried to make a double image and instead made a mess. I'm better with the mark-up M uses. If you don't mind, I might play a bit with the images. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

Sent you an email. bamse (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I peeked at it but haven't downloaded yet. I have an pdf by the same author but what you sent looks as though it has more detail. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Violante Visconti changes

Thanks for your improvements to Violante Visconti, particularly for adding Tuchman's excellent A Distant Mirror as a reference.

I made a couple of changes.

• I re-instated the Coulton & Hollway-Calthrop references for a couple of reasons
  • Those two citations point to online sources, whereas A Distant Mirror is only available in print & audio (I happen to have both, but forgot to use it as a reference).
  • Barbara Tuchman herself used Coulton as a source (A Distant Mirror, p.634).
• I added John Hawkwood also as a wedding guest; I found a source that referenced both him & Jean Froissart.
• I put A Distant Mirror into Template:cite book format.

I did have a question: where did you get the information that Gian Galeazzo Visconti probably had Secondotto, Marquess of Montferrat assassinated? I have never come across anything that mentioned him as having anything to do with the assassination. I know that the Visconti family did some pretty vile things, but I think they get blamed for all sorts of things just because the translations that made it into English were the Florentine histories, & the Florentine were hardly unbiased towards the Visconti. If you have a source, I would be glad to include it, or thankful if you did.

P.S. I invite you to consider using [Template:cite book]]; it offers a lot of great functionality. For example, OCLC= enables the reader to find the book in a library & ISBN= enables them to get to Amazon or other sources in a couple of clicks.

Mahalo! Peaceray (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the mistake I made - it's the third husband, her cousin, that Tuchman suggests was killed by Gian Galeazzo. It's on page 243 of the edition I'm using. Regarding cite book templates - I no longer use them and there isn't a requirement to, but I apologize for not following the citation conventions already set up on the page. I meant to come back and fix. My feeling about cite book templates is that they're okay in a separate sources section, but can make editing mode very difficult to read when embedded directly in the text and I've stopped using them for that reason, but it's not really a big deal. Anyway, thanks for stopping by - Violante's story is interesting and basically I just tweaked a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the improvements & clarification. Mahalo! Peaceray (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Miraflores altarpiece

I've put a(nother) question on the talk page Talk:Miraflores Altarpiece. Awien (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. I only nominated; Ceoil wrote it and has the sources. I'm sure he'll respond when he's back online. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaa, of all weeks, I got pulled away by work this week, and left you handing on your own with this. I'll be able to give this some work tonight and better tomowwow and Monday is a bank holiday. I have all the book sources, so I don't see anything too difficult. Thanks for holding the fort. Ceoil (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I only panicked slightly (only a few sources and all). That's a joke btw. I've done what I can, and just saw your comment re glue sizing. I do think it needs it's own page - it's confusing & I hope I haven't made too much of a mess. Please undo anything I've added that's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I can clarify and take on the glue sizing thing easily enough, but the weaving will be more difficult, thoug Campbell has more on it, and an expansion might be revealing and remove some of the confusion. Amanda has good points on the talk that I also need to address properly. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished work, was only peeking earlier. Am happy to reread the information re the weaving, though to be honest I think I agree with Carcharoth, that it doesnt't have to be overly technical. Does anyone really care about the warp & weft and selvage? As it happens, I know about fabrics so understand those terms, but I do think they're daunting & maybe a little overkill. That's why I commented out - but am second guessing so have put it back and will leave it you. I know about weaving and found an interesting source latish last night but was too shot at that point to keep reading. I'll leave the glue size to you - I do finally understand it now, but it took the few moments I had during the week to work my way through the terminology. It just needs a good page to be linked to. I agree that Amanda made good points - I only responded to the one because after reading for the third time about the relationship between the Miraflores and the Entombment, I thought it was okay to keep with attribution. I need to catch up - haven't looked at what you've done. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit on the colours as I think thats more easily understandable and interesting to a general reader, and am suggesting a separate section for the linen. I've not got my head around it properly yet; although I was a great knitter in my childhood, eh thats as far as it went. If I can get it right, a stand-alone sect on the technicalities of the cloth will not be too obstrustive, but good- and crucially- not easily found info for thoes that are interested, and I guess they are a few. This is the kind of stuff wiki is good at, not just summarising the internet. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left a v short section on the linen, would really appreciate a look. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Will be there soon. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does Campbell explain why not knowing the direction of warp & weft is important? I think it's important because in woven textiles often the warp threads were more tightly spun than the weft (which needs to be less tight to more easily weave between the warp). From everything I've read, and particularly from Leonard's piece which looked at the Annunciation with spectography or something like that, the entire cloth was made of Z-spun thread which indicates both warp & weft were the same. That's characteristic of something like twill, and in the case of having the same threads for warp & weft it's not possible to see which is which without the selvage. Does any of this make sense, or is it even relevant? I'm trying to think of how to make it less technical per Carcharoth's comments. Oh and btw, am quite good at knitting myself. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Campbell does not explain further. I was a better knitter than just 'quite good', though I'm quite manly at the same time <cough>. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was being modest - am also better than quite good, but not at all manly. Okay - let's leave it as it is, but see what happens with the expectation that we may have to do something about it. I think that the allusion to warp/weft is that it's unusual cloth, and maybe I can sew / knit together something with what Campbell says & Leonard says. It seems odd to me to have the mention of warp/weft without the explanation of why it's important if that makes sense ... oh I embroider too, but haven't done that in a long time. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

'Tis gone now. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Btw - I need to fix something - the Z-spun doesn't refer to the pattern, it refers the how tightly the flax was spun, but using Z-spun for both warp & weft most likely would have created some type of a pattern. Think of denim - something like that. Let me dig and see if I can find anything more and hopefully we can bring it back. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I mention I was out of my dept with the para? Tks TK. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you can only go so far with what the sources say. If Campbell says it was tabby woven, then it wouldn't have a pattern like denim. I can imagine it perfectly, very finely woven but strong linen - the type of textile that's perfect for cross-stitching and other embroidery, and prob not atypical for the period, but maybe atypical for a painting. I do think it's better in a separate para. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attached to statements I'm on record of being unsure of, and in any case the section is also about the temp streaching, the prem lining for positioning the frame, the visible nail holes and how they preserved the underlaying paint. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All of which is important and should be together in one section. I think it's too easy to be sidetracked by the textile itself - I can become obsessed by finding elusive sources for things like that - but I think Carcharoth is right in that it's almost too esoteric. I think that's the beauty of reviews. Sometimes I need someone else's view to see that I'm obsessing on the absurd and ignoring the obvious, if that makes sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, you two, I've set up the long overdue Category:Early Netherlandish paintings & a parent to hold it & the painters. Please add any strays I've missed. It's a pretty good body of work! I suppose I should add illuminated MS too. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to see illuminated manucripts too. It is a good body of work! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed Johnbod, good call and much needed. TK you've been right before and I suppose you'll be right again, so I'll let you call the integretation of the text. As always, appreciate your view, and as always no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope not hard feelings unless I've done something again to offend. I think it looks good, but have added a comment re the last bit in the section about fixing with the nails. Btw - Leonard et. al have info on the nails too and attaching to the frame if you want to see how it was done - there's a diagram. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - but the sources I've read have referred to the relief in the Miraflores arch as a Grisaille. I can't see where to link, but am parking here so I don't forget the term in case one of us wants to add. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should put Campbell's warp/weft/selvage statement in a note. It is prob important & I know nothing. Btw - didn't realise we were fighting but I'm very overworked at the moment and it might be wise to take a break from wiki because my perspective probably isn't very good. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ah jeez, 'fighting' was a wink wink figure of speach, I didnt mean for a second we were actually fighting, you know me better than that. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, life took over & have been gone. I haven't had a chance to look at what you've done, but am now thinking the way things are going for us, it's good there are two of us getting through this. Phew, re fighting. Am a little prickly these days - much too busy for my liking. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, its cool. You might have not noticed that there is a lot of typing between thought registering in my brain and my mulling it over. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good! I hadn't even thought to look at the journals for publication locations and spent the longest time staring at the sources wondering what I was missing. Very stupid these days! Anyway, I'm not sure how to do those either but will look on one of my other pages or a style guide, although they look okay to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The main thing seems to be consistency; at the moment we might be consistently right or consistently wrong, but were consistently something. So how bad. Any by the way there are few here that would call you stupid. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sometimes I can be very stupid - but usually only when I'm over-tired and trawling the internet when instead I should be reading or something like that. Does the FAC need updating? I'm still not caught up, and somehow my watchlist seems to have been lit up with category work and am too lazy to scroll. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to add more from Koch, and clf re tempra. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh good idea! Koch is a good source, and the tempera is confusing to the lay reader. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The likelyhood is I'll be absent until thursday night, I have to deliver the 2012 budget then, and though I'm the only one who understands it, ick being nicht[11] not invited to the board meeting (FC takes credit). Anyhow, the article is much improved over the weekend, and I appreciate all the trials and tribulitation it has pushed on you. Best, etc. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

TK; I have a few bits to add from Koch, but it will be a hit and run, after tonight I'll be gone until at least thursday night, more than likely Friday night. I asked Ch to re-engage earlier in this weekend window, but it didnt happen and I won't b there to fight it out when it doew happen. At the very least I'll b online on friday, dont let yourself get bogged down by the FAC, let me take care when I get back. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Don't worry too much. I had a terrible week myself last week workwise & wasn't feeling well, but all around better this week. I can manage small stuff and if something comes up I can't manage I'll wait for you to come back. I didn't really do much to it last week anyway, only some minor fixes. I think you did most of the heavy lifting during the weekend. I think it's much improved too - the review comments were good imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The House bound heart

Hi! Getting along slowly with the Emaki. There are more scrolls than I thought. I am also uploading (not done yet) more images of the emaki, that also might be useful elsewhere. Just a quick question, in the pdf you sent me (Mason: "The House-Bound Heart"), plate 3 appears doubled with one of them a bit shifted covering the text. Do you know why? I can figure out the hidden text by looking at the source of the pdf, so this is more a question out of curiosity. bamse (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting along slowly with the diary too - had to step away for a little while to think about it because it's complicated, and I had to buy a source I'm waiting for. It looks as though that plate was badly scanned - it shows up the same on the copy I have. The underlying plate seems to be the same as the one on top but of a very different resolution and something happened there. That's all I can think of. The images are really nice - will probably replace some in a few of the articles when I return to Murasaki - fairly soon. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more images to come, but I am still trying to figure out what they depict and what scene or edition they belong to. You don't happen to have access to these, (or any similar image collection) do you? bamse (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing, according to [12] (probably can't be used as reliable source, but might be correct nevertheless), the noble women in the back of these images (you use all three in various articles), are Minamoto no Rinshi, wife of Michinaga to the left (with the baby!!!) and Shoushi, mother of the baby to the right (i.e. without baby!!!). Not sure whether this would make sense, perhaps a typo!? bamse (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, and I'm sorry but will have to look at books to remember where, the woman with the baby is Shoshi, the man is Michinaga, the woman in the right foreground in Murasaki (probably there to record the event) - but I've never read anything about the woman in top right. It would make sense that she's Shoshi's mother, Rinshi. Will try to get to this during the weekend. I suppose the two could be reversed - Rinshi with baby and Shoshi without, but that really doesn't make sense. I have a copy of the diary now, so will have a look to see whether text exists to support an illustration of Rinshi with the baby. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This only mentions Michinaga and Murasaki. Actually you answered a question which I wanted to, but forgot to ask (whether you have the Diary). Do you have the book permanently or only for a limited amount of time? It could come in handy in finding captions for some of the images for which I don't have any other sources. Also, do you have access to these? bamse (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's where I read it, but also somewhere else - perhaps in the Penolope Morse pages you sent? I decided to order this edition of the diary because the introductory commentary is good; it arrived yesterday and is still in its box! I was confused about the fragmentary nature of the diary which makes it difficult to write about as a piece of literature, but when I realized (thanks to your research) that the pieces had been "lost" until the 1920s and that only fragments exist, I realized I have to restructure the diary page completely. Haven't gotten to it unfortunately. I'll dig into the links above to see whether I have access - my database access tends to be hit-or-miss. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this the complete diary as in your book? As for fragments, only the emaki is fragmented (about 20% of the full diary). If my translation from Japanese is correct, the diary itself was reconstructed from a number of fragments (non-emaki and emaki) in the Edo period and is thought to be known in complete form. Still need to read more about it. bamse (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think so - that's the 1920 translation that I did have access to and have used I think for some of the quotations. I wanted Richard Bowring's new translation, mostly for the commentary, and for comparative purposes. I'd borrowed it from a library and had to return before I finished reading the entire introduction (I'm very slow these days). I've read in a number of places that the diary survives in fragments, so I'm not entirely certain that the all of the manuscript has survived, but as you say, it needs research. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Very frustrating! I can see the images at Amherst but the page closes whenever I try to grab one. The description says they are copyright protected which is very odd indeed considering their age. I can't even get in to see the ones at Yale. What I can see at Amherst is exciting and I'd like to see more. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Same for me. As for the Shoshi/Rinshi/baby caption, I did not see it in Mason's book. Perhaps you saw it in the caption of this image!? The diary relevant to the other image says "She [the queen] wore a grape-coloured kimono trimmed with five folds and red uchigi", but I can't see such kimono in the image. bamse (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's not from that description, it's in one of the books or articles having to do with Murasaki's status as lady-in-waiting and chronicler that she was present at the ceremony when Michinaga arrived. I've been busy today with work, but done now and will dig around for it. I don't see a grape colored kimono in the other image. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not finding it, maybe it was from the e-museum after all. But I also read about the scene where Michinaga makes her write a poem, an image I'd very much like to use, so I think the problem is that I'm not as immersed in the sources as I was and can't easily find things at the moment. I'll let you know if I come across it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of using that scene (Michinaga makes her write a poem) as a hook for DYK. Unfortunately the two pictures we have of it are not amazing quality. bamse (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a nice one to use, but as you say, definitely not great quality. You could also use the one of MS teaching Shoshi Chinese with an appropriate hook. I'll probably expand that part of the diary article and would like to add the image (once it's uploaded) if there's space. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Just to add regarding fragmentary state - I don't know whether you can see this or not, but Donald Keene says on page 47 here that the diary survives in a sadly mutilated state, which I understood to mean in fragments. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the source, but I understand it in the same way. These days I am mostly trying to find more images, matching them to the diary text and bringing them in the correct order. Just uploaded the image. Hopefully I'll soon have time to read more about the style of the diary (am considering writing the a line for the eye and a hook for the nose (Hikime kagibana) article as well). bamse (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A Hikime kagibana article would be interesting - it's an interesting style, as is the blown off roof style. Thanks for linking to the image - I have to transition to another source for the Chinese lessons, and am about to do that. Hopefully I'll have space to add another image. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WorldCat

How do they get linked to WorldCat, then? -- Evertype·✆ 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page and prefer to keep it there. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

NG

Very nice tool. An amazing room, I'd like tat each of the, very famous, paintings have a substantial article. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things - I didn't get a yellow bar again. More importantly, is this how you're getting the detail of MM? Which I might just have to move onto my page completely because I love it so much. The room is amazing, but feels like cheating. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong? I reverted your reversion, and am quite prepared to go to an/i (am friends with baseball bugs). TK, Dude, Ch is pushing us in a direction I'm happy to go towards; I can resolve it, its just not a problem. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent some screen shots of sources - can't think of any other way of doing it - for you to see. I'll let you resolve - though I prob could have helped. One is from Spronk, already cited on the page & another from NG - link for citation in my sandbox if you want. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, pls let me know if you can't see the gbook link re glue size techniques. I'll screen shot the page that specifically discusses the Entombment & send it. It's a useful source imo and a discreet section about a discreet process using a discreet example so okay to use from Gbooks - at least I'd feel comfortable doing so. It is v blurry though. It's up to you and I don't know what you have on hand for sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cant see it; print screen pls. I want to be able to put the article to bed tonight if your on for a big push. I've more or less resolved the image placement issue, but had to sarcrafice the gallery. What to you think? Here is some sweet but amazing nonetheless tonic for the troops[13].PS Fuck Mike Love; Denis Wilson for KingCeoil (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me about 30 minutes - busy atm & need to get to the better larger screen for a decent screen shot. Will be ready in a little while to help with a push. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My thanks. I'm going to give a try at an article on glue size, but am preoccupied with trading mid 80s punk links on FB with my brother. There is now a bitter dispute over the merits of Angelic Upstarts vs Rites of Spring. All you need to know is that it will take about an hour to finally crush him and refocus on the FAC. Where is Cas, who knows his 80s punk, when you need him. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, crush away. I need about an hour to finish up a few things. Send a pdf of two pages re glue size. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Got them, digesting. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I doctored them a bit so they're more readable than before and I want to read them again myself. As for writing a separate article for glue size, I think it's a good idea. There were many long discussions between myself and Johnbod on Edmund Evans about chromozylography - finally I wrote a page for it because there wasn't anything to link to. I got interrupted and need to catch up - haven't looked at what you've done today. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The second pdf about tuchlein and few other bits & pieces is pieced together from Spronk who is already in the sources. The first pdf - called pages 187- 188, something like that - about glue size technique needs cite information. I'll format in my sandbox and then copy over to the article? Also give me a few moments to sweep through and fix dashes, spelling, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting me with my picture on Paris Mountain State Park.WGENGLISH (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bouts

I've messed about with the image placement a bit, but still not happy. I'll be fiddeling for a bit yet, so bear with me. I was struck today though, re-reading the Koch article you found, how beauitiful and moving the announciation picture is. The browns and reds are very moving, and its amazing how still and "frozen" the image is. Placing here as I think you would get it and might appreciate something placid. Note how off center it is, its so obviously a left hand wing. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I read that article I spend a few moments gazing at that image - it's very beautiful. It was interesting to read about how vivid the reds would have been before fading. Thanks. I'm only keeping half an eye on what you're doing - am slightly busy until later, so have at it. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont contribute to DKY cause I'm old and its confusing but there are some very fine people there, and when I see them nom I know that the quality to bullshit ratio is lessened. I would encourage you to nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I only wanted to nom because I think I can make a good hook - a King huddling in a Duchess' skirts, a knight in a wine-vat, something like that. And it's a vaguely interesting piece of 14th century trivia and has pictures. But like you I'm old and it's confusing and I always get in trouble. So haven't decided. I haven't had the time to think about the hook, and I need to do little more work to the page. Are you done fiddling w/ Bouts' images? I might have some thoughts about them. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your less easily confused than me to be fair, and considering what you done there is v strong, bite the bullet and nom. Re the images, fire away. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why you swapped the rusty nail holes and Christ. I'd put the nail holes closer to their description and Christ closer to his description, with the three Marys in the middle. Also some whitespace with the newest image on the bottom, but otherwise very nice. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea was to put the images in positions roughly corresponding to thier placement on the panel. But Im not married to that, I'd prefer that the page is attractive enough to stop people from clicking out of it. I'll swap back again. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop! Let me have a look at it with that in mind. Have been on the run most of the day and only idly dipping in & out. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense & is quite good. I was used to seeing it the other way. Do you think it would be too much to add to the caption of the first one, "detail, top left,", to plant the idea that the details correspond to the panel. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No I switched back, if its not obvious and needs to be pointed out then its not working. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping. Also punning nice relaxing tune. [14]. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway

Hi. This has all blown up and that's now what this should be about. What's this? You worked on a bunch of featured articles, including (3?) re Hemingway, including his article. Good job, thanks, I'll have to give them a full-read. I've read a lot of his works. But that should be a separate issue. Navboxes are really part of the site structure, not part of any specific article. See, for example, The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film)#External links, where this navbox sits above another, {{Henry King}}, which is normal in appearance; they match, the site has consistency. In a moment, I'll go do the hlist thing on that template, too.

Drama has opportunity cost. I was going to create {{allow wrap}}, today, to encapsulate a technique for making a rare exception to the mechanism that's now in-place for all navbox that prevents discrete items from line-wrapping without the need for the box to do anything other than be a navbox. However, sometimes we'll need exceptions to this nowrap system, as a few items have 80 or more characters in them and we can make an exception for them. A soon as I get to creating the template, that is.

In the meantime, please put the stars back, so I can navigate to those articles from their author's user page. Alarbus (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have been less argessive though, in fairness. We dont all have thick skin or hop from article to artice with out a 2nd thought or a damn. You edited a page where huge amounts of time have been invested and those investment cannot be tossed off. Remember there are a variety of editor types active here. You reverted TK and M, and then out of nowhere lectured them on the talk, in a dismissive, cut and dry rule/policy driven, think of the children type of way.

That 'baby-poop-brown' fails colour contrast analysis (you need an add-on to invoke it). See WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011'

Ouch, thats not very nice for several reasons, most obviousouly it has four inflamatory statements, and you went from there to worse. See where you went wrong? Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your now post fact rationalising - I was going to create {{allow wrap}}, today, to encapsulate.. ; how the fuck was anybody supposed to know what you were going to do. I was going to cure cancer, but here I am arguing the toss with you instead. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given a link; it's an add-on for Firefox; get yours here

I've created the template, and given it a first use. I saw that this morning and said (to myself) that needs to be a template. But I was reverted and had to take it to talk. Enjoy your trip to Stockholm. Alarbus (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah in hindsight. Come on. At least have the balls to leave it. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving it as-corrected. Truth is, I didn't even it notice from reading your comment (I did read it, but at the time it was showing as red with the name, not as {{{1}}}). I noticed it here, which will expand to be many. I've been updating the docs, sussing-out a script to help with this...

What the fuck happened here? This is good work. I didn't demean Truthkeeper's work, or Modernist's. The article is not damaged by using a standard navbox, it's improved, as are the dozens of other uses of this box. There are millions of these to do; there's a bot request to get help. User:Edokter has done much of the work getting this fine-tuned and has asked that it be mentioned in next week's Signpost.

This project is about presenting a website of millions of articles to readers everywhere using a wide range of devices and something like 10% have a vision issue. Shoving ill-considered colours in based on personal preference and whim is unhelpful. Alarbus (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you now contradictiong yourself, presenting that last utilatarian justification while still wondering why TK might have been hurt. And though you now are presenting youself as high minded, you latest guise...for the greater good, let me remind you, That 'baby-poop-brown' fails colour contrast analysis (you need an add-on to invoke it). See WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011'. Yikes; do you talk with that mouth to the millions of you readers? What I meant about balls is if you finally decide you are more concerned about rules and fuck the people behind it, dont come here teary eyed. Be consistent, that at least I can uderstand if not respect. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way; back off, you know there are not idiots here, give space and dont inflame with sucessive jabs of crocodile tears and veiled insults. Ceoil (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus I see that you've only been editing here for less than three weeks, so a couple of words of advice. First you reverted here, here, here, here, here with an edit summary that reverting is disruptive. That's five times. The WP:3RR is a Bright-line rule so you're lucky you weren't reported. Furthermore I asked you to come to talk per Bold, revert, discuss but you were extremely aggressive on the talkpage, particularly in your accusations about owning the page. You might want to familiarize yourself with this policy regarding ownership/ stewardship of Featured Articles. Four articles on which the Hemingway template appears are featured - these represent many thousands of hours of very difficult and time-consuming edits, reading books, researching, making sure everything is perfect according to MoS, going through various stages of review. Ceoil is perfectly correct to note your comment about baby poop brown, and I'll point out that your comment about playing around with color and the other about making a few useful edits did not come across in the spirit of collaborative and collegial editing that we have here - it came across as extremely aggressive. You might want to tone that down a bit if you plan to change thousands of templates because editors who tend articles they've worked hard on also tend the templates - in many cases they created the templates. Finally I think you should heed Maunus' advice on the talkpage - edit warring is not acceptable - at all. When I find myself interested in this again I'll use the tool and find a color that's acceptable. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(In the voice of Chuck D) - Damn straight, Truthkeeper88 keeping it real in 2011, telling it like it is, two times. Oh Yeah. [15]. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Be cool

And dont worry about the small things. You ahve a lot of friends here. Here is a very distracting and easy on the eye French vid. How hot was Brigitte Bardot in her pomp. Very hot, let me tell you. Serge himself is not classicaly handsome, but he does have something serious going on, no? Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte was beautiful and Sergei has that tres francaise thing going - very arrogant, but very sexy. They're good together. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of chemistry for sure. I dont blame her; I'm a straight Irish catholic of a certain age, and still see he had the IT, the xxx factor. He was about 5#6 though. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can never argue with chemistry - people either spark or they don't. Re 50s, sad to say, but he's better that BB was at that age. Too bad that's often true of men; not always but often. Anyway, I've had more than enough of this place to last me for a while. Two articles I wanted to work on haven't been touched and that bothers me. Almost 24 hours of arguing and I'd rather be quietly writing and obsessively moving around pictures. Btw - you owe me a crop for my DYK. Anyway, later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Gray

I really like the grey...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I do too. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Be cool

And dont worry about the small things. You ahve a lot of friends here. Here is a very distracting and easy on the eye French vid. How hot was Brigitte Bardot in her pomp. Very hot, let me tell you. Serge himself is not classicaly handsome, but he does have something serious going on, no? Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte was beautiful and Sergei has that tres francaise thing going - very arrogant, but very sexy. They're good together. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of chemistry for sure. I dont blame her; I'm a straight Irish catholic of a certain age, and still see he had the IT, the xxx factor. He was about 5#6 though. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can never argue with chemistry - people either spark or they don't. Re 50s, sad to say, but he's better that BB was at that age. Too bad that's often true of men; not always but often. Anyway, I've had more than enough of this place to last me for a while. Two articles I wanted to work on haven't been touched and that bothers me. Almost 24 hours of arguing and I'd rather be quietly writing and obsessively moving around pictures. Btw - you owe me a crop for my DYK. Anyway, later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Gray

I really like the grey...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I do too. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Things and stuff

Dont feel too bad, you did nothing bad yesterday, but were out of your dept in terms of the level of gaming and deciet and backhandness you were up against. The nicess and oh shucks stuff you see on the admins talk you see now is a ruse, a ply, and you cant argue with a person in thoes words, but actions tell a very differnet story, and the attempt to humuliate you to crawl out of a hole are there for all to see. That she put a weeks old and highly agressive account over a person who has spent years developing the pages and bring them to FA, and then realising (I hope) the mistake stooped to low assination attempts is all you need to know. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny how my page kept reappearing yesterday & even this morning when I peeked hoping to be done with this place for a while, puff, there it was again. I know I haven't done anything bad - all I've ever done is read a few books and write a few pages. I've never closed an AfD (not interested) or any of that kind of stuff. I do fight vandalism daily on the pages I watch, but hey who cares about that - I'm not an admin & neither are you. And I don't think either of us want to be. But you are a bad man who uses bad language that's not allowed here. I've either variously made a few useful edits, have an ownership problem, don't adhere to citation policy (whatever that is), make careless mistakes and don't adequately tend pages I've written. It's all very confusing. Anyway, the page needs work, was my first major effort, and I'm happy to dump the templates. And then on to Ezra. Nice new page you've got going btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't a bad man until I meet you, my dear; you seem to be some kind of a bad influence; one of those women my mother warned me about. I'm being facetious of course, I suppose because I'm dissapointed at the treatment. But we both now have new pages to be worrying distracting ourselves with, the small things suddenly seem as they are, and we can remeber why we are here in the first place. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a source late last week that I've been trying to get into the Bal des Ardents page since Friday night, and an offshoot page I might work on, so yeah, want to get that done before the weekend is over. Btw - how are you making the crops? I might try to do one myself for the DYK if you don't get to it first. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm using my computer to make the crops. I also control the minds of a few people around me, and use them as zobmies as I slice and dice the pics filled with darkeness and malice. Ha ha. Har har, whooah woah woah. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's what I get for asking a stupid question. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

About this weekend: some of it I think is tied into the Big Page problem. Big pages attract a lot of viewers, attract a lot of people with opinions, and need a lot of tending. I never have problems with little pages, but the big ones - sheesh. Ezra was a pain, Hemingway has been a pain, Vincent was awful during the summer. It would be nice to get these pages to FA level and keep them there without a lot of drama, but they seem to attract drama. Seriously I'm a bit upset about what happened. I don't mind re-doing the refs, had been thinking about it for a while, but the drama. Was that really necessary? And all because of a template? Talk to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I've avoided pushing VvG beyond where it is - everyone has an opinion, new books come out with absurd theories; then the theories get mentioned in the lede and like this summer an endless free for all develops...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame too, because that page more than most, deserves the best we can give it. This summer's incident was enough to put us off, and I've noticed stuff gets shoved in frequently. In going through the Hemingway references I'm finding things that I didn't write, that have been added along the way, but don't really work, so in the the end this isn't a bad exercise, but it shows how much a Big Page needs to be tended. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)