User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Citations?

Sorry for bothering you now (with the recent retirement and copyright problems), but for the article I'm working on When You Reach Me, I'm using EBSCOhost for reviews, but the title is always the same and I'm not sure if I should use the PDF version or the direct URL with all the source information on it. Should I format them differently? Thanks as always! Derild4921☼ 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use the Ebscohost link b/c it shows the subscriber information and gives away personal information. An on-line link isn't necessary in my view. All we need to know is that Kirkus (or whichever publication) published a review. Honestly, I'm not the best person to ask at the moment - so take the advice for whatever it's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Things

The hope is I wont be such an absent friend for too much longer, pressure at work is easing off, and I might again be able to regain some semblance of a normal life in the next week or two. And what better way to spend free time than editing wiki...or wait. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear your work pressure is easing off - and it will be nice to have you around more. I've actually stepped back a little (again!) to gain perspective, and have been busy myself workwise. I need to find something new to work on - am very much done with EP. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Again eh? Well see. In other news thanks for the Guaguin pdfs, v strong on Ovri, and I got a few books as well. I got a few books on Goya in the same shopping spree, so happy days. I'm hing up on the jug portrait at the moment, it suites my marthred overworked self pitying self, so I'll be at that for a bit. His tash kills me though, nothing ever good came from a man growing a tash. I might photoshop it out, and call black white. I'd need some buddies if I was to rewrite and slant like this, you on? We can blame MF, if you wish, or JNW? Your choice, lady. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to hear the Gauguin stuff is helpful. I'll help rewrite when you need. Truly a bit busy with work at the moment, but yeah, I'm on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quicksilver and well wishes

I hope you are feeling better. I think you have been one of the most supportive and helpful Wikipedians I have worked with, so please feel better then keep up the good work! I always will invite you to work on any of the content I develop (actually some support on Agnes Grey would be greately appreciated if you have the time), Sadads (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads. I'll look over Agnes Grey when I get a chance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

Thanks for the heads up - although Susanne listed me as a co-nom after the promotion to FA, I had not watchlisted the article. I gather there were some close paraphrasing / copyvio issues. Unfortunately I do not have access to the sources used to help check things (except Redfield), but if I can be of help, please let me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had the Jeremy Fisher FAC watchlisted with the idea that I might get around to reviewing, and she ran into problems on that review. SandyGeorgia suggested checking Miss Moppet, and I thought I'd have a go at fixing. I hadn't realized you were the co-nom - was only marginally involved with that review. Anyway, I've fixed what I can from sources available on-line. The best way of fixing these things, in my view, is quoting and attributing - even if it leaves a page with a lot of quotes. That's a problem that can be fixed in the future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For Miss Moppet I was involved in the peer review and then reviewed it more closely at FAC and helped a bit since it was Susanne's first FAC, including sending her the text of Redfield's article (for some reason she couldn't open the PDF version). After the FAC closed Susanne added me as a co-nom for my help, which was very kind of her. Off to check the book. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. I'll get the other one tomorrow. Am working on Beatrix Potter at the moment. I hate to say it, but it's not looking very good so far. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not read many of the series of Potter articles, but the few I have read seemed to have some repetition of material (which makes sense, as the background will be similar for the different stories). Would it be possible to see the changes in Miss Moppet for a given source and then go through all the articles and see if there were similar sentences that also needed to be changed? This would be work, but would avoid reinventing the wheel for each article's checks. On a completely different note, alhtough I love the little fish, is my signature difficult to read? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the repetition. I think if Miss Moppet is cleaned up, then it's a question of copy/paste into the other articles. I'd also thought some of the background should go directly into Beatrix Potter, but won't change for Miss Moppet since it's still an FA. For the others, though, might not be a bad idea to link to the main bio, and clean that up. I certainly have enough sources to fix Beatrix Potter. I've always loved your sig. The really big swaths of bright yellows and reds are hard on the eyes, and for me sometimes trigger headaches. Your fish is quite unobtrusive - so no worries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see Susanne is now indef blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Sigh. Please let me know how I can be of help, and glad you like the fish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the history with the earlier, now banned, editors, but didn't much like what I found when checking Beatrix Potter last night. I think at this point the priority is to save Miss Moppet - my sense is that it's probably okay with the fixes, but I'm a neophyte on these kinds of things. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime confirmed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the work you are doing is sufficient to save Miss Moppet (sounds like a movie title Saving Miss Moppet). I see most of the images were just deleted per WP:BAN. I am an admin, though not a very active one, so I can see the deleted files and will re-upload them. What a royal pain. Thanks again for all of your work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We're having windstorms and my internet keeps going in & out - have lost a few edits. I seem to have fixed some problems and will now start rewriting. I think it might need a very careful copyedit when I'm done - but will worry about that later. Having the images disappear between edits was very disconcerting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys for keeping an eye on this, just noticed that this Sussane's content was under investigation. Did she really look that much like the banned user's activities? Sigh, I thought her content was well thought out, I guess Truthkeeper's examination will be enough proof for me. Thank you again, I would commit some support if I weren't so busy with school. If you guys need some type of manpower next week, give me a hit on my talk page, if we are still in the process of shoring up the damage, Sadads (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads. Once the FA is taken care off - hopefully almost done - I was planning to post a note at Wikiproject Novels and the childrens lit wikiproject. It will take about a week or more to identify the articles that need salvaging - perhaps as many as 20 GAs, perhaps more. This will take a very long time to fix. So, yes, you might be pressed into service. I do understand though, that with the holidays coming up and then the end of semester close behind, it's a busy time at school. Btw - SlimVirgin deserves the credit for the initial identification. I thought I was making a few fixes - but ..... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I too am sad that Sussane was actually a sockpuppet account seeing her nice attitude and articles. :(. I'll try to help and see if there are any books at my library. For me a quarter just ended and my grades weren't bad so I should be a bit more active... Derild4921☼ 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. You're great. What I'll do is set up a subpage listing sources you'll need to do the checks, and the articles that need to be checked. The GAs should be checked first. Actually reading Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet gives you a sense of what needs to be done, and I've posted some sources there. I'm pretty busy with work for the next few days, and wanted the get the FA taken care of first. Will work on setting up a subpage tomorrow night. I didn't know Susanne and never interacted with her (except yesterday when I asked if she wanted to help fix the articles) so I'm very much uninvolved here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Miss Moppet looks pretty good and replied on the talk page (and left a few questions of my own). I would be glad to help upload more of the deleted images on the GAs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding the images and uploading is time consuming - thanks for the offer. I'm not the best with images. If you have trouble finding any, I might be able to scan them. I used to have the entire series - will have to look to see whether it's gone into the give away pile or added to the keep pile of children's books. Essentially agree with your comments on the talkpage - will respond this evening (my time). I also need to do another read through - am always concerned about adding choppiness when I introduce so many quotations. Ceoil is a good at making my prose flow, and I'm hoping he'll have time to swing through for a quick copyedit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I am an admin, I can look at the deleted image if necessary (so that I make sure I upload the same illustration). I'll let you know if I have trouble - if there is a central page listing all of the articles, I can check them off as I do them (probably do one or two articles a day). I was planning on making a light copyedit once the article was stable (all refs checked or removed and any other issues resolved), but Ceoil would be good too. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to figure out what images were being deleted if you look at the contributions of MuZemike he was the individual cleaning those up, Sadads (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a partial listing of the articles User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC - also shows ones that have been deleted. I need to check my work, probably tonight, and then it's free for a copyedit. Ceoil only edits on weekends, and might not want to be pulled into this, but I was thinking it would be good to get someone who has never read the article and brings a fresh set of eyes. Certainly it needs to be a careful copyedit to prevent re-introducing the original language. It doesn't matter who does it. I'll respond over on the talkpage too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If Ceoil can't or does not want to, I can ask around for someone to copyedit or least carefully read it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Fisher

Susanne cut the article from this version on Nov. 10th at 36kb to this version on Nov. 15th to 19kd. Despite the cuts, I found a few instances of close paraphrasing and fixed. I think it's clean now. There are some pieces sourced to Dubay, so when you get her book can you take look at Jeremy as well. Need to do an airport run to pick up a kid, so am calling it a night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that I am also done with it, except for Debay's book. I have been known to use my digital camera and just photograph the pages of books and other print sources that were a pain to get, so that I can go back and look at them if needed. Assuming ILL comes through, I will do that at least for Moppet and Fisher. If you want, I can do others too - maybe even the whole book once I see how useful it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

PS I will work on images for Jeremy Fisher (but desperately need to do a few peer reviews first) and will let Moonriddengirl know the CCI can be checked for Miss Moppet. Did you get the 1996 version of Taylor's book (BP: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman) or is it the 1986 version (the one I have?) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Truthkeeper88 for all of your hard work rescuing The Story of Miss Moppet from a morass of too close paraphrases and other problems, and not only keeping at WP:FA level, but improving it in the process. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch! I seem to be getting a bit cranky, but it's almost done! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wanda Gág

Hi Truth, the Wanda Gág article was tagged by SV here: [1], I reverted the article back to a Sept. 06 version that seemed to predate the copyvio material added by User:Sfphotocraft; and updated the article from there...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting set of edits. Good to revert it to the 2006 version - I'm thinking that's the right way to deal with this on a lot of these article. I wonder if it's the same person, or just coincidence that Susanne et al copy/pasted from the same website. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if they're connected. I think if you can locate where the copyvio begins, then revert to that spot and proceed from there is the way to save those articles...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey TK, was peaking at this with one eye during the week, but peaking only, dont have the full story yet. Of course I'll help, but have no sources, so it'll be rewording only. In other news Eire went broke during the week, ah disaster. Ceoil (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're around tomorrow (my tomorrow) I'll bring you up to speed. Just need some brushing up on the prose is all - don't worry about sources. I've been reading about Eire going broke; for some reason my google news splashpage is covering it heavily. Sounds very bad. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we have the IMF around for tea. Its been on the cards for a few months, but crushing to see it happen. Our budget in 2 weeks is looking to take €6b out of a gov spend of €40b. Yikes. The danger is that they will choke the economy, but you have to trust that they (non irish interests now) know what they are doing. Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to say - it happened here two years ago, but we didn't get the IMF for tea. I'm sure it must be crushing. Btw - am going to retrieve a link about this plagiarism mess that might be helpful to read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy started this page and I've been adding: User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ta, and christ almighty. Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy reading. Get some sleep at some point. Catch up with you tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty is right. This is a big big mess. If you're around during the weekend, I wanted you to swing through The Story of Miss Moppet with a very light copyedit - needs to be done carefully as not to reintroduce the words from the sources. Because you haven't read the article and you're familiar with my writing (I've added choppy attributions and quotations) you'd be a good person for this. I'd follow behind with the sources in hand, checking the copyedits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - it started with this FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet (notice)

Here is what I put on the talk page of every user who contributed to the FAC (except myself):

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I got your email and sent you one back - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Complicated plot help

Hi, in When You Reach Me, the plot is quite hard to explain due to the element of time travel involved. A copyeditor has expressed major concerns over the last paragraph in the plot section, but I'm not sure if I've fixed the problem and need a fresh pair of eyes on that section; would you mind taking a look over and see if you understand it? Thanks a lot! Derild4921☼ 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a little confusing. Let me think about it and dig around a bit and see if a summary of the book exists elsewhere. Remember, you can sometimes avoid these complications by trimming down an overly detailed plot. I'll get back to you soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to simplify it a bit. Derild4921☼ 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it way down - see if that works. It makes sense to me - the old man is Marcus and needs to communicate with the young-not-yet-time-traveling Marcus. You might clarify why she had this revelation, but otherwise I think it's better, if you don't mind the shorter version. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's much better and I've tweaked the wording a bit and added the reason. Derild4921☼ 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration on a historical fiction novel

Hey, Ragesoss and I are collaborating on Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist, thought you might be interested. Sadads (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at it and have it watched. Looks like an interesting book. I'm a bit tied up at the moment and about to get very busy IRL, but am happy to swing by every now and then. Thanks for asking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, knew you were interested in good historical fiction and alternate history! Sadads (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Olivia Shakespear

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Olivia Shakespear-1.png

Thanks for uploading File:Olivia Shakespear-1.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a bot - but I claimed Fair Use and spent a long time scanning, cleaning & uploading. TPS - how do I make it clear it's fair use? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to good in this field, but I think you need to add the tag that applies from here. Derild4921Review Me! 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Derild - none of those seem to apply. I just need to find out if the images were published before 1923, which I think they were & then I can add that tag & get rid of the FUR. If they get deleted I'll be annoyed, and they've been tagged for speedy deletion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I added {{Non-free historic image}} to each, but please go through and clean up the Fair Use Rationales - Yeats' says it is an image on Maud Gonne (don't you just love copy and paste ;-) )? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm terrible with images & having them tagged always makes me hyperventilate. I need a few moments to read the sources to see if & when they were published. Fixed the names. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - as an admin I can also restore (undelete) images if needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The images in the article ( Olivia Shakespear ) have been tagged too. What to do about that? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed them - the bot added them after it tagged the images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I have one of the books on loan from ILL (from all the way across the state) & need to return it shortly & wanted to get these up asap, & then let this article sit through the holidays. That's the problem with ILL - too much pressure for me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others)

Hi! Good to see that you are back and active on wikipedia. When you have time and interest, I'd be very happy if you could do the usual language fixes to List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others). Thanks. bamse (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You caught me just as a very busy time workwise is starting, but I'll work on it as I have time. I did watchlist it at some point and have been watching you build it. Will be slow, as usual. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Take whatever time you need. No need to rush. bamse (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see that you already started with the copyedits. Two quick comments:

1. re comment in this edit: You are right "at the time" is confusing. What I wanted to say with that sentence is that these Chinese objects came to Japan a long time ago (different time for different objects and not in all cases possible to say when they came to Japan). I'd say roughly 1000 years or more ago. Is it possible to express this somehow better.
2. re Mino/Seto in this edit needs to be fixed. Seto was the center of pottery production until the mid 16th century; after the mid 16th century the center was Mino. Seto produced "conservative Chinese" stuff. Mino produced more modern/radical (at the time) "Japanese stuff". bamse (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll put back the original sentence re: Seto and Mino and rework - had a feeling I was mistaken. Actually, that's why I stopped & am glad you checked so soon. I'll think of something for "at the time", now that I know it's not a specific time. I'm afraid I'm a bit brain dead at the moment, so I'm only doing a cursory first pass and then will go back through again later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think in some other NT list article it says: "directly imported from China". Maybe something like this could work. However there could well be 100 years or so between production in China and import to Japan, so I am not so sure about this phrase. bamse (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some of the other articles and think about how to reword. Probably will leave it as is for now and work through the rest first, but won't get back to it until later today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Made a small change "rounded" -> "circular" in the mirrors section and undid your edit to the Mino/Seto stuff. Seto (not Mino) produced Chinese style. bamse (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I need to look more closely at how the Mino/Seto is written that I can't get it straight, but at this point my inclination is to leave as is. I'm working on the description of the bells in the sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You

By the sounds of things are being bold and editing when you should be buried in work.[2] If I had the buttons, you'd be blocked for a week or until at least you have finished your whatever and we are exhausted bitching and scheaming about about you on AN/I. The fact that you are reading this only proves my point. Blocked for 1 week so. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not editing, just peeking. Sorry, was taking a break (hangs head). I don't feel like working today, but have a deadline to meet. Go ahead, block me. Keep me away. Punish me because I am so guilty ... going away now .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Frances Hodgson Burnett

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Frances Hodgson Burnett. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally I thought templating regulars wasn't a Good Thing. Have a look at the edit history for that page. Thanks. Will log off from Wikipedia now and carry on with real life, much more important, tasks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Templating the regulars is sometimes necessary. I assumed that you had a good reason for the removal, but the way that you did it left a huge image, thus it was not constructive. I note you've removed the infobox again, and reduced the image to a thumb. I'm not going to edit war over this issue, but have opened a discussion on the talk page, where you are welcome to put forward your views. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake - it happens to the best of us. Was trying to fix but edit conflicted with you. I've responded. Disagree very much that it's necessary to template regulars. All it does is drive away regulars. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the attitude that it's necessary to template regulars disturbingly arrogant and chilling. I don't need to spend this volunteer time making constructive edits, with the exception of one mistake that I didn't have time to fix, to be templated and told I'm not constructive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You, pt II

I might block you again yet....I'm a bit cross that you left me with little to add on Olivia, you have been there and done that before I could go 'gasp'. Not that I abdicate reps, but you found all the source I have before I had time to say, but ah, what about....some diddly hoar, 1804.[3]. Are sour grapes a reason to block? And would anybody care if not...Bty delighted to see you have the van der Weyden on your talk, wish my talk was so elegant, I suppose I reap what I soe; devils, riggrs, ips, the Welsh, and manical admins. ‎Its all adding up and coming home.....damn it. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I got templated today for the first time ever - o god, I made an editing mistake and an admin comes along & templates me & when I question about templating regulars am told that sometime regulars need to be templated. Thought maybe they read the previous thread about blocking & believed you really had blocked me & I'm one of those bad bad editors. Anyway, sorry about running with Olivia, but had a huge deadline looming & a source that needed to be returned - so I just went. Will need help, though, putting together the final bits if you're still interested. The van der Weyden is very Christmasy and yeah elegant too - thanks for letting me steal your images so often. Do I have to beg not to be blocked? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh - just now realized you took away the template ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it back as a reminder. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hi TK, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! [4], [5], [6]...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist - Happy holidays to you too. Nice eclectic selection. I'm listening as I'm writing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Same from me, happy holidays. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And to you too! Thanks for the wintry scene ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch! I hope you're having a good day. I like the bridge ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a very nice day. The bridge is Buttonwood Covered Bridge and I hope to bring it to FAC before too long (need to write a lot yet). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

M'dear

[7]. [8]. And thanks for being such a great friend, even when i might have not desereved it. [9] the best so far tune I can give, warm in a very cold kind of way, but brilliant. Ceoil (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, for even more wiki-presents! After the disaster of the Ezra Pound FAC and its aftermath, I fully understand why you, or anyone, would stay away from me and my work. A person can only take so much. But I think it's time to start fresh - there's a new year looming, in case you hadn't noticed .... Btw - the Rogier van der Weyden's you've been working on are gorgeous and in keeping with the holidays. Beautiful work.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ach, Ezra was a shared disaster. I did push you, lets not forget. Still, worse happens at sea, and its not as bad as what myself, Liz and Ottava (free Ottava now!) went through with "The Lucy poems" -ouch. Forget that instance with Ezra, but not the article; we got Lucy there in the end, with our brass necks and hard work. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had forgotten. But I've spent much of today retrieving material from the article history for Dorothy (am lazy & thought if it's written try to find instead of rewriting) and had forgotten how much you put into that piece - lots of you in the history. Now I remember. And yes, a shared disaster. I thought I'd finish Olivia's article, having started it, and now have enough to pull something together on Dorothy - and realize that the subarticles are helpful to keep too much from being piled into the main article. Anyway, pretty done with that now and ready to move on to something else, but I realize I might never again attempt a 'big' topic, which is a little sad. I'm not particularly invested in Pound himself, but was invested in the idea of writing an encyclopedia. That idealism has been quite thoroughly blown away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the work on Dorothy when it lit up on my watchlist this evening....now that kind of expansion you don't see every day, and I've rarely seen it before, except with Johnbod a few times, an article I was watching go through a major expansion. Honestly, you say you idealism is waining; but I don't believe it, not given your consistent output. You are probably one of the most productive editors I know, and I know a few. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha - flattery will get you nowhere. And look at what just happened to Olivia! I'm out of here for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Images in Olivia Shakespear

I have removed the non-free images you uploaded for use in this article. Non-free images may only be used within the (deliberately strict) non-free content criteria, and one of the criteria is that the images cannot be replaced with free content. We have free images of all of the people of whom you uploaded pictures, and so the free images must be used in favour of the non-free ones. In any case, it is very rare that non-free pictures of people will meet non-free content criterion 8 (contextual significance) outside a single image leading the article on that person (however, in this case, as already mentioned, the lead image failed criterion 1). J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is not an image of Yeats during that particular 18 month period when he had the affair with Olivia Shakespear, nor have I had the opportunity to research whether these images were ever published. I added the FUR to be safe - unfortunately. Too bad. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What he looked like during those particular 18 months is not of significance enough to warrant the use of a non-free image- it doesn't particularly add anything to the article. As I say, if you want to decorate the article with portraits, then free ones should be used. If the images in question are free, feel free to change the license and explain why on the image pages, and then they can be used as you wish. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that a lovely Victorian woman fell in love with a tall dark Irish poet and was willing to give up her child, her financial security, and her social position for him - from my (woman's) point of view, what the guy looked like is extremely relevant. I think in the future, it would be nice to contact editors and notify them the images will be deleted rather than a wholesale pulling out of an article that was finished yesterday - on Christmas day - and today nominated to GA. Needless to say, I'm disappointed. Will now spend time researching if and when they were published. Furthermore, I removed images from Ezra Pound per image policy and an image review, yet they were all re-added by another editor using FUR, which makes little sense to me. In my view, those images warrant removal from that page as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just not practical for me to contact the uploader of every non-free image I intend to remove from an article to ask their permission, and nor is it required, especially in the case of non-free content. You received a notification for each individual image, as well as an explanation generally- that's more than many would give. I'm afraid the use of the images was straight-up unwarranted, for the reasons I explained- there's not really any discussion to be had. I will review the images in Ezra Pound now. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, just in case you've misunderstood- there's no harm at all in decorating articles with free images- you can do that all you like. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then don't be condensending in your tone. I took the same from your post above, and after I will review the images in Ezra Pound now, though, what an officious, superior...well you can guess the rest. Tone it down pls when dealing with mere editors. Please. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And now H.D.'s image is gone too - which makes me feel very bad. From an FA, no less. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your reply, ack, dont worry yourself small editor, there's not really any discussion to be had, its not within your say to really do anything, even feel bad. Leave it to the big boys, like Milburn above, with his extra buttons and rules. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, of course - forgot my editor status for a moment. Made the mistake of decorating an article, and then talking back, and then losing more images, and then feeling bad. All in a day's work of article building. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you could run for admin, but you'd have to stop talking to and walk away from your looser content friends, say we tricked you with potion or magic or something, and you know better now. I'd vote object, which would gaurentee you a landslide victory. Speaking of which, how do you spell gaurentee? Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no - all I've wanted to do here is write. So, no potions, no magic, no sidhe luring me away from the mortals, no need to vote object - and no guarantees. Still reeling in shock - an admin, me? Yikes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it better to thank effort rather than template it. Carrot rather than stick, but the way you were talked at here reminded me why Im reminded that this wiki stuff is at the end a waste of time. So fantastically versed in img scripture that you need'nt bother, love, worrying you pretty little head about men's things. Seen that dismissive attitude before? Designed to get rid of you? SV. Ceoil (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's extremely discouraging - and I'm often spoken to like that. The template on the file seems to encourage discussion but no discussion allowed. This is a photograph taken in the early 1890s and most likely free, but now gone. Adequate fair use rationale was added - where else to use an image of Olivia if not in the Olivia article? I don't mind losing the Yeats image and the Maud image, but I'm not "decorating" the Olivia article with images of Maud (and how do we know the existing images of Maud are free?) if images of Olivia are not allowed. That just makes no sense. I noticed the image of Ezra in uniform has been tagged but not taken out of the article - double standard, I think. You're right - this wiki stuff is a monumental waste of time sometimes. In the past months all I've done is clean up copyvios introduced by serial plagiarizers, create a single article that's had it's 'decorations' removed, and not much else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, what the hell are you talking about? Back off. Truthkeeper, I'm happy to explain the situation regarding non-free image use, but this confrontational "admins are evil, anyone looking out for policy is evil" nonsense is hardly helpful. I am a content person- I first looked at the article because I was considering reviewing it for good article status, but by the time I had cleaned up the image use a little, you had withdrawn it. Do you genuinely not understand why the images were removed? Take a look at the non-free content criteria. If you're still unsure, or have any questions, I'd be happy to help explain it... I've been completely civil in this entire discussion, why there is such hate pointed at me is completely beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some background: the image policy, in my view, has been inconsistent. User:Elcobbola reviewed the images for Ezra Pound and based on his review File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg and File:DorothyPound.jpg were removed from the page. These were later re-added and here in this conversation I questioned the additions, to be told it was fine to add them and another editor wrote FURs for them. Based on that action, I believed it be would fine to add images to Olivia Shakespear using a fair use rationale. So, I was more than a bit surprised to see the images disappear yesterday, yet those covered by fair use stay in Ezra Pound - it does seem like a double standard, or at the least inconsistent. The only free image of Olivia Shakespear is File:Olivia Shakespear.png but it faces the wrong direction and I wanted, under fair use, to use a second image. If that's impossible, fine. But, the comment about 'decorating' articles was a bit bitey in my view - and I'm not completely a neophyte here. It would have been better to start the GA review and question the images there rather than pulling them. I might find others that are free or determine if these are free, because I honestly am not sure. I'm not a big fan of the review process at this point anyway - and if you note what I wrote above, I have spent considerable volunteer time restructuring an FA and GAs written by a serial plagiarist. When I write an article about a woman who interests me - well , see what happens. So, yeah, I do think maybe something's rotten in Denmark. Also, Ceoil and I are wiki friends; we moan. That's okay to do. Public moaning is always better than backchanneling in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think it would have been nice to include me in on the discussion re File:DorothyPound.jpg since I uploaded, I worked with Elcobbola to establish the license which was then changed. According to Elcobbola that image can only be used as fair use in Dorothy Shakespear and not in Ezra Pound. As I said above - inconsistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't all be in every place at every time- Wikipedia is a work in progress. Yes, I have no doubt that there are images used in ways that they should not be, images removed when they are fine policy-wise, editors who do not understand policy or make a mistake, and so on. So, yes, there will seem to be in inconsistent application of policy, but the policy itself remains the same. Concerning "The only free image of Olivia Shakespear is File:Olivia Shakespear.png but it faces the wrong direction and I wanted, under fair use, to use a second image"- what you're saying is that the free image was not aesthetically pleasing, and so you wanted to use a non-free one; as such, I still feel my use of the term "decorating" was accurate. As for public moaning, yes, that's fine; public abuse is not... You're welcome to take part in any discussion you want; I removed the notification from your talk page because I got the impression you weren't interested. I clearly misinterpretted. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought I should follow MoS for images. But at any rate, I've found others to replace - which, given Yeats' importance, I thought I would, but took a little time. I've taken the liberty to censor some of Ceoil's comments, but I have to say some of it is spot on. This is not the first time I've had an admin come to my page to chastise rather than to discuss - I think there's a difference and we all need to understand that to move forward. I apologize for removing the first three notifications, but thought that was allowed if they've been seen. I'm happy to put them back. If a discussion is involved, of course I would want the link. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin, could you possibly get over that? Does it really matter? Not once in this discussion has the fact that I happen to have the ability to delete pages been relevant, apart from making me a target of abuse. Yes, I came here to tell you I had removed some images and why I had done so, and yes, I'm afraid my removal was inline with our policy on the subject. What have I done that makes me the enemy here? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding. I don't have anything against admins per se - and Ceoil and I were joking in the conversation above. I do have issues with the apparent inconsistent adherence to image policy (I'm still confused why the Dorothy image hasn't been removed from Ezra Pound, for instance), and I still think it would have been more effective to pick up the review and discuss the images there, as is done in FAC. You're only the enemy in the sense that I worked hard on an article and reacted badly to having the images removed, for which I apologize. I'm very thin skinned (not good for a wikipedia editor!) and my friend Ceoil got a little hot-headed in my defense. But no harm done. Let's leave it behind us, shall we? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I can understand that. I did remove the image (or was just about to) but added it back when I saw it had both a PD and a NFC tag- there's a discussion about whether the image is actually free elsewhere. That's why it hasn't been removed yet. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW - Elcobbola was very clear not to use either the Dorothy image or the Pound in uniform image - so it might help to get his input, if necessary. Really my frustration stems from receiving different explanations - but you and Elcobbola seem to agree, so that's nice to see. As you know, finding images and getting licenses is time consuming. I will send an email asking for copyright information to the author of the book from which I took the Olivia Shakespear image, but doubt I'll get a response over the holidays. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas present

Another  Confirmed sock of ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs):

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

–MuZemike 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear - that's a lot of contributions and a lot of pages to check. So much for the IP block. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But luckily seem all to be minor edits. Very strange. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the break

I hope you enjoy the break and come back soon! We can always use your insightful contributions! Sadads (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads - I'll be back. I'm busy workwise in the next few weeks and am spinning my wheels here anyway - so decided to step back for a while. TK88 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels

As you are active in editing NovelsWikiProject-related articles, I am inviting you to participate in a small improvement drive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration. I hope you are able to participate. maclean (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a number of fiction articles at the moment; will try to help as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Potter pix

Just wanted to let you know that I am working my through the Beatrix Potter books, uploading images that had been deleted before per WP:BAN. I started with Peter Rabbit and working my way forward chronologically - am done with Two Bad Mice and will work on Mrs. Tiggy Winkle next, probably tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Very nice looking. The "Two Bad Mice" page is frighteningly long - I'd not looked at it before, but it looks as though it will need a good scrub. I had to return all the books and won't have the opportunity to check them out again until some time next week; when I have sources again I'll follow behind you cleaning the text. My local bookstore has the Lear biography which I'm thinking I'll have to buy so as not to have so many library fines. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One of my covered bridge articles will be today's featured article in about 6.5 hours, so I am frantically trying to clean it up for its day in the sun (darn link rot). SO I may not get to uploading any more Potter pictures today. Anyway, I would be glad to help with scrubbing Potter articles as I am able. Enjoy your break, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Agree on the length issues. I think most of the stuff on her fiancee (in Two Bad Mice) could be delegated to his article per WP:Summary style. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your TFA - uploading the images will wait. I haven't looked at Norman Warne's article yet - had a look at the one for the publishing company and shuddered simply because it needs so much work - they were quite important in the development of children's books (as I learned when I worked on Edmund Evans) not only for the publication of the Potter books. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle has all the pictures back except the first edition cover of Little Black Sambo, which there is not room for and seems superfluous. It's another longish one. The Norman Warne article is quite short - probably not as long as the section in Two Bad Mice. When you get a chance, I commented on Miss Moppet's talk page. TFA was not too bad - relatively little vandalism and over 32,000 page views. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I only had a quick chance to peek at your bridge article yesterday, but it looks interesting. Last summer I visited a place with one that had been moved which I found to be rather interesting - they're built well enough to survive a move. I'll be playing catch up for a week of or two, but have Carpenter's book and will post the kitten information to the relevant pages. Glanced at Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and see work that needs to be done there - so much of it is repetition and should be moved to the Beatrix Potter bio and as you mention to the Norman Warne page. I'd also like to research the Warne brothers - presumably there's quite a bit more to add to those articles than the Beatrix Potter relationship. Responded at Miss Moppet - completely missed the comment, thanks for nudging me. 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The kitten information is not in Carpenter, so now I'll have to remember where I read it - probably in the Lear bio. Carpenter does have some good stuff though, so I'll start adding his information to the articles and then think about how to trim the redundant pieces. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the other character appearances just now, thanks. The covered bridge in the Holiday Greetings picture floated off its abutments in an 1889 flood and settled intact a short distance downstream. They moved it back to its original location after (that's the DYK hook I have in mind if I can ever get the article expanded). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started adding comments to the talkpage of The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle; the article needs a complete reorganization, which I've started. So far I'm finding the same pattern of close-paraphrasing as before. I might just start hacking out pieces of it - so you may want to watch & comment as I go along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will add it to my watch list, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Important pong

Incoming. I suggest you respond or face, well, I shudder to think what. Greek stuff, medieval stuff, wiki style;). Ceoil 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - sounds scary. So scary in fact my page crashed. I guess I'll have to respond. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to do so. The page crash is only the beginnings of My Pain. Thats the gentle, nudging stuff. Did I not warn you? Am I not Ceoil? Ceoil 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ceoil - you did warn me. Gentle & nudging is fine, but taking down my page - really! If that's only the beginning, don't want to know how bad your pain can be. Be nice to me - no warnings, no blocks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as you recognise;. Got reply and thanks. Here's a trick, how many other song lyrics can you spot in this, and guess this is what ye lith people mean about opposite.[10]. Take care. Ceoil 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't access wiki after you promised pain - so now have great respect for Your Pain. Missed the trick too, oh god, now what will you do? Tag? Template? Block? Yikes! In all seriousness - am green with envy watching you build beautiful articles while I'm in a spinning-my-wheels rut. Need to start working on something useful again. Or maybe it's the eye-candy that makes me jealous - none of that in lit articles. By the way, was working on a short story article about a witches sabbath and then switched over to read your Goya's witches sabbath (was thinking about stealing an image to decorate the page) and wondered if you still wanted help? I did promise to help when you're ready to push and it's looking very close.... let me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops - needed a break from bunny rabbits and such and took a run at Goya that seemed to need a bit of reorg - if I've ruined it, well that's what you get for giving me pain ... let it sit overnight and I'll re-read tomorrow to see if it seems better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Goya, it was v difficult to source, and I just threw it down as I went along, never though it through on an overall basis. The re-gig today helped a lot in straightening it out. I read Olivia during the week on a lunch break and was surprised its not being put to review. Ceoil 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I did very little to Goya, but glad it helped. I took Olivia down from GAN the first time when the images were taken out, the second time because I was traveling. It's ready to be listed again - finally. Thanks for reminding me. You spent your lunchtime reading Olivia? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It did help quite a bit. Yeah Olivia is an easy enjoyable read; its romantic and sad, and I know the story from scraps, was great to see it collected like this. Really enjoyed. One other small thing (cough), The Magdalen Reading will likely be at FAC in a few weeks, but I'm stuck on the iconography (your ward article will take care of the fragement and descp. sections and I am close to finding a few of the other sources). You posted a link on the talk about women reading in early Netherlandish art, and remember you had bits and pieces in one of the sandboxes, at one stage on a female saint writing. Ring any bells? Ceoil 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't remember what I did with it. My research project for the night. Glad you liked Olivia and very very happy that Magdalen will be going to FAC - it's a beautiful painting and a FAC worthy page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Which begs the question...what for Olivia? Its more or less finished and very strong. Ceoil 03:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's finished. I don't think Olivia is terribly important in the grand scope to things and probably not worth spending much more time with - but I'll list the page for GA review as soon as I'm done, um, researching women reading and stuff .... maybe tomorrow. What can I say - I don't like reviews ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I read your iconography sect in your sandbox during the week - v good and would appreciate if you could copy across. Ceoil 23:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That was only a draft, playing around with what I could find, but if you think it's good enough I'll copy it. Do you want the rest of iconography - the hair & the jar of tears? If so, I have information but haven't added it yet - got sidetracked. It will need tweaking to integrate our writing styles, I think. But that can be done in mainspace. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Add into the mainspace, and we can tweak as we go. Ceoil 00:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sound. Things I think: She should be called Olivia throughout, and her work should not be scattered across the article but bunched. But other than that Its a fine page, very readable, romantic. Ceoil 05:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you're not the reviewer. I like the works unbunched too & need to pull the commented out stuff from the text. Olivia is problematic - I think she should be called Olivia, the biographies refer to her as Olivia or Olivia Shakespear and never only as Shakespear, but I do think there is a convention somewhere, prob. in MoS, about it. Will dig around to see what I can find. Actually, will look at H.D. page, b/c I don't think she's referred to as Doolittle. Thanks for the feedback. I have some MM stuff for you but threw the links into my sandbox before my eyes went blurry last night and need to sort them out first. Will get back to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Mary Reading - have a look at this [11] page 215. I think this is the best description of the iconography I can find but it refers to Rogier's other Magdalen. I don't know how to incorporate this - do a straight comparison? I'll play around with it later & see where I get. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thought you might be interested....

Yes, I had seen that. Here is another piece of the puzzle. I think his/her comments are best ignored even though they may hold up my FA and your GA. If I were you I would somehow try to request a new reviewer. His comments are totally unfair.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done it here but no response. I had seen the other diff on your review. This is extremely unfortunate, not only because of the reviewing aspect of it; the incivility is unacceptable in my view, yet because it's not blatant profanity, no one much cares. That's the problem with this place sometimes - harmless profanity if often made to be more than it's worth and real incivility is overlooked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Very unfortunate. It's a disgruntled editor who notes on the userpage of an alternate account that he disagrees with the whole review process, seems he has set out to mock and disrupt it. Don't reply to this if you don't want to, he's probably watching your every move and plans to hold anything bad you say about him against you and thus, your GAN.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All I'll say is that the 88 in my user name does not at all represent my birthdate. Sometimes assumptions are made that are quite incorrect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You got that right Truthkeeper. Which GAN are we talking about? Sometimes it's better just to let a GAN fail and then either go to GAR or nominate it again for another reviewer to look at. As you say, short of blatant profanity nothing can be done. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, I've just seen it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about popping to ask your opinion but, well, you'll see why I haven't. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really looking like a very productive or congenial situation. On the odd occasion that I've disagreed with a GA reviewer I've encouraged them to fail the article quickly rather than waste any more effort on it. Then you can go either to GAR or GAN and make a fresh start with someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the some of the changes, but not too pleased about the more recent changes. I asked for a quickfail yesterday and again today, but it doesn't seem to be happening. At this point I'm at a loss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit in colons and out section break) It's one thing to be tough when you know what you are doing, but I don't get the sense that fellow is a real professional. Would be very surprised if a NYT or Time editor said that images have to alternate. That is a very in wiki attitude. If you get failed, would just ask for a re-review. I think it's reasonable to do so. If the fellow comes up with something reasonable, by all means implement it (and I can tell from your comments you are doing that). But I also would not take the article in a direction that is negative based on his input.TCO (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm not entirely sure about the 800 words that I trimmed, but it's always good to give any piece of writing a good trimming and see where it ends up. It's easily retrieved from history if I decide to put it back. I'm not worried about being failed - I'm not much of a write-for-a-prize sort of person and have plenty of decent articles that I haven't and may never take to review. What upsets me is the general rudeness - it's simply not necessary & in my view a big problem around here. Writers can either be encouraged or denigrated and it's unfortunate that this great writing experiment on the internet supports an attitude of denigration toward writers. When a writer receives supportive, encouraging, and useful feedback it's a joy, which I've had the pleasure of experiencing with other articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's completely unneeded. I'm an advocate of high standards, good writing, and even of being flippant or bit high school football coach at times. But nothing that guy is doing is helping people. And he's a jerk without counteracting benefit. He's not even that astute in his crits. Crap like that makes me really wonder about open review and lack of professional editors (points that ironically the fellow has on his little agenda). Yeah, you know what's what and seem self-actualized outside of this little forum of a website.TCO (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with anything

But this is nice [12], melancholy and affecting. No clue what its about though. Its an Elvis Costello song sung by Robert Wyatt, so you have two levels of obtuseness there. Ceoil 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Two levels of obtuseness - exactly what I need at the moment. If I figure it out, I'll be sure to clue you in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Was multitasking - only now listened to it. Yes, totally obtuse. Nice, but ???? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is about as direct as you can get and has a lovely glow of nostelgia about it, and is apt for the night that is in it, miserable reviewers and all. [13]. I think that track more than any twighs at my heart and thinks 'I wish it was the 80s again. Sad yeah. Ceoil 03:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the first one and don't think it's actually all that obtuse at all. The other has to wait for me to get it a little later - unfortunately still working. That's what I get for being flat on my back sick for most of the week. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're flat on your back and still working? Do you have any idea how many prurient images that injects into the mind of a randy teenager someone like myself, unaccustomed to such openness? Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm so sad. Jesus, men in general or so sad. All of us. And every 8 seconds. Ceoil 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh christ - go to sleep. Both of you. It's all that purple prose - the beauty parlour stuff. I'm practicing it because it pays. Gotta be better than having people bash you for writing for free. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what blows me away. I'm just used to way more cordiality and an effor to get things done in the work world. Here you have volunteers and it's basically seen as an expectation that the process should be confrontational and disruptive. And it's definitely not a question of "can you take it", but why? I mean....everyone is a badass on the Internet, right? TCO (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC):

That's exactly what it's about - everybody is a badass on the internet. It's okay to be rude because you don't have to look the person in the eye. But, that said, I think we all know people exist who get a kick out of criticizing writing - teachers and professors particularly. Once, when I was in grad. school, I ran into a professor in the library a few days before oral exams; he glowered at me and asked, "so is the lamb ready for the slaughter?" Some people just really enjoy the slaughter. One thing though - when I'm not in the middle of building articles (have quite a few going at the moment), I need to become more active in the review process. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jules Verne

I was wondering if you'd be interested in cleaning up Jules Verne?Smallman12q (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallman - I'll add it to my watchlist & have a look. Am a little stacked up at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback again

Again, not template this time, Sadads (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And again, Sadads (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thought on my talk page, Sadads (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia's GA review

I'm done there now, just added a few closing issues, so I'll put the review on hold. You seem to have addressed most of the stuff already anyway. I'm sorry to have raised the image questions after seeing a certain section above, but it had to be done. Just let me know when you've finished. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I addressed the images. Florence Farr can removed, I've uploaded another of Maud that's free, and I have to fix the license for Olivia. It was published in 1897. All I have to do is add the dates to the sources. You are very good at this and have a very keen eyes. Thanks so much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bad at it, even if I say so myself. ;-) I've just had a look through the first GA review to see if there's anything relevant there I might have missed, but I'm convinced that there isn't. The writing style seems fine to me, and perfectly in keeping with the subject, so no criticism of "florid" prose from me. It's a nice article, you ought to be pleased with it. I had a quick look through W. B. Yeats' article, but I found no mention of Olivia in there strangely. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One sentence she gets in the WB page. TK while is all fresh in your mind I would think she at least deserves a para. Ceoil 23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite good. Not at all a D grade reviewer. I think there's a single sentence in the Yeats article, but there's still quite a lot to add re this love affair because it showed up in Yeats' poetry which is probably presented best in individual pages about the poems or volumes of poetry. Another project to work on .... Btw - thank you. I am pleased with this. Have requested an image review, so will see what comes of that, and will finish the final details. Post ec: sure Ceoil - I see two requests from you on my page. Hard taskmaster! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(butting in again)...yeah I'm a total bastard. Get over it and just do as I say; less griping please, hmm?. Ceoil 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

hmm - so you think Yeats needs an Olivia para do you? Hadn't thought of that. How could you have left out Olivia? hmmm ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there. Ceoil 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rogier addition works v well, I'll be tweaking only for about a month or so until I get the big campbell book, but can see it shaping up. My tempatation is go to back to Goya. SPA, yeah almost, but whadda you gonna do. Ceoil 03:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good, glad you liked it. Honestly, it was an enormous amount of information to distill & wasn't coming together very well at first. I'm fairly pleased with it now though. Go back to Goya and let MM sit. I might do some gnomish work there & then onto to something else. Am trying to decide Olivia's future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I did notice the effort and it is apprecitated. I'd advise you on Olivia if I was interested in selling a road to hell I sold about six months ago. MF might be a better cheezy salesman this go around. Ceoil 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a different time, and a different article, so I wouldn't give it much thought. That said, there was the purple prose issue here, and the images, of course, are always a problem. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah images with the early modernists. They are on the edge of free use in terms of age, and its fustrating not to be able to use so much as the pic reveal so much. more than words, as it were. Ceoil 10:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably remove them today to get through the GA. If I go for FAC, I'll spend some time digging to see whether they were published or the photographers are identified - which takes time. It is very frustrating. One of the nice things about working on Hemingway articles is that all the Hemingway photographs were released into the public domain - spoiled me image wise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I found J Milburn to be fairly sound if you get talking to him, ask him for advice and that way , at least, you wont get attached to an image you cant keep. But is a tough business with the period. Ceoil 15:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I left him a message yesterday, so we'll see what happens. I wasn't very nice - so understand if he ignores the request. The images I was somewhat attached to, the others of Olivia and Yeats, are gone, so nothing to be done about that. I can live without Florence Farr and Maud. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Iconography

Very nice work, again. Can you do the honours and copy across. & Ta. Ceoil 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will. Do you want only authors in ref tags and the full citation in the sources? If so, I'll make those fixes after copying over. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, and may need tweaking too ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The refs definitely need consistent formatting. Am moving out of the text, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. I know of you through Ceoil and while I'm not much of an editor any more (see circa 2007-2009 for my heyday?), I empathize with your frustrations re the various content debates that focus on the wrong things. I have quit WP many times out of similar frustration, but since I don't care any more, there's nothing to quit. :-) Anyway, just saying hello formally as I sometimes edit Ceoil's articles, as of course do you. Oh yeah, and the original point of my writing was that I admire the work you've done here. Riggr Mortis (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice of you. You've went through Edmund Evans if I'm not mistaken. I think getting to point of not caring is a good place to be. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Shakespear images

Looking at the three you mentioned specifically (I will take a look at the article more generally if I get a chance). File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png seems ok (though not perfect), as the chances of the author having lived another 57 years after taking the picture (if my maths is right) are slim to none, but any more author/publication information would be nice, especially if the article is aimed at FAC. The other two are more problematic; sourcing, date, publication history and author could do with tightening on File:FlorenceFarrFace.jpg, and File:Maudgonne.jpg lacks a source altogether, despite the claim it was published in the US nearly 90 years ago. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you have a look at these as well File:Maud Gonne.jpg, and File:Maud Gonne.png. I can live without Florence Farr and will see what I can do to determine photographer for Olivia Tucker. I've removed them from the article for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Maud Gonne.jpg could do with a death date. If you can't find one and you want to be certain, upload it locally with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and one of {{KeepLocal}} / {{NoCommons}} / {{Do not move to Commons}}. File:Maud Gonne.png again is probably OK, but without more author/source information, it's hard to be certain. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like File:Maud Gonne.jpg was published in 1896 & the image was taken from the book. I don't update commons files, but maybe that should be changed. I'm assuming it's okay to use. I think I'll avoid the probably okay one of Maud and use the probably okay of Olivia since the article is about her.. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia

Is GA! I'm delighted and proud for you. Well done, espically considering the hard road. Ceoil 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this wasn't too hard - the article essentially wrote itself. I was thinking the other day, that we bounced around the idea of an Olivia stub in the summer, when it was still a red-link. I never really expected it to develop as much as it did - funny how things sometimes take on a life of their own. Review wise, I hope I've turned a corner. Am feeling much better now about that process. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear. That was a bad run, too times people projected their own ill motives on you, but thats the internet for you. All sorts. Ceoil 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, all sorts. Bad and good. My fingers are itching to put back the lead in Olivia, but think I'll wait ... and maybe my fingers will stop itching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let User:56tyvfg88yju get under your skin, which is all he's trying to do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that inaccuracies are being introduced and it's a pain to fix. Also, I want to use the talkpage as a place to document the research. It's not as though I pull this stuff out of thin air and make it up, writing purple prose, as I go along. Thank you btw for tending the article earlier today. I still haven't had a chance to go through all the of history. Also I noted that you posted over on the Potter article (but haven't made my way that far down the watchlist yet), thanks for that as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Potter stuff was just about something I thought we'd resolved a while ago; the book is called Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle but the character is called Mrs. Tiggy-winkle. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's my mistake. Ruhrfisch and I have been scrubbing, which involved a fair bit of work. We were hoping you'd look over it again when we're done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone really welcomes me looking over their articles any more than they'd welcome a visit from the Angel of Death. Still, even the Angel of Death has a job to do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheery tonight, huh? You are very good at details; I'm not. I failed miserably as a computer programmer for that very reason, but a database designer, thinking in meta issues and structure - that I can do (or rather did, once upon a time). I've had to completely restructure and mostly rewrite that page and Ruhrfisch and I thought, as the GA reviewer, you should have a look at it again. Or, I suppose we could take it to GAR, but I think he'd agree that we'd prefer not to take that route. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always found computer programming to be rather easy, almost not a job at all. Database design equally easy; tedious, but easy ... but enough of me. Why are you considering a GAR at all? Which of the GA criteria do you think the article might not meet? Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After we scrubbed The Story of Miss Moppet we invited the FA reviewers to have another look, because of the changes. We thought we should do the same for TW - but maybe it's not as important since it's not an FA. The article has changed quite a lot though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on the article and I've got no concerns. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good. I didn't know whether you still had it watched. Won't worry about it then. We're almost finished with that one I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Active users sought

Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A heads up

I just wanted to give you a heads up that User:Veldin963 is at it again, literally hours after his block was lifted for sockpuppeting to try and change the pixel size on Haddon Township High School. You were involved in the ANI discussion about the pixel size and I thought I should keep you in tune with the situation, in case I have to take Veldin to another ANI (with the topic being a possible long-term block for disruptive editing). Anywho, keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail

You have new messages

Hello, Victoriaearle. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Smallman12q (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Looks like an interesting article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't responded (via email please). CheersSmallman12q (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GAN

I hope you looked through your reviewer's editing history and saw that he has been on the site for less then a month and a half. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. If you look a few threads above here you'll see that it may be an alternate account. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department

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

--Moni3 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's absence

Perhaps it was this chat that did it [14]. Our boy has never been completely comfortable with respectability. I've already agreed to tell a fellow editor if I hear from him--I'll keep you posted, too, and hope you'll do the same. Best, JNW (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's gone radio silent - I have sent email but no responses. I did think it might be the dreaded word admin, but who knows. If he's reading this, at least he should know he has friends here who care & would hate to see him go. I feel bad about this because he's so good at giving of himself and cheering up the rest of us when we're down, pulling us back from the brink, but when he's down he shuts himself off. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

His friends are concerned...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...concerned and worried. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry [15]. JNW (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that this morning before work. Now we can stop scratching our heads wondering what's been said that might make him go away. We forget how much we rely on internet access. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here be Dragons

FYI, I am reading Here be Dragons right now, and I am quite enjoying it. A very good book, and it's a shame that more scholars/cirtics haven't treated her other books it would be worth expanding them, just because of the quality of the fiction. The only thing is, she has a tendency to switch between perspectives without warning, which is mildly irritating, but good book and thank you for the recommendation, Sadads (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good series, but hard to find any sources. I'd forgotten about the shifting perspective - that did annoy me at the beginning, but she does that in all her books and I got used to it. In this series I like the last one the best. Enjoy - you have a bit of reading ahead of you if you're to read the entire series - and then there's a second series she finished last year. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3rd Opinion at Template talk:Dale Brown

Could I get a third opinion please? Sadads (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it. Give me a moment. There are lots of templates with red links, just need to poke around a bit. That said, don't forget that 3r is a bright line - I've learned that myself on Hemingway a few times. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I solved that one through apology, but thanks, Sadads (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Hi! Do you have time for a little copy edit? There is a plan to present featured lists on the wikipedia main page. For this a little blurb is required to advertise the respective lists. Would be great if you could improve this blurb. Rules are: about 1000 characters (should be more or less ok, I could remove the small statistics at the end of the blurb if necessary) and as far as I understand it should not mention "list". bamse (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bamse - I saw that they were doing this, which I think is a wonderful idea. I won't get to it immediately, but hopefully tonight can start picking at it - the first para needs a little work, I think. I need to have a look at the others too, to see what The Rambling Man wants. Do I edit the actual blurb you linked, or do you have it elsewhere? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to edit the actual blurb (in The Rambling Man's user space). Let me know if you have any questions on content (NT,...). For technical questions concerning blurb stuff The Rambling Man is the man to ask. bamse (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want quite so much detail regarding the national treasures in the first paragraph, or would you mind if it were trimmed a bit? I think the blurb for Bodley's Librarian is a good example. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In my sandbox is a new blurb at approximately the correct size. Have a look and let me know what you think of the concept - it includes ideas from the entire lead. If you like it, I'll have another go to polish. Also, if this is going on the main page, I'll be swinging through the list at some point to polish the prose - but let's worry about the blurb first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Reads much more interesting than my poor attempt. Just a bit of nit-picking:

• The first "National Treasure" should be without the " and probably an s should be added.
• There is a slight break in the text at "...calligraphy. Writing was ...". Not sure if that's a problem or if anything could be done about it.
• "From Korea in the 6th century...", might have been 5th century already.
• Do you think it worthwhile (and possible) to stress that the Chinese imports from 2000 years ago were not perceived (by the Japanese) as writing while the later Korean imports were perceived as written texts? bamse (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed it all. I added 'lettering' for the artefacts, though I don't know if that's the correct term. It needed a para break after calligraphy, which is how I'd originally written, but was experimenting with a single para. I've made some punctuation fixes too. It's very very close on size, so I don't think much more can be done, except changing the 'lettering' if that's wrong. Feel free to copy out and swap out at The Rambling Man's subpage whenever you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I moved it to The Rambling Man's subpage. bamse (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Keep me up to date; if you know when it's scheduled to run I'll tidy a bit. I'm fairly busy these days and mainly editing on weekends, but I do check in. I'm very happy they're doing this and giving credit to some of these nice lists. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hi Truthkeeper, hope your health is a little better now. I have been dealing with some crazy drama in my personal life, so while I am going to be venturing back to WP a little, I am avoiding Catholic Church at all costs for now. Any more drama and my poor little brain might explode (or I'll turn totally crazy and start carving people up with knives ;))! Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy back at you. I'm better, thankfully, & thanks for asking. I'd unwatched the CC article for months and when I had a look at it recently the lead had shrunk down to nothing. So, after posting that I would be reinstating I waited a week and reinstated. Now it's crazy. I'm not getting into it - I don't think that page can ever get much better than it is at the moment. The clean-up we did in the spring/summer was useful and probably the most improvement we can expect - unless a small and dedicated group of editors takes it into a sandbox and rewrites it completely. But even then it would be torn to shreds when copied into main space. I'm convinced now that Wikipedia is not good at these kinds of big topics. Glad you're back and hope the real life drama isn't too stressful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pong

Incoming. Howdy. Ceoil 21:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy to you too. Got it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan (writings: others)

Hi! I split the "writings" list in two: 1, 2 and am getting one closer to FL standards. What is missing is the lead which I am going to rewrite (in a similar short way as this lists's lead) and the statistics section (including map). If you wish you can start copy-editing the subsections under "Treasures" (everything from "Buddhist writings" to "others"). I am not planning to touch those anymore unless required. bamse (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done adding the lead, statistics section, etc. Up to copy-editing the list is ready for FLC. As usual, take your time and let me know if you have any questions/suggestions/comments. Thanks! bamse (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I should have time to start on it this weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! bamse (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking at it now. Very interesting pieces of writing. Nice work, as usual. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked recent edits (thanks!) and everything looks fine. Just one comment concerning [16]: This sentence refers to the previous sentence in particular to "Dharma". Basically the message should be "...Dharma" + "ink trace" = "trace of the enlightened mind". Does this make sense? As for your inline question, it does not matter for me whether it is singular or plural. bamse (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to break for a while. Yeah, I know it refers to the previous sentence and may be fine as you had it written, but I might try combining the two sentences as well. I wasn't crazy about the " = "ink trace", but will revert for now and come back to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think your version was fine. Just wanted to point out this relationship which possibly could be made more clear (than either of our versions). bamse (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Initially I thought it needed clarification - it's an interesting concept, that the calligraphy is a manifestation of the spiritual state of the mind, but in fact I think the more simply it's stated the better. I'll leave it as is for now and come back to it after working my way through the rest. I am having trouble loading, so I'm focusing only on the simplest issues for now, so I can work on entire sections, and then I'll come back through and work out the few problem sentences. Honestly, I was just thinking how much work you've put into this, and how interesting it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly I left these "writings" lists for the very last since I thought that they'd be the most boring. Don't seem boring at all anymore after learning about them. bamse (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all boring, and amazing that such fragile and beautiful pieces have survived. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked, and liked all of your edits. Will go to sleep now (back tomorrow). I moved one sentence in the sutra section since to me it makes more sense at the new position. Feel free to revert if you think it is better in the original place. bamse (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's where it should be. I think I had it there, but either changed it back or it got moved in the reversions. I'm taking a break too - want to think about some of the sentences. Will be back at it tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked all edits up to now. I like them, also the new sentence after this edit. Would it be possible to somehow mention in the same sentence that the Daihannya and Lotus Sutra were those that were copied/produced most during that time? bamse (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it slightly. Have been through twice and think it's good to go. I haven't checked the text in the tables, but scrolling through noticed a few instances of 'national treasure' vs. 'National Treasure' that should probably be fixed. I'll be around somewhat tonight and tomorrow and then not much at all for the next few weeks, (the reason I wanted to get this finished), so let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read through it once more and it looks perfect! Thanks a lot! Capitalized the remaining NT. I won't have much time in the next few weeks either, so will postpone the FLC a bit. Would be great if you could leave a note on my talk page, when you got some time for fixing language issues in an FLC. Possibly the "books" question will have been resolved by then. Thanks again, great job as usual! bamse (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll be checking in but won't really have time to edit. Am very busy time-wise from Monday until about the 20th, but I'll let you know when I'm back to active editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

National Treasure "books"

I have a question on the other writings list. So far I referred to its content as "books". However in the physical sense it contains not only books but also scrolls. So I was wondering if you know a more appropriate word or if you think that "book" is fine. The content of the list is: poetry collections, epics/narratives, histories/chronicles, biographies, encyclopedias, law "books", dictionaries, ... bamse (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this - I won't be back for a few hours, and I'll give it some thought. Obviously scrolls are not books, but don't know what other title to use. What do the sources say? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources say that the article contains washo (和書) and kanseki (漢籍). I will provide a translation later today. Another thought: in the list there is for instance Book of Han, where "book" is used independent of the medium (scroll/bound book/...) AFAIK. bamse (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation (according to different dictionaries and wikipedia) of kanseki:

1. Chinese books; books written by Chinese people in Chinese style (all kanji); a book written in Chinese
2. a Chinese book, a book (written) in Chinese; 〔general term〕the Chinese classics
3. (wikipedia): kanseki is a term complementary to washo; Chinese books written entirely in kanji; generally includes Buddhist scriptures (sutras); books on Confucianism play a leading role in kanseki; limited to books

bamse (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation of washo:

1. Japanese books; also books written in Japanese language; as opposed to western books; book bound in Japanese style
2. Japanese books that are none of: Chinese books/classics (kanseki), Buddhist scriptures/sutras, books from China and western books; books written in Japanese language;

So, these sources call them books (書物). bamse (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll also ask the wikiproject Japan for help with this question. bamse (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the definitions. I think the title is probably fine - certainly when I think of something such as the Tale of the Genji, I think book. But checking with wikiproject Japan is a good idea. I'd thought maybe you could use literature as an alternative title, but not sure all the entries can be categorized as literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Will see what the wikiproject says. I was also considering to split the two lists differently, maybe as Buddhist/non-Buddhist or such (would not be 50:50 in that case since there are many more non-Buddhist NT). bamse (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The literal translation of 書物/shomotu is "written things". The ja word includes both books and scrolls. If English does not have an equivalent word, how about to use "books and scrolls"? Oda Mari (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The problem is however how to separate (in words) the content of these two lists: 1, List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: books). Presently I used "books" and "rest/others". Using "books and scrolls" to refer to this list does not really work, since also the other list consists of books and scrolls (plus hanging scrolls). How do you like the idea of splitting the writings into Buddhist/non-Buddhist? That would be an 83 (Buddhist) to 140 (non-Buddhist) split. bamse (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've honestly only glanced briefly at this list but a few ideas off the top of my head. Perhaps the lists should be renamed to remove 'writings' and replace with "books and scrolls" and then do a Buddist/non-Buddhist split. So then you'd have List of National Treasures of Japan (Books and scrolls: Buddhist writings) and List of National Treasures of Japan (Books and scrolls: non-Buddhist writings) or something like that. Of course that might involve some reworking of the texts ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an idea. My only issue is that the non-Buddhist list would be longish (140 entries). Text reworking would be minimal and mainly involve some numbers in the lead and statistics sections. Maybe I'll put up something like it in userspace to see what it would look. bamse (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually an enormous topic covering thousands of years of Chinese/Japanese literature. Maybe three lists are necessary: Buddhist writings, Classical Literature, and Others. If you did that, I'd suggest putting poetry and classical literature into one list, and then everything else into the list of "Others". Just a thought. I do think 140 entries is too many - I was having trouble loading the table with the 83 entries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll need some time to think about it. Indeed 140 is a lot, but comparable to this and this list. bamse (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are saved! According to the book article, books can be scrolls! Unless there are objections, I would therefore stay with the present situation. Thanks for the feedback. bamse (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections, I think that's fine. And we shouldn't have forgotten to have looked that article in the first place! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian Camp

The article Indian Camp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Indian Camp for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied there. Looked it over when I saw you were reviewing and noted that Hadley wasn't linked or explained. I've fixed it. Thanks, by the way, for reviewing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway Nobel Speech

Hi Truthkeeper88- The audio fragment is a from a well-known (but minimally documented) set of recordings that Hemingway made with a portable wire-recorder in his home. Most of these recordings were apparently done in Cuba, and several show him to be deep into the bottle-- although amusing and informative nonetheless. The ones that have been circulating for the past two decades come from a Caedmon Audio cassette/CD release called "Ernest Hemingway Reads Ernest Hemingway" (ISBN-13: 978-0898459586), and the copyright implies the rights are held by the Hemingway Estate (although truly, they provide almost no substantive information in the notes). I suppose I could add the track number (there of course is no page number)to flesh out the reference. The main point here, which I tried to clarify in my caption note (apparently not successfully) is that although Hemingway was not in Stockholm, this is the speech he prepared, and was read for him by U.S. Ambassador to Sweden John C. Cabot. LATER, apparently in December 1954, according to Caedmon, he recorded the speech at home with the wire-recorder. I added the fragment to the Wikipedia page just to give a flavor of Hemingway's speaking voice, which I find always adds another dimension to our understanding of an individual-- I'm thinking of young students who may working on a report, or just in curiosity about such a huge literary figure. Does that answer your concern? Seeker56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker56 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is this: if the estate holds copyright, can we use the fragment? Anything that hasn't been donated to the JFK Library is clearly held by John and Patrick Hemingway (or their heirs), and I don't know enough about copyright re: ogg files. Because this is a featured article, it's been through a image review, and I don't want to add anything that infringes on copyright. If this speech is included in the NobelPrize.org site I'd feel more comfortable using it, but am not all that comfortable using copyrighted material. The Hemingway estate is very protective about their copyrights. Also, we need a secondary source explaining the circumstances of the recording. If you could get that to me, and we can clear up the copyright issue, then I'm not against adding it. Oh, btw if you end your posts with four tildes ~~~~ your sig will appear automatically. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW - am copying this to the Ernest Hemingway talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use generally allows 0:30 or less, and this is 0:17. We are very much in the clear here, because we are well within fair-use guidelines, and also the entire file appears all over the Web, including the Nobel Prize site-- without attribution or copyright notice (even on mainstream sites). I think the Caedmon copyright claim is deliberately vague (and therefore weak) because some of the material had been broadcast before, and is likely in the public domain. Copyright concerns are part of my business, in my capacity as a radio producer, and as owner/manager/licensor or more than 1000 copyrighted works, so I have personal experience as a guide. On the sourcing details and corroboration, I will try to find something conclusive. I have a working relationship with Scribners (although they didn't release these recordings) --maybe they can shed light. I will say that if you are so concerned about clearance, and I don't mind that you are!, we might as well put the whole speech up instead of the fragment, once it's all kosher. re: Ernest Hemingway talkpage, I've no doubt there are some Hem-o-philes there who may know more about these recordings that Caedmon or Scribners. Seeker56 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine. If we could get the entire speech, that would be great. The JFK library also has sound recordings, and if there, it would be in the public domain. I'll dig around a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dickinson

Hey Truthkeeper, thanks for stepping in and providing your valuable input at Emily Dickinson. I feel like I've been manning this fort by myself for far too long, I'm going stir-crazy. First it's just me amongst the newbies, and then suddenly here are several other knowledgeable editors pitching in! Makes a gal feel not so alone in this world. Did I inadvertently trip the Bat Signal or something? María (habla conmigo) 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was on my watchlist and then was taken off my watchlist and then added again fairly recently. I was wondering if there's news re Dickinson that's bringing in the newbies, or simply students deciding to add what they've been learning. At any rate, happy to help. I'm considering, strongly, reverting the edit about the New Criiticism but I only looked at it quickly. I'm currently knee-deep in The Sun Also Rises - was planning to ping you when I'm done for feedback or even a peer review. Not there yet, though. It's not an easy book to write about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who added the New Criticism info is very... adamant, so reverting may only exacerbate. I just added some suggestions/further thoughts to the talk page, with an explicit request for someone to please fix kthnx. I've already been accused several times by this user of ownership, lack of expertise, locking the article, etc., etc. I'm trying to be a little less hands-on. It's hard to do after having watched the same damn article for three years now. Gah. Definitely ping me about Sun; it's one of two Hemingway books I actively enjoy, not including some of his short stories. I could use some levity -- and by that I mean the drinking and fishing, of course. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just finished the drinking section. Ironically the next section to tackle is the criticism section - which is hard to distill and involves a lot of reading. I've also recently expanded Indian Camp, now at GA, and intend to try to have it be the second short story at FA. Have been dipping into The Open Boat quite a bit recently. I'll keep in mind what you've said, but really, an entire section on New Criticism? Maybe I can hack it down a bit. This is the problem with working on these kinds of biographies, they have to be tended - forever. I'll spend some time bringing myself up-to-speed on the talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there should be an entire section, either. At all. I agree completely with Moni and you (girl power?), but New Criticism should at least be mentioned -- perhaps with a couple name-checks? No huge blockquotes, they make me nauseous. Thanks again for taking the time. The Open Boat is one of my all time favorites. It's awesome how you seem to be doing with Hemingway what I intended to do with Crane. Go you! If real life stops strangling my free time, I'd love to finish up The Red Badge of Courage. Sigh. One day... María (habla conmigo) 23:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a long break from Hemingway, almost a year, but after the Ezra Pound fiasco decided it was the safest for me. Once the bio and the most important books and short stories are in place, it gets easier with each article. Anyway, I need a break, so after supper will spend some time with Emily. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You rock. Adding the info to other articles is a great compromise, and I hope everyone else thinks so as well. Hopefully the original user will be able to help with pinpointing the particular sources used, but other than that it looks good to me. What a world we live in, in which Hemingway is a welcome respite from Pound! María (habla conmigo) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It was basically good information but in the wrong place and easily used elsewhere. Believe me, Hemingway is a very welcome respite from Pound. Although the talkpage has archived over at Pound, it shows a little of the ... well ... problems, if you should be interested. I'll keep an eye on Emily - it's well done and no reason to let it degrade. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Offer

If you would like me to, I can semi-protect your talk and user pages so IP addresses and newly registered users could not edit them. Sorry about the sock, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch, that's nice of you to offer, but I don't think I want to limit access to my talk page because of a banned sock. I reacted badly - I'd popped in during a break when the message showed up and I thought it was from an established user telling me how to scrub the pages. Once I had a chance to think about it, I realized it was a new user and probably ILT's sock. It's ironic that they want all their pages scrubbed in the manner of the Potter pages. I don't intend to scrub all of these pages and if some of them are deleted or lose their GA status because of rewrites it's their fault for introducing the copyvio in the first place. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, well if there's ever anything I can do as an admin, please let me know (or anything else I can do). I know I have not fixed the different translations in Tiggy-Winkle or done much productive lately. Hopefully I will have more free time before too long. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's tedious work that's not very rewarding. I returned the books to the library but will get them again fairly soon for another three week stint, and go to work on another article. On a separate issue - do you know anything about the French and Indian War? I've been involved in an interesting conversation at Battle of Fort Necessity regarding nationality of militia and such, and thought that it might need more eyes. Also, thanks for the offer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know much about the war, but I am guessing User:Kevin Myers does - not sure if he's around much lately, but he's been pretty helpful with some obscure Pennsylvania history articles of roughly that era I've worked on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's a good idea. I'll ping him when I have a chance - don't have a lot of wiki time this week. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

FLC of NT

Hi! I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: others) at FLC. The nomination page is here. Let's see what happens. bamse (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I'll watch it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione review

Judging from your comment here, I can tell I offended you with my curt replies. I'm sorry about that, and I really appreciate the review you've performed on La Stazione. You've definitely helped improve the geographical context of the article, and I thank you for that. It's just that the FAC has been running for almost two months now, and none of the issues you identified feel, to my eyes, like the prose is malformed. Again, I'm sorry if I appeared cross.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't seem cross and no need to apologize. You don't agree and that's fine. The article has been there for two months which is too long in my view, but when I looked at it, I had difficulty understanding. Maybe I'm stupid. Who knows. At any rate, it's reminded me of why I'd stopped reviewing and submitting articles to FAC, which is a good reminder considering I was about to nominate an article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely nominate it. If you believe that you've created an article that meets the criteria, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not taking it across the threshold. I don't know what article it is, but I know it would gnaw at you. You'd spend weeks wondering what lingering issues a thorough FAC would fix, before finally nominating anyway. The absolute worst that could happen is that FAC gets archived; and even then, you've managed to improve the article somewhat. That's a good outcome. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please move your remaining issues to the bottom of your subsection on the FAC? I'm having a hard time telling what still needs to be resolved. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never refactored in a FAC; it makes it hard for the delegates to follow. I've been going through and striking each evening; if it's not struck it's still outstanding. Will have another look later tonight when I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your extensive review. I know you ended up only voting neutral, but the points you brought up really improved the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Guess what I saw yesterday? As a hint, its within 10 feet of this, this, and this. In other news, got some books, but not the big catelog I'm looking for. Also, my computer in cork has died, wont booth and needs to be replaced, with the loss of about 80-90 gigs of music i never bothered to back up. Feck. Ceoil 09:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, you're having a bad year, aren't you? Lose your internet and now your computer with your music. Not good news. Anyway, happy to hear you visited the woman reading - I'm very jealous. I had to take her down from the top of my page b/c the color clashed so badly with the blue semi-retired banner it made my eyes hurt. Good to year from you btw .... good luck getting yourself back online and enjoy London. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I got bits snd pitches on MM, but more excited by what I found on Ingres and by far his works I saw were the most impressive in the flesh. Still no sign of Cambell's big book, maybe just as well considering the price. Ceoil 02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds as though the money is better spent getting your computer fixed and retrieving your music. Expensive hobby, isn't this? Books, trips, computers .... Re booksellers, a lot of them have given up brick & mortar stores and gone online to umbrella sites like AbeBooks. I suspect that's where you'll find the book, but maybe you don't need it after all. Just realized I've seen this - wondered why it seemed so familiar. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on Scott and do not worry about the edit conflict (my own fault for not previewing). I have semi-protected the article so I can do things off line. Glad to see you are not semi-retired; if my life ever gets less crazy I swear I will finsih the cleanup of Mrs TW. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the flower - all the daffodils have frozen because of the cold spell, so it's nice to see a bit of spring. I hadn't realized the Scott article is one of yours; it's very well done. I have a nice early edition of the Scott's Last Expedition that has a facsimile of his final journal entry ( I can scan it if you'd like to have it). To me it represents the strength of the human spirit and underscores how important writing is, even in the face of death. As for semi-retired, had a serious crisis of confidence writing-wise and thought maybe I should stop. But, quickly changed my mind. I think Mrs. Tiggy-winkle is in pretty good shape. When I get through my Hemingway phase and my current fac, I'll start one of the other Potter pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the Scott article is by Brianboulton. I have made maps for some of his polar exploration articles (and he kindly made me a co-nom on one FAC for maps) but the credit there is all his - I just watch it (and it gets a lot of vandalism and good faith attempts to "improve" it). Our crocuses froze but today I saw our glory of the snow had bloomed - Spring cannot be stopped! More later, take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't take it personally

You're not the first to be accused on that talk page of having a hidden agenda. I suspect you won't be the last, either. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What PoD said. These warriors disappear just as quickly as they appear, they're nothing to get bothered about. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not bothered, but thought it was time to leave before I say something I regret. I hate the new pictures in the page btw - they have nothing to do with the text. And also, as an American, when I lived in England, it was interesting and confusing to learn about Guy Fawkes night. It's not as though that's the easiest bit of history to understand, and I really like what PoD is doing with these pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think, like PoD, I became rather fascinated by 17th and 18th-century English history, it was such a strange time. This is just a personal opinion, but I think many of wikipedia's problems can be traced back to the Puritans who landed in America then, and the attitudes that they instilled. Those of us who stayed behind probably thought "good riddance". Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately one of my ancestors was on one of those boats. It's not the original puritans who landed in Plymouth - it's the current puritanical attitude that so many here seem to think is so very correct. Personally I think we're going into another one of those strange times - it's actually pretty sickening. And yes, it is reflected in wikipedia's problems. Anyway, time for supper over here. Truthkeeper88 (talk)

It's interesting to compare the attitudes of Australians, or even those from places like Illinois, which didn't suffer so much the Puritan nonsense. America is a big place, with many cultural influences. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you learnt something from the article, I certainly did. Until I started reading Cressy's work I had little knowledge of the anti-popery nonsense, or the rioting, etc. I thought it was just a night of revelry that had somehow managed to survive for 400 years. When you think about 5 November, it's a wonder it's still celebrated. IIRC the article received several hundred thousand views last 5 November, that's at least a few tens of thousands of people who now know a bit more about history. I wonder how many of them looked at the article to see who celebrates it in South Africa? Parrot of Doom 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think people understand fully the impact of the religious split at that period. Malleus' comment above is relevant in that in Boston, the Puritan bastion, Catholics were never treated well - though the large influx of Irish to Boston diffused a lot of Protestantism. Also, Guy Fawkes is really not well known outside of England, and the Gunpowder Plot a blip in history to most readers. That it has survived 400 years is significant, but is significant because some of that religious tension still lurks below the surface, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And not very far below the surface as anyone who's witnessed an Orange march through Glasgow for instance would know, or a Celtic vs. Rangers football match. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a Glaswegian author I follow whose books I like. They're set in the sixties and seventies, and it's interesting to me to read about the social split based on Protestantism and Catholicism in Glasgow. I think it's important to have articles like the Guy Fawkes page to explain the history - that people burn effigies without knowing why, and try to trivialize the subject, and undermine the historical reasons for the burnings, is beyond me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ugly Duchess

Wow, 60k hits - well done both! Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod - I didn't do anything but move around a bit of text when I realized it was on the main page - and then keep an eye on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Take your praIse when ever you get in TK! None of this 'I only...' Ceoil 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's something any wiki friend would do for another - knowing you didn't have a computer and internet access, I fixed a bit. Not a big deal at all. But I'll take the praise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Vagueness

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallkill Valley Rail Trail/archive1

It is not my goal to argue with reviewers. When you brought up a point that I disagreed with, I attempted to explain why it was either incorrect or inactionable. It is not the prerogative of nominators to blindly make whatever changes reviewers ask. Pointing to specific parts of the article you take issue with, and working together to resolve those issues, are constructive; telling me that you just don't like it, and that I need to seek outside review and familiarize myself with an unspecified policy, is not. I don't know what change(s) you refer to in my previous FAC, that you claim I did purely to avoid it becoming archived, and I also take issue with your implication that I willingly ignored any of Finetooth's comments. I have no issue with reviewers being thorough, I have a problem with vagueness. There is absolutely no way that my editing will improve if I have no idea what you're talking about. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be pretty clear when four reviewers tell you that a certain point is not necessary and two or more editors change the page only to have you revert. Anyway, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but I will tell you that in the first three sentences of the new FAC I see two errors. I've scanned the entire page and see problems throughout. I've read your A-class review and agree with Daniel Case's points; I've read the PR and agree with Finetooth's points. So three editors see problems. We are trying to help, not hinder. Anyway, I'll recuse myself from the review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I resolved the issues that both Daniel Case and Finetooth brought up. That's why I nominated the article. And again, I don't know what issue on the previous FAC you're talking about, nor am I aware of what two errors exist in the first three sentences of the article. I'm not trying to be adversarial here, I have been nominating FACs for about six months and have always tried to maintain cordiality with reviewers. And at this point, I respectfully insist that you don't recuse, that you complete a substantive review; the comments you've made have already planted a seed of doubt for future reviewers, implying that the prose is problematic and that I have problems receiving criticism. I find that grossly unfair. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you don't know what issues were brought up at the previous FAC but then changed per WP:SNOW. FAC is not a vote; it's a place to determine whether the article fulfills the FA criteria as nominated - not a place to work out issues along the way. At any rate, there's much about wikipedia that's not fair. I haven't the time for a full review and insisting is well ... I don't know how to put it so will let it be. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You brought up many issues on the FAC which I found inactionable, but I believe I now know which issue in particular you are describing. I stated in the FAC that while I disagreed with the decision to remove the content in question, it had been brought up often enough that consensus was clearly against my viewpoint. The implication that I changed my opinion for the sole purpose of passing this article, rather than as an acknowledgement of consensus, was yours. Regarding your belief that the FAC process is ideally pass/fail, determined solely by the state of the article at the time of its nomination: this is not what I have observed. If you have specific examples of areas where Wallkill Valley Rail Trail does not comply with the MoS, dismissing me with a casual, "life isn't fair and I wasn't happy about what you said", doesn't resolve those issues. If you truly have no interest in helping me improve this article, then I ask only that you not ascribe motivations to me. Have a good one. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I listed issued that you decided were not actionable. Had they been fixed, I probably would have moved to a support. As for articles being promoted based on their readiness when they are nominated, I suggest you have a look at Fantastic Adventures that received four supports within days, though it did sit for a while before getting reviewers, and Tom Driberg that went through in about a week. These are only two recent examples. Re your nomination - I strongly think you need to be familiar enough with MoS to detect glaring errors. You have an error in the second or third sentence - can't remember which, sorry. And yes, I can say wikipedia isn't fair because basically it's not. I'd be more than happy to help - but don't want to spend time being told that my suggestions are rubbish and have helpful edits reverted. That's a timesink in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review help

I checked and it is now listed at WP:PR - it takes the bot some time to list new PRs, so I imagine it was just that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw it on the list but something's wrong with the talkpage. Shouldn't there be a link to the PR? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I had not checked the talk page. For some reason the PR archive number was wrong (2 instead of 1) which meant there was no PR to link to (since the current PR is archive=1). By the way, I have started reading the Hemingway article at FAC and should comment on it there in a day or two at most. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing - haven't a clue how I managed to do that. Also thanks for taking the time to read True at First Light. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: True at First Light ‎

Cool, I'll drop in soon, maybe tomorrow. I'm around quite a bit lately, so you caught me at a good time. The Red Badge of Courage is finally at GAC and I hope to have it at FAC within the month. Someone got a bee in my bonnet and I've been thrashing around to rid myself of it ever since.  :) María (habla conmigo) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a much faster worker than I am, and I seem to be losing interest here, but want to finish up some of the pages I have on the go before thinking about a break. Anyway, thanks for looking at Hemingway. The Sun Also Rises, currently at peer review, will be up next, but that has me worried because there are soo many sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, tell me about it. I've had to pick and choose with Crane sources, but it's easier when they're all saying pretty much the same thing. It's not like there's one crazy critic out there saying Fleming's battle with er, battles, is analogous to Crane's battle with his latent homosexuality or anything. (Now THAT would be an interesting article.) Don't lose hope! I'll get back to you soon. María (habla conmigo) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hemingway Paris apartment 1924.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hemingway Paris apartment 1924.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just saw that True at First Light now has its well deserved FA star and wanted to congratulate you on a job well done. Keep up the great work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post a thank you note on your page this morning but you've beaten me to it. Thanks so much for the good review - I'm very pleased because the article is much better than it was when I submitted it, so it's been a successful review. Also, gave me a much needed boost of confidence. Thanks also for picking up The Sun Also Rises for PR. It's a much more important book and the page isn't finished but needs another set eyes at this point. Take your time - because of my schedule I don't intend to nominate it until after the middle of May. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations from me as well. Very well done. María (habla conmigo) 16:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to carve out some time to review The Red Badge of Courage for you but am a bit stacked up at the moment. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! I'd appreciate it, but no worries if you're too busy. I'm working my tail off to finish a couple IRL projects, so I really shouldn't even be thinking about Red Badge at the moment. Dammit, now I'm thinking about it... María (habla conmigo) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the successful FAC! I actually took it off my watchlist recently, and am beginning to regret it. I am going to put it back on! Sadads (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MM

And congrats from me too, missed all the excitment! Ceoil 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to see you back. MM looks good with the changes - I wasn't sure how it would look once copied over, and was a little angsty about messing with the images but I seem to have managed it okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah much better now, less congested, flows better. Great to be back, in a way, in a way not. I've a lot to finishe and a lot I want to do here, well see how it goes. Ceoil 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well for whatever it's worth, I always think I'm leaving, but not until I finish the next article, and the next, and the next ... Anyway, you seem to have attracted attention to Olivia. I hadn't realized the entire lead had been rewritten. Thanks for the tweaks, btw. As soon as I get time, I'll read MM now that I don't have to switch back & forth between two pages. Was going on pure intuition on that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And it worked a treat. I came into a small amount of money while I was away, and ordered a bunch of art books finally, will soon have Cambells big NG book, and a few others on early Netherlandish art, Ingres and Goya, after a long wait. It'll be good to get back into longish articles after a year of poverty and stubs. Bty, what happened to the edit functions, I'm having to type the four tides manually, and have no handy wiki mark up to click on. Ceoil 22:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Something happened - a long time ago. I remember having to do something in preferences - 'show edit toolbar' maybe? And don't forget to do whatever you have to do reset it all. But on my browser the edit window toolbar is there sometimes, sometimes not. I've been doing a lot manually or by using the markup below the edit summary box. Btw - created a page for Georgie Hyde-Lees and didn't realize until it was too late Yeats called her George. Do you think it needs a page move? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I always though George was a bit unkind. The article is perfectly nice and lovely as it is. Ceoil 22:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I told you this on your talkpage, but after this weekend won't be around much or at all until after the middle of May. I thought I'd work on tidying refs and MoS and all the little things that need to be done on MM b/c won't get to it until later. The structure is good now, I think, and I'll leave the prose to you. Just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Olivia & Yeats

Yes, I think George is unkind too. It's stubby still, but we have Modernist to thank for planting the idea. A few days ago I got a book from the library about Yeats & Georgie so will add to it - though not sure when. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When it takes your fancy I suppose....no urgency about these things is there. The work your doing is just great, I'm finding its when you step out you realise how good some guys and gals here are. And how useless and misguided some others are. Makes me want to write a uncivil, pointed punk song using bothe the F and C words. Ceoil 22:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to step out to realise that. Glad you're back and still making me laugh. Write a song about wp and post it on your page - very good idea. As for the work, it comes in fits and starts - a little here and a little there and suddenly (or not suddenly) a few pages are good enough to be reviewed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm prob further along the cycle of the life span of wiki editors than you, but its great to watch your output. I'm having great fun going through Olivia, such pathos, such longing and waste. Ceoil 23:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having fun watching you go through. Between and you and Malleus the prose is much better. I want to start a page on The Wind in the Reeds and write about the poems Yeats wrote during this period. Any time to help by chance? With all the new art books and all, sounds as though you've planned out the rest of your wiki life. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How many favours do I owe you by now, pages youve helped me with; I suppose given I'm not averse to Yeats I might help....Ceoil 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very much a long-term project. I have to read the poems and read more about Maud & try to understand Yeats a bit more. So, months away - maybe. But, I think, worth trying. Wouldn't want force you though .... Btw, thanks so much for the copyedits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And thank you dear for the fixes to the copy edit. I cant really comment on the fac as we are friends, but I found it touching and poignant, to an almost unbearable degree at times. I knew that Yeats was a bollix from other angles, but jesus christ. 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you can't comment on the fac, but nice to have you along for the ride - this was your idea. Do you remember, last summer in August saying we should do a page on Olivia? And I've always been a bit guilty about going on it and not waiting, so it's good to have you here now. As I was writing about Georgie the other night I had to shake my head at Yeats and wonder about him and women. But then I realized they were all like that: Yeats, Pound, Hemingway. Their art got in the way of their relationships, which is okay given the quality of their art. I do admire Olivia putting up with her husband, Yeats, Pound, Dorothy ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of it was narcissism, and not committing to anyone unperfect in a gothic romantic way, or too unatainable in a social/political way. Either/ or not very nice for the women, and poor Iseult. I'm very gald you wrote these articles, and articulated a feeling I thought I shared alone. Ceoil 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Olivia's biographer has written two fiction books, The Ghostwriter and The Seance, which seem to be based on these women, though he begins in the present and works the narrative back. I haven't had time to read them but my sense is he understand too. Poor Iseult is right - her page needs sprucing up a bit. I'm very glad you suggested writing these articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You might have noticed I tried and failed/gave up on the Iseult page. She married a right bastard, and rightly slipped out of public view from her early 20s, which was respected by the press and worked out ok. I'm troubled by the yeats page though, a lot of his gravitas is taken from his position on the seanad, and given Ireland's woe these these days there are moves to abolish that second house along with revelations that he was only given the position to shut him up and pass him off as a fatten anglo calf. Ceoil 01:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Yeats page does need work - not sure if it's best to work on a page about the his poems first or to go directly to his bio. I can help a little; have three bios I got from the library a few days ago and his memoirs, but the thought of tackling a big bio reminds me uncomfortably of last summer. Let's get MM finished first & then decide what to do about Yeats. He'll wait. And you have the Netherlandish art to work on. And Goya. And btw - are you now back in the 21st century w/ computer, internet, email? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re yeats - a little of both, but the bio first. There is a lot of rivisionalism to happen yet, not least how someone so aestic could be still so erotic, and still so chaste. The times, but not even hinted on the page. I have computer and internet, eircom address is long gone, since I switched ISPs. Tryingh to find an alternative with a good handy client, none yet. Ceoil 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting combination. The bio first, I guess. So explain this to me - I ask whether you want to help with a new page and now we're discussing the bio instead, hmmm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Favor again

I've offered a thorough image review- it's gonna take a little bit of fiddling, but it's a lot better than it was! Keep up the good work. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises PR

My comments are done - hope they help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They're very helpful. Some of the spots I knew were rough, but it's always good to have another opinion. You also found much that I'd missed, which is good. Will keep me busy on this very cold and rainy weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help - drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to look at it again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I'm about to run into a serious time crunch and will be out for a while, so will as much as I can this weekend and then let it sit until I get back. I need to think about how to handle a few of the points, so I don't think I'll be completely done until about a month from now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to reply no, but just a heads up that I looked at the PR again and made some replies there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little stalled at the moment, but will plug away at it. I've come across another fairly important point that needs to be added to the writing style section, but have to read and understand a couple of essays which I don't really have the time to do at the moment. Slowly, slowly.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - one of the things I like about Wikipedia is that there are no real deadlines. Ping me when it is at FAC or if you want me to look at anything. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Invite

Even has your favourite pipe

Myself Riggr and Modernist are going for a few drinks and ice-cream on JNW'S talk later on if you'd like to join us. I'm not sure if JNW himself will be around, but it'll be fun. He said we could drop in anytime, long as we didn't break nothing. There will be a chair there for you anyway. Ceoil 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh how nice! Thanks, I'll drop by. I'll get shy with all you VA & music people - so might sit quietly in my chair and watch. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Its casual dress, so no fancier than this. Ceoil 19:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, chair's too small for those dresses. I'll check my closet to see what I have for rags lying around - should have something suitable, but you should know that normally I'm a jeans and boots kind of person. Oh, and time? Since I have to prepare, you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Later on, don't worry about it. I'll call you. sorry for sounding like a right bastard, I'm just trying to impress my male friends, who luckly are too old and blind to read text this size. Around midnight my time ok ? Ceoil 20:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, but will have to be fashionably late .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Har, now your talking. I wont mention you specifically I'll just say, a myserious woman will join us. In other news, this is just lovely...[17] Ceoil 21:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

... got lost listening to the tune and forgot to thank you ... later Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concidence....or great minds think alike....can you give me a hand with this edit[18]. I dont know the novel, and the source (is on google books) is a bit long winded so I'm not sure i got the point. Great cross over though. Ceoil 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting cross over. I'll have a look at the source, but what you've written makes sense for Hemingway. On my way over to JNW's house. Dunno, have to think about this, and a page is missing so it's difficult. Good book for me to use in the SAR article though.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing on JNW's may be a long party, its dependant on Riggr turning up; he usually arrives around midnight my time, which seems to be the curfew time in the antartic-or whereever he lives-for hunting baby seals and small deer. Which is fine, havn't done a 3 day party since colledge, and that wasn't yesterday or the day before! Happy days --suuucks....have a toke Ceoil 23:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the source, yeah I need to think about it too. Its very obtuse in what I can view, I think I know what he is getting at, but he never actually says it. Annoying in a way. Ceoil 23:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly what he's saying, but I think there are better critics who are more clear. What he means is the landscape you paint/ write about / in your mind is not the landscape represented. It's an amalgam of landscapes and each person perceives the same landscape differently. Hemingway presents landscapes in SAR from different points of view to show that each character sees differently & the whole is represented by the parts, if that makes any sense. Also, look at the Goya on the Sun Also Rises page - the blank spaces represent something and each person projects what should be there, but we all know it's some sort of a bull ring, and a crowd watching. Anyway, I prob. have an essay about this in my many books of essays. Here's the essay you need. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have you seen Unfortunate events in the front seats of the ring of Madrid, and the death of the Mayor of Torrejón, where almost 3/4's of the canvas is blank, or the void that is The Dog . Goya started many of his late canvases with black and etched into them with greys and whites. Bacon often cut chunks out of the painted surface with a knife to show the black bare underneeth. Its all part of the same thing. Ceoil 00:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but hard to write about. I like the Tauromaquia series, a lot. Hemingway was very impressed with it. BTW - he became interested in the Cezannes at Gertrude Stein's. She had I don't know how many. Modernist might know. I'll send the jstor essay on if you want it & if I know where to send. It might be better written. I suppose I should download it and read, and incorporate some of this into The Sun Also Rises. Sigh - that page is endless. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The old email adress is prob lost to me, passwords gone and all, so hold off sending anything until I can recover from my old hard drive or I settle on a new address. The likelyhood is I'll be asking you to resend a lot of the pdf's you gave me in the last year. <sigh and apologies> Ceoil 01:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you lose gmail too? Um, re resending - could be a problem, maybe, possibly. Anyway, I'll download it and save it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very slow to give up on the eircom address, have had it since the internet began, and still have all these visions of ex-girlfriends emailing me about how I was so right all along and how they were so wrong, and lost out on so much. Yeah sad but like I'm male, like. Re your endless edit summary; [19], listened to before [20]. Ceoil 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to give up an email address. I have one that I've had since the internet began; only get spam there now but still keep it anyway. Was only curious about gmail. Anyway, I'll wait to send anything, but you'll prob have to wait until the end of May for resending. I'm not sure I can resend everything - will have to look at what I have. Haven't gotten to the tunes. Beautiful tune - the first one. Not crazy about the remaster after hearing them in succession. I'm staring at your Cezanne & thinking about how to reword it. Might be time to give up for the night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're in luck - I checked & still have all the files I sent. Phew. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

O thats great because there are a few on Gauguin that I really like but havent used yet. I dont know what it is with me and artisted called paul ;) Tks. Ceoil 08:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are all organized, nicely put away in a folder - found them them last night. It's the van der Weyden ones that worried me, but it looks as though I have most of them. Re the edit summary on MM about not remembering the source for the sideboard - it's not in anything I sent b/c I don't remember reading it, which eliminates some sources, if that's any help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats great news that you have them. I remember now where the bit about the side board came from, so dont worry. Olivia is loking great bty, v proud for you. Ceoil 12:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Was just reading about your pets - I half-tamed a feral cat who had kittens on my porch & I kept two of them. They are half feral - won't let anyone touch them, but follow me around, everywhere. The mother was well and truly crazy so had to be allowed to go on her way. Sad when pets die, isn't it? Thanks for tweaking SAR & yes Olivia looks good. Needs a few more reviews though. Oops, sorry I mentioned cats. Am getting caught up. You've been busy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I might have told you before but the feral cat I trained was one.tough.lady. When she was about a year old she had her first litter, and late that night I put her in a box in the hotpress. Next morning my mother found out, freaked and threw box, kittens and all, out the door. The mother cat, walked calmly out of the house, picked each one up by the neck with her mouth and carried them back inside, walking between my mother's legs, her standing at the doorway with the floowbrush going sssshhhhooooosssss, out out out out. One by one. Thats a though cat. We were all highly impressed with the mother cat's determination and sheer balls, and three generations later, they are still at my parents house. Two tough women, but I think they respected each other in an uneasy 14 year alliance. Ceoil 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My cats' mother plopped herself into a box we kept for her on the back porch during a thunderstorm and suddenly there was box of full of kittens. I'd been trying to tame her, and believing she was quite occupied at the moment, picked up box, mama cat & kittens and brought it into the cellar. That night it got very cold and snowed, so I'm not sure the kittens would have survived outside. I had seven cats (mother # kittens) in my basement for two months & was quite impressed with myself. The mama was not at all impressed with being brought into a house & tried to scratch her way out. Had to let her go. But she was smart enough to have her kittens on the backporch of a softhearted woman. Couldn't let the kittens die - it's just one of those things. Btw - will download and read the pdf re Cezanne, EH, & the Sun a bit later. I need to read it and prob add to the Sun page. If anything useful for you, I'll add to the Melting Snow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I spy on the SAR page a Goya article that needs writing. But not today, off for food with friends later. How long will you be gone for, it seems ironic that I arrive back as you are leaving. Oh and my edit box with the tides and stuff just magically reappeared. The Gods work in mysterious ways. Ceoil 13:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article that needs writing for that Goya print - as I said, endless. I really like that print - took me forever to find it, but Hemingway was influenced by Goya's art & tried to do in writing what Goya did in those prints. The Pedro Romero portrait is very nice too. After Wednesday slammed with work for about ten days, but will be checking here sporadically. Then traveling until May 20ish - am planning to go entirely offline at that time. Oh, and happy Easter too. I'm off later for errands - so if you're not here tomorrow - prob late next month. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Slainte, have fun and May the 20ish it is so. Ceoil 14:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I still have to see Olivia through & finish SAR, so only partially gone for the next two weeks. Just out of curiosity, what are your plans for MM? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have the NG book in about 2 weeks. A week integrating, a week touching up, and then FAC. Witches Sabbath after than; I know its disjointed, but all the info is there, and lord god was it hard to come by. So some spruching should sort it out. Meanwhile, I want to build up the two articles I have on Gauguin, both have potential for a good read, and a full of drama, if I can draw them out. Ceoil 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So I should be back in time for the excitement on MM - that's good. Seem to be a little invested in her. Let me know, before I leave, if you want Paul's files resent for Oviri & the jug. I think Witches Sabbath is quite good btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk)

Have you seen No follow. Not sure how much use it is, but prob a good idea. Ceoil 15:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'll have a look at that. I've been stalked online for a while, so it's a bit of problem, but I've added the noindex template. This is more of problem of someone plucking comments and sending them out on twitter. If I ping you on gmail, can you get to it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Facebook? Ceoil 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just happened to stumble on this searching for something entirely different, in case you're interested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm slipping to the typical male responce here, protect and defend, can you set up a faux facebook page and let me know what is going on. Would take about 20 seconds. Ceoil 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I never used facebook and am clueless. Don't even know how to find people. You set up a faux yahoo or hotmail acct & send to me via wikimail? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This embarrassing but I just rang my ex-gf for my password and she knew it. (still on v good terms, and she was always more practicle that me). Hurra. Eircom back in action. I have 859 spam messages, and fantastic oppurtunities to buy cheap viagra. Wo hoo. Ceoil 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cough, cough - prob a few other message too. Woo hoo. Thank god for old girlfriends and practical women. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, women have their uses. She laughed in my face and called me useless, but in a good natutred way. Its funny cause its true. Our family is full of strong women and daft, but handsome, intellegent, sensitive men. So it goes. Ceoil 15:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you get on with deleting the useless stuff (I'm sure there's a lot of that after all this time) & wait to hear from you. At least something good has come from this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

pong. email. Ceoil 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get an orange bar for the above msg & didn't see it until I logged off last night, and I need to report to the tech people that my orange bar isn't working because this is the second time in two days that's happened. . I'm guessing it created an impression that I asked you to threaten Gyrobo and then lied about it which is unfortunate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography of Malcolm X

Thanks for your detailed review and comments on the FAC. I hope to take a look at fixing them this monday. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm only sorry I didn't get to it sooner and it's been languishing a long time. I kind of gulped when I saw how long they were, but most of it's easily done, I think. I'll keep an eye on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

FLC Japanese writings

Just wanted to ask you to respond to Scartol's comments, but apparently you were faster. Thanks already. Concerning his issue with the sentence "...was one of the factors leading to the need for and increasing importance of writing", the source calls it "rise in importance of writing", so we could probably drop the "need". Concerning the vagueness mentioned by Scartol, if it refers to "one of the factors", we could add as footnote (not in-text, since it is irrelevant for this section on sutras), that the other factor concerned the establishment of a Chinese-style state, i.e. writings in the form of (economical and other) records, etc. bamse (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Shall I add such note? bamse (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a note is probably a good idea. Dropping "need" would work. I'll be away from the computer for a little while, but had planned to comb through the text later tonight. I guess some of the longer sentences should probably be split up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done that (note + remove "need"). bamse (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start running through now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Partially reverted your edit in this edit. Please let me know if you have any question on why I did this. bamse (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem - tightening is always hard. Honestly it doesn't look that bad to me, but I guess I'm not such a good judge. Still need to comb a couple more sections to find the long sentences. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Went through the whole text and shortened it a tiny bit here and there. Not sure what else I could do. Please leave a note at the nomination page when you are done combing. bamse (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Don't want to appear pushy. Do you still think that the article needs combing? To me it looks pretty fine and I'd leave a note on the nomination page if I get an OK from you. bamse (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bamse - I thought it looked okay. Leave a note and see what you get back in response. If they want more work, I'll comb through again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Re inline comment: There are 27 NT in this list that were made in China. "At the time" should express that they came to Japan a long time ago (probably <100 years after they were made) and not recently (20th century or so). Unfortunately it is not known for all items when they came to Japan. Sometimes (e.g. for "sanjūjō sasshi") the import year is known and given in the "Remarks" column. bamse (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but I'm thinking that it's probably implied. Because they're treasures they would have to be old. I'm in the China section now, or just beyond, so maybe can do pull something out of there. Also, I'm very wary of making the sentences to short and choppy and think we're at the borderline (or possibly beyond) in terms of splitting sentences, for whatever it's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they have to be old, but in addition they are also Japanese treasures in the meaning that they spent most of their life in Japan (not in China). That's what the "imported at the time" should suggest. As I wrote, to me the article looks good, so when you give me a sign, I'll leave a note at the nomination page. bamse (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready now. I'm worried about messing with it too much at this point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note at the nomination page. bamse (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And I see you had a quick response. Well done! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Current ANI thread

Please take the time to make a detailed and dispassionate response to my query for more information. Statements that sound like you're inviting a block don't seem appropriate in that case--I prefer blocks of established editors and valued contributors to be a last resort. I'd really love to hear this evidence that's not appropriate for ANI, so feel free to email me if you don't want it going to the entire ArbCom right away. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Risker is deleting items from your talk page, but if there is anything else you want deleted, please email me the diff(s) and I will be glad to do so. I am also glad to be a "character witness" if you want at ANI. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't like being told I'm lying. But that was my first experience at AN/I - ever. So, now I know. Unfortunately this has eaten up my evening, and I actually had work to do. If anything else need to be done, I'll be in touch. I won't be around much for the next month anyway - just to see Olivia through FAC and finish SAR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could do more to help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI is best avoided. Good luck with Olivia at FAC; that's why we're here, not to play childish games. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)

Could you add your opinions here? Thanx, I'd appreciate your input. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for (hopefully) settling the silly argument, but the reference I have reinstated is to an episode and not necessary to Wikipedia; we should treat it simply as a piece of text that appears in an episode of the series and is therefore, naturally, a reliable source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with edit warring is that people tend to add more and more refs to bolster a point. The newspaper does the job just fine and I'd stick with that. Anyway, I responded on the talkpage there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, this has been reverted by an editor that has not made any input on the talk page and keeps the chants that the sources do not support the claim, help would be appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd let it go for now. I don't work on TV show articles and don't know what's required. That editor seems to think a single review is insufficient, which might well be the case. Have you tried finding another source? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to show the obvious (again): citing episodes using {{template:cite episode}} is sufficient. In this case, I also found this screenshot of the opening credits of that episode. Given that you also understand how obvious the pun is, I am requesting your help (since I also got blocked for this whole affair, which miraculously coincided with my wikibreak ). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindred spirits?

I'm doing further research for Red Badge, always fun, and came across this interesting tidbit comparing Hemingway to Crane. I thought you might appreciate it; it's from The Critic Agonistes: Psychology, Myth, and the Art of Fiction:

Both men were subject to that "thirst for abject danger"... to an excessive degree. They followed violence with that uneasy trust in a courage that must continually be tested, making even the experience of war as instrumental as an athletic event to their self-evaluation. Both were at one time or another war correspondents. Neither ever quite got over the death of his father, and both rebelled in various ways against their families. Each childhood was marred by the painful experience of violence; and it was eventually with warfare, sought out and embraced, that each man found a fascinating formulation of violence, and his essential metaphor for life.

Daddy issues? Death wish? Sign me up! PR is proving fruitless at the moment, and I'm afraid the only "review" might chase others away. I wish there were a place where FA-writers could seek reviews from other FA-writers without having to beg, you know? Anyway, I hope yours is going better than mine. María (habla conmigo) 19:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When I read it for the GA review I was interested to see that both covered the Greco-Turkish war. They must have know each other, and I do have a sense that they were similar. In the process of finishing my PR for The Sun Also Rises I spent a bit of time researching the stage & film adaptations - only months after the publication of SAR, Hemingway's publisher's created a celebrity profile for him that, I think, hid the man and the writer. Anyway, I've noticed you're working on it. If I can help, I will. I didn't pick up the PR because I always think another set of eyes is helpful. I do have some comments, though, about some of the changes, but kinda thought I should back off a bit since I seem to have created my share of wiki-drama in the past few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt they knew each other, since Hemingway was two-years-old when Crane died. :) Still, they probably covered the same ground and the same old, tired campaigns. I had no idea there were two Greco-Turkish wars (1897 and 1919-1922) until I read Hemingway's article a while back; there's even a dab page for the subject. I agree that it's good to have new people at PR, which is why I decided not to beg the regulars. I thought I'd be bright and post at WP:NOVELS, but it seems as if only high schoolers with a rudimentary understanding of sentence structure read that page now. Ah, well. Lesson learned. Keeping out of drama takes a lot of energy these days. María (habla conmigo) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Doh, that explains my confusion re the Greco-Turkish war. I knew Crane was born much earlier and should have clicked the link, but am so used writing that Hemingway covered that war that my brain spaced out. Wikiproject novels is problematic at the moment. It's unfortunate that Awadewit is gone. Much of the novel type work being done now is for juvenile fiction except what you and I are doing. I was lucky that Ruhrfisch did the SAR review, but I decided to skip GA because that's always a crap-shot too. I'll have a look at the PR and at the edits and if I think any of it's way off base will chime in. Was just thinking that the default of being here is to accept some degree of wiki-drama. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the lead. I agree that it read better before, although I've looked at that damn thing so many times, I was starting to question every little comma and dash. Didn't we agree that's the worst part of writing an article? I miss Awadewit, she's a jewel. Although it looks like I may strike as lucky as you and get a review from Ruhrfisch! w00t! Wiki-drama can't be avoided really, especially when you constantly feel the need to stand up for your academic integrity, as well as those you believe in. When one stops caring, that's when they should just call it quits. Part of the reason why I've stuck around for five years now is because I can't stop giving a hoot. I'm sure you feel the same, even after that ANI ridiculousness I saw linked above. (Yikes.) María (habla conmigo) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea I was w00t-worthy - thanks ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Ruhrfisch, you are a good reviewer - definitely w00t-worthy. Maria, as long as I keep caring, I'll stick around, despite the ridiculousness. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Eh, no need to create a new section.) Congrats on Olivia's star! I honestly had no idea that the Red Badge FAC would coincide with Chancellorsville, but what a happy coincidence, right? All the better to guilt trip reviewers into taking a look. :) Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts. María (habla conmigo) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your WP:VP/T post

Does this post give you an orange bar? Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, yes it does. I have been getting them today. I completely forgot! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. Here's another one :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely working. Now if I could get my toolbar back, life would be good. But I can format markup by hand - the bar I need for messages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When I am on the talk page already and a new meesage comes in I do not get an orange bar - not sure if that could be the case here or not. As far as the tool bar, when I edit there is a blue bar across the top of the edit window and the sixth item over (from the left) says "Advanced". When I click that I get most of the tools (bullet list, numbered list, indent, no wiki, new line, strikethrough, big and small text, super and sub script, etc. Is this what you want / need? Hope so, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to see, but here's a screenprint of what it looks like. File:Broken toolbar.png It's pretty good at the moment; sometimes I only get two or three items on the left, sometimes none. Every so often the full bar will show up and I'm shocked. It differs from edit to edit. But I do miss the strikethrough, new line, subscript, things like that. Have been formatting freehand for those. As for the orange bar, I think if you're on the talkpage it doesn't show up (edit conflict type thing) but I wasn't on my page last week when you left the message and then it happened again during the weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's weird - I have no idea what's causing it. Have you tried switching browsers (IE vs Firefox or Chrome)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't change browsers at the moment with the laptop I've been using recently, (long story) so I'm afraid I'm stuck with the problem. It started when they put the new build in place so I'm fairly certain it's a bug for Safari. Maybe when I have more time I'll file a bugzilla report. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A recently blocked editor says hello

How do you spell phirrac. Ceoil 03:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny - I just logged in to put up a wiki-break thingy ... but can stick around a bit since I keep finding things to do. Phirrac - waz that? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, I think some greek word for a bitter take. Things going from bad to worse in Ireland at the moment, we are realising that the bank bail out will take about 15-20 years to pay off on the current, punitive terms. In other words we are all fucked, as are our children, and theirs. To pay off the private debt loaned by private companies, ie German to Irish banks, banks that think that their spetic private debt should be put upon the shoulders of the residence of the state of the paticular bankrupt bank, as if they are not all part of the same system. In other words, drive Irish citizens into the ground, which is what is happening. And all an almost show trial, before the colloaspe of the euro and ecb. I cant see than not happening, and i think is infecctualiness at root. Ceoil 05:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

When I was last in Dublin, about 10 years or so ago now, it seemed obvious to me that all of the "Celtic Tiger" nonsense had nothing behind it. Ireland's suffering now because it unwisely joined the Eurozone, and its nonsensical policy towards the taxation of "artists" like Bono. Malleus Fatuorum 05:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus thats a very surface reading of it, we had a good ecomony, but it got over headed by cheap lending from an overheated German marketed. We had production to back it up, but it was castles of sand, prices inflated by bubble echnomics, and population expactions fueled by the fall of the berlin wall. And bankers who care only about the short term, ie when they get their bonusus, and not about their macro position, or even about thier country. Sad, treason.

There is zero chance of any other euro referendum being passed in ireland again. Just none. Bono isn't irish. Dont taint us with his bombastic self importaint pompous crap. Ceoil 06:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this conversation. Jeez, two insomniacs on my page. Anyway, Ceoil, do you mean pyrrhic? Re Ireland, from over here it seemed like it was booming. Friends lost jobs in the tech industry that went to Ireland. The problem with the tech industry is that it's always up and down, and at least here, mostly down. The jobs go to the cheapest labor. I lived in California when Silicon Valley collapsed in 2001 and it was not pretty at all. Ten years on and California is broke and won't recover for a long time. But during the nineties the boom was amazing, and totally unsustainable. As for bank bailouts and costs, pretty much the same story here. All for people who got unbelievable bonuses to build a house of cards. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't being serious with Malleus, only rising him really, and he's dead right about the euro. In other news I think The Magdalen Reading is about there in terms of content, a bit of reorg and a copy edit is all thats left. Are you on for it? We might try and harass Riggr into rewording it for us. You wont think it to look at him, but hes one of the best word guys the site has. Ceoil 17:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He blasted through Edmund Evans and I was seriously impressed and put to shame with my poor phrasing. I'm up for it, but depends on the timing. What are you thinking in terms of re-org? I haven't looked in a few weeks, will go peek and see what needs to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It lacks cohesion to me, the same way witche's sabbath does, a bit disjointed, and thats always been my biggest area of difficulty. Nothing though some thoughtful cut and pasting wont solve. When would suite you. Here is a nice tune[21] from one of the best bands ever to come out of Manchester. Ceoil 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I have Olivia at FAC & don't know when or if it will be promoted. But I don't think I can have two at the same time - I guess that would be up to Sandy. And I may not be around to help at FAC. So I think I'd leave it you to decide and fit me in as you can. I'll re-read with cohesion in mind while I'm listening to the tune and get back to you. It's a tricky page because of the painting, the panels, the drawing, the altarpiece, a lot going on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are reasons for the one at a time rule, and people like you are not it. I'm rusy and would not be able to handel it on my own, so your call. Your quite invested in the page, so it aint gonna happen if your not around. Ceoil 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what needs to be done organization-wise but would want to drag into a sandbox and work on it there, if that's okay. It takes a bit of twisting sometimes. Incoming to bad man re schedule for all the obvious reasons. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad man would be delighted if you could twist the page a bit. Its whenever you get the chance though, I realise you are up to your eyeballs in things to do. Ceoil 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is bad man's ploy to keep the wikibreak box off my page. I am up to my eyeballs but am taking a break today, so can give you a few hours on this rainy Sunday. I just tried moving around a bit in preview mode, but it will take a few edits, and I'm more comfortable doing the twisting in a sandbox. Do you have a cite for the sentence re smaller panels reselling at a higher price? I think I might want to move that sentence, or at least experiment with it, but it needs a ref. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re cite no, I have nothing. I saw something similar in relation to Portrait of Frédéric Chopin and George Sand, it made sense so I threw it in. Rain? The sun is splitting the stones here. Ceoil 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Constant unremitting rain. It's green green out. But bloody wet. It needs a cite. Hands off for a while so I can move it, otherwise we'll have two versions and that's a pain. You can edit in the sandbox too - I don't mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Olga

I think (I don't know) it was just that you had a gap between the image and the start of the text - these things canot be explained - just go with it! Giacomo Returned 22:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It looked ugly and I tried to nest it, but that didn't work either. Anyway, it's gone now, so that's good. Thanks. She's an interesting woman, isn't she? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is, I started to expand the page and intended to make it completely thorough after reading about her in John Berrendt's Fallen Angles - a brilliant book, so I bought (at vast expense) the Anne Conover bigraphy, but it was so deathly dull, I never got beyond page 14 and that was rather that. If you want to expand it, I am happy to delve in again and look up page numbers or facts - anything so long as I don't have to actually read it. Giacomo Returned 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I might pick at it a bit, but it has to be a long term plan. I recently finished Olivia Shakespear and have become interested in these women. The Conover book is awful. I'll have look at Berrendt's book. The page is quite good shape; it's pretty much all there, but I suppose would need more sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist and thanks for the review. I meant to get over to you page to thank you but had to crash for a day. Anyway, another modernist done ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If these are for Olivia, let me chime in: congratulations on a job well done. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the barnstar - it is much appreciated. To be honest, I do not do such in-depth peer reviews for every article, only those that I think are pretty close to FA. Congrats on Olivia making FA - I saw it was at FAC and read the first few sections, then got busy IRL. Next thing I knew, it already had a well-deserved star. Thanks again for the barnstar and all that you do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A thanks is in order from me as well, but so is a congrats! Olivia's is a great article, and I'm looking forward to reviewing The Sun Also Rises at FAC in the near future. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The barnstars were well-deserved. I hope to have The Sun Also Rises up soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)