User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 9

Main page appearance: Olivia Shakespear

This is a note to let the main editors of Olivia Shakespear know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Olivia Shakespear (1863–1938) was a British novelist, playwright, and patron of the arts. She wrote six books that are described as "marriage problem" novels. Her works sold poorly, sometimes only a few hundred copies. Her last novel, Uncle Hilary, is considered her best. She wrote two plays in collaboration with Florence Farr. In 1894 her literary interests led to a friendship with William Butler Yeats that became physically intimate in 1896. Following their consummation he declared that they "had many days of happiness" to come, but the affair ended in 1897. They nevertheless remained lifelong friends and corresponded frequently. Yeats went on to marry Georgie Hyde-Lees, Olivia's step-niece and Dorothy's best friend. Olivia began hosting a weekly salon frequented by Ezra Pound and other modernist writers and artists in 1909, and became influential in London literary society. Dorothy Shakespear married Pound in 1914, despite the less-than-enthusiastic blessing of her parents. After their marriage, Pound would use funds received from Olivia to support T. S. Eliot and James Joyce. When Dorothy gave birth to a son, Omar Pound, in France in 1926, Olivia assumed guardianship of the boy. He lived with Olivia until her death on 3 October 1938. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on this, TK. It's a really good article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congrats TK, excellent work...Modernist (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a fantastic page, you can be proud. Hope to see you back soon. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What Ceoil said! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm intrigued by this edit summary of yours, in which you say that an ellipsis of four dots rather the the usual three indicates the omission of a sentence, not just a word or two from within a sentence. That's not a convention I've ever seen before, so I'm wondering if you can point me towards some authority on the subject? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's a rule that's been hammered into me and probably not that important on Wikipedia. Chicago Style says: "Four dots—a period, followed by three spaced dots—indicates the omission of (1) the last part of the quoted sentence, (2) the first part of the next sentence, (3) a whole sentence or more...." MLA style follows the same convention. I don't have the source in question anymore, borrowed it through interlibrary loan, but I'm always fairly careful about that, particularly when chopping down a long bit of text as I did with Olivia's letter. I might have copied all of that out and stashed in my sandbox - will look there - but I do remember taking out entire sentences. Anyway, feel free to revert. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for, and I've no intention of reverting, just trying to understand. If I've got it, the idea is that ellipses are always three dots, but if what precedes an ellipsis is the end of a sentence, then that sentence's terminating period is included, making four sequential dots, only three of which form the ellipsis? So if, for instance the original was "English is not my first language. And neither is French. Nevertheless I do my best.", that could be ellided as "English is not my first language .... Nevertheless I do my best." So I now see where you got the idea from that "...." indicates the omission of a sentence. It's good to learn, so thanks for taking the time to explain something I was completely unaware of. Maybe the MoS ought to be elaborated on to include this issue, but that would be way beyond my pay grade. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. The fourth dot indicates that somewhere a full-stop has been skipped over or left out. It's useful to show in a quote that not only a few words have been snipped but in fact maybe a sentence or two has been snipped - that's the logic behind it. The reason I said it's probably not important on Wikipedia is because I realized it's not mentioned in MoS. But like you, I'd consider adding it beyond my pay grade. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Image query

Both images are fine from a copyright perspective. Even though the statues themselves may be non-free, both Cuba and Spain have a "freedom of panorama" for statues (see the Commons policy page) which applies in these cases. This means that they can be freely photographed without any copyright infringement. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Thanks a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hey, Im toying with the Brothers Grimm page, but not having one clue as to the facts. Please keep a close eye that I dont make a mess in my wild eyed but misplaced entusasim. Also, the rubbish above from me that you hatted, please delete. I dont sit easily with hard feelings, I have a short memory, and maybe no balls, but have tried to make paece with Jack, but understand thats thats no reflection on you. And while Im hear on my confessional high horse; Riggr, formally apologising for calling you a cunt. I was trying to be funny, but failed. In a big way. Your a biteen of a prick, but cunt? Naw, cant prove that. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits. I don't have the sources for that anymore, so I'm not a lot of help myself until I get them back. Will see what I have stashed in the sandbox. The university situation was a little odd & I'm not sure you got it quite right, so I might fix there later. To be honest, if you're interested in copyediting, I'd love for someone to take a look at the Big Two-Hearted River.

Also, very happy to see you and Jack (Rabbit) bury the hatchet. If he'd be interested in doing the {sfn} thing on the Grimms I'd be thrilled & if he'd accept an apology from me that would great. That page will go to FAC someday, but don't know when. The Riggr stuff is done and buried, imo. We're all moving on. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Youve done and buried Riggr? Jesus, your colder than I'd thought. But it did have to be done; he had to be got. Female assassins? Thats always way cool. But I hope you were tidy about it, that there were no loose strings that could come back on me when I go for arbcom in 2015 and take this ship down. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Leave poor Riggr alone! I've not done and buried him! Hate to say this Ceoil, but you'd be a great arb - be careful what you wish for! Of course I think you have to get through RfA first - that could be interesting. But hey, you never know - you might sail through. Scary thought. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm biding my time, waiting for them that have seen my block log to waste away. Then I'll rule the earth and lo will I crush and smite my enemies. Fear not though TK, I shall be merciful to my friends, and you will not want under my tryranny. Long as you vote for me in 2015. If not, consider yourself smited and well and truly crushed. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, three more years here to see that. I'm happy to see btw that you're ready to take the Crucifixion back to FAC - I'll have to put the smiting St. Michael back on my page. Sandbox is still there if you need it. Did you know the Ghent altarpiece once had a hell-scene at the bottom? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Bal des Ardents

This is a note to let the main editors of Bal des Ardents know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 14, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 14, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Bal des Ardents was a masquerade ball held on 28 January 1393 at which Charles VI of France performed in a dance with five members of the French nobility. Four of the dancers were killed in a fire caused by a torch brought in by a spectator, Charles' brother Louis, Duke of Orléans—Charles and another of the dancers survived. The ball was one of a number of events intended to entertain the young king, who the previous summer had suffered the first in a series of lifelong attacks of insanity. The event undermined confidence in Charles' capacity to rule; Parisians considered it proof of courtly decadence and threatened to rebel against the more powerful members of the nobility. The public's outrage forced the king and his brother Orléans—whom at least one contemporary chronicler accused of attempted regicide and sorcery—into offering penance for the event. Charles' wife Queen Isabeau held the ball to honor the remarriage of a lady-in-waiting; scholars believe it may have been a traditional charivari, with the dancers disguised as wild men. The myth of wild men, often associated with demonology, was common in medieval Europe and documented in revels of Tudor England. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on main page

First to congrats. FIRST!! But delighted the page made it, great work TK, your certainly on a roll, and its such a great article, fantastic in the old sense. Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Second to congrats, second it: precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And from me. Nice work, as always :) Kafka Liz (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, well done...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My congratulations too - this was one of those article that I knew you were working on, but had never read until now. Very nicely done (and very horrifying too - burned alive, ugh). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was a horrifying event. And pivotal as well.

Thanks all. It's one I enjoyed but the research was tough to be honest. That said it's spun me off in new direction that might result in more pages from that period. I'm somewhat happy that I've been busy IRL and not watching. It's always interesting to see the changes to a page during a TFA. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just came to add my congrats too. Excellent article, very interesting, and really nice to see it on the main page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SV, means a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats from me too - missed it as I was at Wikimania. The first time I edited the article in 2008 I was reverted in my first encounter with User:Wetman over Tuchman's turpentine - not sure why that has gone to the less precise resin though. Next stop the death of Charles the Bad of Navarre? Some equally horrific miniatures of that, though the story has two versions. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy that you got that page started - it was fun to work on. I'm eyeing Isabeau next - more miniatures - but the Charles the Bad story is an interesting one too. Hope you enjoyed Wikimania!

• Wow. Great article! Congratulations with that. Excellent work. :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. Agreed it would be a great place to swim on hot days like we've been having lately. I've gone swimming in Lake Jean at Ricketts Glen State Park, but since I don't own property at Ganoga Lake, I've only seen it once (when some kind people let me see the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion). I just added a panoramic picture I got of the lake in the fog to the article - does it look OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's a pretty pic. I'm probably the worst person to ask though because I like "well-decorated" articles. Some very nice images Ganoga Lake. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the panorama. I took the photos for the foggy panorama when I saw the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion, but Autostitch could only put the sides together, not the whole thing. When I saw the article was going to be on the Main Page I debated driving to the lake and trying to get another panorama without fog, but did not (no permission, didn't want to trespass). Yesterday I tried Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor and it was able to stitch the panorama - I liked it, but was not sure how much of that was just the thrill of finally getting it to stitch over two years later. Then again, Ben MacDui always says not to just have photos of sunny summer days ;-) Anyway thanks for the feedback (and I like "well-decorated" articles too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember when I understood copyright issues less than I do now and being upset at having images that were removed called "decorations". Now I stick to pages where I know I can use the images and try to fit as many as possible. That's an interesting story and it's those kinds of thrills, finally making something work after 2 years, that makes all of this quite often worthwhile. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are ye talking about File:Clemuel Ricketts Mansion panorama.jpg?[1] Its very atmospheric Ruhrfisch, I saved it last night, oh well done. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Atmospheric is a good word. He meant this. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, I did mean the lake panorama in the fog TK linked to, but both were taken on the same day in May 2010 when it was quite foggy - driving up the mountain to the lake was quite an experience that day, as you had to climb through several layers of fog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the pictures, it's really quite beautiful up there. Nice that it's a park now. I'll have to visit it sometime when I'm in that area. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadnt seen the Lake panorama, I did mean the house pic, but both have that haunting early morning feel. The house pic has a real early 19th century atmosphere; I keep on expecting to see lasses in tight bodice ripping plunging neck lines to start walking through it, all fancy, with umbrellas. Or maybe Im just a sad expectant bastard. Anyways, really nice work Ruhrfisch, really evocative. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The lake and house are privately owned - I had a one-time special invitation to get pictures of the house and also got to see the Ricketts family graves and the lake on the same trip (but had to revela my secret identity ;-) ). Ricketts Glen State Park and its many waterfalls are right next to the lake, and is one of my favorite places in all the world. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a secret idntity? Who are you really, Ruhrfisch Man? Holy PR Reiever With a Dark Hidden Past! This just got real interesting. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to erase your memory ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, worse happens every day on AN/I. Come on, I wont tell anyone, nobody reads the internet any more ;) Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Isabella of Portugal

Isabeau or Isabel?

I'm trying to balance some very old sources with modern sensibilities. Is it still ok to describe a woman's apperance as "acceptable"? ;) If not, and lets not forget Philip was not exacly a handsome fecker himself, how do you couch that? To my eye, she looked very sharp indeed, nobodys fool. I'm not talking about substance here mind, just apperance. Shallow or what. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think she's attractive - she has good bones. Not beautiful or stunning, but attractive in a forthright, honest way. She wasn't beautiful, nor was she ugly. I have a description of her somewhere, but will have to dig it out of notes; she was very small which surprised me because it doesn't come across in the portraits, so she must have had a strong presence. Also, see the image here - I don't know what to think of it because the head-dress is similar to what she's wearing in the diptych. I'd like to use it in Isabeau but am beginning to think it's probably Isabel. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not convetional, but her face has a lot of character; yes I'd go with attractive. van der Weyden's portrait has good back story also, might be nice to develope and then weave the two into her bio. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's very much on the back burner. I had a good source but had to return it to the library! How dare they want their books back! Anyway, I'll have to re-order it again (came from out-of-state) and at a time when I'm not doing as much. She was a fascinating woman. She audited all the books of the guilds in Ghent, she was a good negotiator, very diplomatic and intelligent, etc. Yes, go with attractive. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not seen this before; yes very elegant and intelligent looking, her O really? who do you think you are talking to expression is interesting as is the drape along the side of her face, wondering if there is a name for it. I note she does not seem to have a chest, perhalps the bodice or something. Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The headdress drape is the same as the in the diptych with Phillip which is what makes me think it's Isabel and not Isabeau. Also the look is similar to the other Isabeau pictures but I think this is a copy of something. Can't find it anywhere though. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A Core Contest

I see you have your own sub-competition where you only list articles that should start with a definite article but have been beaten into indefinitism by policy. Some Brothers Grimm went up some Alps (no doubt to kick the "the"s off the top of Matterhorn or Jungfrau). Yomangani^talk 15:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It bothers me to no end whenever I see it on my watchlist - which is a lot these days. There's no logic to it at all, but working on that page and trying to insert links I've found that we have some very strange names that differ from sources. And yes, there is a connection but it wasn't (I don't think) intentional. The Grimms I knew about enough to tackle; climbing the Alps is another story altogether. Not sure what got into me. I'd like to change the name but things like that are beyond me; I simply add content. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A page move like that? You'll need friends. Try nominating or engineering the nomination of some unremarkable and innofensive people at RFA to gain a handy, owing, army of friends. Be the in the first five or so to support, so they know as where their butter is bread. If they seem espically dull, leave a pointed, cryptic and hanging congrats on their page post extra buttons. Rack up a few of these; then page move. Profit! Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's about the way of it. I'll leave it. If Yomangani wants to tackle it I'm sure he's capable of it. He is right though - it's a poorly named page. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani talks the good game (no doubt cricket) but I'll take him seriously when he puts in the user rename request for "The Yomangani" or even better "Teh Yomangan". Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename request? When there are so many unclaimed sockpuppet accounts? The Yomangani (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

By which I mean doppelganger accounts of course. Teh Yomangani (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Teh Yomangani has proven his devotion to the definite article. I was not able to find a barnstar to decorate his talk page, which suffers from lack of acknowledgement, but perhaps a "I'm definitely definite" userbox is in order. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary reminds me of Chili con carne Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And chili con carne reminds me of Chitlins con Carne, but the song, not the food! "Chitlins" makes me think of arthropods or something. Not that we don't eat them too. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

An idea

Following on from our recent dialogue, I have provisionally decided that my next "literary" project will be Kenneth Widmerpool. I won't be starting it just yet as I have other concerns, but towards the end of the year, perhaps. I haven't read the books in ages and it will be good to get to know them again. I see Widmerpool as a sort of cross between John Major, Ed Milliband, Yomangani and Malleus Fatuorum, i.e. distinctly odd but oddly successful in a vaguely sinister sort of way. The current article is unworthy of the subject. I wonder if we can interest Adrianne...but I think she doesn't do the 20th century. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea but you're right that she specializes in earlier centuries. I've always thought it would be difficult to do a character; I've looked at a few of the character articles but never followed through so I'll be watching to see how you do that. Also following our recent conversation I've been thinking about trying to interest her in Alice in Wonderland which really needs to be gutted and rewritten. I added a paragraph and gave up. So, perhaps when she's more settled, we might get her to dip in here now and then. Just finished reading Heber btw - nicely done! Truthkeeper (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've just remembered that around four years ago, when I was still in my kindergarten phase as far as WP editing was concerned, I did some work on Middlemarch. As I recall, I found that a well-meaning editor was attempting to construct an eight-part plot summary running to thousands of words. I maintained that the complete plot, complex though it is, could be summarised in about 900 words; I was challenged to do it, and I did. The plot summary has grown just a bit, but is still essentially my work and isn't, I believe, too bad. The rest of the article remains undeveloped. Now, that might be one to tempt the errant AW back to duty. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd think Middlemarch would be right up AW's alley - a lot to do there. It's one of my favorite novels. The problem with literature pages (and the same holds true for arts in general) is the amount of sources and reading that has to be plowed through. A lot of criticism has to be distilled - never an easy task. AW was particularly good at it. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Alps

• Hey, just wanted to remind you about alps. They're great and they need a good article. Infoboxes are annoying but not important in the long run, and discussions with the dramaboard regulars are never worth the time and grief they take. You're doing great. I've been unwatching the articles that give me grief and focus on the ones that give me something else. Whatever it is. Btw. I want to thank you for leading me towards the core contest. That's one of the benefits of being

your faithful talkpage stalker.

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Maunus. I'm taking a break; they've been there for millions of years and will still be there when I return. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the great thing about Alps!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Alps" surely ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the above re infoboxes; the issue of "dumming down" is a real and serious issue. I know I'm fighting an uphill battle but damn, if people could just learn to read! Truthkeeper (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The reductive tendancy is in part driven by making things convenient for the half interested, eg metadata for phones etc. Its putting the joy of technology over knowledge and appreciation for subtelty and complexity, esp IRT bios in the humanities area. Its a fight worth fighting. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't Quit

I left a tongue-in-cheek message for you in response to your post to Anthonyhcole at the Cancer pain discussion somewhere or another. Basically, it says DON'T QUIT. I don't know whats going on with you, but whatever it is, its NOT worth quitting.

So hey, you don't know me from Adam, but my $0.02 is that you should stay, because the project is worth it, and the project needs you. So DONT QUIT.

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I agree that the project is very worthwhile. I'm probably more invested in it than I should be. That said, breaks are a good thing too, so I'm in a take-it-day-by-day mode at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

TPS question re an image

I don't want to bother Moonriddengirl but have a copyright question: I uploaded File:Ghent altarpiece at Altaussee.jpg from here. The website says at the bottom that nothing can be copied, but the image is definitely stored at the National Archives, so should be okay, no? Also what to do with the tags that no author info has been provided when author is unknown? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just put "unknown" in the author parameter, it should kill the tag. The presence of the picture at the National Archives doesn't necessarily mean it's out of copyright, but assuming it is, you can use the image regardless of what the site you link claims - scanning or reproducing a 2D work doesn't create a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria for responding. I'll fix the author info and contact NARA. I know that most of these images were taken by the military, so would I be asking them to identify whether the image was a military image or a private image? Presumably if the latter then it's not free, but if the former then yes. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, assuming US military (or US government, for that matter) it'd be free. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. As far as I know all these images were taken by the US military because they "liberated" the mines and catalogued the art, see for instance File:Manet's Wintergarden 19450425 NARA 5757184.jpg. Given that information, is it necessary to double-check with NARA? I don't mind, but it's time consuming. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can document that reasoning without going through NARA, that should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it strange, don't you agree ...

After trying to persuade you not to give up on the Alps I've now thrown in the towel on information technology. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Even stranger is that we were writing messages at the same time. Don't give up! Truthkeeper (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Even as I made the post I was reminded of what I'd said to you only a few days earlier, so maybe not so strange. I don't know about you – you've tackled some pretty big stuff such as Hemmingway and Pound, and maybe I have a little bit as well – but to me it's always more enjoyable toiling away in Wikipedia's forgotten back gardens. Malkin Tower is my latest obsession, quite different from IT and much more relaxed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done my share of 15 view per day articles and have enjoyed them immensely. But I tend to be very eclectic in my interests, avoid things that I think I know about, and every now and then tackle something big. It was a very hot and humid day when I saw the Alps listed and, knowing a little (and you know what they say about a little knowledge), decided to jump in. It also keeps me focused. This will probably have people coming after me with pitchforks, but it's really only all about getting books, reading them, synthesizing, and writing, which I find relaxing. It's the rest of the stuff here that drives me out of my mind to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The mistake I made with IT is that it is something I know about, and it was quite frustrating to keep having to look for sources to back up stuff I knew to be true. Today's RfCs were just the straw that broke the camel's back. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with the Alps – I've enjoyed skiing there so many times – and if you need any help with it you know where to find me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I know the Alps from skiing too, but who knew about the composition of the rocks and such. That's where it gets very tricky and a little difficult. Your copyedits were extremely helpful, allowing me to focus on shoving in more and more content without worrying too much about the prose, so thanks again for those. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

L.A. Ring

I think you might enjoy copyediting this one. :) all the best - will work on the Alp etymology when IO get back to campus on tuesday.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, I'll have a look at it when I have time. Thanks also for the fixes to the Alps. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep

If it isn't clear already, I didn't mean you (you know where). - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant me, but who knows? Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I might be defensive, and I hadn't noticed really that Johnbod wasn't active there anymore, though now that I think of it I haven't seen him around that much. It's a mystery to me. One thing I would say to Dank is that I think you're right to be worried that FAC will be affected. Certainly I have no desire to either submit or to review but I'm only a single editor, so who can tell. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I come & go, but at the moment I'm fairly active reviewing at FAC. I've only submitted one article per year for a while now, & did this year's in the spring. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

I may have misremembered, but didn't you express some interest in improving this article recently? I've come to it from Golding's inspiration for his book, The Coral Island, which I'm still (slowly) working on. The biggest problem I see immediately is the emphasis on characters rather than themes. If it doesn't interest you that's fine, but any thoughts you have would be helpful, as I'm still quite a novice at literature articles. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that book, but it really depends on the sources. I usually write the themes, styles, genres sections first and the plot summary last so as not to create a mini-report that any 4th grader can copy and hand in. That said, maybe that's the purpose of wikipedia now - simply to create data that can be downloaded and copied. At first glance it looks fine to me. I've used To Kill a Mockingbird, (Moni wrote it but I guess I'm not allowed to say that), as a template for most of my lit pieces, and of course anything that Awadewit "wrote" (how does one ignore that most of these were written by a single editor?) will have a nice structure. I also thought that Maria did a very nice job with The Red Badge of Courage which is considered juvenile fiction. It's often difficult to find sources for "childern's literature" and without good sources it's hard to know where to go. We're "collaborating" on The Call of the Wild by the way. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found Highbeam very helpful for sources on children's literature, but I'm not sure which article you're saying looks OK. It was Awadewit that set me on the road to The Green Child, perhaps inadvertently, when she rejected my DYK based on some secret DYK rules. Anyway, no sweat. I think you may find your "collaboration" on The Call of the Wild to be rather one-sided, but time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya think?

I meant The Coral Island looks okay. Lord of the Flies is a mess. If it were me, I'd gut it and stub it down and start from scratch. And then someone would say something nasty about me, but there you go. Thanks for the tip re Highbeam for children's lit. I'll remember that. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, time will tell. My intention is to get The Coral Island to GA, then I'll maybe look at Lord of the Flies. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in fairness I'm not worrying about the refs. So that only leaves the research and the writing. It'll be time consuming but I think it's a worthy page to do. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the research and writing? What else is there? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not very detail oriented. Research isn't much of a chore and structure comes easily to me, so the biggest chore will be the writing. Not having to worry about the refs will be helpful so I think it's worthwhile. In the least an article will be improved. Although the ratings don't seem to think it needs improvement. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

TFA requests

I found out only recently (after I asked who decides what readers read) that the community has a tool to influence what gets to the Main page as TFA, TFA requests and its talk. You can make suggestions and support the suggestions of others. We should use it more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ps: I like your collaboration with The Call of the Wild ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Peaks and scale

...to rise into mountain peaks that then folded over...
A bit of perspective - mountain peaks such as the Matterhorn are but fleeting things in the geologic diorama. A mountain peak is produced by erosion as the mountain mass is eroded during and following the orogenic process. A peak is like a blip on the surface of the rock mass that is folded into recumbent knapps and thrust over underlying strata. Like deep time the scale of tectonic collisions takes a bit to adjust the mind to. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was implied, but I've removed it. Thanks for telling me. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Hi Truthkeeper88!
I know it's been a while but I'm convinced to nominate the TV series article for GAN.
I was impatient and nominated it last night and it failed today.
I redid the entire lead section which looks great but it is listed on the talk page what needs to be fixed and wanted to know if you are willing to help!
We got the film article to be a GA article and I'm convinced the same could happen for the series article.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 18:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi ATC - thanks for dropping by. I'll take a look but it won't be for a little while, am going on few pages at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done!

I thought I was doing great in the competition untill I saw what you've actually accompished with those Alps - truly impressive! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very tired. Thanks though, nice of you to stop by. I'll have to look at what you've done but I've been too tied up, so to speak. Still owe you a copyedit on the Danish artist too - I had a look at that page and really liked it. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

van eyck

You up for finishing the van eyck diptych. I still have bits from Pact to add, but other than that it only needs a slight copyedit. Let me know if you'll be busy in the next weeks or not. ps tune. On behalf of Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Will be busyish but there's not a ton to be done there so yeah, this is something I could take on and would very much want to do. Thanks for the tune. Give me a bit to get caught up and clean up the mess I made of that sandbox too. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, we spent too much time bullshitting on Rigger's page last night and not enough time actually doing anything. T'was fun but, eh, today...for sure! Go us! Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Mortis has blinked at me. He is hurt that the time you spent at his electronic drawing room, if you will, has been labelled "bullshitting" and "not doing anything". However, he expects as much from mere assistants such as you (plural, and please let's not get into the grammatical takeover of "yourselves"), though I try to raise the bar in that regard. Perhaps that's why I have not yet been shot, paddled, or dumped overboard, and you (plural) find yourselves without, or almost without, an employer. Good day. —Moretti

Oh Moretti, so good to hear from you and to hear that Mr. Mortis has blinked! Hopefully the baking on the slab hasn't effected him too greatly. I meant to correspond this morning but was otherwise engaged and then, unfortunately, we ran into the remnant of a hurricane and communications were temporarily knocked out. But all is well now! Thank you so much for disposing of Miss Colette Sloan, she was becoming a nuisance and would not have survived the storm had she still been with us. I believe that Miss Elisabeth will be joining me - bringing with her a supply of her father's best sherry. I would be more than happy to have Mr. Mortis join us as well. I fear that Ceoil's knee-capping may have been more effective than he pretended because there hasn't been much on the front of "go us" today. But if he wishes to recuperate in the luxury of the yacht I can find a stateroom for him. Also, please pass on to Mr. Mortis that I approve of his choice of assistants. Certainly you are most efficient! —Regards, Theresa von Kampfwald.

Im badly damaged but likely to survive, accroding to my farmer of leachs. Just a few more of them should do the trick, and I have a lot of opium at my disposal. Every cloud eh. Once recovered though, I intend to purge this website of all assistances. Burger-Smith and all associated with him are going down, indef blocks and revdeletions. Its time to call in my admin socks; they were nutured for just such an occasion. Im sorry if this is upsetting to some dainty souls, but being knee capped tends to bring out the worst. Once all my enemies and their relatives are smited, I'll return to being the nice guy you all know so well. Tk, I know you have a tender soul, you might prefer too look away from the slaughter I intend to implement in the coming days. Good day and hurrah!. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I'll duck and cover during the mayhem. Certainly those assistants are a pesky lot and though Moretti left them in the pet cemetary one never knows when they'll return, so a good cleansing is in order. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Cover

When I was a kid this was one of my favorites: [2], [3] #91, 1952...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks M. It was a one of the greats in a great series. I'd like to add the image but unfortunately not free unless I write a FUR - at which I suck. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you upload it - I'll write the FUR...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The Call of the Wild (Classic comics).jpg - I've uploaded without permissions so it will be full of templates by the time I finish typing this. Thanks for finding it and offering to write the FUR. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can determine it and all these Classic Comics are in the PD...Modernist (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just noticed you added the tag. That's actually great to know. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why so deferential?

[4] You address an important point, and one that SV seems to have some sympathy with. Unless this "ownership" bollocks is sorted out then Wikipedia will continue its downward spiral of decline. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it's the crux of the matter here; the truth is that that we have millions of articles that need to gutted and rewritten but writers are treated like shit and that's why they leave. I'm not being deferential to SV; I'm just sick of fighting. And I have a bad headcold so am in a bad mood. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm always in a bad mood, but I have two examples for you. Look at Melford Stevenson's FAC, and try telling me that after having gone through all of that you'd be happy to see the article trashed. And then look at information technology, an article that came pre-trashed and proved quite resistant to any kind of rational change. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The real answer to your question in the header is that I'm a wimp, and wimps don't make it on wikipedia. And real life is quite difficult at the moment - so I can only take Wikipedia in small doses, and that with people who don't feel it always has to be a fight. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah jesus, you a bit soft alright, but your tough too in your own way. I would think twice about messing with you for example, reckon I'd be eaten alive ;) Streching back on my porch, I remember Marskell proposing the concept of grandfathering back in the day, I think in relation to George's articles. Thats prob a step further, but if wiki wasn't so obsessed with eating it young and putting recruitment over retainment, its where we would have gone, long ago. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

MF, if I was you i'd just ignore the bullshit and drive past them anyway. Capitalisation? Life is short and nasty enough without that crap. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ps tk, [5] this always cheers me up, it funny, although I dont know why. Maybe its the lightness of touch, or the sheer joy. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the sheer joy. Thanks. Made me smile. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thing is daft but gas as all hell, and glad it might have cheered you up. You know there was atime when I was on the puff when that album was a bit more than meaningful, Im sure you know what I mean. Here is something very bitter sweet [6]. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that before, but it's nice to hear again. Thanks. Making me feel guilty for not reciprocating, but you know I'm no good at that. So, how do you feel about the crucifixion? Is it almost there? Or more work to be done? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

[7] Rexx is another light weight gladfly you shouldnt waste your time with. Corrupted motives there, onmly as good as his friends at the time. Tends to wade in emotiaonally without thinking. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself. It annoys me that the main "style" used for the humanities is always ignored here. Which is the reason we don't have a house style and it's okay to write out citations. Anyway, enough of that. I see that a certain someone is editing the crucifixion, thankfully! It feels as though you and I both ran out of steam when we're so close to being done. I'm off to read and take care of my cold. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You too. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

← TK, I saw this. I said I'd fix up the refs on CotW, and I have. You said you'd be reading and I've been doing a lot of other stuff. I used the terms I used because that's how I feel about these issues. You and a few others *hate* infoboxes. Go look at a few major websites; modern website design always include various sidebars that are akin to infoboxes (albeit often full of adverts). Look at a newspaper or magazine; the term sidebar comes from them. If you don't like infoboxes so much, don't look at them; but recognise that many find them valuable. Here:

.infobox { display: none; }

Paste that into User:Truthkeeper88/common.css and most of the infoboxes will simply not appear for you.

In 2005, I tried to get a convention going to keep the infoboxes in subpages, such as diff of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. The infobox was at Saint-Pierre and Miquelon/infobox and looked pretty much like the left side of the diff (note that we weren't using templates much, then;). The idea was to get all that clutter out of the article. And I'm still on about de-cluttering articles. But WP:SUBPAGES rulz against that approach (so one-off templates were tried, next;). But the main argument that scuppered these efforts is that all of it is an impediment to n00bz editing the infoxbox, since they would have trouble /finding/ it if it wasn't at the top of the article.

Readers want infoboxes; they browse, surf, and most don't read much of the articles, they just pick. Do I respect that? Not much; most people are dumb. But try and look at the infoboxes as bait to get readers interested in the rest of the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The biggest misconception here is that I hate infoboxes. It's not infoboxes that I hate, it's putting incorrect data out as the number one google hit. The articles I tend to work on, mostly humanities, don't lend themself as well to infoboxes as other pages. For instance the writer infobox has an "influenced/influenced by" field. Without research and sourcing, how do we know the information in those fields is correct? Yet it gets picked up and mirrored all over the web and then becomes "true" when in fact maybe not true. That's the issue I have with infoboxes.

The one biography where I really objected was Ezra Pound because it's just so hard to stuff him into fields. Born in Idaho, but grew up in the eastern US after age one. An American but lived most of his life in Europe. A poet but worked most of his life on a piece that was never finished. Best known as a ... traitor. Married to one woman but lived for 50 years with a second woman on-and-off. Had a daughter with the mistress; the son born to the wife almost certainly not his. On and on. In that case, I felt it was better to leave it out. I'm not crazy about them for book pages because as you saw I found three fields in The Call of the Wild that were wrong - and I haven't gone through history to see how long they've been like that.

So, bottom line, if the research is done, the fields are correct, then I don't mind them that much. I hate them for art because the painting should be displayed, not the infobox and the information should be written in the first sentence. Like anything else in life, my feelings are in not in shades of black and white, but shades of grey. I've actually added infoboxes to a number of pages. But equally sometimes I take them down if I don't think they add a lot to the topic. I actually think about what I'm doing before I do it, and I'm very aware of our readers and agree with you about decluttering pages. I like clean pages.

I pulled the comment you link to above because I realized it was unfair. Thanks for adding the refs to CoTW - to be honest your page is getting a little long to navigate, I'm a bit irritable right now, and so didn't stop by yesterday to acknowledge. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record - I don't 'hate' infoboxes either; I just think editors should have a choice; and editors who put in hundreds of good edits to an article should be accorded the respect and the right to have their point of view carry weight. As far as infoboxes on articles about art and artists - I almost always support their use...Modernist (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're advocating ownership, vested contributors with territorial rights. You're on the wrong website for that. Weight properly goes to merit of argument. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

TK, that idiots stick crap into infobox fields is not a valid reason to kill the whole box; it's a reason to revert their edits. They can add influenced drivel into the body of articles, too. So, Pound was born in Idaho; that a fact→infobox, on whatever date. If other fields are dodgy, that's a matter for consensus and possible omission, to be covered in more detail in a section of the article. For art pages, I'd have no problem with a wider box for a larger image; better, how about an image that is simply expanded to hang over the l/r edges of the box a bit. Stuff like that is doable, you know. How about the image pops to double-size when you hover over it? Have another look at User:Alarbus; see how the extra scroll bar works, see the full image, and note how I've cropped and screened it dynamically. There's really no reason that page couldn't be the basis for a special infobox on art, where the infobox fields scroll right over the image ;) Articles on paintings should have the artist, the date, dimensions, medium and style (not looking; there must be an {{infobox painting}}). Infoboxes could have close buttons, or user prefs for “none”. Anons can have limited prefs, too. You know, WMF is trialing new features to anons and n00b accounts that the regulars are not seeing. They're moving faster than the speed of consensus, and it's not going to stop. More is coming; the 17th, for example.

Articles like The Call of the Wild, Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, Hemingway's works, and all the others that are shoved at idiots in schools are magnets for bad editing. They should be semi'd forever and maintained at a high level. Instead, most such article are abandoned to the anons and endless accounts no one knows shit about. The worst cluttering up of wikitext is full inline citations. See diff of William Burges. That edit removed 2,400 bytes of markup goop from the article; it would have been a lot more because I also spread a bunch of citations out by adding hundreds of spaces and newlines; probably about 1,000. The prior few edits removed thousands more. This massively improves the ratio of text to markup in prose. This is a service to the people editing the wikitext.

You said you're "sick of fighting about stupid stuff", and I get that; the argumentation is endless and insipid. But the reason to fight the stupid shite is that if you don't, it wins. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that eventually we'll have a entire redesign anyway, so energy fighting about something that might be taken care of on the meta level seems a little like a waste of time, particularly when so much is still to be done on the ground. The world won't come to an end if a certain page doesn't have an infobox, and if the meta-redesign includes boxes on every page, then that's what we'll all have to live with.

It's interesting that originally there were no infoboxes, and probably they should just be placed in a separate editing space. On CoTW I wanted to add the pic of the Chilkoot pass (so the kids reading could see what that was all about) but ran into text squeeze with the box, so I rearranged the sections instead. That's not always possible though. I also am not a big fan of the white space between the images and the border of the box nor am I big fan of some of borders - but I do like your idea of using all the space and I believe that's all doable.

I agree with what you've said about semi-ing certain pages. With a fair bit of effort and no interruptions I could probably single-handedly crank out content for a number of articles like those you mention above, but I tend to get discouraged, distracted, whatever, and wander off to work on more obscure topics, or simply wander off altogether. It's not that I'm not well equipped to fight; but fighting isn't the reason I come here. I come here to add content to pages that I think should be built and that I know are read.

Anyway, I appreciate that you've stopped by to talk. I think we're both committed to this project but our emphasis is different - that doesn't make either of us bad or our opinions bad. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding and to change the subject: I'm pretty much done with CoTW. At this stage I like to let a page sit and cook a bit and then come back to tinker with fresh eyes in a week or so. If you're still interested in trying to take it through FAC I'll prob need to do one more search for sources to make sure it's comprehensive, but so far I've used everything I can find. I was thinking about maybe asking BrianBoulton for a PR but I think he's not available for a little while. Anyway, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for admin

Hi Truthkeeper, I'd like to nominate you for adminship. Is there any chance you'd accept a nomination? You certainly have enough experience, and I think you'd have a very easy time at Rfa--probably quite similar to my Rfa. I doubt that you'd encounter opposition, you have a stellar content record, great judgment, and experience dealing with sockpuppets. I know that you're primarily a content-focused user, but even so, I think you would enjoy having the tools. It's very convenient to be able to move over redirects, protect pages when you see edit wars break out, and block the obvious IP trolls that you run into. Give it some thought, but I think you'd receive a lot of support if you decide to go ahead with this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, that is quite the surprise and I'm flattered you'd ask. Unfortunately I have to say no. At the moment my real life demands are too great and too unpredictable; quite frankly an RfA would be impossible at this time, and probably will be for a number of months into the future. Thanks a lot for thinking of me though and thanks for the compliments. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'll take my advice TK you won't even think about this; you can have no idea how demoralising RfA can be. If you're interested, I could tell you exactly why you'd attract a substantial number of oppose votes, but privately of course. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point I have much too much going on in real life, so it's all moot. I don't know from day to day whether I'll be here, can't commit to a FAC without a co-nom, so it's simply impossible in every way. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, understandable, real life comes first and Rfas can be quite time consuming. Let me know if you ever change your mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reverses psychology:) Truthkeeper, I refuse to nominate you for adminship. Would you consider granting me permission to not nominate you? We have lots of admins as it is; even independent blogs are noticing the strange rise in number and quality of admins. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither never don't not think about not not falling for that nor don't not deny that Riggr has not the right to never not let him not think about not not putting you forward. If you neither don't not reply in the affirmative nor never not confirm any denial that you won't not agree to not let him not proceed, he shouldn't take that as never not not being an affirmative. Yomangani^talk 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, No, No, it ain't me babe! No, No, No, it ain't me babe! It ain't me you're lookin' for...........babe...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party, but you your too honest for the job, frankly. Just say naw. God will shoot me for this but [8], but you gotta admire the rabble rousing. For the here and now: the Lady is not for turning :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

All funny posts here and nice compliment re honesty - thanks for that. It would take more time than I have to give and my time is best spent in the trenches. It does bother me though to have to ask others to clean up messes I've made myself - see discussion with Ruhrfisch below. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt say its a mess exactly, and hey Ruhrfisch got to use his button. I imagine him like Clint, steely and blue eyed, chewing a tooth pick. Bang. User space thingy gone. Just like that. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny. It was a mess for me because I couldn't at all understand how I ended up with a re-direct and where all the van Gogh stuff went. Anyway, spent yesterday cleaning files on my hard drive; today will be dealing with sandboxes, and then back to article work. The crucifixion is waiting. Isabeau is waiting. Jack London is waiting. The Alps. And I've stumbled across the most amazing amount of overlinking I've ever seen on what was once a very nice Filiocht page - so might tackle that too. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re Filiocht, have a soft spot for his articles. A bunch should be rolled back to when he finished with them. Problem is the pesky footnotes. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is American Poetry. I went through history and found his version. It was a FAC in 2004! He was very good at summarizing a large topic like that. It's general enough that I think I can source without having to change much. The newer content that's been added since he left will need more work, but doable. It's a very long range project but a page worth preserving imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

2004? Holy christ. Amazing how on the internet that might as well be BC. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that too. But compare this version [9], to the current, and the best of the article is still there. It's really a testament to his good work. But we know that from Ezra. This one could be rolled back, sourced, and it would be a good page. Anyway another salvage job. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of blue in that link. Differnt times. But the way, how are the planned FARs of Outrigers pages going, can you send me a execuitve summary of the 500 odd mails a day list. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been scrubbing the blue. Very much a different time. Are there planned FARs of Outriggr's pages? I seem to have been left out of the loop on that (must be the fault of the assistant I lost!). I have seen some suspicious activity going on over at Beagle and was wondering if that was mundane maintenance, prep to run on the main page with a horse and a stork, or pre-FAR jitters. I guess I should pay more attention. What's happening with the crucifixion btw? Going on hold for a bit? I saw your note on Yomangani's page. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Outriggr only "has" one thing to FAR (verb, transitive), so go easy on him. Outriggr is now looking for virtual pet therapy by interacting with dog articles. Outriggr also believes he can save Beagle from FAR with minor formatting changes, even though he noticed that not "EVERYTHING" is cited, and it's always a difficult attack to counter when someone says that not "EVERYTHING" is cited. For example, you'd need a linguistics or philosophy doctorate to syntactically break down how many assertions were made per sentence. It's not an easy task, but FAR nominators can manage it in their sleep. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good thing that Outriggr only has one thing to FAR - Ceoil's message above left me quaking in my boots (sneakers? flip flops? bare feet?) worried that suddenly the FAR police would descend. Or something. As for the dog page - the only thing that I question is the whether the beagles like the cats or the cats like the beagles, or really is it relevant? How do beagles get on with infants or small children? Wouldn't that be more important than the cat/dog fight? Just my perspective of course. Hope you are well and greetings to Outriggr! Truthkeeper (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Human Stain‎

Sorry - noticed your major edit tag after making a small change. I'll wait till you are done, but I have concerns about removing/downplaying all the commentary that said Silk was inspired by or modeled after Broyard in some measure. Most of these assertions predate the recent dispute, e.g. Tierney 2002. The news reports on this topic were quick to claim Wikipedia was wrong etc., when we were merely reflecting what numerous published sources had said since the book's publication. I compiled a list of academic quotations on the talk page, including a number from a peer-reviewed journal about Philip Roth. Jokestress (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it becomes all about that and ignores a rigorous and well-written critical commentary. From what I've read scholars certainly draw a correlation between Silk and Broyard, but that might be because Broyard's story was better known than Tumin's. I think that casting a wide net to "prove" it was Broyard or Tumin, is the wrong way to go. The thing to do is to examine the themes, style, etc. of the book. The theme certainly to a degree is about passing, but more so is about the tawdriness of American life and that needs to be brought out imo. Anyway, I'll take down the tag and spend some time reading the sources you pulled. I've only been tidying - the edit window is a mess. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add: We also have to balance what the critics have to say with what the author has to say. Before I take down the tag, I'll add a few bits from some of the critics - was just composing a piece. I don't mind if it all gets reverted. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin stuff

I deleted it and the associated talk page. Looking at this there are a few links that went to the old page, so if you would rather keep it as a redirect, just let me know and I can undelete it. I have been in a bit of a funk of late - very busy in real life and not much desire to do much here (though I still feel guilty about peer reviews). I am well otherwise. Hope all is well with you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I think it's probably okay despite the links - I'm not sure why I did that except that I needed to shove around a lot stuff from sandboxes and was probably too lazy and in too much of a hurry to start a new one or something. Thanks for deleting the redirect. I can understand the being in the funk - it's happened to me enough. There's a long peer review, Anne Hutchinson, that I've been eyeing, but I haven't had the time really for it. I'll try to get to it this week. You and Brian do so much to keep PR going and I think it's really valuable. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch if anybody on this project deserves a guilt free bit of time off, its you. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at [email protected] and, second, email [email protected] along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RE:Late Response

Replied to your comment on my talk page. Best regards. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Moah cheat sheet

If you ever feel in need of a diacritic (and let's face it, who doesn't) Mac shortcuts for many of these are simple and easy to remember

• Alt e then a vowel produces an acute accent, eg Alt e a gives á
• Alt ` then a vowel produces a grave accent, eg Alt ` e gives è
• Alt i then a vowel produces a circumflex, eg Alt i i gives î
• Alt u then a vowel produces a diaeresis, eg Alt u o gives ö
• Alt n then n gives an eñe; ñ
• Alt c gives a cedilla; ç
• Alt s gives an esszett; ß

 pablo 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest Winner!

	First Prize - Core Contest
	Congratulations for winning the August 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Your voucher will be on its way soon.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats TK! Well done! PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Incredible job, not just on quantity (of which there was an amazing amount) but of quality of prose and references. Superb work! Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You matched the topic in height, congrats, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice!! Congrats, Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations, well deserved!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Good, Bad and Ugly for your next article. Three for the price of one. Yomangani^talk 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Way to go!..Modernist (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful article --Epipelagic (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! Very pleased. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My (belated) congratulations too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A WikiOtter for You

	Time to Go Running With WikiOtters
	Sometimes the funness of the Encyclopedia wears away, but don't be afraid there is always a chance to go running with the Wikiotters! Hope everything is going well, because you do such a great job! Sadads (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads. Nice to see you around again - I hope everything is well with you. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty good. The last 5-6 months have been kindof hectic, and I finally feel like I have some sense of control over the craziness of grad school and teaching now :P Hopefully, you will see me around more often! Feel free to ping me if you need anything. How are all the things treating you? Sadads (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Moppet revert

I've reverted your removal of this article from TFAR. You may be correct in that it should not run, but you shouldn't remove someone else's nomination without a clear explanation as to why. Please explain in detail instead of leaving hints. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I did boldly revert for a very good reason. A lot of time could have been saved had it been left alone. I will explain more later. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have clearer picture given your (and Iri's) subsequent comments, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I took what was to be a quick break from work - but it's turned into shoving off more work until tomorrow - and didn't want to take the time to explain at that moment. I will post a bunch of diffs here soonish - will take a bit of time to find them - so you understand more clearly. Could you do me a favor and turn off the citation bot that's been hitting the Potter pages - all those pages need to have the edits checked manually and I've been edit warring with the bot. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's fascinating to me to learn about wiki-history. To be honest, I'm not sure how to stop the citation bot, but I'll look into it. If it's showing "user activated" it means that someone is manually triggering it to run on those pages though. P.S. reverting bots is an exemption from 3RR :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, turns out it's not hard. I added some code to the pages I saw you revert citation bot on... so this should most likely stop it on those. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My objections to having Miss Moppet on the main page

Archived discussion at TFAR, and the discussion has moved to five more pages, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I will explain this situation in detail as soon as I can with diffs. Please be patient and give me some time. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As requested on my talk page, I encourage those who are not aware of User:ItsLassieTime to please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, more particular, here, where the Miss Moppet article is listed. As noted, all edits made by User:Susanne2009NYC were confirmed as copyright violations and thus RevDeleted. And while I did not block the user (User:Laser brain did), the MO here (focus on children's books and mass quantities of copyvios and plagiarism) leads me to believe that the block for ban evasion was the correct one. To say the least, especially for those who don't believe that this user is a sock, I still think a block was and is necessary because of the mass quantities of copyvios and plagiarism alone.

That being said, if all edits from that user on the Miss Moppet article have been RevDeleted, then there theoretically shouldn't be any plagiarism remaining, unless 1) an edit inbetween the RevDeleted edits was missed, or 2) somebody else is also plagiarizing sources (I find the latter to be unlikely, but you never know). --MuZemike 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it saves me from looking for the CCI report. I do think that Ruhrfisch and I scrubbed Miss Moppet very well and that Ruhrfisch took care of the history, but I'd defer to MRG on this. I'm much more concerned about all the pages that are linked to - most of those do have corrupt history. For those reading, here's a list of ILT socks, [15], as I slowly start pulling together the diffs for this. I'll be adding more. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The not so savoury tale of Miss Moppet

details and diffs

ILT socks: [16] Miss Moppet FAC: [17] Jeremy Fisher FAC: [18] List of Potter related and other articles by Susanne2009NYC to be checked: (very little of this work has been checked) [19] Decision to start scrubbing: [20] Rewriting process (the entire archive): [Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet/Archive 1], and more here: [21] Breakdown: source checking [22], partial description of edits and confirmed copyvio/close paraphrasing [23], post-FAC review [24] Decision to revdel: [25], [26] More socks revealed: [27] ILT abuse on my page (only samples, much has been removed): [28],[29] My decision to have the star stripped, [30] in response to this at AN/I [31] (more personal attacks, more socks identified) Decision whether to FAR or not (and my obvious lack of knowledge of FAR) [32] and accusation that I wanted the star stripped so I could take it to FAC and get the star for myself [33]. I decided not to go to FAR. More: some scrubs of Beatrix Potter (which have subsequently been rewritten by others): [34], and sample scrubbing of The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher [35] Some sort of history and timeline here that doesn't necessarily need to be dredged up, but the value of institutional memory is that all of us know about these things and understand the history behind certain decisions. There are more diffs to be added (eg. I've seen more AN/I reports) but this is a good synopsis. When I have time I'll copy this to a subpage and keep a link handy. We need to keep this history. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up - I have always felt that Miss Moppet should go through FAR to check the clean up we did (I think you did the hard work). I do not think it should be on the Main Page until it has been carefully checked - we did our best, but I think it needs to be checked by third parties. To be honest, the whole saga is what turned me off on FAC and I have not brought an article there since, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• First, I'm very sad to hear that it was this sorry experience that's stopped you from going to FAC. That said, I realized as I was putting this together last night, that I've only been to FAC myself once since the end of the experience, so I guess we both reacted similarly. I can certainly submit this to FAR this evening; it would be simply a question of having it delisted, I would think. But as I've mentioned at the TFAR page, I'm not sure how we prevent this (or all the other ILT pages, many of which are in very good shape) from being brought to FA. I do feel strongly that any page that has an edit history that contains copyvio, and particularly those written by ILT, should probably be kept off the main page, but maybe I'm being too harsh. Dunno what to do. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks - I both peer reviewed Miss Moppet and supported it at FAC (and made a number of edits to it in those processes), yet I never bothered to spot check it. I felt really bad about that. Then I got busier in real life and a lot of things happened and I just haven't done much article writing since. I have been taking a lot of pictures of covered bridges lately, and I am getting the itch to write.... Fingers crossed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• In retrospect I think you and I made the wrong decision with the best of intentions. We tried to make a bad situation better when in fact it should have been dealt with differently. College students aren't allowed to hand in plagiarized work, get an A, and then when found out to have plagiarized have the work redone to keep the A. That's essentially what happened. Certainly I never considered the long-term ramifications and the situation that occurred a few days ago. In a sense I'm happy it happened because it brought up the fact that this issue is still unresolved. I haven't submitted to FAR yet because I'm not certain that's the answer. I'm sort of tempted to have all those pages blanked and turned red, but others might think that's too extreme or radical. Do you have any suggestions about what to do? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TK, you've got mail

No need to respond, just want you to see it fairly soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And from me as well, again, not urgent. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

interesting that both of you can't conduct your business with TK in public. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly interesting, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sooper-Sekrit Barnstar, for all the work you put into this project that often goes unappreciated. Of course, by the way. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you make it to the cabal clubhouse at midnight, TK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

HI Mathew - the value of what happened today is that something that has required documentation and explanation for a long time is now to some extent documented above. This is not about FAC being corrupt as you mentioned [36], it's about the unfortunate fact that people sometimes cheat and stuff gets by the best of us, which was the case here. Since that time we've been spot-checking all FACs and personally I'm strongly opposed to seeing any article promoted to FA status without spotchecks and source reviews, because of situations like this which cause an enormous amount of energy and time to take care of and clean up, and as you've seen, which cause problems and confusion as happened today. The pages I've had go through FAC since that time have been spotchecked, and I've spotchecked a number of other pages during - I once spotchecked a page written by Ian Rose, currently a FAC delegate. But the reality is that we don't have enough reviewers and when the system is stressed, problems occur.

In regards to the email, I made a comment at a time when I freely admit I probably shouldn't have been editing. It was unwise, I was deeply embarrassed, requested oversight which was denied (others had already responded to the thread), and I've been trying to limit my activity here. The email I received tonight didn't contain anything I didn't already know in regards to oversighting. I'd be very grateful if you could let it go, but having made the comment in public of course I have to take responsibility for it. I hope all the diffs above clear up some of the confusion and at some point when I have time I will write up the history of the Potter pages, all of which are affected. I apologize if I was rude - I was rushed and should have waited. But as I said, this forced me document something that does need to be documented. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• is there a reason to carry on this discussion on five more pages besides the TFA? What is the point? The article is ok now, so it seems. (hope this isn't one of the pages I've been forbidden to post on, since my views are apparently unpopular among the old crew.) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've been trying very hard to keep the discussion in one place. I'm not an expert in terms of technical stuff but if Iridescent says the edit history still has copyvio, then there's a possibility it does. Dunno Mathew, just don't know what to say anymore. I'm not part of a crew - I scrubbed some pages. Hundreds more need either scrubbing (big big task because they're all actually quite well done) or deleting. Other people need to make these decisions. But in my view it is unwise to run something on the main page that we know had copyvio. Again just my opinion and we use consensus to reach decisions. And no, I don't mind if you post here. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• but how do the rest of us "know" it has copyvio. It's listed as an FA. Can you come up with a plan that allows newbies a voice and doesn't depend on the "old crew" with subjective "institutional memory"? Moonriddengirl said the actual "edit history" doesn't count! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your reaching out to Mathew Townsend. It did not go unnoticed. MONGO 00:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have kids, or relatives with kids, in public schools or colleges in America, but Wikipedia is vilified in the teaching community and academia. I've heard it called a cancer on the internet. I'm deeply committed to this project and Mathew unwittingly uncovered an issue that needs to be resolved because that single page is representative of an issue that undermines our credibility. He took heat for it as did I - but the right thing to do is to solve that particular problem. And hopefully some good will come out of that mess. Certainly I plan to spend a lot of time scrubbing the rest of those pages in the coming weeks. Thanks for the barnstar. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the page, just saw your very kind remarks at his usertalk...and it was classy.--MONGO 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Week just gone just turned out to be a nightmare, but have a long weekend now where I dont have to work. Joy. Anyway, I can look again at the diptych, and *thanks* for doing so much heavy lifting in my absence. ps Isabella is looking fine.[37] Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello back. Just finishing up my week - luckily fairly easy but a busy day today. No prob re the heavy lifting but you should prob have a look, if you haven't, to be certain I haven't made any mistakes. Hoping to get to Isabella later today. Too many poorly written notes from a source that's long gone. Oh well. Could use some help there if you're interested; having a hard time grasping the politics. Tks for the tune (and the copyedits). Truthkeeper (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I was peaking during my at my desk lunch breaks, all good. Sorry to have left you in the lurch. Am reading through Iseballa atm, will start pulling my weight at van eyck soon....promise! Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The comments were good and not so hard to fix as I thought. I'm planning to gut the bottom half of Isabella - at least I think. Will see how it goes. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"House of Wittelsbach"? I used to kick sand in the faces of people with names like that. And rightfull so. Sounds like they gained the upper hand when one of the them woke up and swore "NEVER AGAIN". You know, like Napoleon. But for weird funny sounding kids. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Made me laugh. You realize, don't you, that all of this is the prelude to the rise of the Burgundians and the Netherlandish art. The politics of are driving me nuts. Might have to go back to lit pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Young Hare] by Some German Dude, before 2000.

Art history is not for the faint hearted. You could try increasing you intake of smelling salts, or fair enough, going back to your cucoon of fluffy and dainty Hemmingway and Pound articles. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if I wanted fluffy I'd be spending my time working on the Potter mess and working on all those rabbits. Instead I'm trying to figure out nasty politics, assassinations, an insane king and a queen who may or may not have been evil. I have a Hemingway ready to go, and Ezra's waiting for me to stop being lazy. In the meantime, I'll keep the smelling salts handy. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ezra? Oh! Oh! Well you know what I think so I wont say, except I might have advised you badly on that page, like two years ago, and I was wrong about SlimVirgin at the time. But there has been so much work since. So I'll just shut up now. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

psss, c'here..... Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

All ancient history and water under the bridge. Laziness is the only excuse there, and a slightly better excuse, is lack of time. When we get the diptych through, let's tackle Ezra, the three of us. Time to put it behind us completely with a star on top, dontcha think? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Im just a cheerleader here, my contribution there is minimal. But the page is how we got to get to know eachother; I got blocked that time remember by whatshisface, longgonenow flybynightadmin, and you were the knight in shining armour that stepped in and rewrote the whole thing. Funny how it works out. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ps the bunnies are making me want to bear arms. Mind if I swap them for less icky, though I do get the joke. But in the interests of keeping wiki evil.[38] Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I took them out. Don't really want them anyway. I do remember that, had the page on my watch and saw that someone had taken out a chunk. I meant to step in and do something but was busy elsewhere (Hemingway FAC maybe?) and the next thing I knew it blew up as these things do. But I don't buy that your contributions were minimal - you helped a lot. And SV helped an enormous amount. I think the page is good because we worked hard on it, Slim had the guts to step and say it wasn't good enough (which I didn't take well tbh but was true) and in the end we created a very nice product. Needs a bit of polishing is all. But everyone should get credit. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

TK, its like this: I have your back re prose and though I'm familiar with the sources, but I wouldnt be confident enough to show. I am aware of them, put it like that, but have not delved into them like ye. Its was such a difficult bio, and Im so proud of the work that has gone to presenting it, between you and SV, I cant claim any real credit, but so hope you drive it through. My reading is that SV has enough confidence in you to to push; you have diddered enough and asked a few times, you should just go for it now. I will shout for ya and help ya, but thats all I ca do for you. I'll be a cheerleader in other words, and I dont think you need to ask SV is she is happy with the article as is, she has said so as is. Good luck my friend.[39] Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ps, re way above, I'd like to see the perspn who wuould accuse you of being lazy. Unrelated, I was looking at van Gogh last night, admiring Modernist's handling of the page. We really shouldnt let that go, its almost criminal that we left him like we did (hint hint). 11:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I love the van Gogh page. Thinking about the hint and you've made me think hard about Ezra. Thanks for that & for the tune. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be very proud for you and SV. Ceoil (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, time to stop complaining and start doing. Off to the library to grab a few books, but I think that page pretty much is ready to go. Any issues can be worked out at FAC. Let's get the diptych through first though. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka PR

I had already notice the issue with the ebook you mention and plan to clean it up tomorrow. When you say NTY did you mean NYT? That is a reliable source for sure, but I will try to find more refs to add for that. I will also try to find a PDF or Kindle version of that book you mention--that's a good tip, thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it; definitely try to get your hands on Stach and a Cambridge Companion; NYT is a reliable source, but not the best scholarly for Kafka, unfortunately. Tricky business writing author bios, particularly the modernists. That's why Ezra has been sitting for two years. So close. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the e-book: Probably best to run that by MRG because it's a strange situation. I haven't looked too closely but it seems we're citing an earlier mirrored uncited version of the page. The cites might exist in history; if not some sections might need to be excised or re-cited. She's the expert on stuff like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TK-YGM. I've closed the formal PR but would like to work on a few things you mentioned still. I'd also like to take you up on your offer to help on finding Cambridge Companion copies, and lit search for your last comment about modernists. I'll work Stach, the iffy ebook, and contact MRG. Thanks for helping review. When we're done, I have a good copyeditor lined up to do a copyedit before listing at FAC. PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no YGM because you don't have it turned on. Oh well. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Franz_Kafka_copying PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably helpful for her to have this link to the book to see what they mirrored. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and supportive comments on Kafka. Due to other priorities, I did not follow in detail, I will be back to Kafka in a few weeks, please understand. However, I trust without looking that your expert knowledge is good for the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I second what Gerda said. In the article, in the "Translations" section, the same ref is used at the end of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph. It's the only remnant of the eEdenBook source. I'm having trouble finding a really good source for this info (I have little doubt that the statements aren't valid, but we need better source(s)). If you could help on this, it'd be greatly appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 10:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MRG has posted her analysis on Talk:Franz Kafka. PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Found good refs so eEdenBooks is gone now. Will work on Stach now. PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both you. Apologies PS (and Gerda) for being cranky last night; when you abruptly closed the PR I mistakenly assumed you didn't want any more comments. Ask MRG whether you need to add the {{Backwardscopy}} to the talk page. As for the translations - I took a quick look. First, this source is not RS. It's a self-published website - regardless of the fact that it's hosted by a community college. If the author is published (see discussion below with Sophie) then we could use her published work to source the section - but this website in my view is a bit dodgy. I also took a quick look at the Kafka Combridge Companion [40] and though I can't see the pages, it looks like an entire chapter is devoted to the translations. That's really what you need to use. Costs $8 or so on Amazon. Once you get your hands on that book, if you do, it's best to follow the sources - in other words instead of using the source to cite what's already written in the article, read the source and rewrite as necessary to reflect the source. There are articles on Jstor too in regards to translations if you want to go that route. I'm thinking you might want to restructure to make the publications of translations as part of a "Publications history" section - the page could certainly support that because the publication history is interesting to say the least and it includes the ongoing court battle over who owns the notebooks, etc. The issue of translating the language, in my view, is separate, but I can't give guidance until I get into some sources (no time at the moment, sorry). A final point: Cambridge Companions consist of chapters that needs to be cited separately. Apologies for the length. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to email the reason I closed the PR, but you don't have that turned on. It's got nothing to do with you. No worries on last night. PumpkinSky talk 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also...answer the inline and probably get rid of Cliff Notes ref.PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I got all the above except the Cambridge stuff. I have ordered a hard copy of Stach's book. Also note on Kafka talk page that a copyedit has started. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Noticed all of that. You have a new problem now though: This is also a mirror site. Compare with this version of our page, so it's another one to run by MRG.This edit I made last night doesn't have to stand; it took out a lot. I was playing around. If it does stay, needs linking, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

She said it's backcopyvio, and put a tag on the article. She also said just to remove the ref and keep the content if I find a good ref. Good catch.PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Kafka

I understand that you have questions regarding Kafka, I'm not ignoring them, but please be patient, Mourning Becomes ..., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you an email so you can send me that PDF. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Will take me a bit of time; I'm working on something else at the moment and it's time consuming to get those. Go to Jstor and search on Kafka and leave the links for others you might want. Most of the files show the first page. I'd rather get them all in one go. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fichter

Just wanted to let you know I'm still mulling how to word the stuff in Fichter. Interesting stuff there.PumpkinSky talk 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting stuff, but a bit of a minefield because you can't give it too much weight. I'd have a look at Fichter's bibliography (it's quite good) and see whether there's anything you can pull from there. Also this book, was in the edit I mentioned being overturned (will have to find that), goes to much of what Fichter has to say but from a different point-of-view and I think the two sources can be used together. The book can be given more weight than Fichter, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka

See my remarks here [41]. I've had a chance to look closer at the article and I have some concerns. The edit in question was not completely misrepresenting the source, but it lacked understanding. I don't know if there are any other problems, I only looked at the part mentioned in the link. Hestiaea (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It requires close reading. By my reading the actuaries set the risk and but he had a good understanding of what they were doing. More interesting is the bit about the instruction manuals that Stach calls a "tour-de-force of propaganda". Truthkeeper (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are comfortable that there are no inaccuracies in the Kafka article as a result of this user's contributions? I didn't have time to look more closely. Hestiaea (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've raised issues on various threads strewn across various pages to varying responses. I haven't looked closely and probably won't - questioning the work of a co-competitor in a contest is poor form and I wouldn't have noticed a thing had the page not been on my watchlist. At this point I have my own content I'd like to get to and a mess to clean up elsewhere. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka stories

Stories: I don't want to revert your commenting out. The first line, "prolific writer", is just looking at the amount of his stories, does it need a source. "Erzählung" is what the German WP says in articles about his stories, how can it be mentioned? "Geschichte": please look at the front page of Das Urteil. - My time will be very limited this month, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Crossposted and replied on the talk page. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Made me smile

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Truthkeeper88, you don't know me from Adam, but I read a recent talk page post of yours and it made me smile. Please accept this hokey but sincere bairnstur. The Interior (Talk) 07:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki ce

Thank you for the copyedits. Regarding your inline comment, the source has it as "canopied King and Queen" (meaning Emperor/Empress), so not sure what you think is missing. I believe the meaning is that Emperor and Empress were seated (on dais) under a canopy. bamse (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried another way of wording it but revert if it's wrong. I noticed a few days ago you put it up for review and today had a little time to spare so worked on a single section. I enjoy working on your pages, and happy to see you back by the way, so will try to get through it as I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New version looks good, thanks. Yes, I fortunately have some more time to read and write. BTW, I recently completed Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion which could be a future GA candidate. It received a first copyedit (mostly by User:Boneyard90), but still needs some work from me and from somebody who knows English... It is not about art, but has relatively few battle scenes (due to lack of sources) and has ghosts! So if you are interested feel free to have a look whenever you wish, no need to rush. It is going to be on the main page as DYK which will probably fix some of its copyediting issues already. Next one will be User:Bamse/Fujiwara no Nakamaro Rebellion (one day...), with a love affair between a monk and the Empress! bamse (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting; I'll take a look when I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. bamse (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your suggestion at Raul's talk page. I've done exactly as you suggested. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm

Hello,

I am sorry but I am a bit shocked about your response. No one really forced you to comment on someone's talk page. Am I forbidden to ask people? I appreciate your peer review, but some of your comments were simply your personal opinion. For example you don't need to place an in-line citation after every quotation. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was extremely inappropriate given that the arbitration committee has just voted to site ban him. You've received an exceptional degree of feedback on these pages, and asking yet another editor at a time of high drama seemed wrong to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Br'er Rabbit? That wasn't an arbcom ban, but a community one on AN or ANI. If I recall correctly, while it resulted in a ban, the closing admin said the consensus wasn't particularly strong. If you're talking about Malleus, the vote is currently 6-3, which to my understanding is one vote shy of a ban. PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much...

Extended content

... for your kind comments about my copyediting of the Dostoyevsky article. After Tomcat7's slagging off, I couldn't help feeling a proper idiot and a sad excuse for a human being. Absolutely agree with the info you've added (and your opinion about Google bloody books), by the way. I'd read that passage about the reliability of the sources regarding D's firt epileptic seizure but didn't correct it since ploughing through several "books" in search of missing data to make the article coherent took up just about all my time. Can I ask you something? Is it just me or that article, while overdetailed when it comes to fluff, lacks an awful lot of important information? – just to make myself clear, by no means am I saying it's a bad article, just a bit er... sloppy. I'm a newbie in this virtual neck of the virtual woods and I'd really appreciate your opinion. Cheers, --Cocolacoste (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Sigh - long-winded answer coming. The history is that I peer reviewed the article in June, excited to see this page being worked on. Many comments were ignored and more input solicited. Since then it's gone to be reviewed three times [42], [43], [44]. Pretty much the same comments across the board. In my view, it's absolutely impossible to rely on google-bloody books for an important biography like this. A full source search is necessary, and then sources must be borrowed (or whatever) and read, an extremely difficult process. I've written Ernest Hemingway and researched Ezra Pound and each case read most of the material - in paper form. Sometimes it's possible to find a book online that gives enough information to be useful, but notes have to be taken immediately because the pages disappear. It took me three tries today for that page to display only to find the information was there but not summarized well - hence the convoluted sentence. Short answer is that yes, the meat of the matter is missing. Many editors have helped there; many of the projects better editors to be honest, but the result has inevitably been the same. I've been thrilled to see your work and to see someone really dig in. Don't know what else to tell you, but I am watching it, so you're not alone if that's any solace. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Adding: if you weren't aware of the history and look at the links above, don't let the name changes confuse. One editor, three different names. Btw - copy-editors such as yourself are needed and cherished so don't let it discourage you. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Why, thanks again for the quick reply! I hear ya, Google book are – if you'll excuse my swearing like a trooper – utter crap: I've spent centuries trying to hit on the appropriate paragraph(s) when striving to work out the meaning of a) the twisted sentence about D's first marriage and b) his school years and his separation from his brother after entering the Academy. Aww, shucks, but I haven't really dug in: I'm just trying to make articles better in terms of grammar and style, not doing any research to improve them as I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment. Dostoyevsky article, however, was a humdinger in that it was the perfect combination of highfalutin prose and piss-poor grammar – a pet hate of mine. Plus, I was rather puzzled to find no mention whatsoever of Mikhail Bakhtin's works (Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics in particular) in the criticism subsection. Even more so after reading that the scoundrel whose name I dare not mention* claims to be sorta savant and looks down on the rest of us, mere mortals, "interfering" with his work of art. *Tomcat7 (oops, I did mention him. Sorry, I'm wickedly evil). Btw, I've replied to him on the talk page − a curmudgeonly and harsh response, won't deny it, but I think his constant moaning annoying. Dunno if you've seen it (if it's too rude, please pick me up on that). Blimey! Was only aware of this [45] 'cause it was on the talk page. Some history that article has! Don't quite get the thing about the names, though. Are they all the same person? Can't be, no? It's not that comments discourage me, just that some people's attitudes baffle me completely, especially when what they've written is anything but perfect. In my short life here, I've already come across two chaps getting all miffed at the changes I made to their own articles (have a squint at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horrible_Histories_(2009_TV_series)&diff=518517693&oldid=518478950 if you like). Glad to have found you. And no worries about the long-windedness. As you'll have gathered, I'm a bit garrulous myself. Best,--Cocolacoste (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Cocolacoste, I noticed this as well, your experience so far, with Thomcat, should not be typical, hope your not discouraged. There are few enough editors working the lith pages, but most of them are nice, capable people. As TK said, help is at hand normally when somebody like you turns up they are cultivated, helped and encouraged, dunno what the hell is going on here. Re all the same people, yes, but the confusion seems to be a ruse. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Cocalocoste, I didn't see your comment on the talk there because of the archiving, which I've now slowed down. You'll find, if you stick around, that some editors are thrilled to have a good copyedit, others not quite so thrilled. Certainly I'm thrilled to see the work being done there - and yeah at some point I had a look at Horrible Histories too. Anyway, good luck with all this. I've posted another response and he may disappear so you might get through it. Worth reading the archives too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthkeeper88 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I posted it yesterday, right above your comment on WP:Overlinking. Yeah, I already know that, some editors are fussy indeed. Disappear or not, I will continue with the editing –that was my deal with the ppl at GOCE and don't wanna let them down. Besides, trawling through those God forsaken Google books, I've found yet another error re his daughter wrist injury, the importance of which I'm uncertain of, but still... Yep, went through the GA archives and took several notes to bring the article up to scratch. Cheers,--Cocolacoste (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC) This discussion looks like a typical gossiping chitchat. And Kürbis was actually my signature name. All three GANs were horrible.--Tomcat (7) 11:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tomcat, there's no gossiping here. Cocolacoste, a new editor and as it turns out a quite good writer, stopped by to thank for helping to sort out an awkward sentence. The history of the page is relevant - the three GA reviews (all done by experienced reviewers), the peer review, etc. My advice would be to allow Cocolacoste to continue in peace because from what I've seen the work being done is quite good. Working on a page such as Dosteyevski is difficult and it's an example of an article where collaboration is essential. People will stick around and help when welcomed; disappear when not. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tomcat you are like a defensive spoiled child. Attack the integrity of others rather than face the substace of their argument. Good luck with that. I'll say this clear to you though, you use identity decitivly, as a ruse. And your narcisstic, poor me, but not as clever as you think. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Wotcher, you two! Just so you know, after this [46], I've really had it with all the oversensitive, narcissistic whinging. It's mega-super-uber cringe and makes me sick in the mouth. I'll step out from that stonker of a botched article and let him screw things up with that newfangled English of his – not that mine's brilliant, but at least I admit that I can balls things up. Plus, I'm not here to feed the vultures. Shall go back to D. when the nitwitted storm clears up. Yikes! Gutted to see all your comments below this, but, c'mon, don't let the Twat Community that see the world with highly sensitive powers of perception get you down: you're clever guys and don't deserve the flogging Laters!--Cocolacoste (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Nice color. It's tough in the trenches sometimes and easy to give up. I give up at least twice a month. But Ceoil is right - a lot of the fun is gone and not worth volunteering doing something for free without some payback. Fun is a good payback if nothing else. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tk, Im done with this shit, and will be likely be blocked in a few minutes. Im so sick and tired with these tools, I cant take it anymore, and anyway life is too short. I hope Ive told a few home truths, and these from the last few says only. Wiki is a cesspool. The culture is fucked, that a drive by and out of nowhere and too much time on its hands wankers voice is equal to people who actually to things is fucked. There is no support from above, they only care about stats, that there are *new* editors, cause that reads wellin the press, and I have to take that as superficial interest. They dont respect us, will glady offer us up as lambs in power play, yet after us what do they have. Wigits. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC) It happens to all of us. That's why I go through the page blanking stuff. If you need to step out for a while, then know, that as your friend, I'm totally supportive. I'm very sorry I boldly nomed the crucifixion but I think I can finish it alone. If it gets archived it gets archived. Not a big deal. I'm out the door for a little while and hope you'll be around to chat when I'm back. Deep breaths. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC) The Nick Drake shit is the shit that's made being here in the past your so very difficult. Tomcat shouldn't have made an RfC of it and infoboxes are not mandatory. We all know that. Anyway, pls hang on a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) No its not just that elevated, clerarly out of his dept child. Its everything. Its one piece after another. Fucking RexxS, and that whole do nothing gallery. Wiki has changed from 07-09 when it was fun, and there was reward for content, now its a badger pit, and friendly admins actually have friends to protect. Who left jack back in and supported him to the hilt. Oh yeah, a buch of WMUK people. All I say about that is Pigsd on the wings. A nasty piece of work as you saw with Marilia, but, you know, this is the way the wind is blowing and we now tollerate bullying of women. Ceoil (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC) PS - taking a block over an infobox isn't the worst thing in the world. This place has been just awful for more than a year and I've been more than a little fed up b/c of the crap that's been going on. At some point someone has to stand up and say/scream - are we seriously prepared to lose editors, and specifically content writers (and quite a few women at that), because of fucking infoboxes? Like really. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tip of the iceburge TK my friend. Ta for letting me vent, will be ok in a few minutes. How are you anyway, much affected by the storm. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Your expierience there; I followed closely, is a lot like Moni's. She had guts and an openion that was usually sopt on. But self prmoting fuck heads like tonythetiger draged her down? Well not exactly, but the culture that breeds him is endimic, and is persuave to small minds. By definition, the rent a quotes only read the large print and miss contect. Are about 13 years old, and rule. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Im not one sided on this, I stood up for MF, but have to say his talk page is a court, and I find it distatefull. He hold a court, but many of those people are face bookers of the first order. Its all crap from this vantage point. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) We both stood up for MF and went out of our way, and yeah agree re the court there and the shit that gets said elsewhere by some of those people (some of it about me in indirect ways). It's all really distateful here now. The Kafka stuff - I get pushed away for that, and gee some professor will fail a student for writing that Kafka is an prolific writer b/c that's what Wikipedia says, but no one cares. I miss Moni - a lot. I hated to see what happened to Maria. I sick to see that Liz is gone. And Sandy and Karanacs. These are all good content contributors; strong writers; women. Driven away. I'll find the diffs you asked for earlier. Finished w/ being busy now. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Back now. I think this is what you wanted, [47], but it's long. More specifically this. There's this too, [48]. But there was a lot of that at the time, and honestly I think we have to treat it as ancient history. The more immediate problem is the way Liz was treated by Tomcat and Crisco (and what's with taking HD out of Pound?). The more immediate problem is trying to cut past the factionalism and get back to where it's fun here. I come here to de-stress from real life but haven't found this to be much of a destressing environment since last year. We can either all leave, like John has (and I respect him for that), or build an encyclopedia. For today, I've decided to built an encyclopedia. Don't know how I'll feel tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) My feeling is that we have two choices: all out war; or half the content editors walk away. I'm not all that interested in all out war and have had a year of skirmishing. No one fucking cares about anything unless a swear word is used (hey maybe someone will show up now!), but the drip drip of this group vs. that group. Seriously, I've had enough of it. So much for building an encyclopedia today. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat (7) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Please accept my apologies to the recent disputes between you and other people. I would like to continue working with you guys/girls on Dostoyevsky. I will promise to carefully choose my wordings :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you Tomcat. This is thoughtful of you and I do accept your apology. I will keep an eye on Dostoyevsky. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent conduct

Your recent conduct at Crisco's talk page is really regrettable. Accusing someone of trying to "rape" your article for raising NFCC concerns as you did here is really going too far. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What's going too far is your officious bullshit in posting this kind of patronising crap here. Now buzz off. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to patronize, I just dislike seeing the word "rape" thrown around casually like that. But, having said my piece, off I shall buzz. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for chastising me Mark. The next step would be to ask what caused my "recent conduct". I can leave a bunch of links to things that I think are "really regrettable" that I've watched in the past few weeks, but it would obviously be a waste of time. I guess that now I'm in the category of non-Wikipedians. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A few things that I find regrettable: [49], [50], [51], and in particular this question. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, I appreciate it. RE: the question, I was honestly confused by how gender related to the issue at hand, but Nikki has tried to explain on Crisco's page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin

Thank you for revisiting the Susanne2009NYC CopyVio. I remember when that came through and everyone was dealing with that sockpuppetry :P Your an excellent Wikipedian! Sadads (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads - it's been far too long and time to clean that mess. It is slow going though. The next on the list is The Tale of Benjamin Bunny, listed as GA, so not sure what to do there. Glad you noticed though. Hope things are settling a bit for you. It's a busy time in your life. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Van Eyck

random book fetish img

You did it! Well done, really glad it passed, you took the driver's seat and made it happen. It was a great collab, nice working with you once again TK. Re next project, considering we push each other well, I'll take your Isabeau of Bavaria and raise you two of Dürer's parents. Race; unless your chicken, that is ;) Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No not chicken. I guess I have to get back to work then and stop complaining. I'm thrilled about the diptych to be honest. You did a lot of work on it and I became fascinated by the picture. That was not one for the faint-hearted, for sure, and fun working together as usual. Yeah, I'm going through an illuminated text phase - interesting image you found. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ive rairely seen you complaining (which is not the right word either) without good reason. But your inclinded to back down, when you shouldnt, which is usually. But anyway, yeah, jesus, that was a tough page, hardly knew what I was letting my self in for at the time. The page improved a lot since the first nom, Yoman is a lot to do with that. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ps, even though Im very much lasped, I was thinking it would be a good TFA for next good friday. Will scare the shit out of people. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a saying about never really being lapsed? That's a good idea though - certainly the crucifixion panel is great for good Friday. The other panel is what you make of it; I like the bottom two-thirds very much and wonder how the top would have looked if not painted by an inferior painter. I think it would have been richer and more detailed. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

never really being lapsed? Suppose, I'm a pure catholic still in a lot of ways, and that I keep on going about is surely a sign. Hard to be pity about, but though Im a near militant atheist now, its left its print. Drat. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind note. I had been away from FAC (and wiki altogether) for a couple of years and was a little worried that my...intense, shall we say, reviewing style might ruffle a few feathers after my absence. I carefully picked two articles with noms who had been through my wringer before and probably wouldn't call for my head (Ceoil suffered through my feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Garden of Earthly Delights some years ago). Either my fears were unjustified or my approach worked; in any case, it's a joy when nominators are so receptive, so thank you in return, and congratulations! Maralia (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh you're very welcome! Before it went to FAC I knew the article had problems with the structure and I spent quite a bit of time moving things around but my eyes seem to have glazed on that bottom section. It needed a good set of eyes and someone willing to point out where the flaws were. The Garden of Earthly Delights is one of the favorite articles Ceoil worked on, but I'd never looked at the FAC page there. I've only been sending articles to FAC since about mid-2010 so we must have missed each other, but welcome back. We can do with good reviewers. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record the garden FAC was one of the best experiances on wiki Ive had. It was just before you joined us TK, was a co-nom between Riggr, Liz, myself and Modernist, and we got some heavy duty feedback that we could really sink our teeth into. Those were the days, my friend <start top croon>. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reassuring to hear that you remember it fondly; I think most people would've panicked at the sheer volume of suggestions there. I sure miss some of the reviewers from those days. Maralia (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My feeling about FAC is that it's the last stop to get eyes and good feedback for an article. Each article I've brought through has benefitted greatly from the reviews and in my view that's the function of FAC - not necessarily for the stars or the main page exposure, but to solicit reviews. Unfortunately I'm guilty in that I don't review as much as I should, and certainly am happy to have a good reviewer such as yourself return. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, Truths. Sorry to pester you but, if you have some spare time, could you have a squint at my last edit to the D. page (Political beliefs part)? Not 100% sure of what I did there and I'm really afraid of... well ya know what. Thanks.

PS, Only writing this cuz you seem to be around right now. Hope you're spendidly fine.--Cocolacoste (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)</fontcolor>

I did squint and gave me a headache! Naw, not really. Looks good, but I need to take a little more than a squint. I did see the message on the talk too. I'm in the middle of something and will have a closer look when I'm done. From the quick squint, looks like you developed a point that needed a bit of work. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my! That's being quick! Ta for the reply. My main problem there is the prefix thingy: pre or anti socialism. I'd rewritten that a couple of days ago only to have it reverted *sighs, curses*. All in all, that subsection's still quite patchy, but I won't deal with that: I'm nothing but a humble copy-editor and up to my neck with real-life work at the mo. Just want to stick the "done" symbol on GOCE's page. --Cocolacoste (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in case

Thanks for the aspirin - that helped. I often peek at diffs when they appear on my watch as I'm ruminating on the next fabulous sentence I'll write. Sometimes the peeking gets me in trouble - if I see something that gives me doubts I have a bad habit of poking around a bit. Anyway, I peeked at the diff and saw that you made a long and complicated edit that looked good to me. On further examination, and I've tweaked a bit per MoS, it looks very nice. I can't see the source (Lanz?) but I did wonder what about the difference between pre and anti socialism (well, honestly don't know what pre-socialism is, but I don't know everything). I think this gives a much better and well-developed explanation of D's views. I would leave the creator capped up as Creator, because I suspect it's meant to refer to the Almighty or God or ... well, the Creator. Also, I think there's a restriction about numbered lists, but I can't really see how to prosify this well. In my view, in this instance, the list works well to define three disparate and complicated ideas. So, long story short, looks good to me. I'm calling it a night. I'll weigh in on the talk there tomorrow, or whenever next I'm here. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Alas, the aspirins don't look as glamorous as that gorgeous manuscript above. The Book of Hours, by any chance? I'm soo tempted to nick it... Can I? Can I?

Yup, source is Lantz, The D. encyclopedia. Follow the link I've left on talk and, once on Google beautiful books, type "turning point". This don't-ask-me-why-the-hell open sesame will take you straight to p 182 and, from there, to p 185, where the rigmarole about socialism is. I don't know what "pre-socialism" is either, but then my knowledge's like a ginormous wheel of Gruyère: full of holes! However, the phrase "Catholicism – which for him continued the tradition of Imperial Rome and was anti-Christian and pre-socialism" has, IMHO, as much sense as "Julius Cesar was pre-Victorian". That's why I asked you to check it.

Yikes, lists are proper crass, but couldn't think of a more elegant way to disentangle that paragraph. As for "Creator", the problem lies in the article*: it's capped up only with the definite. Oxford and Collins chaps say so – dunno if you've seen my summary edit.

Bless ya! You "ruminate on fabulous sentences", whereas yours truly cringes inside out to come out with a not so crap one. There's no justice in this world.

Bless ya II! Was about to edit the childhood part but, after seeing you're calling it a night, I'll just leg it to paradise, oh yeah.

(*)Oversimplification of religious issues, anyone?

Thanks again for your replies. Laters!--Cocolacoste (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the creator/Creator situation has been rectified. I did miss that it had an indefinite article. As for Lantz - all I see is a snippet view, which is less than useless. Stupid google books. Oh, and the ruminating - it was an attempt at dry humor and obviously my sentences rarely come out perfectly. Hence spending time staring at a screen and squinting at edits on my watchlist. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Proxy editing

Hi, Truthkeeper. I am visiting you not as an administrator but as a friend of Gerda Arendt. She did not ask me to write to you; I am doing it unsolicited, because as you may know, English is not her first language, and I don't think she understands what you mean when you say "proxy" as you did in these two edits: diff of User talk:Gerda Arendt; diff of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I am not 100% sure, but it looks to me like you are implying that Gerda or other editors are editing on behalf and at the direction of a banned user. This is a very serious accusation. If you have some proof that this is happening, you need to present it at one of the appropriate noticeboards or talk to one of the administrators who is most familiar with the case such as Elen or Courcelles. In the meantime, dropping this unsubstantiated accusation into conversation on talk pages is not an appropriate thing for you to be doing, and I politely request that you stop. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for bringing this to my attentions. To be honest I was a bit bemused and had to look up the word, because I'm using it in a very generalized sense. One of the definitions for "proxy" on my dashboard dictionary is "a figure that can be used to represent the value of something in a calculation: the use of a US wealth measure as a proxy for the true worldwide measure." From what I can tell, Gerda, though not a numerical figure, espouses (and obviously that's the better word to use), the notion of doing away with Raul's rulz,[52], [53]. So, yeah, I was using the term in that sense. I'd never thought about the concept of proxy editing (your section heading) and had to look up to see whether we have a policy about it. I can't find one, but now that you've brought it my attention, yeah that's something to be concerned about in this environment. Unfortunately I'm simply not wiki-savvy or policy-savvy enough to have meant it that way. That would be the worst example of assuming bad faith. Similarly, the conversation on FAC talk, in my view, is somewhat of a proxy for the views of others - in that case WO. All this said: because of idiosyncracies in my past which are not at all germane, I suffer from the lack of a good grounding in the fundamentals of English, and do tend to make mistakes or rely too often on language I've picked up through reading too many 19th century novels. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Obvious games aside, Im thinking about van gogh again, and yeah I know, trouble, a very very popular page. Still though. You still have that review to hand. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's in my art sandbox. I thought I'd unearthed it - maybe in one of the collapsed sections. I'll be floating in and out for the next some days, not able to do much editing, but if you don't find it, I'll uncap it when I get a chance. I still have lots of sources for that and lots in the library too. It's a great page - I've always loved the look of it. Would be nice to spend some time about now surrounded by VvG's paintings. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

An old article that you helped turn GA

Hello Truthkeeper! Long time! Would you be free for a third peer review of Korkoro? Thanks. _morelMW^illiam 15:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me William. I'm really busy in real life and on wiki at the moment, so can't make any promises right now. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand Truthkeeper. Ñot a problem. _morelMW^illiam 12:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We did it!

TK, I can't thank you enough for the phenomenal peer review, and then staying with the Anne Hutchinson article throughout the FAC. I just got the news moments ago that the article has been promoted. Do I need to list it for a main page appearance? It's a bit far away, but I was thinking 22 March 2013, which will be the 375th anniversary of Hutchinson's excommunication. Thanks so much for all of your support.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Korkoro

Hello Truthkeeper! Thanks for stopping by. User:Osianfan's reversion looks like a personal attack against me especially when User:RobertRosen is on an indefinite block. Is there a way to stop such destructive acts?_morelMW^illiam 11:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't at all been following what's going on. Took a quick look at that talk page but no time to read it. I think just let it go for now and wait to see what happens. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ghent Altarpiece

Interested...? As you can guess may well turn into a monster! A very rewarding one, but will be a huge article nonethe less. I know you have some good sources and a lot of the Netherlandish sources Outriggr gave us during the summer cover it in detail. Cant find the vid, <too old and feeble> but the double meaning of the phrase "too much facking perspective" I guess wont be lost on riggr, the auld bastard. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil I gotz yahz mail aboot monimatin' yahz for teh Merch Gizzaway -- in Troof an Advanze Poll for teh ArbCommy Elexions -- butts I jist won't diddly-do it man. Your welcumz for teh Sources -- you (in its original plural sensibilities) are oggjibilated to writes the Vizz Arts-icles fo' teh Resta y'all's lives! Dis has been Can't-Rhyme-That-Word Mortis Doin' Canadian J-Rock Impressionz wit a bit a Mountain 'Dew thrown in, if you git me. Just embarassin' da self nuffs ta nevah return's'all. Take care folks and folks is takin' care a' you too. Riggr Mortis (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It will be a monster! It is a monster! But yeah interested, though very slowly. I'll be fairly tied up through the new year and I have a few other pages to polish and finish off. Thanks for asking though - I've been eyeing that one. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way still to get a word count for articles. I used to have Dr pada's script, but it stopped working when they upgraded the skin, 150 years ago. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my (literally) snotty nose into this, but I've got that gizmo and works nicely for me. I've nicked it from 'ere: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes#Instructions for participants. A new version, perhaps?

Hope it helps.

Cheers! --CocoLacoste talk 01:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, Kinda missing youse a bit, TK and C.

Sound Cocolacoste, thats handy. Oh & we're not dead or anything. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick replies:

• Ceoil: if this hasn't been sorted, I have Dr. Pda's script in my monobook.js page - I still use monobook - but you might need to copy it into your vector.js page if that's what you're using.
• Hi Cocalocaste! Not dead, but real life beckons at the moment. I might stick my nose into Dost. if/when I have a moment.
• Hi, Riggr - great to see your name on my watch again. Very impressed by the page that got a million hits; not impressed by the criticism it got. Don't let the trolls get to you too much. It's not worth it.

I'm in & out for a while b/c of some real life stuff - but am popping in to check. Thanks all for the messages. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted some of my changes concerning the musicians in the Ghent Altarpiece. I wonder:

How do you know that these women are "angels"?

How can you see from any of the mouths which register it is singing? Giving a reference is no evidence. A source which poses such claims simply is junk science.

Why did you revert the images? On the one you put back no details in the faces can be seen.

In general, should we not rely on what we see instead on what a fairy tale author writes in a book?

Jan van Eyck was a Renaissance artist, who tried to copy nature. He was not a romantic poet. Shouldn't we respect this?

Agric (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert. This isn't a time for me to have this argument. Might not be a bad idea to raise it on the talk page though, instead of here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The statements Agric refers to were there before the current work. The sect certainly has problems, bear with us. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Agric made changes [54] just as I was adding stuff about that section to my sandbox, and in my subsequent edits [55] I undid his/her work. With cited material - the fairy tale author. I'd prefer to see it brought up on the talk page right now, or I'll can undo my edits, I don't care and I won't fight about it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good that we agree on this. I did the reverts as suggested. Agric (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact we don't agree - otherwise I wouldn't have made the edits I did. I simply am not in a position at the moment to argue. I'd much prefer that you take my advice and bring it to the talk page instead of here so that we can properly follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. This isn't the place for the discussion and most likely, because of real life concerns, I may not be involved in the discussion. But I think that referring the a scholarly source as a fairy tale isn't quite right. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding: this edit summary is misleading, as is this. Please stop doing that. I've backed out all my edits; unwatched the page; and closed my sandbox notes. In other words, washed my hands of working on something I'd very much looked forward to. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hemingway

I've left a clarifying note re Benson on the talkpage - I did not express myself well in the original review. You may want to go back to your original wording. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Brian. I've replied there. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And one final query: can a story with only one character be said to contain "dialogue"? Would "direct speech" be better? Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a good question Brian. Because it's mentioned in the lead, I think more should be added in the text - or delete the line from the lead. I see from my sandbox notes, the critics use the word dialogue and "inner dialogue" to refer to the deleted portion, but I'd like to dig a little on this. Won't get to it until later though. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "speak", and added a piece to the plot and analysis. This was a very good question and needed to be developed. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's exciting. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for the phenomenal peer review you did on the Anne Hutchinson article, and follow-up during the FAC process, helping it reach FA status Sarnold17 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this! It was work I really enjoyed and I'm absolutely thrilled to see the excellent work you did with Anne Hutchinson to see it promoted to FA status. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ghent

Nice to see you around. Hope you not gone for too long, but will see you when I see you. I'm motering on with Ghent, putting down the *basics* but what Im adding is unpolished and dont want to freak you but will need a lot of help in the few weeks/months or when ever you are around again. As we found with the diptych, its in the later stages that an article really takes on value. Yeah, Ive freaked you;) Anyway and best, or as Cocolacoste would say....laters! Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No you haven't freaked me - not yet at least. I have to check in b/c I have a FAC to tend, but I'm in & out quickly and haven't had a chance to look at what you've done. I feel bad about leaving you in the lurch but it can't be helped, so sorry about that. I've been thinking about putting up a break template but those always seem to jinx me. I'm not seeing my way back until the new year, but too early to tell. Thanks for the message. Laters! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Im guessing the article is just over a third of the way written. Bloody hell. There will be a lot for you after your return, mark my words ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So I see. It's over 6000 words! And I haven't read any of it! Might get to some of it tonight. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yer prob better off not reading any yet, this early stage is just getting it down, and apart from Johnbod's additions is fairly bloody rough and ready. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yer prob better off not having me help b/c I'm a crappy writer. FWIW I always appreciate it when someone (almost always you) goes through as I'm putting something down in the rough and ready stage, but this will hold, someone else will come along to help, or whatever. I'm taking a break - prob until January. Also, no need to work on the Hemingway piece. It was written for personal reasons and that I can't get it right is only a reflection on myself. I'd prefer it to be archived and let it go at this point. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Soar joyfully aloft

You said, you should have been notified, sorry if I missed it, you were mentioned in the discussion before I commented. - Please explain "misrepresent" for someone not so capable of English. I tried to offer the discussion without "presenting" anything, just quoting (unchanged) some details that might get lost in a complicated exchange. - My latest mantra: let's let go of the past. - Different topic: "my" cantata for Advent, possible translation of title above, will be on DYK shortly. I would appreciate you applying your prose skills (I mentioned you there, sort of, dreaming of collaboration) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

When I return in January, I'd be pleased to help copyedit. Don't hesitate to ping me. I hope you enjoy your holidays. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Requiem

Sorry to hear about your father. Just last week Tim riley and I expanded Fauré's Requiem, - speaking of rest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My deepest condolences TK, I'm very sorry to hear this, you are in my thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh what terrible news—I'm so very sorry for your loss. It's a small, feeble offering, but I've watchlisted your "Selected Contributions" articles from your user page; at least I can keep an eye on those. Wishing you the solace of happy memories. Maralia (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My sincere condolences as well, and like Ceoil my thoughts are with you (as are my prayers). Take care and let me know if I can help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My condolences too, TK. I'm very sorry to hear about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the condolences. To be honest it wasn't supposed to come out at all, and I'm embarrassed, but there you go. Life and death. Hard to deal with sometimes. And building an encyclopedia is an immense amount of labor which requires occasional breaks. I'm not leaving but definitely giving myself some breathing room. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your amongst friends here, dont worry. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your father; all best wishes to you...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this, TK. I can only say that I understand you. And that fathers never die if they're in our thoughts. [56]

All the best, --CocoLacoste talk 03:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CL. It's a lovely sentiment (and true!) and a lovely piece of music. I haven't had time to listen through completely but I will - when I have time to savor it. This means a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked it.

Perhaps not the best moment for me to tell you this, but all moments are fleeting, even the worst.

Take care, --CocoLacoste talk 01:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a very good moment to tell me that. I have a tough week ahead and that's a thought I'll keep close. Thanks and take care yourself. I'm exhausted and out of here. So nice to see people working together and having fun. That's the part of wikipedia that always brings me back. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hemingway

Im secure enough in my masculinaty to say this, Hemingway was extreamly good looking in his youth, that stare if I was a bird I would have melted easy as kittens. But he was a total, fucking, bastard as he got older, I get that too. Just saying and enjoying the river articel, hope Im not too annoying there. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No you're not being annoying; I'm afraid maybe I'm being annoying & should just unwatch and let you get on with it. He was attractive; his two granddaughters Mariel and Margaux have/had the same bone structure - though the pics here not very good. And yes, like Ezra he was a bastard - dunno if that was true of all of those modernists, or if they drank too much absinthe that rotted their brains or what. In Hemingway's case there was definitely something in the family: his father committed suicide, at least two of his siblings; and one of his granddaughters. That could have contributed to what happened to him as he got older. Certainly his death was spectacular and messy, but much of his later life too was fairly messy. Despite all that I admire his writing. What can I say? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No I wasnt being condensating in the sightest, just stating fact. Its a nice symmarty that I helped with H.D. and Imagism, back in the day, and here I am now full circle. Since helping you, Ive learned a lot, not joking, have found something I really like, but am only beginning to understand. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't mean at all to suggest you were being condescending. (???). I had a hard time writing the article - and I guess wasn't quite successful. I'm wondering whether to add more - the Cezanne pic with the snow you added reminded me of a source that describes the swamp as the white space (the snow in that painting) - and how very difficult it is to create such empty space in art. This is a discussion we've had before. Dunno why, but writing an encyclopedia article about the story, that's about nothing and yet everything, was challenging. And the background of course is interesting too. I do need to back off until I have better perspective and my mind isn't quite so ... well ... whatever it is. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: quick question

I don't have any special advice; if you think the article is better off stubbed down, go for it.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for replying. I'll deal with it when/if I come back. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi TK, hope you are enjoying your wikibreak and the holidays. When you get back, do you think you could give a PR for Wellek and Warren's Theory of Literature? I'll send you a PDF copy via email if you need. Garamond Lethe did a really in-depth GA review, but I was hoping for extra eyes on the content summary section so we can be (super-)sure of an accurate summary. Garamond has vetted this one, but it's better to be safe than sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, I'm not sure how soon I'll be back to active editing, but I'll ping you when I'm ready to do some work here again. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. I'm not in that big of a rush, as I'm pretty certain that this article will languish at FAC (literary theory? Outside of poetry and certain movements, do we even have any FAs on that?) and my classes may end up keeping me pretty busy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Crisco, I'm sorry but I have zero interest right now in literary theory and I've decided when I come back to work up some of the pages I've had to leave to languish during the year. You might do better to find someone else to work on this because I'm afraid it will be long time before I get to it. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. I followed the discussion below... my deepest condolences. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mattisse

Seems like SilkTork noticed similarities, but didn't make the sock connection... --Rschen7754 01:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Or chose not to follow up. But the attacks weren't nice and given the irony of all the civility conversations, those were not civil interactions. But nothing was ever done. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I got on her bad side, but I was wondering what was going on.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the Whorf GA [57], and that was unfortunate. The only thing that happened there was that you defended your work. I didn't have a clue then, but began to have suspicions in the fall - but by then didn't really care to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it was just that? It seemed a little to me that Mathew/Mattisse opened the review with the decision already made.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know Maunus because I never interacted with her except for the stuff that's been going on this fall and I've not been at all checked in, but she is a good writer and if she objected to the prose and you pushed back and defended yourself, then my sense is her pattern is to behave in the manner MT did in that review. I'd have to look at some of the older Mattisse stuff but to be honest don't have the interest at this point. Maybe I will when I'm back editing actively again, but I don't know when that will happen. I am happy to see that Whorf did finally achieve GA status. This page might be helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that is what happened. Thanks for the link, and I do hope to see you back here again more regularly sometime.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, this was my experience - she was right to some degree in that the sourcing had been sloppy (the article had been a collaboration between several editors and we had some material we should have vetted better), but the review itself...well, read for yourself....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, yes to your first question. And Cas has it right ... she was sometimes right about things, but then she would get herself so spun out of control that she would make matters even worse. On the MDD FAC mentioned above, she noted correctly some poor sourcing, but then she proceeded to make things worse, introduce copyediting errors, turn the FAC into mincemeat. To this day, I can't understand her defenders ... she got small things right, big things wrong, turned everything she touched to trash because of her grudge-bearing behavior, and just has a desperate need to be "accepted". But yes, her pattern is as it was in the reviews I saw her do ... mostly about grudge-bearing that interfered with rational thinking. The MDD FAC was a debacle because she made it indecipherable to the point that it became difficult for anyone to actually correct issues raised. She just wanted to crater it ... always drahmaz, always attention-seeking, always grudge-bearing. And in hindsight, btw, you can be sure she knew everything about ILT. "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies" is part of her MO ... feigned innocence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a terrible review Cas, a veritable spiral of death. I saw something similar on Montanabw's and Dana Boomers Kerry Bog Pony this week and started thinking. But rereading the Whorf review I think it is true that she just doesn't like my reluctance to blindly accept all of her critiques. But then I did have a minor run-in with her as an administrator a year ago at Natalie Woods where she was editwarring with what turned out to be a sockpuppet of SkagitRiverQueen.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

These posts from MT [58], [59] are the types of comments I found intolerable and really nothing can be done, because no one will block for something like that - if it doesn't include profanity or what's seen as obvious edit warring, then I guess anything is allowed. ANI is ineffective for these types of situations, an SPI might have been possible but I wasn't at that time in a position to do the legwork to look into Mattisse's past behavior and make comparisons, so the best thing was to walk away. All that said though, barnstars are landing on MT's page, as we speak. But as I said elsewhere, whatever. I do need time away before I can really sink my teeth back into content work, but I'm fairly certain I'll be back. I might need another month away though - it depends on whether I can find the interest again in being here. At the moment I simply don't care about it at all. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PS - If a prior unpleasant interaction occurred, then yes, that might have created problems in the Whorf review. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am so confused ... what part of my response troubled you? Whatever it was, I'm so sorry, and it was unintended ... I was only trying to defuse the situation.  ??? This was also going on, which wasn't helping, was all over the place to a blockable level, [60] and was what I was trying to deal with so the page disruption would stop and we could get back to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing you said. That above from me was in general to Maunus and to show that diffs from MT (also so they don't get lost) but I wasn't pointing fingers at your responses. The MT situation has bothered me for a while, but I've simply not been in a situation to do anything about it and honestly really haven't edited content since my father's death a month ago. Don't worry if I'm not making sense - apparently that's what happens while grieving, or at least to me. But to be honest it's been a sucky year on Wikipedia too. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for your loss, TK; it took me so many years to accept that I could no longer pick up the phone to my mother, and it's the hardest thing I've ever been through. At least I wasn't trying to keep up with Wikipedia then ... take care, it will take a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy - yes it will take a while. I've slightly modified my post above, didn't mean to pick up your diffs instead of MT's. Also, I realize that if Mattisse knew about ItsLassieTime (and I suppose she would have, being around before I was), then the Miss Moppet situation was a set-up, and I really don't appreciate being used in that manner. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's that kind of setup that always got her eventually. That she did that much harm, though, won't stop the enablers from post-humously supporting her, which will encourage her next return. Really, it's the enablers who are the problem. I'm sorry you were used, and even worse, at such a vulnerable time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I noticed that MT was unremittingly nasty to you re Miss Moppet situation in retrospect I remembered a moment a few years ago when after Ceoil and I and a few other VA editors nominated a collaborative article for FA (which passed) and some reviewer started complaining about who of us had how many edits and some of us didn't have enough edits to satisfy that editors standards.....turned out to be Mattisse in one of her guises that subsequently got blocked...Modernist (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"unremittingly nasty" is a good way of describing it and I've not enjoyed it. In 2012 I learned how very nasty this place can be. Now I have to decide whether I'll be part of it in 2013. Anyway, belated holiday greetings to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2012 and best wishes for 2013 May you succeed in all you do.
	The image is thought to show the monster "ARBCOM" (arm raised, with firebrand) about to deliver retribution to a cowering Wikipedian (on the right). An alternative theory says it depicts Raul in the process of appointing a new TFA delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! This made me laugh ... Truthkeeper (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Ruhrfisch. Happy New Year to you too. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

	Merry antipodean Xmas
	hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Cas! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours an excellent 2013. CocoLacoste talk 09:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Cocalacoste! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Sandy! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)