User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 10

Angelou PR

Hey T, wanted you to know that I completed you PR of On the Pulse of Morning. Thanks for your assistance. You're always so helpful; don't let anyone tell you differently! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christine - I haven't finished - still reading. Hopefully I'll get to it tonight. Thanks for the kind words. Look for the rest of the review in the next few days. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Oooh, I would like to in general, but I think I should probably rather stay away from that page. I could try to find some sources for you to use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about staying away. I've unwatched it. I haven't time to write up something like that and you'd do it better, but I'd suggest doing it in user space and then at some point try to paste in a new section and follow the BRD cycle. We tried that with Catholic Church, but honestly I think some articles aren't worth the time and stress. Now that established and respected editors are asking me change my user name, I'll probably just bow out anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cripes, don't let the banned troll Guitar hero on the roof get to you. I always took 88 as an important year for you. First I've heard about the Neo Nazi thing — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, frankly. It seemed too good to be true that I finally had a non evil friend. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! I'm tempted to joke, but apparently it's not a joking matter. Nice to hear from you btw. I'm still on modified break because I can't seem to actually get anything constructive done here. As though. Laters. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In the last week, trying to get back into editing after a break, your non-evil friend has been told that she's not scholarly, is a neo-nazi, that a name alluding to truth is uncool per wiki policy, and received a death threat. No constructive edits at all but at least managed to review. Why is any of this okay? From the thin-skinned completely not suited for wikipedia non-evil one. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a diff for that death threat? That's definitely not supposed to happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry too much about the not scholarly thing; Doric Loon seems to know what he's doing, and that editor might be fine yet, if you catch my drift. Re death threat, thats a different matter, I'm with Crisco here; you need to report that shit, it would be very dissapointing if you were offed, espicially as the Virgin article is still unfinished. Anyways, say hai to Cocolacoste for me; I owe the old slag a few favours but am embarrased that I kind of dissapeared there. Ceoil (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

ps TK, everything is a 'joking matter' - thats how we cope in this crazy world. Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Crisco and Ceoil are right, threats of that kind are emphatically not acceptable. If you'd rather not take the matter to an admin board (or if it occurred in an email), I suggest dropping a check user an email. Nev1 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's being discussed on ANI [1]. Others had them as well. I'm not seeing an overwhelming "we need to do something about it" response so won't bother to weigh in. I do have to wonder though why we spill so much ink about so called civility when this kind of thing goes on - and apparently has been going on for some time. Anyway, apologize for allowing myself to fall into self pity - onward. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• That troll again? I'll see if I can hard block him, if he hasn't already been. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco quite honestly I think it's beyond that - it's for the arbs or Mediawiki to deal with. My point is that the atmosphere here is stacked against editing in a fun way, or these days at least it that's how it seems to me, and that's not something a block can fix. For me the emails just felt like a final straw. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand.... I wish I had words to cheer you up, but I don't.

Every time I stray into the drama boards (which seem to be taking more ground every day) I lose a little faith... This DYK nom, for example... four respected editors squabbling through the nom and the talk page... Cleaning up the article took some 20 minutes but nobody wanted to do that. Drive by tagging, meet drive-by reviewing.

I really hope things work out for the better... but please don't let Mr. Beatles reference get to you. A troll is a troll is a troll, and there's a reason they live under bridges.

BTW, did you see this yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What Crisco said. Well put. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks both of you. I hadn't seen the t-shirt page - thanks for the link Crisco. That surprised me a bit! Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Not to be anything other than blunt, but do you still have that Dhanens' chapter? I'll enginner your adminship in return, though you'll necessartly be an evil admin. You can have check user and acess to the ottava files too, but just dont say where they came from! Wink wink! Eh, eh! Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have Dhanens, yes. For which article? Also, posted some stuff for the Madonna from Pacht here. That book has to be returned today - I actually forgot I had it, so the fines will be steep. I'm in and out for the rest of the day. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the Gerda person is vocalising on the link Cirsco provide above, as if Mattise or anything never happened. How quickly we seek to forget - I can contradict and undermine you, armed with socks and wantonly, on one page and be your bestest friend on another. Hmm. Anyway, can I get a scan pls, seems to have a lot of new info. Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no scan. It's a huge book and won't fit on the scanner. I will make notes, but don't have time atm. So sorry. And yes, lots of info there. Tell me which article you want it for and maybe I can get to it tomorrow. I haven't looked re. the virgin; the Ghent sections are long. Can't say anything about the rest - haven't looked yet. It's good you're back - you'll make me work and focus. But am busy today. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

could you inscribe it onto bounded calf skin, with nice illustrations on the sides of the leafs, and post it to me. Thanks a million. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On vellum, beautifully decorated. Pls email shipping address; will invoice you. Might be steep. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Tis ok, Im sure our friends AN/I will take care of the costs. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - are they interested in content? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, sadly. Youve found a hole in our get rich scheme. Stop doing that.[2] Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, so I'm doing the work. You'll have to pay. That's the only way. Oh oh oh, but I just remembered - I bought Dhanens with Core Contest winnings - so it is wiki money. In that case I'll get right to work. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

haha, so its on Jimmy's dime so! All said though Im really impressed by what Cas has put together there, I saw some fine work from my fav editors, it was a real pleasure to follow. Im now sinking my teath into Big Two-Hearted River, if you'll forgive my sloppyness, your mercifulness. Its a fine article, and techinally very interesting. I really like that early moderist style of writing, though the angst leaves me cold. Is life not one amazing adventure to the next?! Hmm, maybe its that I didnt spend time in the trenches. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You stole my response - we can't know without having spent time in the trenches or having a mortar explode between our legs at age 19 a month after picking up pieces of women's bodies after a munitions factory explosion. Very intense stuff and I think Hemingway captured it well in his early writing. The story is about rebirth too, so the possibility for one amazing adventure to the next is there. But first the river has to wash away the blood. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

Sorry to be adding to your stress at the book article. Most of my recent edits there try to hew closer to the source, p.51 of Leff's book (the page about Cleon and the dust jacket design). 1. Leff uses Hellenic, so I changed it to Hellenic from Hellenistic. Let's split the difference on this one. 2. In the "Publication history" section, I didn't like sentence with the expression "quasi-sexual image" so I replaced it with the sentence that quotes Max Perkins, adding the descriptor "respectably sexy" before "design" because Leff says "Cleon made sex respectable" and I wanted to preserve some inkling of the "quasi-sexual" sentence, and, to tie it in to our picture caption of the dust jacket. I didn't feel I was putting words in Max's mouth, just sourcing the idea to Leff. 3. The picture captions seemed too long to me, so I whittled them down. Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) PS: If I do anything to endanger FA status (you know much more about that than I do), revert me immediately! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have some concerns, but havn't had time to look closely. I've opened a thread on the talk page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! Have you not heard of a consensus of two? "There are no great editors, my son, only great committees of editors—we call it consensus." Sigh. OK, I'll go look at the talk page. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic quote, IP108. Reminds me of how I'm feeling now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

CP

Thanks for the positive feedback on close paraphrasing. I am optimistic that the essay can be made more explicit and useful. It is tough to do it step by careful step though. I need all the encouragement I can get. Thanks again, :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I've been watching the discussion unfold and have been extremely impressed with the calm, and methodical manner you're using to approach the changes. I'd meant to chime in a while ago but RL kept me busy. I had to peek after the funny edit summary a few days ago, and as you'd posted a section that particularly interests me I finally added my 2 cents. It's an important essay - so please keep up the good work. It's not going unnoticed. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Widmerpool

First, thanks for the brilliant Monet at the top of your talkpage, a sight to lighten any heart. Secondly, I've just about done with my efforts on the dreaded Widmerpool, after months of slogging through Powell's 12 volumes. I'm about to put it up for peer review, and I would dearly like to have comments from someone with a feel for literature. Such are very thin on the ground at present; I know you are busy, but will you be able to help on this one (the article is not overlong)? Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brian - yes I like the Monet too. It captures well the wintry winter we've been having. Thanks for inviting me to peer review Widmerpool, but I see that's already been picked up. If you feel another set of eyes is needed, I'd be more than happy to look it over. Will take me a few days though, if you're willing to wait. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The more eyes the better, and I am particularly keen to have your input. The article will be at PR for a while yet, and I'm quite happy to wait. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems interesting. I'll try to get comments there by the weekend. I am busy right now, but it's a good time for reviewing and gnoming. Thanks again for asking. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the Widmerpool article, to which you contributed most helpfully via the peer review, is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Brian. I'll have a look during the week. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding: I meant to mention on the PR before it closed and don't want to mention at FAC, but I'm ambivalent about the infobox. I don't know how many FAs we have about fictional characters, but Nancy Drew is one, and is without an infobox. The issue, as I see it, is that I do come across a lot of articles about fictional characters written from an entirely in-universe point-of-view, and the infobox seems to legitimize that, if that makes sense. So, I'm thinking about it and mentioning it here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

JvE

Just to say, really great work from you so far TK, Im delighted with this collab, though its a challenge eh? Talk soon. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Those articles are a bit of a challenge. In my first reading I thought it looked like there wasn't much to be added, but then I found more in the sources and stalled a bit. Typically van Eyck, nothing is quite what it seems and there are layers upon layers. I hope to get back to it later today. I'm not sure what to do about the Latin frame inscriptions, and there's quite a bit to add re provenance and not sure where you want that to go. A new section? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ive see you working on Ghent. Im working through the Madonna, but it was such an extended internet blackout during dec/jan, I need to catch up. My memory aint what it used to be, blame acid house. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem but can't blame it on internet blackout. It's a slow catch up but we'll get there. Thanks for this edit - I couldn't get that section right, but much better now. My memory sucks too. Dunno why, but there you go. Anyway, made a few additions this morning ... Truthkeeper (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I noticed. Cocolacoste has a few outstanding inline things, we should concentrate on these now, you know the major bitch she can be. This is the fun stage of a page, when its all coming together, no? Ceoil (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's coming together nicely. A few bits still outstanding, CL's comments, and I think I might have something about the candlelight that should be mentioned. Give me a little time to get caught up. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of taking the inscriptions out of the description sect and giving them an para or two on their own. Dhanens is very strong here, as is Harbison, should be easy enough to weave together. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think it needs re-org along the lines of the diptych, with at least inscriptions and possibly iconography in separate sections. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

off the main article though I think. Might be a tricky reintegration, thinking. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of...[3]...if you like your 60s girls bands breathy and sung as if at dawn with figers ready on the shooter straps. No time for hello's or niceness with that kind of killer melody <narrows eyes>; its all business. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe pull out the inscriptions from the description and ... well the only way to do it is to play around with it. It is tricky - but have thought for a while, necessary. Nice tune, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few more bits to the sandbox but I think we've got everything now. I'll be gone for a while, but will try to swing through later, maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow. Thanks too for the edits to EH. I need to dig out the sources there (or maybe see what I have sandboxed) to check re the iceberg theory and a couple of the quotes. Laters. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw you put up a do not disturb or there will be trouble sunshine banner when editing the van eyck just now. Your badass self. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. It's gone now. Won't ever do that again! Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

haha, no it was cool, that no messing serious business aspect of you, like to see it. We are almost there now. Go us. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I only had a short window to work and decided to dive in. I think we have an organization problem but I'm too tied up at the moment to figure out what to do about it. Thinking. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, you two! First off, apologies all round for not having answered your messages, I won't deny I'm a lazy bitch. Let me say in my defence, though, that life's been hectic and chaotic and a (another type of) bitch. The Madonna looks mint. Just a little comment: I'd move down "The fifth stanza of the hymn is, "As the sunbeam through the glass. Passeth but not staineth. Thus, the Virgin, as she was. Virgin still remaineth" to the Interpretation and iconography subsection (par 4th, p'haps?) so that it's clearer that vE had the words in mind and the purpose they served despite not being in the inscriptions – that's how I understand Meiss, pp. 179–80, at least. If I'm wrong, no need to tell me what I should do, I already know.

Hope you're splendidly well. Laters, and apologies again. --CocoLacoste talk 01:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CL. Sorry but I have an absolutely earth shattering migraine and can barely see the screen, let alone type. Also, I've been on a desk clearing spree so Meiss is gone. I actually haven't been able to read the Madonna since the recent reorg, so maybe that's something that Ceoil can explain - why the inscriptions are separated. Or, if you have access to Meiss, and it makes sense to you and Ceoil to move, go ahead. Apologies if I'm not making sense and for being a drag. Thanks as usual for stopping by. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, poor you. Sorry about that headache, TK. I read the article just now and that part's not been changed. Anyway, I'd rather wait for your and Ceoil's opinion before doing anything. I'll fix some typos in the meantime. Get well. Talk soon, --CocoLacoste talk 03:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS, you are never a drag, m'lady. Oh, and congrats on clearing your desk. You have my respect for that alone.

Occasionally out of the blue I get a debilitating three day migraine. I didn't have a chance to do a final read-through of the article, had hoped to today, but it's not looking good. Thanks so much for the typo clean ups! I will try to sort out the inscriptions as soon as I get out from under this and can see again. The desk clearing is usually done in a fit of frustration followed by regret, but I suppose it's as good a way as any to de-clutter. Laters, Truthkeeper (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kreuzschule

in recognition of your merits about this article - too bad that I was sleeping, we could have worked together! (The CDU party might have noted that that they copied from the German Wikipedia, right?) The other article created for Wagner is August Röckel, feel free to look and change, I like your wording! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I only copyedited and tidied, but thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WV County List Peer review

Hey there saw thet you took a look see at the peer review request. THANK YOU! Thanks to Ruhtrfisch and a few others I am working on the page with the hopes of getting it to FL status. I asked Ruhrfisch about the Entomology section, I noted that other FL do not have a ref for folks that have a county named after them. I started to do this, BUT I think thats over kill, IMO. I was thinking of just stating the Birth year and Death year and their term in office etc etc. I noted that most people, who have had a county named after them, have a link to their Wikipedia article, my question is, is that sufficient? OR would you think an external cited link should be there? Since all of the other FL have internal Wiki links, I think it should be OK....Much appreciate your attention in thisCoal town guy (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll post on the PR page, but you won't go wrong taking advice from Ruhrfisch. I see that List of counties in Massachusetts, which is FL, has all the county name etymology cited to the same source. Ideally you can find something similar for WV. To achieve FL, they will have to have refs. I'll start posting comments there shortly. Also, linked on my page you'll find a number of featured lists that I've copyedited to give you an idea of the comprehensiveness of a FL. Very different subject matter, but imo also very well done lists. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GROOVY BABY.......I am on it. I think I am ALMOST ready. LOTS of linking and dates to enter, but otherwise, ALMOST there. It has been a labor of love. Again, the comments are appreciated. There re some lists which could benefit and become FL, BUT WOW, its not easy...Coal town guy (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I just posted the list at FL nomination. It had a GOCE copy edit, or two and looks great. I wanted to say thanks, and wish me luck!Coal town guy (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

2 supports at FLC and lots of help, MANY thanksCoal town guy (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching the progress. Well done! Truthkeeper (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I could not have done that without your help. I hope to get the support I need for the article to make FL. Cool thing is, the only comments thus far are not really comments per se, they are observations about an accepted style I used, and I am learning more about references that I thought possible. If you want to Support or Comment, feel free to do so. You were by the way correct about the tightening of standards for FLC......Coal town guy (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dean & Son

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TK; thanks for the Hutchinson TFA support. It's been a while since I dropped in here, but it's nice to have you back in the swing of things. I enjoyed your new Kreuzschule article; I spent several years of my life in Deutschland. Hope all is well; I'm sure you are enjoying doing editing again.--Sarnold17 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarnold, thanks for dropping by. I'm happy to support Anne for TFA - it's nice to have it run for an anniversary and that's a good one. I can't take credit for Kreuzschule - only for a bit of tidying there. All is well and I'm finally working my way back to editing! Truthkeeper (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI question

I've wrong before and I'll be wrong again. In fact, I've been wrong on a related topic, I once urged someone to apply for OTRS, and told them the fact that they weren't an admin wasn't a major issue. Then I monitored my own OTRS work over the next few days and realized I was using tools more often than I had realized.

That said, can you elaborate on your comment at MRG's talk page that admin tools were needed for CCI? I'm sure I can dream up examples, but my impression is that most do not require admin tools. Of course, it occurs to me that I might not always realize when they are needed. When I see the big copyright template, I go to the history to see the prior versions. Maybe that requires admin tools. Any examples would be helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Longish answer: I've tried to scrub some of the articles on this Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime - which as I've retrieved I've noticed isn't even complete. Mostly I've worked on the Beatrix Potter suite of articles, most notably The Tale of Miss Moppet. All the material in these pages came from dead tree sources, so I have to go the library, borrow the books for two weeks intervals, and do what I can as I can, which in the last months hasn't been a lot. Have a look at Template:Beatrix Potter - presumably the red links are pages that have been deleted, but I can't see them. As I'm reading the books, if I come across material that could clean those pages I can't use it, because, well, I can't see the pages. Additionally a lot of images were deleted, and an admin, Ruhrfisch could see them and re-uploaded. Finally, rev-dels were necessary, (see the Miss Moppet history) and those were performed by an admin. I work a lot in the area of children's literature and stumble on articles written by this editor fairly frequently, but I've stopped doing much about it, because it's really requires more than just going through the history. I'm not saying that personally I'd want tools, but I do think that it's helpful to see pages that have been deleted in the case of serial copyvio offenders. Just my opinion of course. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. I looked at the first red link in the template, and see that it is a deleted article, so I can see how that would be helpful. That said, this may be a bit of a special case, given how much has been deleted and rev-deled. I hope this won't dissuade you form working on another CCI. In fact, I indirectly referred to you in this thread. If several of us are working together, it might be fun, and there will be some admins to help with deleted material.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it might be an unusual case. It's really the only one I've involved with, so basing an opinion one like that isn't ideal. Thanks for the indirect reference, but I have my hands full and when I have time plug away at the ILT CCI. Thanks also for looking at first red link in the template - I'll remove it from there. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You had to be tireless, to help me with all of my questions...MUCH apreciated Coal town guy (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You did a great job. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dresden

Gaa, we ec'd. My fault, last time I saved to txt was about an hour ago, but no matter, its fresh in my mind, so caqn do again with little bother. I see your looking at sources, which is far more important. Dont mind the momentry angry edit summary I left in panic...over-reaction x several magnitudes. Peace in our time :) Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I was only in for a moment to look up something and seeing it at the top of my watch got sidetracked - was long gone to notice the edit summary or that I'd caused the ec. The sentence about the carrying case in the other Madonna has been bothering me but not enough to actually do anything about it; developing this page will help. These days the back button works for me in an ec - goes back to pre-ec and nothing is lost. I'm sorry though - that is frustrating. As you say, peace in our time :) Truthkeeper (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Forget it, small thing. I wouldnt have mentioned but I figured youd see the edit summary. Anways, hows the off wiki canvassing for the Madonna FAC going? You promised an influx of the members of the gay steel workers of america union, but its not yet evidenced on the nom page. Story there? The union of blind nuns are getting techy for thier turn. Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Patience, working on it. Canvassing hard offline but not getting many bites for 15th century paintings of the Madonna. Wrong Madonna I suppose - ours is too old, too real, too iconic. Young uns today, I despair. Will report back when I've made headway, but don't hold your breath. Also, a heads up that the River is bubbling up - will make a move there soonish. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

You're right, there HAVE been some strange changes, and there IS a recency bias. It's worse in the 10,000 articles version, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. I urge you to propose changes to those lists, and to advertise discussion of them in a community forum (probably one of the pumps) pbp 21:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll need to review and think about it, but haven't that much time at the moment. Not sure a pump is warranted, but maybe the folks over at the WP:Core contest and particularly Casliber might be interested in the discussion. Maybe some folks at GA & FA too, dunno. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a few of those "strange changes" to get rid of a pretty serious "dead white men" bias. Some folks there seem to think that music = classical music and history = European/American history.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maunus! I said "some of the changes", not "strange changes". I'm looking through the history and see what you've done. Personally I've always wondered why Murasaki Shikibu isn't in the writer's list, but since I wrote almost all of it and took it to FA, I obviously have a COI and wouldn't suggest adding it. But, yeah, having a 10th century Japanese woman novelist makes more sense than the many white guy modernists. At the moment I'm only focusing on the writers because that's what I know best, and mostly was simply responding to various comments. The dismay remark is that I see a potential for people adding without enough discussion or consensus (i.e., I'm not in love with the filmmakers category) - I don't have a problem with diversity and that's something we need to keep in mind. Too many bios though, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was reacting to Purplebacks' comment. Unfortunately the global bias and the recency bias tend to oppose eachother since it is difficult to find non-recent important people outside of the small part of the world that has a long textual tradition. You won't find many biographies of African or Latin-American musicians or authors that are not recent. One highlight comment said "Ravi Shankar is just one of a million Sitar players that have done nothing for music" and "how does Armstrong and Jimi Hendrix qualify?".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, the "strange edits" wasn't intended to be aimed at you pbp 03:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to notify any of those people. It's time VA and VA/E got some eyeballs. 03:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do what I can. Still thinking about it myself. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feature article

A part of the feature article candidate process, I have reviewed your article on Big Two-Hearted River, and made comments. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Josiah Gregg

Hi Truthkeeper! Now that you rewrote the sentence which bothered you in Josiah Gregg is there any chance of the DYK-nom moving forward? I have nothing in common with (and am not a sock puppet of) the person you mentioned as the former problem. I expanded the article and have gone back since and added additional citations to the top of the Gold Rush section which gives slightly more information than was there before. I've gone back through the sources looking for close paraphrasing and I think we're probably done with the influence of that editor's writing in the article, which was much smaller when he left it than when I started on it. Again thank you for all your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ellin, I've noticed the new edits and they look good, and no, I didn't at all think you were the other editor. My understanding of DYK reviewing is limited in terms of QPQ, but I thought it was up to Gerda to finish the review. Give her a ping and if she's satisfied, should be fine to pass. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixes

Thanks. I was espically amused/embarrased by this. Ironic or something, not sure what to make of it ;) No Im not going to DKY this one either, those people are a fucking disgrace: for eg I saw you tying to reason with gerarda. I told you before Im leaving in April, so foucusing on making the last of the JvE red links blue. An SPA at the end of my wiki career - another irony! Best. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard that you're leaving in April; that's a small detail I wouldn't have overlooked. Anyway sorry to hear that - another wiki friend lost. I suppose others too could turn the red links blue. Re - DYK, yes it is a disgrace. My feeling is that we should get rid of it. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the leaving - more than a bit of bombshell! Dunno who you've been sending mail to but not me. Anyway, I've sent you mail x 10. Ignore at your peril. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I peeked and see that there's quite a bit of input already. I'll try to get over there but won't be for a day or two. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hidden

Regarding our comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: the discussion seems more and more to drift away from the original question: are hidden infoboxes acceptable? It is not: are infoboxes acceptable? - What all these personal remarks have to do with MOS escapes me. Moxy is a great help on project opera. I was impressed by his statement from the point of view of accessibility. - If you want to get real please look at Peter Planyavsky. So much talk about the wishes of the author, - I don't see it happen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I read and perfectly understood Giano's statement which is this:

"Nothing is going to come from further debate; I suggest we all stop engaging and leave the status quo as it is - which when all said and done works pretty well until Mabbit comes along and causes dissent. To summarise: most people agree that on scientific and statistical pages a fully displayed info-box can be useful; on pages concerned with history and the arts they are less useful. On such pages, if the principal editors feel an infobox is unnecesary, then leave it out; if they are divided then give the page a collapsed box and if they want an info box - then have an infobox. We don't all have to live by regimented, uniform rules."

I agree with that. Haven't a clue what you're saying in regards to Moxy. Have I engaged with him there? I have looked at Planyavsky and commented on Nikkimaria's page. Planayavsky is a mess here. I don't feel like using my limited volunteer time to taking screen shots and uploading, but collapsing is not a solution either. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Giano could spell Andy's name right, it's not Mabbit (Rabbit, rabid). How people can sign that a misspelled name "causes" dissent is beyond me. You didn't engage with Moxy, a person with MS, - but you could perhaps mollify those who did ;) - I will go back to content now, - "time sink" you said that well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing and perhaps I'm overstepping: some people can build content but not always spell well or make other type of errors - a problem I suffer from. That is not at all a reflection on them as a person. In fact bringing attention to it is a reflection on the person who feels it needs to be mentioned. I'll take screen shots of your collapsed box and upload there. But in terms of timesink, it's been going on for a long time for me and I'm very very tired of it. Coming to my page and complaining about others' misspellings is a bit - well, dunno what to say. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see now - you want me to put a leash on Ceoil. RexxS asked me to do that once too. Not nice; not at all nice. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I came to your page because I wanted to leave the other, felt kicked out, - sorry for that. I am not complaining to you about others' misspelling (it actually looks intentional to me, this mixture of Mabbett and Rabbit, and hurts me, but that is not not your fault), - I wonder how several people can sign that. - Feel free to delete this conversation, you answered. - Don't waste time taking screenshots, the collapsed box is not "mine", I want it open, as on the talk, linked above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

TK, I advise you to ignore all this...deflection and, well, self importance. Its bait. Defence of Mabbit is prima facia evidence of...well Im too nice to say. But consistent, I'll give that. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right of course. But I have precious little time for WP at the moment and had hoped to review an article tonight. That I'm asked to do something about your and Giano's spelling on a page that's not in main space, and to put a leash on you as though I'm your keeper or something, well, sorry, but it makes me see red. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what's going on here. I am mostly retired, though I do check in now and again. I'm disappointed to see this sort of passive aggression going on here - forgive me if I am wrong, but that's how it reads.

I don't understand this aggression over an infobox. They are not required on every article, and in many instances offer oversimplifications and disinformation. They work very well on scientific articles yet are not always helpful in the arts and humanities. Nor do I understand the urge to discourage reading of the actual article. Are we not here to encourage learning? How, exactly, does the attempted distillation of an author or an artwork encourage that end? Do we genuinely believe that art, history and literature can be categorised in such a facile manner?

There is a reason that dedicated content editors leave. It is in large part due to the dogged attempt by certain editors to reduce the complex beauty and grief of life to a series of sterile boxes in an apparent attempt to discourage the casual reader from stretching the boundaries of his or her imagination. The fact that such efforts meet with praise in the face of objection is a kick in the face to those who spend time, care and sometimes money to ensure that articles are well-written and accurate.

I repeat that there is there is a reason content editors flee Wikipedia. I am sad to say that it is in large part due to attitudes like yours. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, nice to see you back - even if momentarily. I'll stop now; it's been going on too long. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, since I realise the above was a bit vague, I'm addressing Gerda and those she regards as her "friends". I am not and never would be calling you out, Truthkeeper. I hold you in high regard and don't consider you guilty of the malfeasances described above. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry got sidetracked and forgot to respond. I understood that your message wasn't for me and I hope I'm not guilty of malfeasances. Anyway, I'm sick and tired of it - another evening lost. So will probably follow your example and take myself away. Thanks for the kind words. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:MOS/Infoboxes

It isn't clear to me what point you are trying to make with this post. Can you elaborate? Are you doubting Editor Frietjes' abilities because of something I wrote? Do you think that I've written something inappropriate?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, she was (I think) concerned about something unrelated. Don't worry about it. TK, if I've understood you correctly, I'll say it's unlikely because of the timeframe involved. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have a response to my questions from Truthkeeper88, thanks.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:

I've archived the debate [4]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hemingway

Jesus, only just noticed (dont have my own talk on watchlist)...it passed!!! Well done, very much deserved! Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done to you too & thanks for the rewriting. Not easy to get a lit page up to brilliant prose standards and not easy to work on Hemingway - especially that story. Couldn't have done it without your help. Thanks too for making me blue instead of black - but I badly need a rest. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-retirement

Very sorry to see you go! You will be badly missed. Maybe you will feel like doing more after a break. All the best in either case. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I'm still checking in for the Madonna until it closes - whether it's promoted or archived. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Big Two-Hearted River

This is a note to let the main editors of Big Two-Hearted River know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. 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 one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Big Two-Hearted River" is a two-part short story written by American author Ernest Hemingway (pictured), published in the 1925 Boni & Liveright edition of In Our Time, the first American volume of Hemingway's short stories. It features a single protagonist, Hemingway's recurrent autobiographical character Nick Adams, whose speaking voice is heard just twice. The story explores the destructive qualities of war which is countered by the healing and regenerative powers of nature. When published, critics praised Hemingway's sparse writing style and it became an important work in his canon. The story is one of Hemingway's earliest to employ his iceberg theory of writing; a modernist approach to prose in which the underlying meaning is hinted at, rather than explicitly stated. "Big Two-Hearted River" is almost exclusively descriptive and intentionally devoid of plot. Hemingway was influenced by the visual innovations of Cézanne's paintings and adapted the painter's idea of presenting background minutiae in lower focus than the main image. In this story, the small details of a fishing trip are explored in great depth, while the landscape setting, and most obviously the swamp, are given cursory attention. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

This is a note to let the main editors of Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 29, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. 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 one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 29, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych consists of two small painted panels attributed to the Early Netherlandish artist Jan van Eyck, completed c. 1430–40. The left hand Crucifixion wing (part pictured) shows Christ's followers grieving in the foreground, soldiers and spectators in the mid-ground and a brutally physical portrayal of three crucified bodies in the upper-ground, all framed against an azure sky with a view of Jerusalem in the distance. The right hand Last Judgment wing contains imagery associated with the resurrection of the dead: a hellscape at its base, the lost awaiting judgement in the centre-ground, and a representation of Christ in Majesty flanked by a Great Deësis of saints, apostles, clergy, virgins and nobility in the upper section. The diptych is one of the early master-pieces of the Northern Renaissance, renowned for its unusually complex and detailed iconography. Portions of the work contain Greek, Latin and Hebrew inscriptions while the original gilt frames contain excepts from biblical passages inscribed in Latin and drawn from the books of Isaiah, Deutoronomy and Revelation. The panels were acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1933 while attributed to Jan's brother Hubert. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Madonna in the Church FA

Well done, you & Ceoil! I feel a bit of a fraud being on the nom, as you two did all the heavy lifting. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. You very much deserved it, particularly for writing the sections about the churches. Can't speak for Ceoil, but that would have been a stretch for me, and the van Eyck pages generally aren't really a walk in the park. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

TFA

Congrats on the Hemingway TFA - I was reading and enjoying it very much, then came across the phrase "slime coat", which I had forgotten you had asked me about. Nicely done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! I saw it on the main page yesterday and thought of you. Hope you're doing well. María (yllosubmarine) 12:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Maria and Ruhrfisch, nice to see both of you around. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I admire todays Crucifixion, meaningful beauty, - it's an honour to share history with it, look for Mark Passion in history Good Friday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Its an irony TK that so much happened after you went on a break (a promoted FAC and two TFAs), but there you go. Looking forward to seeing you back, dont loose touch, I hope, that would be a shame, and a pity after so long. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just checked in today after not logging in for a while - yes, a lot has happened! Thanks for roping me into the Madonna and taking care of my page - I'm happy to see that got promoted. It's fallen off the watchlist so I have to dig a little to find the FAC, but maybe on another day. I'll stay in touch & you too I hope. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Christ's genitals

I thought about leaving this question on the current FA's talk page, but every time I've dared had a thought provoked by an FA, I've been flogged by the editors, as if my lack of satiety were an insult to the article's completeness. And then I saw your name in the edit history and came here, because you and your confrère Ceoil seem to be among the few editors who get that the humanities are about the questions asked, not the answers.

This is my first time seeing a Wikipedia article take note of the pubic hair of Christ, and I was reminded of Leo Steinberg's classic article, and later slim book, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion. Although the author's conclusions proved controversial, his starting point was viewed (at least by some) as a fresh question worth trying to answer: why is it that fairly suddenly in this period the loincloth comes off, for both the Crucifixion and the Christ Child? There may be no definitive answer, but it was a theme or issue in a certain period of Christian art (as with Michelangelo's Cristo della Minerva). Steinberg himself mentions van Eyck only in passing, but innovative scholarship usually has coattails. Since the article calls attention to the particular display of the pubic area, I wondered whether any sources you encountered had pointed out that the thieves are both blindfolded and loinclothed, in contrast to the central figure's all-but-nudity. I suppose I was wondering (please don't bring out the flails) why the article would point out what we can already see, without offering the possible theological or aesthetic explanation of the artist's choice.

And yes (ouch! not so hard!), I could spend half a day researching this, but I thought I'd be lazy and ask out of personal curiosity, just in case you had seen something that had proved to be TMI for the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I'm just guessing here, but it may have something to do with the fact that the artists were emboldened by the commerce that developed around northern artworks from the mid 1420s, and suddelny they had cloult and were close to the political players, eg van Eyck was court painter to, and a favourite of, Philip the Good at the time of the diptych. Good question, but not one I personanly wanted to look into too much during the research, being the predictable example of my kind that I am :) Best. Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Our main treatment of the genitals issue is at Circumcision of Christ, but the really overt emphasis on the penis is mainly an Italian thing. The general nude torso is more to do with the ostentatio vulnerum I think (see Doubting Thomas - in the van Eyk the wound is just happening of course) & making Christ look vulnerable. Minimal clothing is pretty usual in northern Passion scenes & andachtsbilder at this period. The thief on the right isn't just wearing a loincloth but midi-shorts, never a good look at any period. I don't know if any of the sources on the work cover these issues - the treatment isn't out of the way for an EN painting, & writers tend to be either iconography-minded or not, & this is an area where those not might want to tread lightly. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I see we have Man of Sorrows (Maarten van Heemskerck) on the especially lighty-clad version that generated a furious and long-running row between Steinberg (did) and some of his reviewers (didn't) as to whether Jesus had an erection. Happy Easter! I had Doubting Thomas on DYK until an hour ago, so all this is fresh in the mind. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't even know how to respond to this, but thanks Cynwolfe for bringing an interesting topic to my page! At least it's not about infoboxes! I see that Ceoil and Johnbod have answered. I do remember reading something about this in the sources but will have to dig it out again. If I find anything to add above, I will. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

tender compassion
Thank you, not only for your admirable articles such as Bal des Ardents, but for showing your self in a great user name and the meditative Magdalen picture, for asking a question with tenderness and for counseling with compassion, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 91st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

FYI, also added you to the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake.Sadads (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how active I'll be during the summer but if I am I'd be interested in helping. Blake's not easy, but I really like him because more than anyone he combined art and lit, and I would like to work on some of the pages - have wanted to for a long time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever help you can give would be great. I could use some help assessing in the near future, and work beyond that would be a bonus! The materials and scholarship the Blake Archive has made available seems to have made it really easy to know what is important to pay attention to throughout the scholarship, so hopefully that make's it easier to research :) I also may be able to get you access to authorities and materials if you have any requests Sadads (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've studied Blake, alas not recently, but am not entirely ignorant. It would great to read some the newer scholarship, but I have a some books in one the many stacks I make for pages I never get to. To be honest I'm more interested in the engravings and his methods - always been fascinated by that. If I were to be involved, my favorite work has always been The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, so I'd focus my effort there. When I get a moment, I'll have a look at the info re the library. When do you begin? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be great to work on the Marriage of Heaven and Hell! Technically I start sometime late July - early August, but I will began coordinating some things in the next couple months so that their is infrastructure in place. I have presentation to the editorial board in June, on what the idea of connecting Wikipedia and the Archive is and where we will focus. Sadads (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what exactly you're planning to do. These articles are of interest to editors who write about lit and about visual arts, so some overlap there. Is a complete overhaul in the plan, just a working up as you go along? Curious minds want to know ... (oh I looked at the library - looks interesting.) Truthkeeper (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, planning to do a couple editing drives and in person events with a strong focus on ensuring the authoritative content from the William Blake Archive website gets referred to alongside the rest of the vast amount of scholarship. I also hope to create a less crazy copyright barrier between what they declare on their website and the actual public domain nature of the scans they have, making the claims less confusing and more user friendly. I imagine this as a test case for Digital Humanities projects, and might try to extend it over the next couple years to other projects. (A few thoughts are available at User:Sadads/Blake), Sadads (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your sandbox. Editing drives are fine, but sometimes stuff needs to be cleaned up afterward so you may want people on-board willing to do so - but it's months away. Bringing good images here is always a worthy effort. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I hope we can do that, and understand the need for some type of digital cleanup support (I am pretty good at that, it seems to be most of my work on-wiki anyway). I imagine, since there are so many powerhouse editors in the group, we might be able to do an GA or FA drive on a couple of the Blake works, perhaps even getting a few of the editors from the archive involved. There are also other graduate student interns at the other universities where there are editors, so I might also be able to run some activities for them as well. All in all, it depends on time, and how engaged we can get them :) Sadads (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We already have a lot of Blake on Commons [5] - in case you hadn't checked it out. Maybe a lot to be done there first in terms of categorizing and such so as not to deal w/ a ton of overlap. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already explored those some. The intention is to ensure that there is a uniform form of citing the Blake archive and properly accrediting other sources. I will be working on that come this summer, after I go to the GLAM Camp in DC at the end of the month and get a sense of how the Cultural Insititution templates work on Commons, Sadads (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Will they be imposing something along the lines that all of Blake's art comes from the archives? Can they do that if it's PD? Also, I've been watching you build this page, nice job by the way!, and am wondering how many students will be involved. Will this be done for classwork for grades or simply interns working during the summer? Sorry, I'm being inquisitive, but have always wondered how these things are set up. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau

So sorry to put my oar in so unkindly. It's well constructed and potentially a fine FA: I'd be very happy to give the prose the once-over if you would like me to. I don't know that you should rush to withdraw the nomination. If you haven't already done so I'd leave it open, fix the prose glitches and await developments. Either way, glad to help if I can. Tim riley (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) PS - By all means copy this message to the FAC page if you wish. Tim riley (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't apologize - you reinforced what I'd already suspected. Excuses such as poor eye-sight and slight dyslexia don't cut it, and I'm happy to have you put in your oar, so to speak, so soon, quickly and decisively. I'm also not ready to fight about the swapping out of the lead image that occurred as soon as I nomed, or about what sources say in terms of the Treaty of Troyes, now being discussed on the talk there. I've never written about royalty, am not familiar with the era, and have a sense of satisfaction from what I've learned while researching and writing. It's best to let it go and chalk up as an impetuous but unwise move. Thanks though for the kind offer and note. I do appreciate that. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to bring back the article once you've gotten a few more comments from editors. It is very engaging and I think will pass FAC in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. I haven't had time to look at your comments but will get to them on the weekend hopefully - thanks very much for taking the time and for posting to the talk page. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and given that most of the spelling stuff was introduced during my "re-wording" haha, I'm very hopeful for this on a second-go-round. Am encouraged by Wehwalt close review on the talk. Stick with it TK. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt's review is very helpful. Working my way through the easier bits now, and need to get back into the sources for others. Don't worry about the spelling - that's easy to fix. It needed to stabilize a bit I thought, and hopefully now has calmed down. I will stick with it, but need to work around a busy schedule and tend to misjudge my time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No pressure. Back at FAC anytime before midnight is fine. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading my mind - about to slap an inuse tag on that baby and get to work. Had to stock up on coffee first. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Im seeing annoying gremlings, but whatever. How are you finding the third series of Game of Thrones? Its fine for me, though as always I wish John would just well..do it! Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't seen any of it since the first and had to pay money for that. Was unimpressed by the characterization of Jon Snow in the series - the guy I imagined as a moody bastard became a pretty boy making moody faces, and since he's so important, well, I worry about that as the series goes on. How's Jaime doing without his hand? I kind of think he's an interesting character, or takes on more interest as the series progresses. But of course I base my perception on the books. Poor me. Gremlings? Pray tell. They do have a habit of popping up. Think nice thoughts - or something. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The guy who plays John is not a bad actor, but suffers a bit from being that little bit too pretty. This is funny, if you keep with it [6]. There is a dig at Orlando Bloom in there some where, which is kind of where I was coming from :) Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Imo Jamie is just *fucked* since he lost his hand. Sometimes hardship brings out the best in people; not so with our Jamie. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jaime gets better, at least in the books he does if I remember correctly. But, yeah, he doesn't deal well without his sword hand at the beginning. The audition tape is funny. I don't think of Jon Snow as pretty, but he's definitely the hero. Will be interesting to see how the series ends if it ever does. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All things considered, Jaime, sans his hand, well he took it like a man. Shit happens - you win some, you loose other times, it might happen that you hand gets chopped, or Omar steals it, hey whatever, likes. All part of the game, know what Im sayin'. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I do know what you're saying and it is all part of the game. I have to think about how Jaime is doing in the last installment of the book, but I seem to think that Jaime as swordsman is a nastier character than Jaime after his hand is chopped. Part of the game is to survive - or not. The Stark family isn't exactly faring well, are they? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

<shovels sand with feet> Suppose. But you know the subtext is hard nothern bastards versus soft as shite southern Laandan poofters, and ultimately we will triumph. No? Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my sense is that people on the wall are the heroes and will save everyone. So, I guess that would be the hard northern bastards. The later books introduce the even harder, even farther north bastards. The final battle will be on the wall - mark my words. Of course somehow Daenerys and her dragons, she who wears so little clothing, will have to survive the wall - or something. But I think that's the direction it's taking. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. "Even farther northern bastards"? Shite. I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a very warm coat. And preferably some body piercings as well. Tough guys those beyond the wall people. They'll take over the south and show them how to live. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Phhf. Im not afraid of a bunch of girls tring to dress as men. When I were a lad.... 01:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, they're a pretty tough bunch. But even they know to run away from those cold/frigid ones, the others? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that, pet. Im a bit worried, but far from scared. Yor descriing some miffed, perhalps drunken Scotts; haha, no worries; easy. Ceoil (talk)

Easy, peasy. You know nothing. Best to find a direwolf for protection. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe a dragon or two will work, mister I'm not scared. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeus, when I signed up as a hench man I was told, kill a few soft southern poofs, no worries, home by lunch time. Now its mad bitches from arbcom, drunken scotts, and dragons. I want to talk to my union rep, please. 03:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Aw, stop complaining. You still have your sword hand, dontcha? No union reps in the game. Every man and woman for him/herself. Let the best one win. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You got mail!

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

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh my! An T-shirt! [7]. Is there no end to the wonderfulness of the WMF and their Infobox pushing chapters! The delight!! An T shirt. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I haven't even had time to look at the email about the t-shirt. What can I say? A few tens of thousands of edits, a few decent articles, lots of clean up, blah, blah, and yeah, the reward is a t-shirt. But I'll wear it to work, and where I work that will turn a few heads so the shock value is worthwhile. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dissing the t-shirt isnt very helpful, and contains no meta data. As such Ive blocked you indefinatly. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Phew, now I can relax and don't have to worry about producing any more content! Thanks. Laters, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheeky, answearing back, and I noticed you inadvertantly uncapitalised my uername, revealing me as Ms C. Eoil of Norwich. Consider yourself site banned, missy. That you should burn in hell. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooo, threatening to revoke talk page privilege too, Ms. C. Eoil of where? Site banned is fine - but naw, I won't burn in hell. One of those beasties might chew on me though - that's something to look forward to. Yikes. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Norwich, motherfucker. Look, I dont really care about you you know, or your edits, and this is all getting a bit tedious. As a favour, Im up for RFA in a week or so; if you dont sock the nom, I might let u back. I'm that fucking generous. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll pass the message on to Lady Theresa Kampfwald - she'll take it into consideration. But really, Ms C. Eoil (of where?) you have to watch your language around her. RfA huh? Well aren't you the lucky one. You'll get to mop up all the messes. Socking is a dirty word for me - so puhleeze, just put that idea away. Either the Lady or myself will decide to show up - or we won't. That simple really. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Look it, the thing is I didnt realise I was talking to class, prob on arbcom or something, I just though you just some random bird; I seem to have mesed up, and this time am actually getting my coat and leaving. I'm sooo sorry your maigniancy, will never haqppen again. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Random bird? You think some random bird around here warrants a t-shirt? Well, you haven't been around long enough sonny-boy (or is that Ms. C. Eoil? of where?) to know much do you? I'm um ... a content editor. That means I get to work for free, sometimes have pride in my work, and yeah, have a t-shirt. So, yeah, might not be a bad idea to get the coat and find the door. Don't forget to lift the block on your way out. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Will nobody rid me of this turbalant content editor. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, we stick retirement tags on our pages hoping somebody will notice and add us to the graveyard of the missed, but we come back again and again because writing is in our blood. No matter how much we suck at it, no matter how many slings and arrows, the buzz of writing, researching, making good content, always wins in the end. So you're screwed Mr/Ms wannabe RfA. Have you lifted the block or am I still in jail? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Very nicely put. For all its flaws, WP's the best game in town. Where else is there such a market for writing, without anyone's permission?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is that too. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is so ideally suited to collabration. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is that too. Collaboration is great, getting an extra set of eyes, having feedback, not feeling that you're working in a void - all good stuff. And it's fun when it works well. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Long as you know whose boss, missy, and dont start geting notions, haha ;). Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No notions here, mister. I wouldn't even attempt to write about the Ghent and can only add research help there and a few tweaks. Am about to do a bit more - in a little while. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Or I might add notes for Timotheus - I see you're working there. Might as well use the sources I have too. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Ghent seems 50/50 so far; your doing the graft, finding the sources and research, and I'm writing it up, ahem, in my unique way haha. Then you come along and fix all the spelling stuff. 50/50? Oh wait :) Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Something like that. Was easy to work on the piece I copied in yesterday & I'll probably do the same with another today - just stream in from my sandbox. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

She says, "just stream in from my sandbox". If it were that easy! I'm staring at it trying to think how to structure - how to explain the fountain to lamb axis, how to describe the position of the groupings, trying to decide what's important and what not. The monster migraine that crept up a while ago isn't helping, but essentially I always find it a hard piece to write about. You've done a much better job than I could have. Spelling is minor and cosmetic. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Widmerpool

I just thought I'd let you know, since I think you enjoyed it, that Kenneth Widmerpool is tomorrow's main page article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I knew it coming up soon but couldn't remember when. It's still on my watchlist, but busy day tomorrow so I can't be around much. Good luck with it though. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Longacre

It's been promoted. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats and not a problem. I noticed it was languishing and that's never fun. Interesting read. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

An FL attempt, worth a look

Hey there, we have a editor who is try to get this to FL. Its damned impressive. My Dutch is very limited, but from what I can read of the English and German equivalent refs, they are doing great. Could you, or would you, in your own way, help this person out???? Any tips, formatting etc etc, would be a good thing as they are really changing the list from what it was. I did however find that they did NOT go through peer review....ANY help you could provide, would be greatCoal town guy (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm fairly well tied up elsewhere, really busy in RL at work, and it's not a topic I know anything about. If/when my time frees up a bit, I'll give it a look, but won't be for a few weeks at the earliest. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Ghent Altarpiece, replied to you on my talk page.

Hi Truthkeeper, just to let you know I replied to you on my talk page, ta Dickdock (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:American men novelists

In this edit, you removed the article Stephen Crane from Category:American men novelists.

That category is being discussed at WP:CFD 2013 April 25, and the CFD notice on the category page clearly displays the standard request: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

Please await the outcome of the CFD, and do not depopulate the category.

In the meantime, I have reverted your edit, and will revert any other similar depopulations of categories under discussion. If CFD reaches a consensus to delete or upmerge the category, a bot will do all the necessary work ... and if there is no consensus to delete or upmerge the category, then category should remain populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem is - the category is new, only created a few days ago, [8], and frankly pointy. Of course it has to be populated to merit having it, but all this is in reaction to a media storm and I cannot see at all how it serves our readers, and it ramps up drama. I see you've reverted Milowent once and me once, so I'll let it run it's course. Would be nice though to post the discussion at Wikiproject Novels. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised, and CFD is the place to discuss categories.

Whatever the origins of this situation, and whatever drama some journalists are trying to create, Wikipedia has established procedures to form a WP:Consensus. Let's use them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood: in my view the drama is created when false categories are made and falsely populated, yet another tedious and unnecessary discussion is started (without notifying the project that might actually have an interest) spilling yet more ink and creating another timesink, reverting edits to maintain the population of the category, and then visiting an editor's page with a gentle but nonetheless real wristslap. I'm not an admin, but yeah do have a vague idea about consensus. Anyway, this does nothing in terms of creating a good atmosphere for editing and building content so I'll back off and return when the situation has been resolved. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding: where were all the editors now jumping on the bandwagon because of a media story when the categories were being diffused? I took part in the those discussions, yet now, what, am told to sit on the sidelines? Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that even after you had read and replied to my message above, you still went ahead and removed another page from the category.[9]

Is there some lack of clarity in Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary category, that has rashly been built. Categories have never been comprehensive, and their is not consensus that the category is needed, especially amongst editors who curate novelist content. Please stop harassing TK, and let the community discussion drive the inclusion of works within that cat. Sadads (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads, but I can stand up for myself on this one. BrownHairedGirl has now reverted three times on Hemingway but thought it was okay to leave a message here after I reverted a single time. This situation is absurd to the extreme and her comment that I made only an "assertion" on the delete discussion beyond absurd. The category should by speedy deleted and we shouldn't have to put up with this crap frankly. Also just gotta say, I was worried about this shitstorm years ago when the novels categories were disaggregated, [10], so on some level or another it does need to be cleaned up, but I'm really tired of seeing the pages on my watchlist light up and seeing these reactions. I'd hope that the people who spend some of their volunteer time actually editing the novels pages would have a say, but once the media is involved it's just a typical pile on. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadads, you are entitled to your view that it's an unnecessary category. You are not alone in that view, which is why a CFD discussion is underway. The categ will be emptied if there is a consensus to do so. All I am asking is that editors respect the long-standing principle of CFD: that a categ should not be depopulated while the consensus-forming process is underway, and that is not harassing.

Tk, if you think the category should be speedy deleted, then make the case for which speedy criterion it meets, and see if you can persuade an admin to act on it. But unless and until that happens, it's disruptive for editors to go around slicing bits off the category, even if you view it as crap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• What speedy criteria would you use to delete Category:American men novelists. There is not a speedy criteria "People have gone really, really overboard in canvassing on this, so we should throw out all rules and delete it." Especially when the people involved in doing the canvassing are those in favor of deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that there's a wall of text on the CfD for female novelists and that my single comment re male novelists was labeled a mere "assertion" and that there are discussions all over the place, even on individual user pages, no thanks. Had enough of it. The reasoning is simple and the reason the press picked it up: if the categories are diffused and disaggregated, then yep, everyone but white males will be placed elsewhere except the parent category and the parent will only have white men. Edith Wharton is labeled an American novelist (which she was) and an American woman novelist (which she was). Ernest Hemingway on the other hand, had American novelist swapped out for the new category made purely to create havoc. Which it has. Now, please, both of you, leave me alone. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tk, it's a little more complicated than that. And despite your request not to reply, I think that your assumption of bad faith should not go unchallenged. Your assertion that "the new category made purely to create havoc" is pure WP:ABF.

Per WP:SUBCAT, the general principle is an article should not be in a category and that category's parent categories. Pages are diffused to sub-categories.
So in this case, articles were diffused from Category:American novelists to Category:American female novelists. After the complaints that this left the parent categ consisting only of men, two things happened:

1. Some editors started dual-categorising pages in both Category:American novelists and Category:American female novelists. Not the conventional approach, but it's one answer to the media-hyped problem.
2. Category:American male novelists was created, so that men could be categorised there, avoiding the prob of Category:American novelists becoming male-only. It was populated in the usual way, as a replacement for its parent category

This is all still under discussion, and there are a number of possible solutions, e.g. a) diffuse all article to either male or female; b) dual-categorise all articles, by keeping them in Category:American novelists and also categorising them under male or female; c) keep only one or other of the gendered sub-categories as a special case, and then decide whether to keep those pages in the parent as well; d) upmerge both Category:American male novelists and Category:American female novelists.

These issues are still under discussion, and while a consensus is being formed some editors are taking the WP:SUBCAT approach and others are taking the dual-categorisation approach. When a consensus forms, we can implement that, but in the meantime there are good faith arguments for various possible outcomes.

While the CFD discussions are taking place, and dual categorisation has not been agreed as a consensus outcome, some pages will not be dual categorised. You may disagree with that, but please do not assume that this is part of a desire to create havoc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You might find it hard to believe but I actually know all of this - it's an area I edit in and I'm not entirely without a brain. And as far as I know I'm free to say what I wish on my talk, no? Or not? Please let me know because it's a single edit to turn the banner above from blue to black. There's absolutely no reason to log in and find these messages on my page. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're free to say what you want on your talk, but within the same limits as the rest of us: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again BrownHairedGirl - those limits of course are slightly relaxed on user talk. I've seen posted to various discussions (more than once) that the category in question was made as a hoax, so have those editors been warned re AGF as well? Consistency is probably the best path to follow. If you believe there's been an issue in regards to civility, please feel free to do whatever you believe needs to be done: open an AN/I thread about me, warn me, block me. Otherwise I think it's time to let it go. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Miscellany Article Rating

Hi Truthkeeper,

Just seen your note on the talk page of the miscellany article. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think - very keen to improve the article in any way! Best, BridgenAJ (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi BridgenAJ, thanks for stopping by. I think it's a lovely article, was very impressed with it and thrilled to see that it wasn't deleted. I've not read through it completely and will be quite busy in the next few weeks so it might be a while before I get there unless I get to it today. I rated it C because I do think it might need a bit more before bumping up, but to be honest don't really worry about the ratings unless it's being prepared for Good article review at WP:GAN. Another way to get feedback is at WP:Peer Review but I think might be a backlog there at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive comments - I was also very glad it was accepted. Miscellanies are relatively little-known at the moment, although there were over 1000 published in the 18th century alone. This is changing though, there are lots of new research projects going on to make them more accessible, so I though it would be useful to have an article distinguishing them from anthologies. The original redirect of 'miscellany' to anthology was a bit misleading, and I believe that's why the article wasn't accepted at first - once I argued the difference it was speedily accepted. I can't find much more in the way of secondary sources at present, but I'm sure there will be more published on miscellanies in the next few years (it's quite an emerging field in literature studies) so there will be room for expansion. Thanks also for the advice on further reviewing - will see what I can do. BridgenAJ (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that Johnbod is working there now - he's much more of an expert than I am and a very knowledgable and experienced editor here, so you're in good hands. It is in interesting field and thanks for taking the time write the article. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Johnbod has already made some really helpful contributions, filling out the info on medieval miscellanies and improving the article lead. Thank you for taking time to look at the article so far, it is appreciated - and, in reference to your banner turning black: Illegitimi non carborundum. Best, BridgenAJ (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013)

Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

	Pierogi Award
	Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus, I know just the place to find good pierogi! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

read diffs more carefully please

Hi, this is the second or third time you've accused me of something I didn't do based on misreading diffs. the first time, you accused me in several places of making Hemingway no longer an American novelist - when in fact, I had made (or kept) him as a 20th century american novelist - but your misreading of the diffs made you miss that. Secondly, you accused me at ANI of changing a guideline to bolster my case. This could not be further from the truth - that guideline has to do with whether ethnicity/sexuality/etc cats should be NON-diffusing - I was simply making the language stronger to suggest that they should almost always be, to avoid the issue of ghettoziation. This has very little to do with whether and how you diffuse large categories like American novelists - which have both non-diffusing (e.g. American women novelists, African-American novelists) and diffusing (eg 20th-century American novelists) categories underneath. I'd appreciate you striking those comments and apologizing. Thanks and best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right - I read it wrong. But on April 30th I made a long post to Ernest Hemingway to get a "if the cat fits" kind of blow off reply, which would have been okay if a., I weren't in the busiest week of the year at work, and b., I didn't have bronchitis and a fever. When I logged back in a few days later to see templates being changed, lots of changes to American novelists and zero discussion at a centralized location, Wikiproject novels or literature maybe?, I kinda lost it. I fully admit it. Being called emotional, being told to get over it, seeing Nikkimaria called passive aggressive and the comments about Amanda Fillipachi haven't done much for my mood either. So, yep, I owe you an apology. That said, imo you are editing against consensus and it would be much better to discuss calmly, give people ample time to respond and simply to wait for the dust to settle. I understand fully that my vision of categorization doesn't mesh with yours; but maybe, just maybe, we're doing something wrong and maybe the press got it right. (I think they did, but that's my opinion). Anyway, I've struck my comment at AN/I and do apologize about the snark in that one. Btw - my username is Truthkeeper, not TruthSeeker. Lots of people call me TK. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hemingway

Hi TK. Maybe it is for the best that you take a break. Your latest revert on Hemingway just boggles my mind - you are now reverting me based on the ORDER of the categories? I spent about 10 minutes reorganizing the categories to make it easier to manage and understand which trees he was in and why - thus I grouped writers together, awards, religion tags, etc.

I'm currently right in the middle of preparing a full proposal for modification of those categories - and now you've gone and in a flash, without even considering what I was doing nor why, you just revert me because you have quibbles with the ordering! This is not your article (WP:OWN), and you aren't the final arbiter on the categories - but even that is besides the point - I did NOT change the categories with my most recent edit, and made that clear in the edit summary! Finally, your edit summary says that I placed him as essayist before novelist. I suggest you take a look at the categories now, and you will find, essayist is STILL before novelist. So you're overreacting, not reading diffs carefully, and basically taking this all WAY too seriously.

So please, have a cup of tea, go do something else for a while - you're too close to this.

Finally, I was going to come here to say thanks for your apology and that I accept it, but I guess you deleted your whole talk page... Sorry, I hope things start going better for you, your contributions are valued and I hope you come back. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm

I hope to see you back soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification?

Hi! Hope to get your orange bar flying! Red Slash 05:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hemingway, again

Hi TruthKeeper - I'm glad to see that you're back. Just a note- the revert you made on Hemingway suggested that you thought he was ghettoized/classified *only* as a war novelist. This is, again, not true at all - he was also classified as a Category:20th-century American novelists - several editors are currently moving *all* bios to these categories - within a month or so, I would estimate that Category:American novelists will be completely empty. In any case, just a reminder, please read diffs carefully. For me, one advantage of this scheme of by-century-novelist is it will eliminate this issue of whether someone is a "x novelist" or just a "novelist" - in the new scheme, everyone will be a "novelist" (by century), and they will additionally be put into genre categories as necessary - and I think Hemingway could safely be called a war novelist but would welcome your thoughts.

This approach eliminates a thorny problem of whether someone who wrote romance novels is also a novelist - we are basically saying, they are *all* novelists, and categorized as such. It also puts the novelist category in compliance with the norms of WP:EGRS, which state that you should not create a gendered/ethnic sub-category unless the parent category can be fully diffused. Much of the drama here was because we hadn't fully diffused the parent category, leading to all of the hoopla in the media - and due to the nature of writing, you cannot fully diffuse based on genres *alone*. Once we fully diffuse it down to century/genre categories, there will be no more chance of ghettoization and no more arguments about whether someone is truly a novelist or just a lesser species. There are more categories I'm proposing for Hemingway, so please swing by the talk page and weigh in. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As you suggested, I started a discussion at the novels project around the genres of novelists - your feedback and input welcome there as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Obiwankenobi, I'm not back yet. I made yet another revert, and I linked Awadewit's essay that struck a chord. What I'm seeing is a lot of rushing around "fixing Wikipedia's women problem" without giving it any thought and even worse without listening to the women. I'm deeply angry at how this is being done, but more than that I find the repeated admonishments to read diffs more carefully the most patronizing comment that's come my way since being here and frankly I'd prefer to take anything someone like Malleus can dish out. I'm very tempted say something in response that will get me blocked and if any passing admin feels I need a preemptive block, that's fine. Somehow I have managed to write a few articles despite being a weak female incapable of reading diffs - we're just all so technically feeble.

I have seen the many posts and many threads all over the place. I still think you all are editing against consensus in your zeal to "fix" a problem, waving the light sabre, making it go away, and when I'm out from under work (which I've now explained three times too many), I'll reply. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to deleted thread

TK, every time I say anything to you, you take it personally! For example, on several occasions I said something, you said something in response that implied I hadn't been clear, so I respond with a clarification, and then you tell me I'm talking down to you - when really I was just trying to explain my POV more clearly - no offense intended!

I'm sorry, but admonishing you to read diffs when, on 4 separate occasions now, you have made edits, reverted things, and made claims that were patently false and that could have been discovered by reading diffs, gives me no hesitation in reminding you gently to do so, and I would do the same for any other editor. It has nothing to do with your competencies as an editor, nor with your gender, so don't read all of that into what I say. If another editor chastises you for not reading diffs, it's because you WERENT READING DIFFS. Not just once, but several times - and then reacting rashly as a result - and launching attacks on me and others in public forums for doing things THAT WE DIDNT ACTUALLY DO. I never said you were weak, I never referred to your gender, and I never said you were technically feeble, so that's you putting a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say nor intend.

I am certainly not trying to fix "wikipedia's women problem" - the issues are much deeper than any person - what I am trying to do is to fix the gender/ethnic categorization ghettoiziation problem, which, you may recall, was the subject of umpteen tweets and blog posts and NY times articles - that specifically was called out, and that specifically is fixable. If you see some big discussion somewhere on how to fix this in general, please point me to it - AFAIK there is no such discussion. There was a flurry of activity around the American women novelists category, and since then everyone has gone back into their shells, and SPAs have disappeared, and it's back to us regular old editors. I've recently nominated a number of categories that are ghettoizing and not in-line with policy for deletion, and very few are participating in those discussions, just the same old players. Where did everyone go? I don't think most people care that much, anymore. The media circus has blown over, and people are moving on, and we still have endemic ghettoization of tens of thousands of bios. Why aren't people furiously debating how to improve WP:EGRS? Why aren't they debating WP:Categorization? I just don't see editors caring much, sadly.

I've already said before, and I will say it again, thank you so much for your contributions in article space, I think your work is much more important than the gnomish tasks I take on, and bringing an article (or several?) to FA is no small feat, so again from the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing that, and I would never demean such work and I value it. If through my edits and our disputes, I gave the impression that I didn't nonetheless respect the good work you've done here, allow me to apologize - I am sorry - that was not my intent.

Anyway, I know you're buried under work, so please, accept an olive branch, if there's a better way I can point out that the diff wasn't read without you taking it the wrong way, please let me know, and I hope to see you back soon, Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Obiwan, you need to let this go. I have bad eyesight. At the moment I have eyestrain and bad eyesight, and a sinus infection and bronchitis and I'm working on a deadline. I made a single mistake while I had a fever and frankly shouldn't have been editing and was embarrassed by it. I apologized. That should be the end of that. And I'll be blanking again soon b/c no reason to have to put this all out to the public. As for the rest, I understand what you're doing, but it's being done too fast for one thing and for another the timing is bad. If you were to think about it seriously you'd figure out why the people who might be responding regarding literature articles are mostly busy at this time. Give it a little time. Finally, yeah, more than one FA. But who's counting? It's all relative here. Thanks for the olive branch - accepted. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I hope you feel better soon, and again I'm very sorry if I offended you, that was never my intent. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

fwiw

If you'd like I can help set up auto-archiving on your talk page - I've done it a number of times - just an offer... cheers. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had it set up but I got rid of it. Like in real life, I toss things in a pile when I haven't time to deal, then sort out later. I'll get to sorting my page later - feel like editing right now. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of John Harris (publisher)

Hi, the hook in your nomination of John Harris (publisher) is too long. The limit is 200 characters, and yours is about 227 when you exclude (pictured). The hook will have to be shortened or replaced. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worried about that. I've trimmed it. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair

Thank you. This nonsense is driving me crazy. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific issues with edits

If you have specific issues with the categorization that an editor does, you should bring up the specific issues to the editor themselves, not go on a broadcast attack against them. If there are specific instances where you feel I made an unwise decision in categorizing someone you should bring them up to me, on my talk page, not broadcast them in some more genderal forum. Only if I then fail to respond to your specific concerns does it make sense that you bring them up in another context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly and can't be bothered to gather all the diffs. I've deleted my entire watchlist (and almost missed this message b/c apparently one's own page has to be on watch to get a notification!) because of the mess it's become. I thought this rather long response would be enough, but if not, please go through my recent edits - you'll see that most in the past weeks are in regards to this situation. My position is very clear - why shouldn't all the novelists be left in the parent category? I suppose I could be wrong - I'm only some lady on the internet (SLOTI) and I keep seeing long walls of text with unconvincing reasons for not doing that. In the meantime you're plowing through all the novelists and recategorizing so there's not much I can do except stop editing until my watchlist becomes less of a distraction. Which is a shame since this is one of the few months in the year I have time to build content - but whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all fine and good to believe that all american novelists should stay in american novelists, but that is not the subject of the AN, which several independent editors have called a witch hunt. If you really want all novelists to stay in american novelists, I have previously laid out the best possible courses for you (1) nominate Category:20th-century American novelists and other by-century cats for merging up to Category:american novelists at CFD (2) try to get consensus at the novels project that, unlike novels and many other similar categories, Category:20th-century American novelists should absolutely be non-diffusing or (3) start an RFC, that basically states "American novelists, now and in the future, can never be diffused - all sub-cats must always be non-diffusing."

Any of those paths, if they succeed, are likely to get you what you want, and JPL and I will comply with those outcomes, and will ensure others do so as well. Voting to ban me and JPL will not - many other editors are actively recategorizing as we speak. Frankly, it just makes you look petty - "editor X is doing something I don't like - BAN them" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not asking for a ban - asking to stop editing a specific subset of categories, that's all, as per DC's very focused and defined suggestion. As for the rest, you've told me time and again, and I've told you time and again that I'm not stupid. WP:Involved comes into play here, not in the admin sense, but in the sense that it's best that an RfC be drafted and conducted by an editor not involved and hence with a COI in the issue, so as to establish clear consensus, and that precludes me. As it happens, I think it's beyond an RfC. As for petty - I'll let that slide. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read carefully what DC wrote: "I propose that Johnpacklambert be banned from adding or removing categories from biographies people living or dead, or making any edits to categories which contain biographies of people living or dead." That is, by it's very definition, a recommendation for a BAN. Yes, it is a topic ban, but it is an INDEFINITE topic ban, on an area where JPL has probably made more edits than anyone else in the encyclopedia. Do you see now why this is seen as a witch hunt, and why this indefinite topic ban is seen as extremely punitive rather than corrective?

And, I don't know why you are again suggesting that I said anywhere, or implied in any way, that you are stupid. I was simply restating that there are multiple paths to achieve your stated goal, and banning JPL or me won't help! But the few contribs you've made in the past few days have mostly been to vote on ANI/AN issues and recommend bans! Perhaps it is best to get someone else to draft the RFC, but are you working on that? Are you commenting on the extant RFC? Are you talking with CarWil? Are you trying to recruit an admin?? You keep on complaining that things are progressing too fast and you want to wait for consensus but I don't see you specifically doing anything to help advance that supposed consensus - instead you just vote to throw editors off the train who are doing things without your consent. That's where my frustration lies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FFS - I've fucking had pneumonia! Can't wikipedia just wait! If I could, I'd be doing some of that stuff and not reacting the way I have. Please just fucking give me a break. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been sick, but no, wikipedia won't wait. That's just the way it is. If you need to take a break for whatever reason, please do. But don't ask everyone to wait, and don't then throw rocks at people b/c they didn't wait. I did for example hold off on Hemingway, because you asked me to, so we're having a slow discussion there, and I'm ok with that. But asking the rest of the editors in the rest of the tree to hold off on any categorization is, I feel, too much.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just bullshit. You and JPL will not wait. And that is exactly the reason you ended up at AN/I and he at AN. Each conversation that gets started is overwhelmed by walls of text and a serious IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Maybe, just maybe, what we are doing is wrong. If that's the case, then we need to sort it out and it won't happen overnight. I cannot do what you keep asking me to - you want everyone on your schedule and that's not possible. Saying that you're holding off on Hemingway is just patronizing; looks to me like we have consensus there. Regardless, if I'm not allowed to have pneumonia (whilst going to work) and edit a little while I recuperate so that that fucking ILL book I need for another article doesn't get another fucking huge library fine without having to deal with this shit, then I really don't know what to do. You keep trying to force me to break - and that too I find incredibly patronizing. Please, please, leave me alone. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ARGH. I'm not patronizing you, and I'm not saying you're not allowed to be sick. It's just I cannot give you a free pass to throw rocks or suggest bans for us as a result. I waited (am waiting) on Hemingway b/c you asked me to (I am not! being patronizing at all) and I was waiting for you to come back before closing that out, as I know you worked a lot on that article. Anyway, I've said enough, and I'll leave you alone. I'm sorry you've been sick, and I hope you feel better soon, honestly. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, leave me alone, and for christ sake let me edit the encyclopedia. If this doesn't stop, I'll do something to get myself blocked just to be away from this shit. And please stop plastering stuff about me all over the place. And, don't ask for diffs - haven't the energy. Look to your own page. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need an RfC. If you don't want novelists moved to Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to start a CfD on it. That is the way to deal with categories you do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• In my view, a novelist is a novelist - regardless of century. We should keep both. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)