User talk:Yllosubmarine/Archive 10

Did I hear my name?

You called? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Que linda! Never! (Well, perhaps subliminally.) Dorkus maximus is I, I completely forgot how to nominate an FAC. Brackets, curly brackets, omgwut. Good thing I remember how to review prose... María (yllosubmarine) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll fight you for the rights, and I have the t-shirt! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a t-shirt that says "Talk Nerdy to Me", so perhaps I misspoke. Unfortunately some people think it's an invitation for them to go on about isosceles triangles or the Fibonacci sequence, which is totally not what I'm into, but whatev. María (yllosubmarine) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit

Could you reformat the citations yourself, since I clearly don't know how to do it.--WTF (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a problem, either. That's why I don't want to do it. Other FA reviewers are saying that there is a problem, but I really can't change the citations myself. If someone else can do it, that'd be fine.--WTF (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

PR request

Hey, Maria. I noticed some of your own reviews over at FACs and was generally impressed. I currently have something up at Peer Review, which I plan on taking to FAC one day, but it isn't getting any replies. Sorry if it's too much to ask, but I was wondering if you could give it a look when you have time and maybe leave some comments over at the PR? It'd be much appreciated :) Cheers, Auree ★ 06:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's okay--it might even prove helpful. Usually us hurricane folk don't know when our writing is too technical, so having a layman look it over could really help us find ways to make our articles more understandable. Thanks! Auree ★ 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Maria. Congrats on The Monster's promotion, even though I wasn't surprised with the result :) After your review, I retrieved some well-needed motivation and gave Tropical Storm Cindy an extensive overhaul to polish up the prose. I'm pretty determined when it comes to quality, and I value your opinion, so it'd be awesome if you could give it another look to see if it's improved? Any additional help would be great. All the best, Auree ★ 10:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! It's now a FAC, so wish me luck (: Auree ★ 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive1

Thank you for your comments on the intro. I hope my recent edits have remedied your concerns, and I look forward to your comments on the rest of the article. Savidan 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have re-nominated this article here. Any comments would be appreciated. Savidan 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn again

Hey Maria, I hope you're well. It's me again, back to pester you (I bet you regret offering to remain at hand for the K. Hepburn article, haha). I refound my motivation for it, and have - I believe - made all the changes you suggested for the article. I'm still going to give it another read-through, but I'm planning to take it to FAC very soon. Perhaps it will encounter problems, but I'm curious to give it a shot and see what happens. Anyway - I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to take a look at the new lead and see what you think of it? Do you think it's too long? How about the new layout? It's quite a big change, do you think it's an improvement or not? I'm not entirely sure it is better this way. I'd be very happy to hear any opinions you may have. Thaannkks --Lobo512 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for The Monster (novella)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The Monster (novella). TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry!

Don't worry Maria it's fine, I was ready to go ahead and nominate anyway. I couldn't bare to wait any longer! Man, that was scary actually nominating! I'm really happy to have finally done it anyway, whatever the outcome. Yay. It would be great to have a review whenever you can. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Garbo blip

Hi Yllos..., Your last message to Lobo, I think, was posted in the Greta Garbo edit history rather than the one you meant. Which leads me to believe it didn't get to your intended audience. Might want to redirect it--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC). Take care,

Whoops! Nevermind. i was looking at the wrong history. Sorry,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: The Red Badge of Courage

This is a note to let the main editors of The Red Badge of Courage know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Red Badge of Courage is a war novel by American author Stephen Crane. Taking place during the American Civil War, the story is about a young private of the Union Army, Henry Fleming, who flees from the field of battle. Overcome with shame, he longs for a wound—a "red badge of courage"—to counteract his cowardice. When his regiment once again faces the enemy, Henry acts as standard-bearer. Although Crane was born after the war, and had not at the time experienced battle firsthand, the novel is known for its realism. He began writing what would become his second novel in 1893, using various contemporary and written accounts (such as those published previously by Century Magazine) as inspiration. It is believed that he based the fictional battle on that of Chancellorsville; he may also have interviewed veterans of the 124th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, commonly known as the Orange Blossoms. Initially shortened and serialized in newspapers in December 1894, the novel was published in full in October 1895. Several of the themes that the story explores are maturation, heroism, cowardice, and the indifference of nature. Adapted several times for the screen, the novel became a bestseller. It has never been out of print, and is now thought to be Crane's most important work and a major American text. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hepburn FAC

Hey Maria. I'm very happy to report that the Katharine Hepburn FAC has attracted two supports. I hope you are still able to drop in. I've rewritten the lead again by the way. It doesn't quite follow your advice of sticking to the article structure, but I decided it was a good idea to split the legacy stuff between the first para and the final para. That way, the lead has an interesting opening and closing. I think it is good the way it is, I hope you agree. --Lobo (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

peer review

I placed a post asking for peer review of Charles Lindbergh and request it actually be carried out - I have complied with the process requirements, the short-circuiting on the basis that I do not regard the request page as being a debate forum is errant as far as I can tell. That Centpacrr views the peer review process as an adversarial proceeding is quite beyond comprehension. A simple reading of the "article" will show florid and purple prose abounding in an article with BLP implications (the surviving son), and a goodly share of problematic claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	article Pilgrim on Tinker Creek
	Thank you for giving us a thoughtful article, ripened since DYK days, on themes of faith, nature, and awareness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Another article ripened, just look at the top of my talk if you are in for reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, see answer there also. Several layers, religious is one. "These groups are very inspirational. As details unfold, we are increasingly able to show how people have the ability, as individuals and communities, to take control of their lives, even under oppressive conditions." - another, top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan FAC

Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1‎. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

I replied to your email. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pilgrim

I've just realized this is at FAC - you should have pinged me! I'd be happy to review; hopefully over the weekend, otherwise early next week. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! No worries, though; I know how busy you are. Plus I wasn't sure if Dillard would interest you enough. She's a bit quirky, but I love the book. María (yllosubmarine) 18:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

She is quirky. I have a few of her books, can't ever tell whether I like them or not, but look forward to reading this. And yes, have been busy but am hopeful I can get to this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on an excellent article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A Free Ride

I have rectified the problem. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nom for further improvement. Please discuss in the talk page in the article and provide your suggestions. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Opened a peer review. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno

The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Leno was a leading star of music hall, Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maria. I'm just using wishful thinking to hope that you can review Dan Leno at FAC [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dan Leno/archive1 here]. If so, could you also do the "spotcheck"? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Good luck with all your projects.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bell Jar edits

Hi! Thanks for your attention to The Bell Jar. I think what my students were citing was the page range in which the article occurred within the journal. For instance, Bonds, Diane (October 1990). "The separative self in Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar". Women’s Studies (Routledge) 18 (1): p49-64. Retrieved 19 March 2012. In this citation, p49-64 indicates the page range in the journal Women's Studies in which the article "The separative self in Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar" can be found. I believe this is part of the standard journal citation format. Agreed, they could have also cited the specific page number. But the range should be correct. Thanks, again, and let me know if this is wrong. --Roseclearfield (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That totally makes sense now! Thank you, thank you! I will definitely use the format on those FAs for guidelines in the future. --Roseclearfield (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

I've opened a peer review for Belenggu at Wikipedia:Peer review/Belenggu/archive1. As you are the only editor active in writing literary FAs that I know, would you be interested in giving this a look? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll give her a shout (to be honest I thought she mostly wrote articles on Japan and Renaissance art). Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both are quite impressive (and I thought writing Chrisye [not a novel] drained me... Red Badge's article is even longer!). Thanks again, and cheers Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LQ

Woah, thanks for letting me know. Obviously I'm still learning wikipedia conventions. I was just going with the fact that grammatically punctuation is supposed to go inside quotation marks... the wikipedia world is new to me. I should probably familiarize myself with conventions before I go doing stuff to articles :) --Eye101 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Awards - Change of Project guidelines proposed

A Proposal to change our Project guidelines has been made regarding the listing of theatre awards at the bottom of musicals articles. If you have an opinion, please weigh in there. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"An Occurrence"

Hi. Recently you removed an edit from "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge". The references are correct (in English and from reputable sources). If you prefer a referecence pointing to other resource, please help correcting the article. The information posted is correct and pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGM (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. About "An Occurrence at Owl's Creek", I added a reference to a critical work that indicates the Borges connection. This is not original research. Please check references. JBGM (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pic

I removed the spots and scrapes from this pic one at a time, without changing the image in regard to size, resolution, etc. Whadda ya think? INeverCry 03:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The other "restorations" that you point to are inferior to mine and invasive, as one of them cropped the image, and the other removed the framing. I don't see why damage to an image should be restored. The image itself actually looks more authentic now, as this is closer to what it would've looked like right after it was taken. I think those spots and lines, especially on her face, are a bad thing. Anyways, I spent a good ammount of time on fixing that up, so I'd rather not revert it. I've done this kind of careful non-invasive restoration on 100s of images on commons, including a couple pics of Abraham Lincoln, without any requests to revert back to a damaged image. I'd like to see about getting consensus on this if needed. INeverCry 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I remove defects very slowly and carefully, and I don't leave things "fuzzy". But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally think the pic as it now is should be kept for the lead. I won't object if you want to revert it, but I'm also not going to make changes I disagree with. One point I would make is this. The original daguerreotype most likely had none of those marks on it until long after its creation. In any event, since the Dickenson article is yours, and rightly so, I have no objection to your doing whatever you feel is best for it. I'm sorry if I've given you a bit of a hassle. INeverCry 18:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to go thru all that trouble. If you prefer the old pic, feel free to revert. I'll make sure not to touch any other images used in your articles. INeverCry 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I bet you'd get pretty protective if I tried to change the lead image to my restored version. That restoration took a good deal more time than your 2 minute upload of my work, which will now sit in the dust on Commons. BTW, I don't say it's a fact that you own a few aricles... INeverCry 20:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Maria, I wanted to apologise to you for the above. I don't know exactly what it was that motivated me to behave like such a jackass. I was rude and completely wrong. I'm truly sorry. INeverCry 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Amelia Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Treaty of Paris and Second Treaty of Paris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lime Street fire

Your user space article is the #3 hit on google for Lime Street fire. Perhaps it's time to move this to the mainspace? It's an article I think Wikipedia needs. —Ute in DC (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that it's a subject that could use coverage on Wikipedia, I haven't finished my research, so the article is quite incomplete. Lots more to do before I think it's ready for the mainspace. Where's the fire? ;) María (yllosubmarine) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: nature fakers controversy

This is a note to let the main editors of nature fakers controversy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The nature fakers controversy was an early 20th-century American literary debate highlighting the conflict between science and sentiment in popular nature writing. Following a period of growing interest in the natural world beginning in the late 19th century, a new literary movement, in which the natural world was depicted in a compassionate rather than realistic light, began to take shape. Works such as Ernest Thompson Seton's Wild Animals I Have Known (1898) and William J. Long's School of the Woods (1902) popularized this new genre and emphasized sympathetic and individualistic animal characters. In March 1903, naturalist and writer John Burroughs published an article entitled "Real and Sham Natural History" in the Atlantic Monthly. Lambasting writers for their seemingly fantastical representations of wildlife, he also denounced the booming genre of realistic animal fiction as "yellow journalism of the woods". Burroughs' targets responded in defense of their work in various publications, as did their supporters, and the resulting controversy raged in the public press for nearly six years. Dubbed the "War of the Naturalists", the controversy effectively ended when President Theodore Roosevelt publicly sided with Burroughs, publishing his article "Nature Fakers" in the September 1907 issue of Everybody's Magazine. Roosevelt popularized the negative colloquialism by which the controversy would later be known to describe one who purposefully fabricates details about the natural world. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious again, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (16 February 2010 and 2 March 2012)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ps: I could change my user since I wrote the last time, to proclaim now Rhapsody in Blue ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure why you keep linking to the sapphire article. I've no interest, sorry. María (yllosubmarine) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood, by mentioning "blue" I just wanted to express that I am not in the swamp any more (intentionally no link) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My congratulations as well - nice to see your article on the Main Page. Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho

Hi. I hope you had a great summer! Someone nominated this article for GA, and, as the principal contributor, I think it's ready. Would you be interested in being the GA reviewer? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Be patient, someone will get to it. Obtund^Talk 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

?? Not sure what's going on here, but I'm afraid I'm not too active at the moment. Sorry, Ssilvers (and random person)! I hope you're doing well. :) María (yllosubmarine) 19:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Elbert Hubbard

Maria, pleased to meet you. Richard here in Pittsburgh. I agree with your edit. The addition was not contextual. I'm writing articles about Native Americans, specially the Oglala Lakota. I first heard of Hubbard through his associations with McCreight. Would have liked to meet Hubbard and journeyed to his village He felt like a 60's person. Spent most of my life in libraries and love it. Retired hippy lawyer now. Edinburgh and Asheville are favorites of mine, also an anglophile. Went to see the Edinburgh Tatoo. My wife is a yoga teacher and we often go to Asheville to her studies. Love the energy. Richlevine00 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Richard, nice to meet you! Hubbard was such an interesting guy, but his article is unfortunately very poor at the moment. I had hoped to rewrite it sometime this fall, but I keep putting off Wikipedia-related things. I'm not very active lately, but I keep an eye on my watchlist. Thanks for adding more info about his work. I'm glad to meet another anglo/library/Edinburgh/Asheville enthusiast. :) María (yllosubmarine) 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Soon

Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yay! María (yllosubmarine) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

This is a note to let the main editors of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 17, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 17, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is a 1974 nonfiction narrative book by American author Annie Dillard. Told from a first-person point of view, the book details an unnamed narrator's explorations near her home, and contemplations on nature and life. The title refers to Tinker Creek, which is located outside Roanoke in Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. Dillard began writing Pilgrim in the spring of 1973, using her personal journals as inspiration. Separated into four sections that signify each of the seasons, the narrative spans the period of one year in thoughts on solitude, writing, and religion, as well as scientific observations on the flora and fauna. Touching upon themes of faith, nature, and awareness, Pilgrim is also noted for its study of theodicy and the inherent cruelty of the natural world. The book is analogous in design and genre to Henry David Thoreau's Walden, the subject of Dillard's master's thesis at Hollins College. Pilgrim has been lauded by critics, won the 1975 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-fiction, and in 1999 was included in Modern Library's list of 100 Best Nonfiction Books. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Em dashes

The information at WP:DASH was developed by incompetent individuals operating in an information vacuum, who apparently never took a course in typing, nor are they familiar with how line wraps are handled in browsers and other software. You actually broke what I fixed in Sylvia Plath. If an em-dash or en-dash is used without a preceding non-breaking space, some browsers will break a line before the dash, i.e., the dash ends up in the first column of the next line. This is considered bad typography: You will rarely see this error in commercial printed material, unless both the typesetter and the proofreader screwed up. Wikipedia isn't printed material, but it should still adhere to common typesetting standards insofar as the electronic environment permits. That's why em-dashes and most en-dashes are offset by a leading non-breaking space and trailing space. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

On behalf of WP:VIRGINIA members, Congrats on taking Pilgrim at Tinker Creek to Featured Article status and getting it on the front page (for Today's Featured Article). I have added a WP:VIRGINIA template to the talk page so it can be apart of the Virginia WikiProject. Again, congratulations! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I grew up in Virginia, so that's awesome cool. :) María (yllosubmarine) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) I am a native of Virginia myself (Navy brat from Norfolk), there are alot of Virginians on Wikipedia I have discovered. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Navy brats unite! María (yllosubmarine) 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My congrats too, great book and great article. I was wondering though, would the Dillard image be better for the Main Page? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I guess so. I don't know how Raul or his delegates choose which free image to display on the mainpage, but Dillard's photo would probably be a better choice than a non-affiliated creek I slapped in the article for lack of something better. María (yllosubmarine) 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First: congrats for your great FA on the Main page! Then, also in reply to some of the above: I reviewed it (for DYK and FA), I suggested it for TFA, a delegate scheduled it. (You can find out when Raul last edited, if you care about it.) I remembered vaguely that there was a problem about the author's pic for DYK, also found the other one matching the title well. (The article is not about the author but the book.) - Next time: get involved in the whole process from suggestion to improvement, - TFA is growing to be teamwork, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, there was absolutely no issue with Dillard's photo. Maybe you had suspicions, but no one else did. I went through the arduous process of securing permissions from Dillard's agent, OTRS cleared it, and it appeared on the mainpage with no issues. The creek pictured has nothing to do with Tinker Creek or the book; I added it to the article as filler, nothing more. I don't care enough to make a stink about it, but it just goes to show that it helps to know the subject matter.

I'm not interested in the process of scheduling TFAs, mainly because of the egos on display over there. I had a bad experience several years ago when Emily Dickinson was kicked out of the queue despite half a dozen supports. I don't suppose it's changed much. But, you know, it would be nice to let someone know when you nominate an article at TFA, perhaps with a message on the article's talk page. I don't watch TFA, so I just thought Raul or whomever scheduled it just 'cause. María (yllosubmarine) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Accepted: I have a bad memory, the pic of the writer appeared with no problems. - I still think the creek is the better illustration, but it if you feel strongly about the other image you could still change it. - Accepted: I failed to let you know that I nominated, but I let you know that it was about to appear, there was plenty of time to make the change if wanted. You responded, so I had no reason to think you missed it. - I will typically not inform when I nominate, some authors left Wikipedia, others might be sad in case their article gets nominated but not chosen. But as that didn't happen so far, I will perhaps get more secure and say something early ;) TFA is changing, you may be surprised to find out about "the egos on display over there", just look at the signatures on the suggestion page and look at the people behind them, - you could be on of them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maria. Gerda, the problem with the creek picture is that it is just a creek in the same state and overall drainage basin, but it is NOT the actual Tinker Creek Dillard wrote about. I will change picture to the photo of Dillard next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed the picture to the one of Dillard. Gerda, if it were an FA I had nominated at FAC that was being discussed at WP:TFA/R, I would appreciate being notified. YMMV Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I will try to remember that for both of you ;) Even easier: propose yourself! You know best when the days of anniversaries will come up and when a topic has been neglected for a long time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Butting in - first to congratulate Maria for having Annie Dillard as TFA. Despite the hoopla - it's good to see a writer such as her featured and very nice work you've done. I did see this nominated and probably should have let you know Maria, but didn't really know what to say. To Gerda: I have to agree with Ruhrfisch. Only one person has ever nominated a page on my behalf at TFA and first secured my permission, which I thought was the way to go. Ruhrfisch is right in regards to the YMMV comment. Anyway, again nice job Maria and sorry to see that you're again dealing with a an author image! Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! And no biggie. I don't think there was ever an issue with Dillard's photo, just some confusion about the OTRS. The silliness over at Dickinson's article was far more headache inducing. I don't mind articles I've written appearing on the main page, but I understand why others dread it so. It can be pretty stressful, especially when it comes to those with little to no experience with the subject matter, wanting to change this or add that -- infoboxes, harvard citations, ack! I'm glad Ruhrfisch thought of substituting the image in the blurb, that was a good move. Otherwise I'm just happy to see it there. :) María (yllosubmarine) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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