This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch - Merry Christmas to you and thanks so much for all the help during the year! Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and all the best in 2012, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And to you too! Truthkeeper (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John - Happy Christmas, and happy to see your page back again! Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

All the best to you for the New Year. And thank you for copy editing. Indeed I had missed your comments. Will reply now. bamse (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All the best!..Modernist (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And to you too! Truthkeeper (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For taking the time to to a diligent Featured Article review. As WP matures, the emphasis shifts from creating articles to polishing old ones. Your FA work is essential in that regard. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What a nice surprise, thank you! And thanks for the compliment. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI [1] Kafka Liz (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed - thanks for the heads up though. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of The Entombment (Bouts) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 7, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 7, 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 Entombment is a glue-size painting on linen attributed to the Early Netherlandish painter Dirk Bouts. It shows a scene from the biblical entombment of Christ, probably completed between 1440 and 1455 as a wing panel for a large hinged polyptych altarpiece. The now lost altarpiece is thought to have contained a central crucifixion scene flanked by four wing panel works half its length (two either side) depicting scenes from the life of Christ. The larger work was probably commissioned for export, possibly to a Venetian patron whose identity is lost. The Entombment was first recorded in a mid-19th century Milan inventory and has been in the National Gallery, London since its purchase on the gallery's behalf by Charles Eastlake in 1861. The Entombment is renowned for its austere but affecting portrayal of sorrow and grief. It shows four female and three male mourners grieving over the body of Christ. It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue-size, an extremely fragile medium lacking durability. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ucuchabot! Truthkeeper (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, are there named sections/chapters in Bowring's translation? That could help with translating the Japanese section/chapter names. bamse (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's straight text from beginning to end. There are a few breaks scattered about, but without headings/ sections/ names etc. I'm not even sure he says what he used to translate from but will have a look. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think (but am not sure) the "official" version of the Nikki is called "Kurokawa-bon" (Kurokawa "edition"?) so probably he translated from there. I also suspect that the chapters/section names were added later (after M.S.) and different publishers might have arranged sections differently. bamse (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just found a section (an appendix to the introduction) that I hadn't read - about the fragments. He discusses sections there (A - D) but I need to read it and understand. I'll post back here or the talk page when I've done that. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake with scene 5 of the Hachisuka scroll. Will check. bamse (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the image corresponding to the scene I described in the text is part of the Hachisuka scroll, but the corresponding text is not. The 5th text section corresponds to the lower image on this page (image and text are both present in the emaki). Will fix later today. bamse (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bamse I'll be leaving some notes in my sandbox - hopefully will get to it tonight. I hadn't finished reading the entire 50 plus page Bowring introduction for some reason, but essentially at the end he says:

• the construction of the diary is odd which leads to speculations that a. it was once constructed differently, b., it's incomplete and pieces are missing; c., it's possible pieces have been lost and another author may have written / edited some sections
• The Eiga Monagatori uses entire pieces from Murasaki's writing but it includes some scenes that are longer than the diary, leading Bowring to speculate that pieces have been lost
• The letter portion doesn't seem to make sense where it's placed, according to Bowring.
• He thinks there might be a fragment missing and that the beginning of the diary is lost
• This is all speculation

I'll capture notes and page numbers and if any of it is helpful that's good. My view is that the diary as we have it in the 20th century may be pieced together differently than it was when the emaki was made which is why you're having difficulty. Also, I'll be adding much of what I wrote above to the diary page. One more thing - for some reason, don't know why, this diary frustrates me, which is why I let the diary page sit for a while to move on to other things. Bowring seems slightly frustrated too; that made me feel better. It's a very old work and fragmentary - hence maybe not possible to explain. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure the emaki was rearranged later. The main public events are chronological and as far as I can see only personal reflections are mixed in randomly (but for these exact dates might not have been considered to be all that important by the creator of the emaki). I fixed the 5th scene description now. There are still some unmatched images, but those will likely be matched when I have access to the main reference source. bamse (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FYIO: Yale replied to my questions on this image. The image is a scan from this book, that's why there is a fold. The date (1503) might be a mistake. bamse (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting - they are very helpful. Btw, regarding your earlier post - I think some of the personal reflections are sections that Bowring is uncertain about. I haven't had time to write notes yet, but honestly am still mulling it over in my mind before making notes so that it's as clear as possible. It's a complicated chapter. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Take your time with the notes. I started to replace and combine headings with those from the Japanese version of the diary. How do you like it? If you feel like changing the headings, the full headings from the Japanese diary matched to the emaki sections are here. Now there are some very short paragraphs corresponding to different text sectios/scenes of the diary. Probably they should be merged, but I am afraid that the structure of the emaki will be lost if I just merged them. bamse (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I like what you've done - it's very descriptive and as you say, it follows the structure of the emaki. I'm afraid I won't get to the notes immediately - real life continues to be busy. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ReijiYamashina was very helpful in matching the images and also confirmed the messyness of this emaki (were already damaged and cut and remounted in 18th century. They looks like scroll assembled of fragments. Such condition causes many complicated problems.) I added this section and added a little here and there. bamse (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I haven't had a look yet but will. My sense is that the manuscript is messy too. I'm hoping to get to the Bowring notes this evening. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes here. I've summarized a complicated piece of writing, so don't hesitate to ask if it's confusing. On my way over to look at your page in a little while... Truthkeeper (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am having a look at it now. bamse (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the dates of "Section A", I think he means 7th to 8th month of Kankō 5 (= August 4 to October 1 of 1008) until Kankō 6, first month, 3rd day (=January 31, 1009). Generally one has to be careful with Japanese dates in English language sources on Japanese history since sometimes "first month" is translated as January, etc. which is not correct. In case you want to read more about Japanese dates you could read Japanese era name or just check Nengo calc for a conversion tool. bamse (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting thoughts by Bowring. Thank you for taking the time to summarize the pages. Other than saying that the diary is thought to be fragmentary and perhaps assembled somewhat arbitrarily from fragments, I am not sure what other information to put into the emaki article. Probably the diary article could be a bit more detailed about this. What do you think? bamse (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs an entire section and I think it's the piece the will help pull together the organization on that page. I'm thinking about trying to work on it later today or tonight - time permitting. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is to make a connection from the diary (which Bowring describes) to the emaki (which is a subset of it). Maybe I could try to match the emaki scenes to Bowring's Sections ABCD!? Do you think that could be useful? Or how else could I be of help? bamse (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to do will be to write up the Bowring notes into a section on the diary page, then I'll probably expand the current emaki section a little (summarizing what you have). Let's see how that goes - I haven't had much time for wikipedia and I need a chunk of time to think this through. I have another page that I'm working on as well and will probably finish that first before I go back to MS. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'm working on another (hopefully more consistent) emaki in the meantime. bamse (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you close enough to this to get a free pic? I found it needed an article while working Curt Gowdy State Park and the closest I can find for a free photo is one that says "1920s". Would that fly as a free photo? PumpkinSky talk 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't live in that part of the country anymore - though I wish I did. The image situation is this: copyright belongs to the photographer, and in fact 70 years beyond the death of the photographer. I've had to give up images that were taken in the 1890s and even earlier because of that. You might find someone on flikr to donate a free one or something like that. To be honest, I'm not great with images. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See answer to Yogo ? on my talk page.PumpkinSky talk 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I always watch pages where I post. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a lot of right on your side. And it was fine to say it and very fairly and kindly said.

I didn't have a problem with your criticising my report either (swear on the Bible, I really mean it, 10 Commandments). I even told someone privately that "your side" ought to just publish your organized comments!

Only two things bugged me. The accusation of some Gorbatai strangeness (I cited what I used, it was exactly as written, just those two slides affected by her). And the claim that you did not know the intended publication of my Signpost peice.

P.s. Take care. You really are well loved here and your Wikisisters and brothers don't want to see you down. Heck, you think I am the bad guy and MY HEART broke when you talked about having bought books to use on an article for the readers and then having a template war instead (I even asked for books for Xmas for Wiki inspired by you.) Anyhow, you really don't have to be Xena to contribute here and I am way on the far right spectrum of fierceness and...worse probably.

P.s.s. Going to go workout.

TCO (Reviews needed) 21:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I crashed my computer when I reverted. Two restarts later and here I am. The page has become insane and I won't try to reload. As for your report, I don't think and never have thought it was an issue of sides. I still have Gorbatai's report which I think is excellent but so hard to parse, and I hadn't realized what you used and what I found were two different reports. At some point, if ever I have a spare moment I might summarize the one I have. I didn't know the publication date for the Signpost - not only am I very spacy about things, but I'm always multi-tasking so when I'm here I miss a lot. For sure I'm no Xena. One last thing: it's not about sides. We really really need to get that through our heads. Divisiveness and polarization are evil. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

With summary "forever"? Huh? Last night you seemed fine. PumpkinSky talk 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was fine but then had a real life event crop up late on Saturday night because of which I need to be away wiki for a while. I'd like to get back here, and am trying to find a workaround solution. But for now it's best for me to be gone. Although it coincided w/ Sandy's resignation, it had nothing to do with that - although the edit summary was probably driven by my dismay at seeing her resignation. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your note (that orange bar goes up regardless!) and in fact there were two !votes below the line, yours and another. Since they were on opposite sides, and since the analysis was so damn complicated (see my last post) I decided to let it go. Neither !vote would change the outcome, I think, but no harm in voicing your opinion. Hope you're well -- I saw your note about being busy in RL for a while; we look forward to seeing you back here when you have more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to give me a few suggestions on how I might improve the quality of the article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or if you might recommend someone whose judgement you trust in case you feel the subject is a bit far from your interest. I've put a lot of research into the article and have considered adding a few things, but general comments from an experienced editor would really be appreciated. All best, -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominate it at Peer review - directions are at the top of the PR page. Drop me a line on my talk page once you do and I will make some comments - just a quick look shows that it needs more references. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link [2] English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout...Modernist (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that last night, but when I logged in this afternoon the banner was gone & didn't know what was happening. Do you see a banner when you log in or are they waiting for the full black screen effect at midnight? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better link: Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, yeah, I have a black banner at the top of every page saying it'll go black in less than 10 hours etc...Modernist (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't. I wonder how many other people don't. That might be a problem. Thanks for the links. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I reported it to the village pump technical. I've been working and not paying attention - thought they'd changed their mind or something. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Could it just be that you closed the black banner yesterday? I just closed mine now and it does not show up any more (even when I logged out but used the same computer to look at WP as an IP). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering that too - I've restarted and still no banner. Yeah, I did close it. But it should be visible once on log in I think. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a peek. They're looking good - interesting colors. You need some prose work over there though. Have you had a response from the GOCE yet? I had it unwatched (with about 500 other pages!). Am just now getting back up to speed. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No GOCE response. That could take forever.PumpkinSky talk 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought they'd set up a page only for FAC requests but it seems to be gone now. I guess with the current copy-edit drive there's not many people available. I'm really tied up, trying to finish two pages, got a peer review going, and will be out busy again soon, but keep after me. It's an interesting subject. Also, one tip for you is to step away for a while and then come back with a fresh perspective and you'll see mistakes you hadn't noticed before. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

per your request on Cas' page:

• User:Truthkeeper88/Vincent van Gogh sandbox

still looking for the other .. . — Ched :  ?  02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Converting to ISBN-13 is not simply a matter of prefixing with "978-". That edit broke 22 uses of Special:BookSources. I also found two ISBNs that were for other books. It's now fixed. Proper structure of citations allows bots to help check and maintain citations; the advisor.js script alerts users to such issues, and at a glance an ISBN-13 with an "X" for the check-digit is obviously invalid. You made the same mistake here, on Bal des Ardents. Please see WP:ISBN and use the tools on offer there. I use http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp —Alarbus (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppurtunist often? Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

spell often? Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for fixing. I know it's not that simple and meant to go through today and check them all manually but you got to it first, so that's good. Normally I use the ISBN of the book that's in my hand, but read in an edit summary or something about using ISBN 13s instead of 10s - but I am aware they're not always the same. I'll fix the mistake on Bal des Ardents, and I'll try to install the script - hopefully I'll be more successful than I was installing the advisor script which doesn't work despite multiple attempts. Yes, I have read WP:ISBN, but will re-read. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental rollback - I was browsing on my phone, which seems to be handling the Internet better than my laptop is today, and hit the wrong button trying to make the screen bigger. Second time I've done this today... There's a lesson to be learned here somewhere... Kafka Liz (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem - used to happen to me frequently until I installed this script: .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} It takes the rollback off the watchlist. I rarely log in with my phone because am never sure what damage I'll do. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing ISBNs, now? This would seem a WP:POINTy response to the above. The ISBNs directly serve to aid WP:Verifiability, as do the Number 3/issue 3–4 that you've removed. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that SlimVirgin has my page watched since she posted below - I think she'll agree re ISBNs because I believe she doesn't use them. I re-read WP:ISBN and see they're not required per this sentence: "Also note that ISBNs are not required of citations; popular citation styles like Chicago, MLA, and APA do not use ISBNs. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Cite your sources." I'm using MLA (or as close as possible) and the most recent edition of the MLA Handbook has eliminated issue numbers - mine's at work and not at hand at the moment, so can't give an exact page number. MLA doesn't require ISBNs either and I'd like to try to stay with a consistent style. That particular page is being written for students whom I teach and thought has been given to the formatting of sources, because it will serve as a template for them to follow. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "Yes". I did not realise that some articles are written for specific editors' students and not for general readers. Alarbus (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some editors write for general readers; but some editors also use Wikipedia to teach in the classroom, bring students to Wikipedia and tailor their wiki editing accordingly. Often students don't like it here though - can't imagine why. In that case the editors do the bulk of the work so the students can see how a piece should be done - researched, verified, cited, and sources properly synthesized. Students like wikipedia; and to be honest it's a fantastic teaching tool. Anyway, MLA has been changing a lot recently and I've just renewed my expired membership so that I could retrieve from online (behind a paywall) the proper way of formatting volume/issue. That's actually been bugging me, to be honest. The most recent book I added, which I have at hand, is a different edition than the one on preview on g-books which is another reason I did that, fwiw - but if you think I'm being pointy - up to you. Whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, please stop posting to my page. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TK your being baited, or more to the point used to get at me.[3][4][5]. I see accusations of harassment in somebody's future. For now, re the above, ignore this trivial stuff. Just asking him to stop posting on your pge. You have that right. Formating ISBNs? As you say, whatever. Content, m'dear. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fine to start fresh on the article - it is only a stub now, and in the process of rewriting people will often completely redo an article, so if it is easiest to blank it and go from there, so be it. Glad to see you back here - wish I had more time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been reading and taking notes most of the day, so at this point I've taken it down to what I know can be verified and is written in my words. I'll rebuild from there. Time is a big problem these days. I'll be coming in & out, but yeah, back. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So this book has 12 tales in it. I've just been through the 12 articles and our friend has written all of them. It's all the same stuff we found last year. If I put up a list here can you have a look at some of them. At this point I'm happy to start stubifying instead of scrubbing. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The user is banned and so all socks are too - WP:BAN says in part "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." so I have no trouble stub-ifying. If you let me know I can work on some too, albeit slowly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It will be a slow process. At this point I think stubifying is less trouble than the rewriting/scrubbing we tried last winter. That's just too much work. I can rewrite as I go along because I'll be researching these stories. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously bad news: I'm afraid all these pages will have to be checked or stubified: different user, same style. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

UGH! Thanks for finding these, will try to work on them, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message for MuZemike about these. What a mess. So much of the children's lit has been infected with this - if nothing else ILT was/is very prolific. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike checked and they came up unrelated, so I'll leave them for now. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

TK, I know FAC is fairly depressing at the moment, and it's probably (rightfully?) best avoided at the mo, but I thought you may like to know that The Monster, which you were kind enough to review for GA, is now listed, in the hopes that it might become the latest superfluous star in my collection. If you have the time and inclination, I'd love your take on the state of the article -- if not, no biggie; you've already helped quite a bit. Hope you're well and that your 2012 is awesome so far! María (yllosubmarine) 03:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I didn't realize you'd submitted it. Will have a look. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wondering when you going to make an honest fire of Bal des Ardents. Its a really great topic and article, pls push. Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I kinda walked away from it; decided it was a depressing topic. But then I started writing about fairy tales which are not all light and airy either. I've submitted Bal des Ardents to PR but no one was picked it up yet. I'd like some more input before a full push. But thanks for reminding me - and good to hear from you. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PR is really backlogged, but I will try to take a look soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it is. I'm guilty for picking up a huge page there - George Washington - and not having the time to read it properly. Everything is backlogged at the moment. Thanks for the offer, but don't worry, I'm not really in a hurry. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TK, I dont think Balls needs a PR, youve had a good eye from Yoman, maybe hassel one of the beloved Rigger- or whatever he calls himself these days- socks for a ce/preferance and your there. Thats my considered openion anyway.Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - that would help with the backlog. I respect your considered opinion and Riggr et all has been helpful, so will prob take your recommendation. I want a reread first - haven't been able to get through it all without interruptions. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. You have ten minutes; FAC or AFD. Ceoil (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, that's tough. About 25 page views per day, compared to some I know who get hundreds of thousands. Basically non-notable topic, so maybe AFD. I'd hate to lose the images though. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I only care about popularity and views, my prism is so narrow. Feck your puny images. I have a few admin accounts still active; bitch your going down, once we get going you havnt a hope. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right; I haven't a hope. Oh well ... Truthkeeper (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also your blocked for 3 weeks. We all have an/i watchlisted so dont even bother. Your screwed. Still though, try and remain civil or three weeks will become three years. Be a sport about this, will be easier on us all. Good girl. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit. I went through and fixed a few obvious things like missing/excessive articles. Also replied to your inline comment. bamse (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look tonight. It takes time because there are no sections - would be nice to an online version I could search. But he does have lots of footnotes and annotations, so maybe there's an explanation for that sentence. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

		Thanks for helping
		Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Noleander! It was pleasure; I enjoyed reading the page and the review. Congratulations! Truthkeeper (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... I archived a bunch of older stuff last night without looking at it and realised this morning that I hadn't responded to you... Please accept my apologies; I'm having an unusually bad month this end - some very bad family stuff - I'm not sure how much use I can be, but I'll try and look in. Distraction would be a good thing, at this point. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back - I've noticed you haven't been around, and am terribly sorry to hear about the bad stuff. Don't ever apologize! While you were gone I expanded Perrault's Mother Goose Tales and then stalled because I actually might have too much information! I have notes stashed in this sandbox if you want to have a look. Currently I'm trying to get through this book but it's one of those sources where bits are scattered all over the place. Interesting stuff though about women as storytellers & traced to the sybils, and in the 17th cent. that a 'good' woman = a passive quiet woman. Anyway, I'm intending to expand the themes quite a bit, add a genre section, and then add somewhere/somehow a section on notable reprints - Andrew Lange's is mentioned in one of my sources as is Gustave Dore edition. I think this page has tons of potential and would love to have you. Pitch in wherever you're comfortable. I've seen some pdfs too that need to be pulled and I can send on. Am back to a fairly busy schedule again, so it will be slow going. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Small ping. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On 27 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Histoires ou contes du temps passé, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mother Goose Tales, or Histoires ou contes du temps passé, (title page pictured), published by Charles Perrault in 1697, was written for an audience of aristocratic adults? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Histoires ou contes du temps passé.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Converting to ISBN-13 is not simply a matter of prefixing with "978-". That edit broke 22 uses of Special:BookSources. I also found two ISBNs that were for other books. It's now fixed. Proper structure of citations allows bots to help check and maintain citations; the advisor.js script alerts users to such issues, and at a glance an ISBN-13 with an "X" for the check-digit is obviously invalid. You made the same mistake here, on Bal des Ardents. Please see WP:ISBN and use the tools on offer there. I use http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp —Alarbus (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppurtunist often? Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

spell often? Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for fixing. I know it's not that simple and meant to go through today and check them all manually but you got to it first, so that's good. Normally I use the ISBN of the book that's in my hand, but read in an edit summary or something about using ISBN 13s instead of 10s - but I am aware they're not always the same. I'll fix the mistake on Bal des Ardents, and I'll try to install the script - hopefully I'll be more successful than I was installing the advisor script which doesn't work despite multiple attempts. Yes, I have read WP:ISBN, but will re-read. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental rollback - I was browsing on my phone, which seems to be handling the Internet better than my laptop is today, and hit the wrong button trying to make the screen bigger. Second time I've done this today... There's a lesson to be learned here somewhere... Kafka Liz (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem - used to happen to me frequently until I installed this script: .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} It takes the rollback off the watchlist. I rarely log in with my phone because am never sure what damage I'll do. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing ISBNs, now? This would seem a WP:POINTy response to the above. The ISBNs directly serve to aid WP:Verifiability, as do the Number 3/issue 3–4 that you've removed. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that SlimVirgin has my page watched since she posted below - I think she'll agree re ISBNs because I believe she doesn't use them. I re-read WP:ISBN and see they're not required per this sentence: "Also note that ISBNs are not required of citations; popular citation styles like Chicago, MLA, and APA do not use ISBNs. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Cite your sources." I'm using MLA (or as close as possible) and the most recent edition of the MLA Handbook has eliminated issue numbers - mine's at work and not at hand at the moment, so can't give an exact page number. MLA doesn't require ISBNs either and I'd like to try to stay with a consistent style. That particular page is being written for students whom I teach and thought has been given to the formatting of sources, because it will serve as a template for them to follow. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "Yes". I did not realise that some articles are written for specific editors' students and not for general readers. Alarbus (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some editors write for general readers; but some editors also use Wikipedia to teach in the classroom, bring students to Wikipedia and tailor their wiki editing accordingly. Often students don't like it here though - can't imagine why. In that case the editors do the bulk of the work so the students can see how a piece should be done - researched, verified, cited, and sources properly synthesized. Students like wikipedia; and to be honest it's a fantastic teaching tool. Anyway, MLA has been changing a lot recently and I've just renewed my expired membership so that I could retrieve from online (behind a paywall) the proper way of formatting volume/issue. That's actually been bugging me, to be honest. The most recent book I added, which I have at hand, is a different edition than the one on preview on g-books which is another reason I did that, fwiw - but if you think I'm being pointy - up to you. Whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, please stop posting to my page. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TK your being baited, or more to the point used to get at me.[6][7][8]. I see accusations of harassment in somebody's future. For now, re the above, ignore this trivial stuff. Just asking him to stop posting on your pge. You have that right. Formating ISBNs? As you say, whatever. Content, m'dear. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Truthkeeper. It is probably the AutoEd script that is causing your other scripts to fail, as it conflicts with many of them. Do you use it? I didn't like it much, myself, and find other scripts to be more useful. Here is what I recommend: throw away everything in your monobook.js and replace it with this:

importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js"); 
importScript("User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js");var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true;
importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]
importScript('user:js/urldecoder.js')
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js');
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');  //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js]]
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js');
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js');  //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js]]
importScript('User:Snottywong/diffconverter.js'); //[[User:Snottywong/diffconverter.js]]
importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

If you decide to do this, and have any problems figuring out how to use these tools, please let me know. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppurtunist often? Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. If and when I decide to write using scripts, I'll keep this in mind. It's all nice and tidy. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossposting from Talk:Ezra Pound: Truthkeeper (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who accused anyone of stalking, nor am I the one who called anyone "twat". Accusing me of creating "drama" is fairly one-sided, not to say condescending and dishonest. How about actually discussing the merits and demerits of the infobox, instead of making personal comments and defending personal attacks? How about not cherrypicking the "stalking" comment—like an adult—and responding to the actual points that Tuckerresearch raised? He (and I) has raised a number of points not tackled in the Disinfobox essay, and those points deserve to be addressed.

Nobody deserves to be called a "twat" or a "vengeful prick", even if they are one. I mean, you've accused me (on Nikkimaria's talk page) of having a personal vendetta against you merely based on me asking you (yes, impolitely, but not uncivilly) to stop whining, yet you find actual unambiguous invective like Ceoil's acceptable? Please don't say you're that unreasonable. I'm certainly not out to get anyone. I just want to see some honest, straightforward answers to the issues Tuckerreasearch and I have raised, and I'd like to see it done without emotional theatrics, ad hominems or condescension. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to this later when I have the chance. But would briefly like to say that I think it's gone off-topic on the talk page. Since it's now about me, let's discuss it here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but I think the off-topic hat you placed has accidentally gobbled up the "Moving on" subtopic. I don't quite understand why, otherwise I'd've fixed it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 16:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward is still there. Might have been eaten for a moment because I forgot to remove one of the templates but done now. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay - to be honest, I'm quite fed up with this. Comments like "pout pout" and "like an adult" do nothing to move the discussion forward (though I didn't say anything about the pout pout comment - which is extremely sexist btw - I let it go). But to be honest I don't know what can be done to move the discussion forward. The reasons for no infobox have been explained and at this point, in my mind, the discussion is circular and counterproductive. The only thing I would have to say is that yes, I've assumed bad faith if I've accused you of stalking, and for that I apologize. As for achieving consensus, see how quickly it was done on the "moving forward" thread. Personally I'm not crazy about the lead as written because it obscures the main facts that should be in the infobox, but in less than an hour consensus was achieved and I reverted. It's really that simple. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know you were female when I wrote "*pout pout*" (how would I have? Every Pound fan I knew until I came across this discussion was male), but even if I had---sexist? That's a stretch. Are you suggesting I wouldn't accuse a male editor of pouting?

I've admitted my wording was tactless---in fact, I've offered (on Nikkimaria's page, maybe you didn't see it) to reword it. My point stands, however: making comments along the lines of how hard done to tireless contributors to the page are because some other editors are trying to add an infobox is exasperating to read. It makes no argument either for or against infoboxes, so how is it possibly on topic? Until that point, most of the comments (even the invective) were at least on topic, and I wanted to put an end to comments that were clearly taking the disussion off topic. Clearly I've failed miserably.

Finally, as has been pointed out repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly, the specific points that Tuckerresearch and I have brought up are points that were not dealt with in the Disinfobox essay, nor in the discussion itself. That's not circular---that's dodging. If we had been going back and forth with the same arguments over and over, that would be circular. What's happened, though, is that no point I personally have made has actually been dealt with head on. All I get is comments dodging the points I've raised (and full-on invective from Ceoil). If all the editors actually engaged the arguments, and the consensus still came to "no infobox", I'd give up. The dishonest dodging is what keeps me coming back. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, almost 2000 edits have been put into that page by editors who are women. I'm trying to work on the page in the sandbox at the moment - so I'll give your response some thought and get back to you. Off the top of my head though, I feel that at this point the discussion needs to move to the WP:DISINFOBOX page instead of the Pound page. Also, I'd say that you obviously misread my comment to Ceoil - we work frequently together on articles so that was really more of an aside between us than anything else. Thanks for responding & I'll post a longer answer later. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Before this goes off on a long, boring tangent on gender, I want to emphasize that I never meant to imply that I thought the subject of Pound was a subject for men, only that I had no reason to believe you were female until Nikkimaria referred to you as "her" on her talk page. I edit primarily comics-related pages, where the editors are (not surprisingly) predominantly male. I actually had assumed you were male until it was made clear to me otherwise. I suppose this is a lesson to me to be extra careful in my choice of words---one never knows exactly where the hair will be split.

I was totally aware of the nature of that aside between you and Ceoil (it's pretty obvious). That is, in fact, exactly what I was objecting to---it had no place right there in the discussion, and only opens you up to accusations of cliquishness in a discussion where accusations of ownership have already surfaced---which in turn leads to off-topic bickering, which leads to other off-topic tangents, and we all end up cross-eyed and harbouring grudges. Which seems to have been the exact result we've now gotten. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender only is important in that there are times that women are targeted on Wikipedia. If you read up page you'll find a thread to that effect, if it's still there. Not to pout, but this has not been much of a fun place for me this winter, so when I rolled over and gave up, saying go ahead put back the info-box, Ceoil was responding as the friend he is, and I responded back. I suppose I see what you mean by creating a sense of cliquishness, and will be more aware of that in the future. I can't really respond to accusations of ownership - the truth is that it's a very odd concept on Wikipedia - an editor spends months and months researching and writing a page and yet is not allowed a sense of pride in that accomplishment. It's not an argument that goes over well for me for the most part. All of that said, the good thing that's coming out of this is that the page will finally be finished, I hope. So, in that sense conflict has pushed it along. Also, I'd like to point out, that of all the comments that have been made, I'm the only person who has actually struck my comments, and furthermore I've tried to stop this nonsense by hatting it. At this point it just has to find it's own end. I myself haven't opposed or supported inclusion of an infobox. I have already explained why I disagree with having an infobox (aside from the "I don't like them" argument which clearly isn't an argument) for this page, but to be honest I'd rather spend my time here making constructive edits instead of arguing. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with "stopping this nonsense by hatting it" is that it's such a unilateral decision to have made. Tuckerresearcher is frustrated at his actual points being ignored (as am I), so covering his comments with a hat is hardly going to sit well with him, is it?

I think it's also important to read more closely on ownership, and try harder to understand what it's all about. It's certainly hard to let go of something you've put a lot of effort into. I have three children that I've put an awful lot of time and effort into, but in the end they'll be making their own decisions on how to run their lives---even if that means doing dastardly things like voting for Stephen Harper, or creating Wikipedia articles without infoboxes. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper, I've opened a peer review for Belenggu at Wikipedia:Peer review/Belenggu/archive1. Maria suggested that I ask you to have a look, as you "know [your] stuff". Admittedly writing articles on Indonesian novels can be difficult, so I'm looking for as much feedback as I can get. Would you be interested in giving this a look? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, sorry I've been a little tied up in real life but am happy to give it a peer review. Hopefully I can get to it this weekend. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Thank you Gerda - that's very sweet of you! Truthkeeper (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you asked someone to look over BdA. Then I edited some (and originally I came to say "do change it back if it's worse"). Then I seemed to remember another topic that reminded me of you, so then I looked at your contribs again. (But I didn't get reminded.) Then I noticed you asked more than one person, so I'll leave it be. But I did correct a typo: "calamitious". First I had to check a dictionary, because it sounds like it really should be an alternate older version of "calamitous". However, in any event such concerns would be superceded by the fact that it's part of a title. Therefore I checked the references, and saw that it was "calamitous".

Nobody was burned in the writing of this short story. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it can be worse and the reviewer wants prose polishing - please carry on if you're interested. To be honest, I was going to ask you too last night, but was tired and decided to limit my asking to one person a day. Asking isn't something I do well. And thanks for the fixes you have made. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been through the article and it looks fine to me now. The only thing I'd consider would be to separate the notes from the citations, but obviously that's not part of the FA criteria, so feel free to ignore the suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that I pushed a lot into notes, so in this case it's a good suggestion. Thanks so much for the copyedits - this page has had a lot of attention, which is one of the reasons that I think FAC is beneficial. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it's right to say so definitively in the lead that the fire was accidental, given the later suggestion that Orléans actually threw a torch at one of the dancers? Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the main sources and at the history of the page. I think you're right. I don't know how to re-word it though - can you have a go at it? I've reworded that section countless times - it's either two boring sentences or they're combined and too much stuffed into them. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've recast it; but please don't hesitate to fix if it's awkward. We do know that the fire was caused by a torch - we don't know for sure whether it was accidental. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a little go at it, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's good. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One comment I had related to the section "Chronicles". This starts out describing... chronicles, and then talks about illustrations. I'm not sure if a subheader is warranted. I found the descriptions of the miniatures quite repetitive. If they don't differ on the event, do we need to describe the scene each time?: "king peeking out from under the duchess' skirts"; "duchess covers the king with her skirt"; "king is seen cowering beneath the duchess' skirts". Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed away. Until recently there was very little in the section but then I found more images and information about the chronicles. So it's not necessary. I think at one point it had a different header. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've come from the future* to rewrite the past by editing in the present, only to see that you've gone elsewhere after my refusal to even answer you (which I suppose explains why there was so little to fiddle with). I have managed to add 1K though by peppering the text with annoying inline queries and returning the fabulous "unbeknown" to its rightful position. Yomangani^talk 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

_{*Though not viewed using your feeble linear perception of time}

Happy to see you out of your time machine and back to the past? future? Anyway, thanks. I did note the "unbeknown" was back - seems so wrong not to be "unbeknownst". I must say you're in fine form with the edit summaries - so much so that I haven't bothered to look at the inlines (maybe because I've been at work?) but will get to them later. Btw - I like inlines. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Liesse-Notre-Dame? Seems unlikely - it's a long way from Le Mans. It would have been quicker just to go back to Paris. Yomangani^talk 00:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what comes when I read as scavenger. In fact, after he recovered but before he returned to Paris, Charles went on a pilgrimage of thanks to Laon to Notre Dame de Liesse. I'm not clear whether he was taken to a different Notre Dame de Liesse when he fell ill. Should I remove it b/c it's not clear? This is the problem with this page - I'm never sure what to leave in and what to take out. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

She's too muddy - in one section she says he went to the cathedral, in the other she says he was returned to Le Mans. Returning to Le Mans is the most logical so I've fixed it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That does seem most likely - it's what I'd do with a comatose king if I happened across one outside Le Mans. The side trip to Aisne sounds like it should be added though - it's a roundabout return to Paris by a king who feels up to a pilgrimage, where at the moment it sounds like a careful progression towards Paris with Charles being pretty delicate. Yomangani^talk 01:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He went to Le Mans, then the slow return to Paris, and then late in September/early October to Laon and then back to Paris. They did move around a lot didn't they? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine then. Glad he was feeling up to facing the Périphérique. Yomangani^talk 01:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Kept them moving and away from the filth in the castles I suppose. Anyway, I have to stop - work tomorrow. Am still working on the Monk's dates - that was a good catch. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Monk - I don't know if you can see this [9], but she writes that the Monk wrote (literary present & past, ha!) about 10 years after the event. The footnote for her sources is here [10], assuming you can see it. I don't know how to reconcile this because it doesn't make sense. All the sources I've read have him writing from 1415 to 1422, but many of the sources are in French so I'm sure I've missed something important. Or someone has made a mistake. Should I just leave it out? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find an online edition of the Chronicles that she refers to there to view Bernard Guenée's intro, but he refers to it himself here and later in that paper (p378) says "...but when, without doubt around 1400, the historian discusses 1392...". (I haven't read the whole thing - it's mostly dry stuff about letters) The source you cite for the c. 1415 and 1422 (Curry, 100) doesn't appear to have that information anywhere, and a 1422 completion date would have him writing after he was dead. Guenée says he stopped writing in 1420 ("when his strength failed him"). I think you should try to get hold of Guenée's intro if you can - everybody seems to use it as the reference work for Pintoin (it's called "Michel Pintoin: Sa Vie, Son Oeuvre") - you might have better luck finding it than I have so far. Yomangani^talk 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked last night & the pages are blanked on g-books. I'll order it from a university library - I agree that does seem to be the source. I'll fix the source - should be Crane, not Curry. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is Curry, but it's at the bottom of page 99, in the heading. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is. She doesn't give any clue as to why she's assigned those dates though, and presumably that's a publishing date range rather than a writing range. Guenée's the man. Yomangani^talk 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I write a rather long message that I mean for the talk page of BdA about the literary present tense. I find that the article's tenses are not consistent (to me) as they stand now, in presumably syntactically similar sentence formations that describe what writers do or say or did or said (and I go on to blame Yomangani). However, I decide not to post it because it seems like it is more trouble than it is worth. Yet now I feel like I waste my time if I don't post it somewhere, so it's in invisible ink below. By the way, my imitation of the literary present does not mean to make fun of beginning English speakers! (Even as Yomangani makes fun of my preference(?) for "Froissart writes...". The cycle of hatred must stop!) Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(Hi Riggr !!!!) Could you review this vis-a-vis your favorite sockmaster? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not anyone I recognize off the top of my head. If it were only lit pages I might consider ILT, and I should have look at the Salinger edits to be sure, but not entirely her style. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Subsequent posts from Sans changed my mind on that one, but you're the expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I keep stumbling across ILT pages in the work I've done with fairy tales, so to me they're fairly obvious now. Still a lot of work to be done in that area, unfortunately. Have a look at the contributors for The Nightingale (fairy tale) for instance. I only stumbled across that one a few days ago and haven't even had time to check it or add to the CCI. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow… that's kind of pathetic. Sans culottes 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper, as I noted at the peer review I'm not quite sure what should be merged into the themes section and what could stay in the characters section. Perhaps it's really obvious and I'm just too close to the article, but could you give a couple ideas? Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me - I did miss that comment. I think you should have a look at a few novel FAs - some off the top of my head are To Kill a Mockingbird, Red Badge of Courage, The Sun Also Rises, or for a less-well-known book have a look at True at First Light. All these pages have well-developed themes sections (essentially the point of writing a novel) to the point that subsections are necessary - with the exception of True at First Light. I haven't read Bellenggu but from what I can glean, the main theme is the tension caused by the desire for tradition vs. the modern ("Tradition and modern" or something like that). To me it looks like most of that material is in the section about the characters - Tono is traditional, Tini is not, Yah is and this drives the three-way plot development between the characters. Another theme maybe, seems to be marriage: Tono marries a woman who doesn't have the qualities he wants, the woman who does is shunned by the community. They all break up. Something like that. Again, all of this interpretation is lost in the characters section. I can't really tell you how to do it; in my case I follow the sources, organize points in a logical manner and add bit by bit. I'm slowly working on "Big Two-Hearted River" (a story with a single character) and trying to build the themes section, so you can see there how it comes together slowly - that's an extremely difficult piece to write about because nobody understands it. I don't know if this helps, but it's the best advice I have. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I guess I could give that a shot later; it's not a big rush, as I have to wait for another article to go through FAC first. A second question: as noted by Balfas, in the pages before the novel proper there are quotes from journalists and literary critics at the time, complete with the name of the papers/journals the reviews were initially published in. Would I be allowed to quote those for the "reception" section? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. I believe all the pages I've mentioned above do that. A word of warning, fwiw, I don't know how quickly you work, but I find the themes sections the most difficult to build. There's a reason few editors write about novels - it can be hard. Also, standards for literature pages typically are a bit higher than for other pages - the thought is that because the page is about literature it must be exceptionally well-written. Just something to keep in mind. To be honest I think it needs a little work before it goes to FAC, but that's just my opinion. I hadn't been around there since November until recently submitting a page, but I don't really have a sense of what the reviews are like these days. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Prosewise, I was thinking of asking Malleus (nicely) to have a look at it if he finds his muse again. Considering my last FAC sat there for two months, I think there's plenty of time. Thanks for everything! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus hasn't lost his muse - not at all. But some advice: it's nice to try to polish the piece as much as you can before asking for prose help. I spend an immense amount of time polishing. Have a look at the number of edits I make to pages that get through FAC - personally I think it's a bit obscene, but unless I'm collaborating, I really work the page alone as much as I can. When I know it's as good as I can get it, but also know it's maybe not good enough, I ask for help. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps I misspoke (mistyped?) in my effort to avoid the... mess... that is how the community views him and the recent block fiasco. I'll try and keep that in mind as well, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Which "community" would that be? The community of arseholes that runs this place? Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• How you're idolised and/or greatly respected by some and considered the "scourge of Wikipedia" by others. Personally, I think you're a great asset to the encyclopedia (and I heartily disagree with this essay; Wikipedia does need some editors). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Side note: Another question: Any idea why the ISBN for Belenggu ( 978-979-523-048-8 in my edition) is coming up as an error? I can photograph the page with it and send to a reviewer if necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Because the correct ISBN is 978-979-523-046-5? Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Odd how they're so close, but I don't think so. My book is the 21st printing, while that's for the 17th... or does the number not change with subsequent printings, only subsequent editions or revisions? Google shows several hits with the current ISBN (9795230488). If the number doesn't change with printings, perhaps Dian Rakyat made a typo in one of their earlier printings and have since kept making it? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  So far as I know, the ISBN doesn't change for print runs, only for new editions/versions. But the current ISBN is clearly wrong, as you can see by trying it here. I think it's safe to say that if isbn.org say it's wrong then it's wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  PS, that ISBN converter I linked to above shows that the correct 10-digit ISBN is 979-523-046-8. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Which is yet another, different, printing. *confused* A one digit typo is more believable than a two digit typo, though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Alright, changed to the ten digit number above. They did make a typo on the inside page; the ISBN on the back cover is 979-523-046-8. That was... confusing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus, please stop hounding me, and do as Risker advised three months ago. I really haven't done anything to you to warrant this and it's unpleasant - particularly having you show up at discussions on talk pages [11], [12], and not assuming good faith when I've asked nicely for you to stop. [13] A dispute about a color on a navigation template, which in my mind is a silly dispute, has gone on for months and months. More than once you've said you'd like to see Ceoil indef blocked and you've not assumed good faith with Modernist. These are editors whom I consider friends, and with whom in the past I had a strong and collegial collaborative editing and writing relationship. Recently however I've avoided wiki-friends so as not to pull them deeper into this dispute, worked in isolation, and drastically limited interacting with editors while other editors in turn have limited their interactions with me. In my mind wikipedia has become an extremely hostile working environment since December. I'll ask for an interaction ban if this continues. Instead, though, I prefer to see us bury the hatchet and collaborate. We offer different skills here - I have respect for your strengths in referencing and had considered asking you to help with the mess on the Brothers Grimm. I'd prefer to see us work together toward a common goal rather than against each other. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words, TK. I retired in protest after the best editor in my major field here was banned when endless hairsplitting reports on ostensibly technical infringements got him a 6 month rap. I said I'd wear his punishment as well, with a solidarity strike, but well, after 2 months, saw some things needed to be done, and came back, though the banner remains since I won't edit as much as I usually do. I went to the Dickens page because Tom Reedy was asked if he could work towards bringing it to FA levels, as he had with the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Tom dropped me a note asking if I could look at it as well since he was temporarily extremely busy with other things, and that's why I ran through the page like a dose of salts, to set it up for him and anyone else prepared for the long haul, just as I had with the SAQ article. So I haven't actually retired. Certainly, now I've worked over CD I'm quite happy to keep a hand in. As to sources. I have and have read, over 3 months, 2 decades ago, the Penguin edition of all of his novels, which have excellent intros, and I have a dozen solid works on Victoriana and Dickens in my stacks as well. I dropped into the EP page and did some edits a few months ago when SVirgin began editing it, since she always pushes the pace of articles along something magical, and one feels, in helping out, that we're getting somewhere, rather than just mucking about with itsy bitsy edits, or coping with edit wars which is the major nuisance and disincentive for serious editors here. I have a large library on EP, (an uncle of my wife once interviewed him) but haven't interfered there that much since it was in good hands. If you need any help there, drop me a note. I think several of us could certainly put our names down to really get CD into shape. It's a pity that this is his bicentenary, and wiki can't manage to produce an FA article for him when so many youngsters on the net will be checking his page. So, if you can spare the time, it would be much appreciated. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a discussion about becoming involved up page so I've been hovering, but couldn't deal with the edit-warring frankly. Now that's calmed down, I'd be happy to help. I do have lots of Dickens floating around my own stacks so will pull those and look at the intros, I picked up this reference yesterday and floating around somewhere is the 22 page ODNB entry. I'm waiting for the peer review to come back on Pound and am also running into a really busy period workwise, but also would love to help on Dickens. I agree that it should be in nice shape for his bicentenary - so yeah, will make time to spare. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Butting in, but if there are any active editors on wiki who could pull thais off, its ye two. I would be very exciting to see, and best of luck to ye. Gosh, there is some really great work going on at the moment, watching Cas's core contest in amazement. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This isn't part of Cas' core contest, but would have been a good one for that. I'm hoping we can pull it off, but am waiting for Nishidani to get out of jail and for myself to get beyond a difficult month in the real world. It's a summer project - for some reason Ezra always gets put off, and I'd hoped you and I could finally bring that in, but not looking good is it? Maybe I'll go for broke and try to do two big biographies in one summer. Naw - not a good idea. Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Best, Truthkeeper (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ezra was looking pretty good when I last looked at it, so don't be discouraged on that score. If there's any grunt work you need doing there (tidying citations or similar), I'm willing to do it if you leave instructions, if that would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is looking good. I think the sources have been made consistent, but I'll have to take another swing through. The obstacle at this point is that I simply haven't the time; this month is full and I won't be able to edit much, and to be honest the summer isn't looking great. Ideally we would get together a crew to push this through, but on my own? Not a chance at FAC - it's too time-consuming for a page like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Life and Work tertiary surely? ODNB entries available on any Brit library card. If you're not Brit why not just leave Charles to us Brits? We've got libraries and everything over here too you know. Any book or article we like from the British Library for a nominal sum. It's pretty sophisticated, honest. Plus loads and loads of Dickens enthusiasts, societies and academics. Why not just settle for Stephen King? He's not FA yet and his books make brilliant films! Do like your Hemingway though. Do you have a real life identity to cite? 31.6.61.236 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your question about this elsewhere. Generally, named refs are preferred and make work easier, even if there aren't multiple uses for the same ref, because it's easier to identify the ref when needed. An issue arises, as an example, with separate refs from multiple pages of the same book. In such a case, the book details can be added as an independent footnote or bibliography item at the end of the article (separate from the ref-list), which allows subsequent refs within the article to only include the author/book name and page number, sparing repetitive information (example). Standardized templates should be used. The most common are Cite web, Cite book, Cite news and Cite journal. More templates at CAT:CITE and the sub-category Citation_Style_1_templates. Regards, --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is far too prescriptive. Personally I avoid named refs as far as possible, precisely because they make work more difficult, for example when moving text around, or adding a further reference. Much the simplest is to list the cited works in their own section & use basic name & page refs. But I think Truthkeeper, who is a much more experienced editor than you seem to realize, knows all this. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the issue. Truthkeeper asked a specific question HERE about named refs (as opposed to the same ref that doesn't have a name in the opening ref tag). For example, <ref name="johndoe">citation-details</ref> as opposed to just <ref>citation-details</ref>. I touched on the issue you mention as an aside. What you're referring to is a preference of some editors to not use citation details in article bodies at all. No problem. But it wasn't the issue. I have no doubt about Truthkeeper's experience and knowledge, but he did ask a specific question that I answered here (and added basic citation format links to be safe) because he didn't seem to get an answer for his specific question in the original thread. Best, --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the original thread again, I think I misunderstood TK's question. He was asking about a specific editor's preference and not about the general use of named refs. Sorry about the disruption, TK. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Nishidani answered my question. We all do these things differently, as shown by Johnbod's comment, and to streamline a fairly large task I was only asking in regards to preference because as far as I know almost every editor has different preferences. Thanks for the links anyway but Johnbod is right - it's not necessary to use cite templates. Normally I don't, but again depends on what's in place in an article and editor preference. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and it's "she". Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops again. Cheers to both. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - you couldn't have known. And it's all sorted now, so no worries. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the VdW JSTOR articles, very interesting and they are going to good use, I hope; Im finally going back to one of my favourite triptychs, which I had the pleasure of seeing about 3 weeks ago. In other words, thanks a bunch, appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I owe you huge thanks for pushing on Bal des Ardents (which I needed). I thought they'd be useful for the Netherlandish page but I guessed about which to pull, so it was a bit of a hodge-podge; time permitting prob more on the way. Good to see the Braque page coming along - it's one of my favorites too. Just so you know, I'm thinking about re-working the book/reading section in the Magdelen Reading based on one of those files - but not immediately. I haven't had time to read them yet am too lazy at the moment for much heavy lifting. But it's an interesting article. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Snap re the MG; yes there is a lot to be done there yet, a collab seems to be likely in both our futures to bring it up to date. Rememeber when we were building it sources were like hen's teeth, great to have a few more, I feel a little fat and spoiled now, frankly. How are things otherwise, I see you have a few major projects in the balance; excellent stuff. I was TRILLED to see the final push on the Bal's, lucky you to have both Riggr the good and the dangerous to know, compariable only to the devilish JNW in dastardliness, mean bastard, Yoman the elder, second of his name, helping. They did a great job finishing an seriously well researched article; was a joy to see. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Malleus re Bal des Ardents. At the moment I'm reading a really interesting series (kinda/sorta fantasy) set in Venice at the same period with sorcery, demons, and assassinations. It's a period that interests me a lot. The Magdalen page definitely needs a bit of brush-up; I read through it yesterday and saw a little work to be done, but as you said, we were working w/ very few sources - so agree re collab there. Life is good right now - the first Sat. since January that I don't have to work. So I can be lazy and relaxed which feels nice. I'm struggling at the moment w/ the the short story about nothing (hint hint, copyedits always welcome) and gearing up to start seriously on the Dickens page - waiting for my schedule to loosen a bit and for Nishidani to get out of jail. How about you - what's happening with the Netherlandish page? I added inlines, perhaps obnoxiously so, but in general it's a very impressive effort. Thanks for the lovely pic.Truthkeeper (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Malleus and the Netherlabndish page, I'm basically a lazy cunt and easily distracted by shiny new things, so dont know when I'll be back there again. But youve given me a bunch of hidden comments to work with; ta v mch for those. Im digging all the time and learning, but its a slow process. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a big page and a hard one to finish but you'll get there eventually. Some of the comments I added were because of repetition and stuff like that (if I remember correctly) and others were reminders to myself because I've read about some of it in sources that I was reading for Bal des Ardents (that had to be returned to the library) about the Burgundians. When I'm less busy in June I can grab them and prob fill in some of it. Please let me know if you need anything else. I'm happy to see the crucifixion at at FAC. Good luck with that. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The odd thing is I'm more than a lasped Catholic, I'm venimently anti-church, bitterly tbh, and I find both the late and present popes to be just patethic. I finished Christopher Hitchens autobio during the week, and though it took me a long time to get into (the ceesless name dropping is ug), Hitchens' has always been the world view I most closly identify with. I appreciate his righteous anger and incredulousness against the willyfully stupid. These are the people who not let us have nice things. Mam, please step away from the ve-hicl-le. And he smoked like a man possesed; snap. But here I am knee deep in religious iconography. I obviously have a blind spot I've not figured out yet. Maybe its that I want to see the recent Popes toast. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah know what you mean re Hitchens' world-view - it is appealing. You're leaving this on the page of woman who was raised outside the church which makes me what? Dunno. That said, the iconography fascinates me - it always has. But to me its represents symbolism from a time when not many people didn't read books - in those paintings they saw stories and symbols that they knew - it's a type of christian hieroglyphic alphabet, and bottom line is that it's interesting. The painting themselves are quite gorgeous too - beyond that, the rest you have to figure out on your own. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Its more than likely an aesthetic thing, those women in their henin headdress, I'm a sucker. Har. Ceoil (talk)

Dunno about the hair plucking though. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, least they didnt have to deal with codpieces. Liz is helping with the Goya, its great to have a first rank writer, was so jealous of you with Riggr and Bals; my turn now. I've used that article to vent a fair bit, tbh, and its sentiment is real enough to me, remember we had moving statues in the 80s, less than 20 miles from where I grew up. Around the same time that we moved toward legalising contraception and homosexuality, the idea was that Mary was publically weaping blood she was so upset at the idea. Thousands and thousants gathered to the place, and lets be honest, they were mostly hicks idiots and fanatics. Whatever, Liz is helping and thats great and I can finally tackle the helpful inlines you left. Happy days, I've been a long time responding. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just fucking bullshit. I asked on your page to go to FAC with that, (I meant the Bal des Ardents page) more than once, but you wanted a clean desk. The truth is that you haven't touched a page I've been working on since January for whatever reasons you have and it's upset me a lot. Riggr stepped up. Good luck with the Goya; I certainly wasn't very successful there and Liz is a better editor than I so you're in good hands. [This meant in all sincerity but picked up a whiff of snark in the heat of the moment. Oh, it was supper time too and dinner was burning]. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fucking bullshit? Really;) There were two problems with that page,(I meant the goya page) the main one structural, and if I was being kind I could say it was inchoeriant in places. I asked for help and got a lot from you and Yoman and ye two largely fixed it, whats happening now is polish, none the less important, actually for me a million times so, as what with the moving statues and bleeding virgins and all, its an important article to me. So I've asked for a lot of help from the heavies. Shoot me. Sorry if I've been unattentative otherwise, but you do know I've been working IRL like a dog since about 10am 1st jan 2012, much as in 2011. Most iof the time I read wiki through bleary and tired eyes, but I suppose yeah, I do tend to be selfish in what I tend to focus on. I'll give you that. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about two different pages. I'm talking about Bal des Ardents. Bullshit re being jealous that Riggr helped with Bals. This is really really stupid. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Riggr is a shit hot copyeditor, one of, if not the best. People have gone to war over less;) I'll fight you on the beaches, I'll fight you on the streets. But yeah silly. Tune to refocus[14]. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes he is and so are Malleus and Liz - and very silly. And wires crossed I think. Big time. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pong. Please don't ignore. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop arguing you two. Who cares whether Riggr or Liz is a better or worse copyeditor than me? Certainly I don't. I was quite pleased with what we achieved with Bal des Ardents in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah ok. I was looking forward to all out war; I'm fat and have too many sons, but fine, TK, I withdraw my treat of chemical destruction on your talk. Friends still? Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

All out war averted, though to be honest I was looking forward to it myself. I think we could have a good war. Clearly, based on your comment above, you've been working hard & so have I, so that makes for two cranky people. Yeah, of course we're still friends - but only if you stop by every now and then to make war with me. You're really the only person I can be totally cranky with. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A good war; I like the sound of that. We could have gone for cucumber sandwiches after! Whats wierd is that Riggr has been on an d off my best friend on this godforsaken shithole for about, euf, six years? Major misunderstaning, I would never, NEVER, pit him against anybody else, he's too precious and delicate for that kind off stuff. Be good. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very warlike, but try to keep it under wraps. It's honestly one of the reasons we're friends because you understand that. Be good yourself. And apologies to talk page watchers. Though, frankly it's a good as anything else around here. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the one you stick moisturiser on - what MediaWiki skin do you use? If you don't know/can't recall ever choosing, it'll be Vector. My fellow Arb Risker has observed that the watchlist highlighting looks different in different skins. I use Modern, and it looked bloody awful - exactly like your migraine attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed an odd post from an IP which seemed very much like a personal attack. I also semi-protected this page, which will keep IPs and new users from posting here. TK - if you want I will delete the posts by the IP. Or, if you would rather, I can unprotect (and am fine with any other admin unprotecting and anyone restoring the posts here). To the IP - if you have a problem with this, feel free to comment on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I think it should stay protected for the time being. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, do I feel like a dummy.[15] If I'd have actually looked at the lifespan of poor Friedrich Hermann Georg, I'd have answered my own question... (the death date line wraps, so that's my excuse) Riggr Mortis (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a valid point. I'd wondered whether I should mention the two who died in infancy, and that you had to ask answered that question. Also, it was easy to fix. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was delighted to see you over at Talk:Demeter#Infobox. Could I trouble you to weigh in on the proposed image? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have. I saw that floating by on my watchlist earlier but I was running in and out today and didn't have time. Nice job finding it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the guidance with this; the article is not perfect yet, but you have given a good indication as to were it should aim towards. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm slightly fascinated by the painting to say the least - quite honestly it's the most interesting thing I've seen in a while (the hellscape and all) and I don't have a lot of time to get to other work, so thanks to you for letting me butt in and be diverted. I think the work you've done today should help with the structure. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too, but well wait and see until Riggr comes storming in with his openions. Ever I since I called him a cunt on your talk he has it in for me, and frankly I find his repsonces and explinations intimadating. They are anti irish, a lot of them, actually. Why does he hate us irish so much? We dont all think he's a cunt, just the most of us; why is he tarring? Are all Canadians like that? Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, the stuff that happens on my talk and I don't even notice. Missed that entirely. Either I'm very spacey, very stupid, or very focused - or all three together. No wonder he's stopped talking to me. Being abused like that and all. Here, on my talk, no less. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if that was a joke as I believe we've been talking? Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a joke. The problem is that I'm terrible with jokes on the internet which is why, generally, I stay away from talk page banter. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! See if you just ranted and cussed at me then I'd be able to tell it was a joke, like Ceoil does... or at least I've always assumed it's a joke. You never know with that over-reaching little prick. Nice work on the van Eyck page (all). Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't do what he does, and didn't know how to respond, so made a non-response that made no sense. Sorry about that. It's probably best to simply ignore him - especially when he leaves bad language littering my page! He's getting there with van Eyck, but I need to clarify the section I tried to write - so back to the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

	Core Contest Equal Third Prize
	I hereby award this Antique Metal Wikitrophy to Truthkeeper88 for work on improving the Brothers Grimm article in the March 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Wikimedia UK will be in touch shortly with details on the £30 voucher... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!..Modernist (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Cong mice! ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Cute! Thanks to all. I haven't decided how to spend £30 in a country where I need $$, but not complaining! Truthkeeper (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Order something from AmazonUK? (all I can think of, offhand) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Prop up the Irish banks for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sell the gift certificate(?) on eBay (I imagine there are sites dedicated to gift cards and such now). A long time ago I had an Amazon promo code worth say, $14.25 US. And the winner paid, say, $13.85 for it. Quite efficient at turning non-cash into cash. Congrats on your achievement by the way. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The main obstacle to developing the van Eyck bio has been obviously the paltery known bio details, but more so the difficulty of approaching his iconography in a unified way before getting into specifics. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to guide the thoughs in the current sandbox towards the main bio, as a frame to use to expand the page out a fair bit. There is a bunch I could add, but I was never able to find over arching context (the sources often tend to be very specific to individual works) and what you have may become an excellent basis to build from. A framing para or two would lead to a bunch of specific examinations. Eg on his Madonnas, use of architecture, and on. What do you think, and tks so much for all this help, sourcing and effort. And jeeze, Riggr doesnt really think I was dissing him, really? It was just messing. Retarded messing sure, but there you go; point me to the bock, I have it coming. Just make it clean. (snif). Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can say, Ceoil, is FA is not peer review. Din' Sandy dun' tach ya nothin'? Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's nice and clean, Riggr. Definitely the page needed a little more work before FAC. Ceoil, I don't know what to do with the stuff in the sandbox. Definitely some form of it can go in the van Eyck bio, but I think the individual pages need some kind of general explanation of the symbols. In Hemingway pages I use basically the same general bit of text about the iceberg theory that I copy from page to page, and then I spin out from the general to the specific on the individual pages, so I guess you could do something like that. The sources do tend to focus on the specific works for van Eyck, although not this specific work, but I think a general explanation is helpful. Still reading about it though, and I've noticed that Johnbod dropped a book title in the sandbox so will have a look at that too. I'm reading a book about the Ghent altarpiece, not overly scholarly, with a really good overview of the symbolism so I might be adding a bit more when I've absorbed it all. In the meantime, if it's to be used in the crucifixion, you should finish it soon to keep this FAC from tanking, per Riggr's comment above. I have a little time today to work on it. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that you're going to be involved in peer reviewing Dostoyevsky, I just wanted to let you know that I'm still in the process of copy-editing the article. I've finished with the entire biography, and will do the rest some time soon. If/when GOP adds more, I'll help with that too. My copy-edits are just for grammar and syntax for the most part. I've asked GOP about the final paragraph of the bio, as there are some confusing details that he'll have to fix up. INeverCry 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the head's up. It's a long page and will take time to get through it. It's been on my watchlist for a long time and I've noticed all the activity there, so was thrilled to see it go to PR. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The major difficulty in getting the article ready for GAN is the current "themes" section, which might be better named "critical response", "criticism" or something similiar. GOP had first asked me to do the section, but a summary of Dostoyevsky criticism is a highly complex task that's beyond me. INeverCry 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at how it was done for Ernest Hemingway. It does need to be done, but to be honest I haven't even started reading through. I'll make suggestions in regards to how to do a themes section in the PR. I add them to all the lit. pages I do; they're never easy. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your monumental contributions on writers. INeverCry 23:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• What a nice surprise! Thanks so much, INeverCry! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I put that together after looking at what you've done with Dickens, a beloved figure for me. Anyone who does such great work on things literary will always find praise and appreciation from me. My own best offering is George Crabbe, but I don't know if I'll ever get him to GA (not to mention FA, which seems like a super-human feat to me :). The critical stuff is what I have a hard time with. When I get to criticism I feel like I've transitioned from enjoyment to work. Sorry for the ramble. Have a nice weekend. INeverCry 02:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Crabbe page looks good. I've only begun on Dickens; most of the credit there goes to Nishidani, and I'm afraid to admit that I seem to have stalled. The best work I've done, I think is for Am. lit, with Hemingway and Pound, and strangely the 10th c. Lady Murasaki. You're right about the crit sections being work; that's probably why I'm spending more time these days reviewing and rambling around, rather than actually getting to work. The Dickens page won't be easy. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps another barnstar is in order for Nishidani. I'll have to take a look at what else they've done. If I can't imitate, I may as well appreciate. ;) I don't envy you the work that Dickens will require, nor do I envy GOP with Dostoyevsky. As for Americans, I have vague ideas of doing something for James T. Farrell. INeverCry 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough was enough, and I decided to cut the FAC. I still think the page has potential, and want to say thanks, but its on hold for now.

Like. Ceoil (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not to blame b/c of a comment said in jest on my talk - but I haven't been to blame for much of what's happened in the past 6 months. We know what's really going on and although about six months too late, it's long past due for me to step away - it's not as though I haven't been told to do so a time or two. Good luck with everything and be well. I have enjoyed working with you and sorry it came to this - but it was inevitable. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I came here to say that your polishing of a precious gem is invaluable. I don't know about the past months, but it's still true, and I hope you consider to stay being so helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Extremely sorry to see you go, if that is the case, but I hope you'll come back after a rest. All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both you. My feeling is that when it reaches the point that someone is hurt because of the actions of others, and when friendly collaborations become impossible, there's no sense in staying. I doubt I'll return: in the end I'll be another female editor who becomes a wikipedia statistic. To other talk page watchers, I apologize for reviews I began in the past few days, but I won't be returning to finish them. My email has been disabled, and no offense to anyone but I'll be archiving this very soon. Thanks again for stopping by. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do what's best for you, but I will be sorry to see you go and hope someday you will feel like coming back. All the best and thanks for all you've done here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch summed up what I'd say - make sure you get your prize though! Someone from WMUK will be in touch...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely impossible that you become a statistic, with all the beautiful traces you left here. You talked about a happy dance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

TK I am going to miss you; and I am as you know - in your corner...Modernist (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, M I know you're in my corner and I appreciate it. I dislike the drama and dislike being dramatic and am more than aware that this stinks of drama - but the truth is that I've been fed up for a while with some of the stuff I see here, and it reached a tipping point. With the long and unending thread/RfC on the Murasaki Shikibu talk, where apparently I've put an image of a male prostitute in the lead, combined with stuff like this posted on some else's talk page, another editor saying I'm part of a gang that needs to be kicked out, combined with lots of other things, it seems like its time to take a break. We'll see how long it lasts, but to be honest I haven't been able to concentrate well enough to produce content for about six months, so a break is probably a good idea. Thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know your personal story. My story with this project almost ended about a year ago over this, then I decided to stay for content. Recommended reading for your break: a poem by another victim of WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

hello,

I am sorry that you are semi-retired and hope you won't retire. I want to thank you for your peer review; I corrected most of these issues. Do you believe it will pass at GAN after copyedits? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Truthkeeper88,

I'm organising the prizes for the winners of the Core Contest. You won a prize for your work on Brothers Grimm. The prize is a £30 Amazon Gift Voucher, but I need your email address to send it out to you!

Please let me know which email address (or postal address if you prefer) I should send the voucher to. You can email me at richard.symondswikimedia.org.uk

All the best,

Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK

On the basis that this a first-come first-served chance to intercept TK's prize, I shall enjoy my £30 gift voucher (unless anybody thought of sending their email address and beat me to it). Yomangani^talk 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew, good thing I was in the process of re-enabling and re-authenticating email when you posted this. Will be interesting to see what happens. TKs crawling out the woodwork for the £30 gift voucher? Truthkeeper (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll wait till you reply to my email (which I just sent you) before I send it out :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it and done. And Yomangani neatly intercepted. Thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)