Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 6 July 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible

Stuff

I've apologised to Riggr on his talk for describing him here with the "c" word, and he seems to have bought it. In other news, reading through the Grimms page, rewording, but you know how sloppy I am on spelling, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and was happy about it. Also very impressed he found a source for the Goya - I'd looked a few times but came up empty-handed. Happy (and thanks!) to have you have a go at the Grimms - I'm not crazy about the structure there - so feedback welcome. Spelling errors don't bother me - you know that. Btw - I hope you'll resubmit the Crucifixion. I have a small bit more to add to the sandbox but very very slow at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to give the diptych a few weeks, get some distance and then go back. Main thing will be to move stuff out of the description section and into the iconography sect, but that aint gonna be too easy. Will be looking at the Grimms between now and then. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks re the Grimms. You're right, won't be easy to re-structure the diptych again. I've capped but left the older versions in the sandbox, if you want them, and I want to mine for some stuff that was lost along the way. I have two more van Eyck sources but haven't even looked at them yet. Will add notes to the sandbox before the books have to go back to the library. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest Prizes

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 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)

"Removing trivia"?

I have seen so often in Misplaced Pages articles about works of art (literary, musical and visual arts) with a section about references in pop culture, that I'm surprised of you removing my addition to The Tyger. Am I really impertinent? Casquilho (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Truthkeeper, I'm still learning how to edit in Misplaced Pages, your help is very welcome. Casquilho (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar

For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Misplaced Pages should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice article about Rockie Mountain minerals, which I don't think we have much coverage of. Thanks for the barnstar - very pretty. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

True, and as for FAs, there are only two FAs, prior to this, on gems -- Diamond and Synthetic diamond. PumpkinSky talk 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Message to Alarbus / Br'er Rabbit

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 , , and not assuming good faith when I've asked nicely for you to stop. 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)

• And these: , , , , , , in addition to tag teaming with Diannaa, , , . And comments such as this: "Taht "pack" iz a problem; uze teh kitteh'z teeth to byte their sorry azzez"
• I've asked once for this to stop. I'm asking again. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• If this is about this, which caused an FAC to be abandoned, I agree. Hopefully it was done without realizing the effect it would have on you, but now that it's understood, it really shouldn't happen again. SlimVirgin 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(watching, and waiting a bit:) It makes me sad that you, appreciated editor of featured content, and one with a heart, and my most helpful friend don't get along. I feel that I only have to suggest something, and within seemingly no time Br'er Rabbit works some miracle, examples: coming to the rescue of a "doomed" DYK nomination, helping an article on its way in Germany, or just now making a translated table readable. I confess that I didn't have time to look at the case in question, I was busy with content, but understand that you withdrew a FA nom because of a bit of criticism, really? Could you just take it as means for improvement, assuming good faith? - I just passed my first (own) GA (to go with my initials), the article grew with helpful comments, and I like it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Long reponse coming. First: let's assume that people have lives off wiki and that those lives don't always go smoothly, and that in fact things other than wiki might be affecting someone's behavior. Here's the response I got the last time I tried to point this out to your friend. Then that was picked up and showed up on a few other diffs that I can't be bothered to look for, and the next thing I know I have the diva/drama queen label attached - because of something that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Misplaced Pages and is no one's business!

Next, yes, really. I pulled a FAC. Not because I can't "assume good faith" or handle criticism. Let's maybe assume that something else is going on, and that because of the something else, I'd like to try to edit in a fairly stress-free fashion. Regarding the criticism I can't take: I wrote a 4000 word article about a fairly notable short story but one that's difficult to understand. A lot of research went into this; the sources are good, it's comprehensive, the prose maybe not great but the best I can achieve without a wordsmith. So the first person to comment mentions inappropriate mark-up . Oh? This is a WP:WIAFA requirement? Well, maybe it falls under style. So, let's have a look at the inappropriate mark-up which was presented in a nice little table for me:

Issue 1: yep, I probably did have two refs containing content from page 41 of Flora because when I use a direct quotation from an author I like to attribute and cite directly to a single pages, whereas the others may have been in a page range. Ditto all the others, off the top of my head. Honestly haven't been back to look and the article is off my watchlist.

In my view these are fairly minor - but the point is that I formatted that way for a valid reason which was greeted with an "inappropriate mark-up" edit summary. Apparently I'm quite stupid and don't know which quote-box mark-up to use and therefore used deprecated mark-up - somehow I'm supposed to know this is deprecated though I've used it often before. Now that I know, I'll change it. Finally, yup, I admit, I made a mistake on the ISBNs. I tend to use the ISBN for the book that's sitting on table in front of me, not the book on google-books, and so I don't always get the ISBN 13. My library has the most annoying habit of putting the Dewey Decimal labels on the spine of the book so that it's impossible to read the ISBN - I always instead take it from the copyright page in the front of the book - but definitely I screwed up there.

Bottom line. I like editing here. I have free time at the moment and could be adding a lot of content. I also have stuff that concerns no one but myself that makes me a little cranky. If my editing creates problems, as it has done, for myself and for other editors, then sadly I have to leave. Personally I find that incredibly unfair, but the truth is that in my view this isn't a situation I can either fight or win. I'm not into fighting; not into winning. So I'm folding. And for that I get criticised too. Maybe, Gerda, you have some suggestions about how I should behave exactly; I'll add them to all the many other suggestions I've received in the last 6 months, and then see where I am. I've asked your friend multiple times to bury the hatchet. Your friend has deleted every single request from his page. Anyway, thanks for the concern and apologies for the wall of text. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing all this, taking your time. I drop in after an exciting concert, and it's late here, so I can't answer in the same depth. Short reply: perhaps it's best if you avoid each other for the moment. In a not too distant future, I could see you concentrating on content, and helpful friend look after formatting ;) - I enjoy teamwork, and I believe that nobody should "behave" as others tell him, - be yourself, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

TK, I'm commenting on issues I see. The comments in the FAC were pointing out legitimate issues with the article. See WP:FAC: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly." You didn't, you aborted the FAC. Most of the issues I pointed out have been fixed; the ISBNs still need a bit of work. You have ISBN converter on your user page, so you're presumably aware of this issue and how to fix it. FAs are supposed to be "the best articles Misplaced Pages has to offer" and that means no corrupted references, and no invalid markup such as was in the old-style quote boxes (not all it means, of course). I get that this is not your focus, but would suggest that you have a little more good faith that those who do focus on technical matters actually know what they're talking about.

None of this is about you personally, or your real life; I know nothing of that and don't care to. I called you a diva because that's how you've been acting; simple as that. You, Ceoil, and Modernist have been abusive since I merely tried to improve a navbox's markup and supported the idea of improving the references in Hemingway. You responded inappropriately there, too, ripping the refs apart rather than tolerating any suggestion that they could be improved.

Above, you say that you would "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."

Brothers Grimm had a named-ref problem, too:

• <ref name="Z(1988)11ff">{{Harvnb|Zipes|1988|pp=11–12}}</ref>,
• <ref name="Z(1988)11ff"/>, and
• <ref name="Z(1988)11ff">{{Harvnb|Zipes|1988|pp=12–14}}</ref>

They're all being combined to 11–12, with 12–14 being omitted. "pp. 12–14" could be restored by simply renaming it, but the "/" is ambiguous.

I am willing to work with you, perhaps on something with Maunus, or one of Gerda's cantatas. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Working together is a lot better than what had been going on. All involved are capable, extremely experienced and productive editors - let's work together than continue this unproductive situation; all of us need to work in concert when the issue arises...Modernist (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I only have the energy for one long response at the moment (and that went to Gerda) but don't want to be rude, so will just quickly say this: the RL issues I'm dealing with now I was dealing with as long ago as November. Furthermore, I'd always intended to convert the refs in the Hemingway article, since last summer when I realized that I prefer free-writing refs to using templates. I've never questioned your technical expertise. All I can say to the allegation that I acted inappropriately or that I'm a diva is what I said (but deleted) yesterday: I'm human and not perfect. Can we we just let the dust settle a little? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'v become aware lately that I am a diva too. I don't think that necessarily is a problem - it just means that I have both pride in my work and emotions. So yes - as you say We're human. The only thing we can try to do is forgive and forget and try to get a long even though its not always easy. I appreciate your work a lot and hope we could all work together in improving the encyclopedia even in spite of the difficulties of online social interaction. I feel like hugging all of you right now!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm ready ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tk, nobody thinks your a diva, but I do think we all want to let this go. We are all in this together, we are all equally invested. Things happen, and some of us sinned along the way (thinking of myself). My preferance is, whoever, whatever, draw a line. This is no longer a fight worth winning. Its possible to fundamental disagree with another editor on approach and pints of style, and still live and left live. A philopsphy that goes both ways, though (ie if alrbus would be so graceful not to mock me on my spelling, I'll leave him alone on his other matters). Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Olivia Shakespear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm intrigued

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

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

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

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