User talk:Qp10qp

Pugnacity
FYI, is not my natural trait. I seem to have developed some dispositions as a result of my excursions into the Wikipedia Wild West - not always a happy or fun place. However, it is my aim to make it happier by telling people when they are being unreasonable. I am sure everyone will thank me someday for telling them what to do - my kids already offer thanks daily for my many motherly corrections. (You know by now that I am kidding I hope). No really, a friend is someone who tells you when you are being unreasonable and I certainly feel that many FAC reviewers and the FAC directors assistants stray into that area every so often. : )  Nancy Heise    talk  03:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The FAC director's assistants don't strike me as unreasonable. In any case, better to get them onside—as in sport, no point arguing with the referee.


 * In general, when a reviewer is unreasonable, I leave that with them. Better to respond with reason oneself than in kind. Reason is anyway a complex judgement, since some believe that faith, or allegiance to one denomination, is itself unreasonable. One good technique is to leave it a day or so before responding to objections: sometimes one can reject, or appear to reject, an objection too quickly. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer
Thanks again Qp10qp for all your help in bringing it to FA status. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I felt a bit guilty about lumbering you with all that extra work at the end. But, as I've been saying to Nancy, it often pays to meet objections half way. Many congratulations on the FA. You've worked so hard on what is a very difficult subject and made the article an invaluable resource. I'm sure to visit it often for its clear delineation of the micro-evolution of the Reformation, the precise details of which I'm incapable of holding in my memory. qp10qp (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

St. Edward's crown
Hunt and Ives say that Anne Boleyn was the first woman and the only queen consort to be crowned with St. Edward's crown. Hunt explains: "This unprecedented deviation from the rules of coronation articulates Anne's lawful right to be queen by placing her in the line of succession of English monarchs, through the visual link to St Edward... At the same time, this visual emblem of legitimate succession links Anne's coronation to the future coronation and supremacy of the legitimate heir, assumed to be male, now visible beneath Anne's coronation robes." So, Hunt suggests that Anne was crowned with St. Edward's crown because she was pregnant and carrying an heir, who, although female and not male as they assumed, would 25 years later be crowned with the same crown. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I think you need to make that clearer in the text, because it is not self-evident. Like me, most readers will not know the significance of St Edward's Crown, and certainly won't grasp the speculated connection between it and Anne's pregnancy. I have to admit that my first thought was to wonder what a crown has to do with pregnancy. qp10qp (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on WP rules
Thank you for your thoughts and encouragement, and thanks for the pudding link! I feel with you, looking after SHAKESPEARE! I have hitherto been lucky with my rewrites and edits (many in extreme backwaters). I even rewrote / rearranged parts of a biased pudding like Mary Queen of Scots without, to my surprise, any trouble (it's also something of a backwater). I really like WP because of its infinite(?) scope and the cornucopia of images. And there are many fascinating articles, much more than anyone can read. It's all-important, though, that everyone can contribute, because, in the end, that's the foundation of it. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Attempts to create rival sites with vetted editors are failing because so few editors are involved. If one wants to write "perfect" articles, then it's best to stay away from high-turnover pages like Elizabeth I, but it's good sport. Fortunately, William Shakespeare holds together surprisingly well. This is because a handful of solid editors keep their eye on it. It's a shame the whole of Wikipedia can't be the same, but there aren't enough such editors to go round. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sort of replying to the Elizabeth page, because I think it's important: I am sorry that no one mentions the problem of bias or even leyenda negra in secondary historical writing, which is of vital importance if WP is so much against original sources. Even in cases where the more recent research has pointed to such problems, usually nothing happens in the "summaries" for a very long time, if ever. Then there are cases where there are no summaries or biographies, like thousands of not so terribly important people (e.g. Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick). One must differentiate between huge subjects like the Reformation, or Henry VIII, and very small ones like Christopher Blount. One good thing about WP is that there are so many biographies. As WP is made by really unselfish collaborators, there should not be too straight-laced, unrealistic standards: WP would neither be so rich, nor so popular!

There is also the problem of motivation: Since 4 February, I completely rewrote and expanded by almost three times Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester. There is a special problem with Leicester, which is briefly explained in the article. For you, it's important to know the following quotes from the 1950s and 1970s: G.R.Elton: "a handsome, vigorous man with very little sense"; Conyers Read: "England, indeed, was well rid of him" (commenting on his death in Lord Burghley...); C. Wilson, Netherlands..: "Leicester represented all that was worst in the politics and culture of the English Renaissance" (he was unquestionably the "Patron of Letters", as E. Rosenberg titled a seminal academic study in the 1950s). They do never cite any source for their verdict. You also have to know that there are comparatively few books about him, although there are thousands of important letters and he figured everywhere (and significantly) in Elizabethan life and politics, as is indirectly shown, for example, by the works on Cecil and Walsingham by Conyers Read. If I were allowed only to repeat statements as the above in WP, I could get nowhere, I would simply not do anything! And WP needs motivated people, we are not the students who just copy from here! Buchraeumer (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right (though at least Charles Wilson makes his anti-Elizabeth bias quite clear). Which is why I think it is best to have an array of accounts open while editing. (I am working on Martin Luther at the moment—a terrible page—and you should see the mountain of books around me here!) That way, one can try to approximate to a standard account. I usually have an old standard account or two open alongside the more recent ones, in case the pendulum of revisionism is swinging too far. When I was doing the FAR on Edward VI of England (this article is holding up well, presumably because it's not as popular as Elizabeth I of England), I kept Jordan's old two-volume biography open in front of me, even though recent historians have trashed his pro-Somerset bias: I expect Somerset will be partly rehabilitated in the future, and so I was cautious. But in my opinion one shouldn't go too far in countering bias if the bias appears in the majority of standard accounts—I don't think that's Wikipedia's job. And that way lies madness, because one could start to care too much.qp10qp (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I took the hint about going mad. But that's the web, you go invariably mad! I remember that, indeed, Edward VI of England, when I had a look at it some months ago, it struck me as being surprisingly NPOV! It's really a great article! Please, please do not take that personally, but the problem with Elizabeth I, I think, is not so much deterioration, but some inherent flaws (there were some serious gaps: no privy council; no Puritans and her persecution of them; Drake was missing on the Spain section...instead Elizabeth was not responsible when things went wrong, but it was forced upon her by her ministers, who in there turn are hardly ever mentioned; but the literary flowering is somehow her merit, although she didn't herself do anything for it...a whole section on the life and death of Thomas Seymour, while she "decided" (!!??) after a few months, that she wouldn't marry Robert Dudley and off he goes...). I know I am really, really nasty, please pardon! But boldly, after having myself laboured hard on three different points, I dare say it is already better now. It is logically much more difficult to portray a 70-year life, than a 15-year one. And there are absolutely brilliant pieces, like the Religious Settlement one! I really hope you pardon me!- Apropos Martin Luther, if he drives you mad, I can only recommend "his" Bible (that of 1534, keep away from all post-1546 editions!!). There is a facsimile one with Cranach pictures (it's a real bargain). I bought it for the pictures and found myself absorbed in the text! I think he missed his job. He should have become history writer! Try his preface to the Book of Daniel, you don't believe how gripping it is! Good luck! Buchraeumer (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, he's a gifted and gripping writer! Do you have the edition with the dragon wearing the pope's crown or the one without? I think it was removed between very early editions.


 * You put your finger on it when you said that Edward VI of England is easier than Elizabeth I of England because it's much smaller in scope. You think that deterioration is not the problem with the latter, but I wince now to see that the article has sections titled "The Barbary States", "Ottoman Empire" and "Japan". I don't recognise the use of the word "Puritans" where it has been included for the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, or the point of the badly written, misplaced paragraph beginning with "Regnans in Excelsis". I could go on—prose sharpness and paragraph structure have been eroded, but most editors don't seem to care about pithiness. I don't think there's too much on the Elizabethan literary age, to be frank, and it is harder to fit Drake in than you might think: whether Marlowe or Drake, the issue of how to link such individuals to Elizabeth in a biographical article is tricky (I have no issues with your addition on Drake, but it does not even mention Elizabeth).  I think the Thomas Seymour incident may contain, though irretrievably buried, the keys to Elizabeth, and it is surprising how much space is given to it in biographies. It is also unmissably vivid. A Wikipedia article has to tell a story, and it is tougher to include political minutiae and keep the readability. Also, I have to admit that it was beyond me to summarise the operations of the council or parliament over such a long period. I opted instead for an early/late reign orientation, and if you look closely you will see that the article contains its share of criticism of late Elizabeth and addresses the question of Protestant mythology. The "Ireland" section is quite uncompromising.


 * But the task of summarising Elizabeth in one page is impossible. The only systematic answer is to write lots of new articles on all the parts of the reign that are glossed over (the one-page format is a serious limitation on Wikipedia). I have to say that tolerable articles like Elizabeth I of England are not the main problem at the moment, because there are so many others that need work more badly. I have Mary I of England on my list, for example. I'm not sure I'm brave enough for Henry VIII of England because it will be as impossible to write a summary of his reign as it was of Elizabeth's. Whatever the result, it would not satisfy everyone, and the article will always have a high deterioration rate. On the other hand, it deserves at least to be dragged out of its present mediocrity. Perhaps the worst article on a major monarch is Philip II of Spain—how one could write a single page on him I do not know. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Huge pope's crown, yes! I happen to own a small paperback edition with the text and woodcuts of "Wittenberg 1545", in this there is also the pope's crown (Apocalypse ch. X). The facsimile is of 1534, I understand it's the first ever edition of the complete Bible. The facsimile was by TASCHEN a couple of years ago, ed. by Stephan Füssel. It is from a unique copy with coloured woodcuts. The colours make a wonderful difference!


 * Re Thomas Seymour, I do think that it is a really nice summary on him, a few weeks ago, I read it and it was great fun and there was a good quote, which I never had read before! I only used the fact that it has its own section to excuse my relatively recent expansion on Elizabeth and Dudley; such as it used to be, it was simply too misleading! The reader was left with the impression that she actually "decided" very early on never to marry him, and the implication was that she told him and everyone else so. Now this cannot be farther from all evidence. It's not longer than Seymour, if not shorter, and it is useful as an example of her character, regarding jealousy and so on, which I think should not entirely be absent, and the references are sound. Drake's Cadiz voyage is now mentioned, I tagged it at the end of the Netherlands campaign, which I tried to clarify or explain somewhat. I tried to give some context to the long quote of Elizabeth's famous letter to Leicester; before, it was not clear, why it was there, other than perhaps to show that the recipient was a fool (Sorry!). I bolstered my words with a summary of Oxford UP! As it was before, the Armada was only caused by Leicester's incompetence in the Netherlands, provoking an entirely peaceful Philip. It's not anti-Philip, but I mentioned in a footnote that he was intent on the Enterprise anyway as per Geoffrey Parker (Drake's voyages very much contributed to that, that's why I put him in). Lastly, the privy council of the 1590s! That was a pleasant little piece about her "second reign" (John Guy!), and I think it fits well into the Last Years. As I personally couldn't spot the privy council anywhere outside the intro, I thought it wouldn't harm to mention the Essex-Robert Cecil rivalry. So will I end praising myself.


 * And there is really enough of parliaments, I for once am not particularly keen on them (and I don't understand anything of Elizabethan parliaments)! I didn't intend, when I started this, to bother you with my edits to Elizabeth of this month, and I swear I will abstain from the article in the future (largely). I wouldn't have thought that there are pro-Spanish edits! In German encyclopedias however, one finds qite a lot of strange pro-catholic distortions on topics as Mary Stuart (you can often read that James I was a catholic!) Another country, another world history!- And please don't think that I am anti-Catholic or something: My mother is from Berlin (ex-"protestant"), my father is from Augsburg ("catholic"). Not that anyone would believe in God, but the cultural abysses are insuperable at the core!- Really, it was no fun to be the child in between. Good Luck with ML! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I took that out about the pro-Spanish thing because I remember this comes up on the Spanish Armada article, not here. But there is a Spanish lobby, and to an extent they have a point, because Drake looks very different to them. I think so long as we don't extol Drake, who after all was a privateer, then the article will be fine. Good historians know the truth about Drake, that his late career was a failure and that he behaved selfishly during the Armada, but the superficial view is that he was some great proto-imperial hero. Judging by the Spanish Armada talkpage (see thread: "English Bias & the Armada Myth"), the views of historians have not fully percolated through. Clearly Elizabeth's reign saw the origins of English seapower, but I don't put much of that down to her.


 * No, I didn't assume you were anti-Catholic—I don't think in those terms. I don't even know if Hans Holbein the Younger (my hero and my pet article!) was Protestant or Catholic, though his father was from Augsburg and a Catholic also.qp10qp (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Qp10qp, I didn't mean to trouble you any longer, but as you mentioned Philip II of Spain, I couldn't resist to treat you to this piece from the Spanish WP's lead section to their Felipe II: "Aún hoy en día, la historiografía anglosajona y protestante, representa a Felipe II como un ser fanático, despótico, criminal, monstruo imperialista y genocida. Sus victorias fueron minimizadas hasta lo anecdótico (salvo unos pocos ejemplos como la Batalla de Lepanto) y sus derrotas magnificadas en exceso, a pesar de que no supusieron grandes cambios políticos o militares, como la pérdida de una pequeña parte de la Grande y Felicísima Armada debido a un fuerte temporal, que además los historiadores anglosajones "transformaron" en una gran victoria inglesa."

(Even nowadays, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant historiography represents Philip II as a fanatic, despotic, criminal, genocidal being and an imperialistic monster. His victories have been minimized to the anecdotical (apart from a few examples as the Battle of Lepanto), and his defeats have been exaggerated in excess, although they didn't mean great political or military changes, as the loss of a small part of the Great and Most Felicitous Aramada due to a strong storm, which on top the Anglo-Saxon historians "transformed" into a great English victory.)

Oh, dear! I must stress that Geoffrey Parker has recieved the Principe de Asturias prize for his seminal work on Felipe, so Spanish WP is not beyond reform. But I hardly could stop laughing! I think the English article is quite good, it's a good summary. Incidentally, I also love Holbein's paintings (and those of his father), and I was amazed about the scores of images in the WPCommons. I also think that many people in the 16th century didn't quite know if they were catholic or protestant, although I don't think they were cynics. There are certainly more religious chameleons out there than general history writing allows for. Sorry for this Sunday intrusion and you should try Henry VIII, if it's your epoch, motivation is important! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some excellent, balanced books on Philip in English, not only by Parker but by Kamen and Pierson. Last year I read Israels' book on the Dutch Republic, which gives an acute view of Philip's strategy.


 * I believe the collection of Holbein images on Commons now is pretty comprehensive. The design drawings for me were a revelation, and I can look at drawings like File:Triumph of Wealth, by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg in full res forever. For me, he's the greatest draughtsman there ever was.


 * I think if I could go back to one place and time in history, it would be Augsburg in about 1510. I imagine it bristling with gold and metalsmiths, print workshops, and artists's studios, all exuding that devotion to line characteristic of the region. I've always wondered why the Holbeins left, but no one knows. qp10qp (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Swell! (I've corrected one word of the translation, so the sentence makes more sense). Buchraeumer (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Julie Kirkbride
Wow, have a look at the viewing figures for this month,[] from nothing to 4,000 yesterday, today,s viewing figures will be even higher. Thanks for supporting me on the talkpage about Setwisohi's revert. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Oh, I deleted that comment, because I saw you had reverted Setwisohi's edit. ... I still saw it, ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, the reason I am fussing about with this article is because I am highly conscious of the thousands of people who will be reading that page at the moment. You may be amused to know how I got involved in the page. I was listening to "Any Questions" last year, and since Julie Kirkbride was on it, I looked her up. It said in the article that she had been voted the sexiest female MP (or something like that) in a Sky blog poll. I removed this as irrelevant tosh from a poor source. But I was reverted; I removed it again and was reverted again. I was then contacted by someone close to her—I think it was her constituency chairman or agent—who said Kirkbride wanted this to stay in the article. I let it go then because, though I knew that was wrong, I wasn't that arsed. Interesting to note that this guardian is rather keeping his head down at the moment and letting us edit as we will: perhaps he has left the sinking ship. I'm repelled by what has gone on, but I'll still keep an eye out to make sure the article is fair and doesn't become an attack piece. When things die down, I'll try to format the refs nicely as well. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I have left a message on the kirkbride talk (Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

List of jazz standards (before 1930)
Hi, and thanks a lot for your suggestions in the peer review! I've rewritten some of the lead to address the issues you pointed out, and left you a response at the peer review page. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

 * Hello, an IP has been adding lots of text (all sourced) to the Anne Boleyn article. Some of it looks as if it was copied directly from the book he or she is soucing from.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacqui Smith
Hi Qp10qp, If you have the time and inclination, this article seems to be a bit one sided and in neeed of a little neutral rewrite, I could use your respected help/advice on that. Regards. I left a comment on the talk [] .(Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Idealisation
Hey. I'm wondering if you might want to wander into this discussion. I'm trying to cajole an article I'm dying to read. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

McBride. ( the guillotine has already dropped on him)
If you have a free moment, have a look at the work I did on the Damion McBride article yesterday []. I did over 2 hours of editing on it and got reverted... I was annoyed. The article was awful, I would appreciated your thoughts.. I was so angry,I put a question on help..[].. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC))


 * It is an appalling feeling to do two two hours editing and get reverted: it's happened to me. I don't know anything about Derek Draper (the article you link to), but looking through the diffs, I think your instincts are correct. You quite rightly removed some silly political gossip and nicknaming that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. At the very least, the other editor should have found an accommodation between your edits and his/hers by discussing them on the talk page and negotiating a combined text. The help desks aren't usually much help for this sort of thing, unfortunately. I suggest calmly raising this first of all on the talk page and going from there. With sources and policies behind you, you have a strong hand, but (I'm not saying it's the case here) some people edit the way they do for political reasons, which makes it difficult. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He reverted me and said to talk about it and then he logged off...? Thanks for looking, there are some awful articles when you have a look around. Nicknaming.. I had a little tiff about removing.. chipmunk from the Hazel Blears article... next it will be noddy and big ears..Brown is starting to look like Grumpy from the 7 dwarfs. Best regards to you.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me, but I made my comment. (I believe the main editors should decide on a page by page basis.) Not a fan of voting. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

tony blair and the secret israeli cabal section.
Hi, would you give me some advice or comment on this section [] I have left comments on the talk regarding my intention to rewrite the section as it is twaddle, with undue weight and is basically coatracking another subject on to the blair bio. Actually I would like to remove most of it and add what is left to another section, what do you think? Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

High class spam
here. Hope you are enjoying the summer! Happy to see none of my little bits needed rewriting. Also seen these pics? - there's a whole category on Commons. I know you like Early jazz. Talking of mass uploads, did you notice the trouble the Holbein guy has got himself into with the NPG ? See National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought he might hit trouble, if only because he did it en masse, which was provocative. A few pictures here and there when needed would probably not have aroused annoyance. I don't think it will go to court, though, because the gallery has too much to lose.


 * I'd like to see a compromise whereby the gallery allows us quite a large picture but smaller than their max. The tiny pictures they traditionally display are not much use to Wikipedia, and we don't really need the massive ones either. I think all they're bothered about is revenue, but I can't see how they could lose revenue from Wikipedia (any decent publisher will continue to pay to reproduce images and is hardly going to copy them off the internet). I had a good mind to write to the NPG to point out how many of their publications I have bought to help me edit Wikipedia articles; I'm sure you're the same. Wikipedia is actually publicising their gallery and paintings.


 * I've not got much time for Wikipedia at the moment, but I hope to get some space in the autumn. Nice to hear from you, Johnbod. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Similar to my views. They made it pretty clear they were open to such a deal, but I can see they have to insist on their full rights under UK law to be recognised also.  The law doesn't allow that one filesize is PD & another copyright imo. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mary Shelley
I'm prepared to admit I was long winded by my addition concerning the blackmailing of Shelley by Thomas Medwin but the section concerned is misleading. Medwin strongly denied the charge of blackmail and the letter exists and isn't a blackmail attempt. Mary Shelley was annoyed, possibly justly, by Medwin making a career from his friendship with Byron and Shelley. The subsequent biography by Medwin does not name the child or the mother so the note is wrong. I'm loathed to point this out since the ire of the Shelley-ites will be down on me like a brick. Dorkinglad


 * The information is properly sourced to Seymour and Bieri. Medwin is a primary source and a biased one—so he is not reliable. Nor can you interpret Medwin yourself, which would count as original research. qp10qp (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Laurent Joubert
Hi Qp10qp. Long time no see! Hope all is well.

I was reading the other day about Laurent Joubert, a 16th century French physician who was personal physician to Catherine de Medici and Henry III of France. He was also a pupil of Guillaume Rondelet. The English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Laurent Joubert, and there are no links to him, though he is mentioned in the references to two articles. There are, however, articles in French and German (stubs) and a longer article in Italian: fr:Laurent Joubert, de:Laurent Joubert, it:Laurent Joubert. And there is also a picture of him at File:Laurent Joubert (1529-1583).jpg. I thought about requesting a translation of the Italian article and amlgamating in bits from the other two stubs, but then I thought I might try coming here first and seeing if you have any sources relating to this person? If you don't, no worries, I'll do something myself or ask for a translation, but I wanted to ask you first. Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing on Joubert as physician to Catherine, even in the several books about her that I own. But there is a good account of his writings and theories in Society and Culture in Early Modern France, by Natalie Zemon Davies, which I have a copy of. If you make an article, I can add information from that to a section on his works. I can read the Italian article, but its notes are a little obscure and I am not sure how the information relates to the bibliography there. qp10qp (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a short stub. Hope you can add more! Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I've raised a couple of points on the talkpage. qp10qp (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC
I'm working on Gray's Inn and was considering sending to to FAC - as such, I asked User:Awadewit for her provisional opinion of the article. She's unable to deal with it at the moment and recommended you - would you mind taking a looksee and checking if it passes the basic requirements for FA, grammar or spelling problems excluded? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is everything OK?
It's been quite a while since we last heard from you. I hope everything is OK as you are definitely missed around here. Hurry back soon!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the TFA. Scartol  •  Tok  13:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise! Looking good. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Everything's fine: my writing's focused elsewhere at the moment, and I can't multitask. Just checked the article, and it survived its big day virtually unscathed. qp10qp (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

French fairs and theatrical displays
I was reading recently about the McDonald's opened in the Louvre mall (it seems that despite the international papers depicting it as something that horrified the French, McDonald's has managed to enter the French national consciousness). I noticed a reference to the "iconic Salon de l'Agriculture" (and made a redirect to the article), and that led me to Foire de Paris (the French article on what is said to be largest such fair in Paris - I may try to write a stub for Foire de Paris), and while searching Wikipedia for the word "foire", I came across Théâtre de la foire. Those seem to be public shows, but they reminded me of the royal theatre which I read about in relation to Anne of Denmark (here) and Catherine de' Medici (you wrote Catherine de' Medici's court festivals, for example). Would you know whether these public theatres at fairs were related in any way, or were they something completely different, with their own history? Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Theatre gradually made its way from the religious street floats and tableaux of the middle ages into pageants put on specially for and by the nobility. The royal architects and artists regularly produced temporary stages and decorations for street processions and carnival occasions, and relics of street theatre can be seen in the festivities laid on by the crown. The great fairs had long theatrical traditions, and in France they were often the venue for popular theatre, and for the acting out of Misrule and Charivari. The royals took up these themes, and their entertainments were then copied in turn by the public, so I expect the influence went both ways. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Royal entry covers some of this background. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland
nominated Soviet invasion of Poland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Invasion of Poland
Shouldn't these changes be discussed first? Loosmark (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really restoring the FA version, but taking into account any good changes since. I've hundreds of edits to the article and drafted the FA version: and the talk pages will show that I've discussed and discussed the material in the past. I think it's better to make the changes, which are, after all, mainly restorations of shorter wordings, and removals of POV and large quotes, so that we can get this article to pass its review as soon as possible. qp10qp (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How's the progress on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave up after spending several hours on it last week. The experience was too negative. I addressed the main issues at the FAR, with only one section left to do. But people piled in complaining. If the nominator's points are allowed to be addressed, it shouldn't be much work to get this kept. However, it's unrewarding trying to fight reversions and attempts to keep unsatisfactory or superfluous material. The article is basically an outstanding page with some crap stuck to it.qp10qp (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How about trying once more? It will be a shame to see our hard work delisted... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Message
Left you a message here[]--Jacurek (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I was just going through the history and noticed I did that. Apologies, that was rather unintentional. I'll get on reinserting the content. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I was looking for this article to fail I wouldn't be working on the article as well. This being said, I am going to point out areas that a I feel are weak and work towards improving them. If I have to do that alone, so be it, but I intend to get as much done as I can. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot
Hi there. I've been working on a significant expansion on this, and while it isn't anywhere near finished I wondered if, as one of the main contributors to James I, you could cast an eye over it and let me know if I've erred anywhere? Parrot of Doom 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not that impressed by the sources you're using, to be honest. I'm no fan of Antonia Fraser, who tends to make too many assumptions and can lean to the Catholic side. I recommend James Travers, Gunpowder: The Players Behind the Plot, which is superbly illustrated with facsimile documents, as well as Mark Nicholls Investigating Gunpowder Plot and Alan Haynes The Gunpowder Plot. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have the Haynes book, I'm just getting to the end of Fraser's book at which point I'll start on Haynes.  Where sources conflict, I tend to err on the side of caution and generalise whatever they disagree on.  I've noticed that Fraser does assume some things - like Wintour's signature for instance, and the tunnel.  Nicholls is a good source - he wrote most of the biogs on the ODNB, which I've been studying and am slowly inserting.  'tis a big article though! Parrot of Doom 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy
In my very slow progress towards the Mary Shelley featured topic, I have worked up another article. If you have time, could you take a look at it and weigh in at the peer review? Your input is always much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it sometime this week. qp10qp (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for Ed_and_pope.png
I used that drawing in http://www.snrk.de/MillaisHoliday.pdf. Thank you! --DL5MDA (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw previous discussion
Would love to hear from you, too. You have my email. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed you. qp10qp (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Hi, I was looking at the Martin Luther article and found you'd posted on the talk page nearly a year ago in response to a suggestion that something be included on Luther the man. The person called him a "foulmouthed drunkard." I was telling someone this, and know I've read it in several places, but it's nowhere I'm looking now, neither in hard copy nor online. Can you help me with an online source for that? Thanks--Yopienso (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Katherine Willoughby by Holbein
Do you know of a source for a color version of this minature? Can you tell me if it is accepted as genuinely by Holbein? The ghastly variant can't be. Thanks! - PKM (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, I confess; it was I who uploaded the ghastly version of Katherine's Holbein portrait.. Feel free to remove it from the article if you wish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It rather looks like a 16th century Velvet Elvis doesn't it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's done; I've gone ahead and replaced it with your black-and-white version.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I copied the ghastly version to Commons as "after Holbein", and would have added it if it you hadn't already. Sorry if I offended! I was thinking paint-by-the-numbers, but Velvet Elvis is a better description! I have no idea how old it might be. - PKM (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paint-by-numbers is another accurate description. I never knew they had such bright hotel-room colours in Holbein's day.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of Frances Brandon
Hi! User Jeanne Boleyn referred me to you as an expert. ;-) I have a question. How likely is it that is actually Frances Brandon? I am mainly on the German wikipedia and someone added it to her article there. I had never seen it before and if it's definitely not her then I would remove it.--Feuerrabe (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review : Age of Discovery
Hi Qp10qp. You are invited to participate in WP:Peer review. Thank you.--Uxbona (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Peake the elder
Would you mind if I nominated Robert Peake the elder for TFA at WP:TFAR for the non-specific date slot? This is a new slot that opens up better possibilities that such an article can be on the main page. Mid-October might be a better date, but I don't see anything really date related about this article, and this type of article, in my opinion, is under-represented on the main page. If I don't hear from you tonight, it will have to wait until next Tuesday, unless you want to nominate it yourself. Smallbones (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jean-François de Galaup comte de Lapérouse -or- Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse
I have suggested a move of the above and I note from the history of the article that you have previously held an interest in it. I thought it appropriate to pay you the courtesy of letting you know about this.Felix505 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a project?
Hi Q. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dusty Barnstar?
Hi Qp,

In connection with some otherwise irrelevant bit of bother I've been trawling the archive of the William Shakespeare talk page and in the process I was again struck by your insight, understanding, diplomacy, and how very instrumental your contributions were in improving the article (not to mention getting to, and through, FAC). I recall being quite impressed at the time—and with your many and various contributions since—but I don't think the debt of gratitude that the Shakespeare WikiProject, and the overall encyclopedia project, owe you for your efforts have been sufficiently expressed. So in lieu of an actual dusty and cobwebby barnstar—as a culpably belated acknowledgement of your immensely valuable and valued contributions—I'll limit myself to a heartfelt and resounding: kudos, and thanks! in the hope that you will eventually see it even though your edit history suggests you've found greener pastures elsewhere. I hope you are well and enjoying whatever pursuit occupies your time; and quite selfishly hope you will eventually be drawn back here for your happiness and our great gratitude. (PS. The colon was deliberately left in place as an homage to your awesome and inspiring copy-editing skills! The run-on sentence on the other hand, is merely an artifact of my own lack in that area, despite all I've learned from your example. ;D) --Xover (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 



Robert Peake the elder (c. 1551–1619) was an English painter active in the later part of Elizabeth I's reign and for most of the reign of James I. In 1604, he was appointed picture maker to the heir to the throne, Prince Henry, and in 1607, serjeant-painter to King James I, a post he shared with John De Critz. Peake is often called "the elder", to distinguish him from his son, the painter and printseller William Peake (c. 1580–1639) and from his grandson, Sir Robert Peake (c. 1605–1667), who followed his father into the family print-selling business. Peake was the only English-born painter of a group of four artists whose workshops were closely connected. The others were De Critz, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, and the miniature painter Isaac Oliver. Between 1590 and about 1625, they specialised in brilliantly coloured, full-length "costume pieces" (example pictured) that are unique to England at this time. It is not always possible to attribute authorship between Peake, De Critz, Gheeraerts and their assistants with certainty. (more...)

James VI and I
I know you've retired, but just in case you pop in, the issue over whether the article meets the featured article criteria is re-opened at Featured article review/James I of England/archive2. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanny Imlay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky peer review
hello,

I invite you to join this peer review. Any help appreciated! Regards.-- GoP T C N 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your excellent work on the Featured Quality article, Learned Hand. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies. I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that? This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.) 1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? 2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? 3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? 3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? 6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? 7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of dialogue, connection, community and collaboration? 8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We miss you
Here's hoping you'll come back to Wikipedia! We miss your contributions! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Adding a new section to the Catherine de' Medici entry about her culinary legend.
I wanted to especially bring to your attention the fact that I added a new section about the culinary legend associated to the Catherine de' Medici entry, which you so obviously played such a large role in crafting. Truthfully, User:Andrew Dalby, pointed this out to me because he's coaching me and a number of longstanding participants in the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery to learn how to write in Wiki-speak and to follow Wiki-etiquette... We are specifically working on a project to do with food and women... and since the Catherine de' Medici legend is just about the MOST repeated falsehood repeated about anything to do with food - and certainly the biggest one associated with a woman, I felt it important to include.

Please, of course, let me know if you have concerns. My intention is to add to rather than to take away from your worthy work.

Carolin C. Young    CarolinCYoung (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

William Shakespeare
I nominated William Shakespeare for TFA because his 400th death anniversary is coming up. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov for FAR
I have nominated Anton Chekhov for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aza24 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2647 of Precious, a prize of QAI. We miss you, fountain of knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)