User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 2

Comment

 * Hi Truthkeeper88, I've found a good copyeditor, whom I asked to help us with the NBB movie article. I asked if the editor could make some copyedits to the article and give us a list of suggestions. The comment I left the user can be found here: User talk:Allreet. ATC . Talk 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine if you've found another copyeditor. In that case, I'll hand off this article, as I'm pretty backlogged with other articles at the moment. I made Ruhrfish' suggested changes, although some are content based, so I've left those as is. I intend to mark the changes I've made on the user page, and then will be done. Good luck. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant to say if the three of us could work on the article, because it takes more than one copyeditor to get something done, but that's fine if you prefer to follow all of Ruhrfish's requests and then be done. Thanx! ATC . Talk 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid stepping on toes, let's have someone else take a shot at it for a while, and that will give me a chance to get caught up. I'll keep it watched and certainly will be available to help you if you need or if you have questions. I'm not done, just stepping back for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll let you get caught up on other work and I'll ask you questions as needed. Thanx for all your help, the article wouldn't of been like it is if its wasn't for all of your copyediting! Happy editing! ATC . Talk 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. ATC . Talk 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hemingway
At first glance I think the article needs to be divided into another separate article or articles - et.al. Complete works by Ernest Hemingway, and/or Novels by Ernest Hemingway etc. that would link to the main biography as reflected in the template and with links to the books. You can see examples of what I mean at Vincent van Gogh, William Blake and El Greco, 3 great articles that have links to related articles about the aspects of the artists life and works. Another terrific editor to consult with is User:TonyTheTiger. You are doing an excellent job by the way...Modernist (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 3 examples above. Excellent articles, and generally what I envision for Hemingway. As soon as I'm finished with converting the refs to Harvard, I'll consider how to structure and spin-off a new article (which is what I thought needed to be done). Thanks also for directing me toward User:TonyTheTiger. I'll leave a message with him as well. Thanks for the compliment -- I'd intended only to make a few edits, but obviously it snowballed and now I want to finish what I've started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway
Try WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines+residences) copyediting
Hi! I know you are busy right now. Just not to forget I put this note here.List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is complete but (as usual) the lead section needs a bit of smoothing. Thanks and take your time. It is not urgent at all. bamse (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Same thing for List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). bamse (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will start when things calm down a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing the shrines list. It is in the queue for WP:FLC, but has to wait since not more than one nomination per user is encouraged. If you feel like it, besides List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) also List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) is ready to be copy-edited for FLC. Since nominations are slow, there is no need to rush with either. I am now starting to improve the main National Treasures of Japan article, which will take some time. Hoping to get it up to GA status one day.bamse (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll copy the residences article to my sandbox tomorrow and get started on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great!bamse (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. I just noticed that the Akasaka Palace has been freshly designated as National Treasure. It is the only designation in the category 住居 ("dwelling, house, residence"). The List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) covers structures in the category 住宅 ("residence, housing, residential building"). Since there is only the Akasaka Palace in the 住居 category, I am thinking of adding it to List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). However the palace is from around 1900 while the other residences in the list are from about 1500-1600, so I am not sure yet how to deal with it. If you can't wait to copyedit a Japan related list, you could do the castle list which will not have any additions until spring next year the least.bamse (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'm trying to finish up a different article at the moment before I transition back to Japan, so take your time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the Akasaka Palace to List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) which is complete now (as is the castle list) and ready to be copyedited.bamse (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll copy it and maybe try working on two at once! The castles are interesting (I've read about this period in Japan but never actually seen images of the castles). Will you be doing swords as well? Just wondering, given that the art of swordmaking was so rarified in feudal Japan. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, two at once! The sword list in very rough shape is already here. Honestly to me all these swords look identical and I don't understand much about swordsmithing. That's why I postpone working on that list for the moment. Eventually I hope to get all National Treasure lists improved to the level of the sculpture, painting, residences and castles lists. Next project however is National Treasures of Japan which is being worked on here. It'll take a while. Looking at the remaining lists, I am most motivated to work on List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents), List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials) or List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-others). Do you have a preference among these? bamse (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow I'll try working on both articles, but most likely will only complete a partial copyedit of one. After tomorrow I'll be fairly busy for a week so my Wikipedia time will be curtailed. I see what you mean by the swords article. Personally I'd be interested in documents, but whichever you have the images for would be the next one to work on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time. As for images it is pretty easy to find usable pictures for anything 2D (thanks to the PD-Art licens), so writings or documents are not a problem. Also buildings can easily be taken pictures of, so the structure lists have a generous amount of pictures. The problem is with 3D objects that are located in museums were often photography is forbidden. I should check if swords count as 2D or 3D actually. PS: The temple list is complete and only needs a lead section. But I will wait until shrines is at WP:FLC to see if anything needs to be changed. bamse (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Did you know that there are some swords in List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials) including the Eta Funayama Sword which has some interesting inscriptions: horse, fish and bird.? bamse (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: Just checked with the licensing experts at commons, and it seems that swords are not 2D which will make finding free pictures extremely difficult. Basically only old pictures or recent pictures by visitors of museums can be used. To see any difference between the swords in List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords), high-quality detailed pictures are necessary which makes it even more difficult and probably excludes the visitor pictures. Probably the most reasonable would be to have only exemplary pictures (not necessarily of national treasure swords) showing the basic types of swords: Tachi, Katana,... bamse (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I'll have a look. Still troubleshooting the sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Harlan Hanson
Hi, TK! I haven't been around much and, when I am, I'm usually only here briefly. But I just wanted to drop by and say, "Nice job!" for all your recent work on the Harlan Hanson article, especially your extensive work back in October. The article looks great. Regards, • CinchBug • 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing National Treasures (residences)
Hi! Very glad to see that you are already working on the residences list. Thank you. Just two comments:


 * "Influenced by zen Buddhism, an architectural style known as shoin-zukuri evolved from an earlier style known as shinden-zukuri, the style for Heian period palaces and houses of the warrior class in the Kamakura period." Does it mean, that the warrior class houses were in shinden-zukuri style? If yes, it needs to be modified. The warrior class houses are generally not considered to be shinden-zukuri.
 * "The term shoin (書院) is defined as a study or reception area..." Not sure, if "defined" is a good expression. The Japanese term is made up of "sho" (書) meaning document/handwriting/... and "in" (院) meaning among others an office. So the term shoin itself means rather a study than a reception area. As far as I understand, it just happens that military leaders used the same style (but larger sized rooms) for their reception halls which were called shoin as well. (Maybe they wanted to give the impression of being educated... !? ;-) bamse (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd make a stab at the text before asking for clarification for the first sentence. Thanks for explaining.
 * Yes, the term shoin is slightly confusing. Initially I thought it meant study. But then I thought it meant reception area. The images in the list seem to be shoin (is the plural the same as singular?) in castles, which I thought were reception areas. Anyway, your explanation that a shoin (as in study) was in the same style as the reception area that military leaders had in their residences is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Last edit before FAC
Hey Truthkeeper88 nice work with The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and I will add it to FAC again, but can you copyedit the new text (about Coney Island where the "Crazy Car" music video was shot) here. I paraphrased everything. Thanx! ATC. Talk 02:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! You just caught me as I'm logging off, so maybe tomorrow? Where do you want it in the text? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anywhere in the paragraph that you think should have fixing. Thanx! ATC . Talk 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically done. Might not be a bad idea to read comments on some of the current FACs. For instance, be certain you haven't overlinked anywhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nat wrote "Motormouth" when he was angry at Alex; and Alex wrote "That's How It Is" in reaction to not being allowed to go out with a teenager ten years older than he.[7] When you wrote the sentence I thought it looked better originally as: Nat wrote "Motormouth" when he was angry at Alex; and Alex wrote "That's How It Is" in reaction to not being allowed to go out with a teenager, who was ten his senior.[7] Is there a particularly reason why you changed it? And should their be hyphens in e.g. (late-2005, mid-2004, etc.)? Is some WP:OVERLINKING okay, as long as its not a lot, because I don't know which in particular you were talking about? ATC . Talk 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it because it's not grammatically correct. In the least it should be ten years senior than he, but that's also grammatically incorrect, so has to be ten years older than he. MOS has a section about how to format dates, so check there about the hyphens. If you can't find it, let me know. I'll check my style manual to be certain, but off the top of my head, I'd say yes to the hyphens. If I can, I'll check for overlinking, so don't worry about it.  Have a look at the toolbox for the disambigs: I fixed David Levi; the other link to disambig is The Naked Brothers Band at the very top of the page. I didn't know which page to dab to. Hope this is helpful. I'll keep checking in for the next few days, so not completely gone! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hemingway PR
Not sure what the problem is. I see it at both WP:PR and wp:pr/d when I search for Hemingway with my browser. You made need to WP:BYC. Peer reviews are listed by a bot, so it takes them up to an hour to appear after being made, but that time has long since passed. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see it now. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I was getting a little worried ;-) I see there's also someone already signed up to review it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry had to run to the airport, in the snow, and in the meantime my page was archived. Anyway, yes, all is well, and the article is being reviewed. With such a large article, I'm afraid I've set myself up for a lot of work, but it's time for this article to have a review before I continue working on it. Thanks again for your concern. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ISS
No no no, please don't bail out, you have been doing a great job - picking up things i can't believe i missed. I just tidied a couple of points, but if you are free to look through more of the article, everyone would be very grateful. Thanks for your work. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, will continue, but only have a few more minutes (literally!) to spare at the moment. Can continue a bit later in the day. However, am very leary of messing up! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a few of us active on this article at present - any "messing up" is likely to be spotted and tidied. The article's most pressing problem has been a dearth of copyediting, not factual content problems, so you go right ahead when you have the time. hamiltonstone (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, won't worry about mangling the content. Must stop now, but will continue later. There are many sentences beginning with "this" that I haven't fixed (mainly because I'm not always certain how the antecedent should be worded) that need to be addressed. Back later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep - thanks ever so much for this, its much appreciated; prose issues have been holding us back for a year and a half now, it'd be great to finally have them dealt with. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know the "because" is fine. See here. "Utilize/utilise" on the other hand should be fixed. I think I added a "utilize" so if someone doesn't get to it before I'm back, I'll fix later. Really must run -- am late to be somewhere. Great read, btw! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Hope you are having a great holiday. The FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) failed with one "support" and no "oppose" due to a lack of reviews. I renominated it and asked the wikiprojects Japan and Visual Arts for help with reviews. The new comments will appear here. bamse (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear it didn't pass, but looks as though you're getting support on second nom! Thanks for letting me know. Happy New Year! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year! If you feel like copy-editing some more National Treasure stuff, I recently expanded National Treasures of Japan and hope to make it a GA. If you could help fixing the language, that would be great. bamse (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will start work on it soon! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great!bamse (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) got featured! Thanks for the good copy-editing work. I noticed that you put the intro of National Treasures of Japan to the Japanese art sandbox. Shall I have a look over it? bamse (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)! Yes, I copied the lead to  National Treasures of Japan with the intention of working on it, and then got sidetracked helping out with copyedits at the International Space Station. Sorry about that! However, I am having some difficulty with the National Treasures article. In my view, it may need some reorganization which in turn affects how the lead is written, so I'd decided to mainly focus on simple rewording at the moment (for the lead), then move into the main article and work my way through, and finally try to articulate what seems, in my mind, to be off with the organization. I've been working a little slowly lately -- think the cold has frozen my brain! Anyway, will have some time in the coming week to get back to Japanese related topics! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. No need to rush. Just let me know when you are done with a section and want me to have a look over it. The "History" section used to be before the "Categories of National Treasures" section; maybe that's the problem? I swapped them, partly because I think that the categories section is more interesting than the rather dry history. bamse (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been through the lead, but am not crazy about all the edits, so go ahead have a look. The organization of the lead depends on the organization of the article though, so I'm expecting some paragraph swapping to occur. I've been through the National Treasures sections: not much wrong there! Now I'm at the History section and actually quite enjoying it! But, it needs more work than the previous sections. I do think the History sections should precede the Categories sections. But I'm also wondering if there is a way of making the History section seem less dry, because it's actually very interesting information to see how a country became westernized, succumbed to losing centuries (millenia!) of cultural artifacts, and then pulled themselves from brink by enacting a series of very strict protective laws. Will China follow the same pattern, I wonder as I read this information. Anyway, I'm rambling, but also thinking aloud how to present this important information in a better way. I need to log off now, but will spend more time at it tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Left a couple of comments on the lead here. Glad to hear that you are enjoying the history section. It could well be moved ahead of the categories section. I did not change anything essential after swapping the two sections, so they could easily be swapped back. Another reason for moving the categories up was to give more prominence to the Lists of National Treasures of Japan, but they are linked to quite well through the template at the bottom. bamse (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:FAC
Hi, I added a bit more to lead expanding "also featuring", by explaining what character name they had. Can you copyedit it? Did I space the paragraphs bad? Thanx! ATC. Talk 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think it's too much of an expansion. Let me look again at Tony's comments on the FAC page and get back to you before undertaking a complete rewrite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure how to do that; I clicked "What links here" in the Tooldbox and saw all the links, how do I delete some of the disambiguation links to the article? ATC . Talk 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Click the "disambig links" in the toolbox. That gives you a page that shows two links that need to be disambiguated. Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanx, but in general all that shows is:


 * Toolbox:


 * What links here


 * Related changes


 * Upload file


 * Special pages


 * Permanent link


 * Cite this page


 * Is it the way I have my skin viewed through my user preferences? ATC . Talk 04:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenlandic language
I've been working on the article on the Greenlandic language, and it could use some copyediting by a native English speaker, so if you have the time I'd appreciate you dropping by.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and it seems okay with a quick scan. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will devote some time to more than a quick scan and fix any problems (though I didn't really see any). Seems as though you've put a good amount of effort into this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway
Hi! Sorry about the revert last night to your good faith edit. It was late and I intended to fix today. Anyway, Mellow has the hotel name as Ambos only, which I though strange, but Meyers has the full name so that's fine. In fact Hemingway only spent a month in the hotel, and as was his habit, he worked on the manuscript in various places. He spent a fair amount of time in Sun Valley, at the Sun Valley Lodge finishing the rough draft. In my view, this is all too much info for the biography article, but would be very good in the separate article about the novel. I submitted the article for peer review a few days ago, and am awaiting comments as far as splitting up the sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the polite note! Hemingway stayed in the Ambos-Mundos whenever he stayed alone in Havana, which he frequently did on fishing trips, starting in 1932. It wasn't just for a month in 1939. When he was visiting town with Pauline (while the family lived in Key West) he stayed at the Hotel Sevilla-Biltmore, but when alone and wanting to do nothing more than drink and write and sleep after fishing, it was the Ambos-Mundos. Where exactly he stayed with Martha/"Marty" in Havana when having their affair while still married to Pauline, and before renting Vinca Figia (which he clearly did for the two of them), I don't know. I don't know where Mellow or Myers or whoever got the idea that Hemingway only spent a month at the Ambos-Mundos, but obviously he's never been to the place, which has far more Hemingway stuff than a months' stay would produce. One of the problems with Wikipedia: people writing like they were trapped in the basement of a library, without any experience of the world, and yelling WP:NOR to those who've been outside. I've been to the Hotel Ambos-Mundos and walked down Calle Obispo to El Floridita. What about Myers and Mellow and yourself?  S  B Harris 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the interesting information. I've not been to Cuba, but know a lot about Hemingway's Sun Valley. Yep, I've been there! I don't spend all my time in a basement! I know that Hem wrote a good portion of the For Whom the Bell Tolls at the Sun Valley Lodge, but it's not documented, unless as you say, you walk the hallways of the place. I'm not too bothered because his was such a vastly rich life that it's pretty hard to put in everything! From Hem's letters, sitting on my desk in front of me (not in the library basement) we know he was in Paris in late 1938, in Key West by February 1939 where he stayed until late spring, in Havana during the summer writing in June that he'd written about 56,000 words. He writes Hadley in July admitting we won't get the ms finished and plans to get out west to spend time with Bumby. In August he's back in Key West and in Sun Valley in the fall where he writes of the Lodge "Am only inhabitant of this vast glamour house. When the season opens will vacate." He continues to write letters from Sun Valley through the end of December and admits he's still writing, and then in early 1940 he writes a letter from Finca Vigia. This is all good information that I'll add to the book article after the biography article is finished. I'm glad I've looked this up! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Havana in June, then Sept through December in the middle of Idaho!? Boy, lousy weather. I suppose he was going for Bumby's 16th birthday and the fishing (I can imaging Ernest and Bumby fly-fishing in the trout streams like something out of A River Runs Through It), and stayed through Christmas. Anyway, I'm quite willing to believe a lot of Bell Tolls wasn't written in Cuba. I only objected to the idea that H. stayed at Ambos-Mundo once. He fell in love with Cuba long before 1939, and before Vinca, the hotel in Havana was the closest thing there he could call home. S  B Harris 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, stuck in Cuba in the summer with the prospect of fly fishing with Bumby in the west -- what would he have done? So, bring the ms, head west, and hunker down in SV until the New Year. What I haven't added to the biography section of the article is the Jane Mason affair. Presumably that's when he discovered Cuba and the Hotel Ambos-Mundos? I've only cleaned up what was already in place and haven't added much, but wondered why the earlier well known affair and trips to Cuba had been left out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You invited me to join, but you know far more about Hemingway in Cuba than I do, so I am happy to be a spectator. I really admire the work you've done on this article. Over 2 million people read the Hemingway article each year, so a lot of people will appreciate your work. Promking (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a spectator is fine. Thanks for the compliment, but I think there's still quite a lot of work to be done. The article is up for peer review and I'll probably be pinging you for any comments that come back on the writing style section. Might want to have a look at the little controversy over at The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber. I don't have more time for that article and you're good with the style sections, so if you want feel free to jump in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Noble Prize. Please read Nobel Prize in Literature. Noble prizes are awarded for a body of work. Specific works may be cited as particularly noteworthy, but Noble Prizes are not awarded for individual works. The cite you gave me actually confirms what I'm saying. EeepEeep (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "catalyst for the Nobel" is worth mentioning, but to say that he received it for The Old Man and The Sea is wrong. EeepEeep (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station
Wow! A double barnstar! Thanks Colds7ream!! Congratulations! I enjoyed working on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:User talk:YellowMonkey
I replied at YellowMonkey's talk page. ATC. Talk 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway image
I fixed the information template, adding better source links, but you did not add a copyright tag to the image, just claiming it as Public Domain, but I am not sure about that. Please check deeper for its current status and add the appropriate tag if it really is a PD image. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan copyediting
Hi! I was having a look over the edits you made on the history section and am very happy with them. Just one minor question: did you remove "westernization" from the sentence "The rise of industrialization was another significant influence during the restoration with a negative impact on the cultural heritage in Japan" in "History->Background" on purpose or accidentally? I know that westernization is mentioned later (in "1871 Plan for the Preservation of Ancient Artifacts"), but I think it is an important aspect and should be mentioned already in "Background". Until the Bakumatsu, Japan was basically closed to foreign influences, so the opening to the west must have had a big influence on society (and culture).bamse (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was probably a mistake. I'll have a look. Sorry about that. I'm not seeing a lot of problems in the others sections so far. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored word, but I'm not crazy about the term "rise of westernization" so maybe it should be "rise of Industrialization and increased westernization" or something like that if fine with you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or "opening to the west/to other cultures" or something like that, to emphasize that Japan was closed to the outside world before. "increased westernization" is also fine with me. Which "other sections" were you referring to before? The other history sections, or the rest of the article? bamse (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've scanned the entire article, and read more closely through to "Designation procedure" and nothing is really jumping out at me to be fixed. Need to read closely to the bottom and then work through again more even more closely. I did have some issues at the beginning of the history section but forgot to note them down. Will rework my way through there and add any questions/issues I find to the talkpage. Still trying to figure out what to do with the organization as well. Though the history is interesting, it does get a little dry reading about the various laws and I'm wondering whether those sections can be tightened up somehow. Anyway, bear with me. Unfortunately my life if full of interruptions and it seems whenever I sit at the computer someone or something else needs my attention, but I'm hoping things will calm down soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good plan! Let me know if I can be of any help. Probably "Extensions of the law since 1950" could be tightened somewhat by focusing even more on those things that affected national treasures.bamse (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Two quick comments on recent copy-edits (rest is very fine):
 * "The 1897 laws were replaced, and the protection of public and private institutions and private individuals was extended to prevent the export or removal of cultural properties." should read something like: "The protection was extended to cultural properties owned by public and private institutions and private individuals." or "The law was extended to cover also cultural properties owned...." (Before 1929 only temple and shrine properties were protected as national treasures.)
 * Don't think I understand this sentence. Was it the 1897 laws that extended the protection? I read it to mean the new 1929 laws extended the protection. This diff shows that I rearranged the sentence without removing information. Have I missed the information about private institutions and individuals, or does that have to be added?
 * Maybe the initial sentence before your copy-edit was not well written (sorry for that). As it is now, the sentence reads as if the "public and private institutions and private individuals" themselves are protected by the law. However it is only the cultural properties which are owned by these institutions which are protected (as national treasures). bamse (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, understand now. I've split into two sentences to make it clear. If I didn't understand with a quick scan, maybe someone else won't either, so rewrote to be very clear. Hope it's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, that it is still not correct. Let me try to make it more clear. The sentence(s) should say the following: "Before 1929 (=under the 1897 law) ONLY properties which were owned by temples and shrines could be designated/protected as national treasures. With the 1929 ALSO (in addition to temple/shrine owned properties) properties which were owned by public and private institutions and private individuals could be designated/protected as national treasures. (In other words: the range of protectable properties was extended by extending the range of possible owners.) How about writing something like: "In order to prevent export and removal of items, the 1897 law was extended to protect cultural properties in the hand of public and private owners."?bamse (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In: "In an effort to prevent the exportation of art objects that had not been designated due to the economic crisis...", it might not be clear what "due to the economic crisis" refers to (exportation or designation?). It should refer to "exportation".bamse (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Economic crisis refers to the Great Depression of the previous sentence. As it was, the sentence was pretty long, with a lot of information to get through, so I separated. I see that the "due to" seems to refer to designation, so I've tweaked slightly. If that doesn't work, then I'll lift it out and work in the sandbox to get it right. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be clear enough now, thanks.bamse (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through the article once more (all except the intro) and fixed some typos and one real error which was due to me (in "Age of National Treasures"). bamse (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Had a look over your latest copy-edits and everything seems fine. Thank you. Do you think that the intro needs to be rewritten? If yes, in which way? Do you think that anything is missing in the article? If not, I will be brave and list it at WP:GAC. bamse (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've lost track -- have you copied the lead from my sandbox yet? If not, then that needs to be done. My impression of the article, is that the separate sections about the types of National Treasures have a lot of white space. Have you tried moving that section down below the History section? At any rate, it doesn't really matter, because it's good enough for GA, and the reviewers will have their own opinion! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew there was something... Pasted the lead from your sandbox now. Will list it at GAC in a moment.bamse (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's see what happens.bamse (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to my watchlist. Good luck! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenlandic language
Hi Truthkeeper88! I'm just in the course of a GAR for Greenlandic language. I have just enumerated a few points at Talk:Greenlandic language/GA1 that User:Maunus as the nominator of the article will address. But after that, the article could do with some good copyediting. Neither Maunus nor me are native speakers of English. After that and coping with a few additional matters, I'm quite confident that the article will qualify for GA. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I've already done a preliminary run-through, but will go at it again. As long as you understand that linguistics is not a field about which I have any knowledge, so mistakes that might be obvious to a linguist (assuming they exist) won't be obvious to me. I won't get to it for a day or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Encouragement
Thank you Awadewit! The timing couldn't have been better: I was on the verge of giving up.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines - you can work for a while, stop, and then come back months or years later. That's what I've done with the Jane Austen series I'm working on. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

CE request
Hi, noticed your name on the GOCE participants list, would you like to copy-edit "The Ex-Girlfriend", as I think it is (finally) ready for FAC after one more copy-edit. Thank you very much.-- Music 26/  11  16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. At the moment I'm committed to other articles that need copyedits, and swamped with my own work (both here on wikipedia and IRL). A quick glance shows that it needs a sentence-by-sentence overhaul which is too time-consuming, and not always successful. Good luck, though! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hemingway in Cuba
I was in the process of writing you a message to ask to check the Cuba section but didn't want to be presumptious. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your additions! I am very ready to be done with this article, but the improvement is noticeable. When I have time, later in the week, will tackle the writing style section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's always hard to know what to put in leave out in these things. I'm a little sorry to see some of the things go-- H's experience collecting body parts after the ammo manufacturing plant explosian obviously affected him deeply (see A Natural History of Death), and his description of the Greeks breaking the front legs of their pack animals and then leaving them to drown in shallow water at Smyrna almost deserves to be quoted. A scene that calls for a Goya indeed! He used that scene in two places. One notices all kinds of stylistic quirks, and I don't know how many have been properly "noticed" by critics. One thing is that H. doesn't always pay attention to proper paragraph breaking, and the effect is sometimes a little like whiplash, as he suddently changes course in the middle of a paragraph and you come out the other side with a totally different direction. His sentences are models of journalism, but his paragraphs not. I don't think anybody has really said this. I think he did some of it deliberately.

Another is that Hemingway's people always show their character on their faces. His evil people are almost always ugly (at least the men are). The sexually predatory Wilson and the officer in A Simple Enquiry are both badly and chronically sunburned. What does this mean? Can't be coincidence. SBHarris 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbharris" Hidden categories: Noindexed pages


 * I'm hoping that some stuff can go back in once all the sections are in place. The article got too long, and there was so much to add! At the moment, my philosophy is be brave and cut to the bone, and then see what needs to be added back. I like that you added the forehead cut incident. There are so many of those weird incidents, and as you say it's hard to know what to keep and what to toss. No, I don't think anything is coincidence. Anyway, again thanks for the help. I'm done for the night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural
Hi, TK! As I'm a fan of Supernatural, I have a bunch of Supernatural-related articles on my watchlist and noted that you just edited one of them. Do you watch the show, too? In any event, nice to see you. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the show! I have offered to help review articles at WP:FAC and it's in the list. Just a random article I chose!. By the way, I've considered having IB DP reviewed when I get some time. Will let you know. Thanks for the previous message, a while ago. I stopped by your userpage to say hello and got sidetracked reading the Signposts! Good to see you around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cinchbug!!


 * Ah, I see. I definitely like the idea of having IB DP reviewed!  And no worries about getting sidetracked--I sometimes do the same thing, especially since there are so many Signposts on my talk page!  I've gotten behind in reading them, but I suppose I should probably archive or delete that stuff at some point.  Anyway, take care! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson's face
Though all of what follows is original thought (forbidden on WP) I thought you'd be amused that I finally realized why Wilson has the red face. It's very old-style humour. As in four humours.

When H. talks about a fearful experience faced properly "cleaning out the liver" it's clear he's interested in talking about the humoural theories of character. In this one, the lilly-livered persons who have excessive yellow bile, have it replaced by good red blood. That happens to Macomber.

And Wilson? He's the personification of the sanginary warlike bloody-minded personality. His red complexion shows he is Mars, god of war and manly courage. And red is the color of lust. Wilson is fearless and knows how to dominate, control and bend the world to his will. As a Roman gladiator, he respects ONLY courage. He respects the lion for continuing to crawl with its head half blown off (his praise of the lion is not for its size). He loses all respect for Wilson after the lion episode, and is only piqued when Wilson frankly admits his own bolting like a rabbit. The first step in controlling his own fear being to acknowlege it openly-- clearly a step up from Macomber's earlier worry about if Wilson will talk about it-- which disgusts Wilson as another form of cowardice. Finally, he begins to like Macomber when the latter shoots the buffalo and finally faces down his wife, easily acknowledging his change of heart and new outlook as a fact.

Component-wise, there isn't much else TO Wilson, which is why, without any evidence of character-change, he's not the main character. He has the cannon .505 to symbolize his overgrown manhood, and he says that loss of fear and what replaces it is the "main thing a man has." It's certainly the main thing Wilson has; it's very nearly the ONLY thing Wilson has. Like George Armstrong Custer, Wilson has physical courage and the power to dominate and kill anything, but no other admirable qualities. Margot is said in the story to have recognized Wilson's "main talent," and clearly, this is it. It does not change. His character is shallow. H says twice that his eyes are flat, and they reflect the depth of Wilson's soul. He may switch from telegraphic English to almost elegant lawyer-ese at the end, but it's again just another of his ways to refuse to be dominated, and to win. In this case, win out over Margot, who is not going to tell the story of his chasing the buffalo, with this over her head. Wilson is angry, but not deeply; deep moral questions don't trouble him. He can self-justify any action so long as it doesn't get in the way of his chief value, which is facing danger and/or challenge and beating it down or breaking it down, like a lion with a bullet though the shoulders, or a woman who needs to learn to use the word "please."

Macomber is unappreciated, even by Wilson. We see him transcend himself (and his many other qualities which neither his wife nor his guide see, or have any use for) to finally win out over the rather natural first reaction to a wounded lion. Even the brave man fears a lion three times, as H says. Macomber needs time. As a far more complete man than Wilson at the end (his face is "shining"), of course the transcended Macomber doesn't and can't last long in the real world, but must be sacrificed by the bitch-goddess, as on the mythic alter or cross of all perfect things destroyed by the fearful who sense their power threatened. And Margot clearly is the Sanhedrin. H's critics have far more sympathy for her than H. does-- it's hard to see how they can be so blind to H's meaning. S B Harris 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of humours, I have a migraine today, so can't really think well. But you're right, and what you've written above shows the degree to which Hemingway used symbolism. What he does well is incorporate the symbolism so it's not obvious: on one level it seems logical that an African hunter would be sunburned so the readers take that at face value (unintentional pun!) H. was well-read enough to know about the four humours, the concept of choler, etc., and I agree with what you've written. I have a stack of criticism on my desk, mostly to be used for the main Hemingway biography, but it is amazing how many critics go to Macomber as the most representative of Hemingway's style, theory of omission, theory of living a life with authenticity and so on. Also, many critics do see Margot as unsympathetic. If ever I'm finished with improvements to the Hemingway biography I'll add more to the Macomber article. Also, I'll tack on a comment over at the H. talk page. The extended plot summary really should be reinstated to the Macomber article. You write better than I do, so I think your version should be reinstated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to above: one critic writes that it is not coincidence that Margot's gun is a Mannlicher. As you pointed out in a previous post, H. knew guns, and he knew how to manipulate language. The layers are really quite amazing once one starts peeling them away...Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No coincidence that Macomber is hit in the exact back of the head, either, for this means he was between the line of sight from wife-to-buffalo, since he was directly facing the charge. Imagine what the wife's sight-picture looks like: Macomber's head must be just about where the buffalo's head is, if they're 6 feet apart and Macomber is facing exactly away from his wife. So what is she shooting at? Obviously she doesn't care what she's shooting at. Does she think she's a good enough shot to shoot AROUND her husband, who is directly in line of fire? Yes, the "6.5 Mannlicher" is not much of a weapon for big game, though if the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer is meant, it was used on lions on safari (nobody would do that today). Hemingway and Percival hunted with this weapon, but the wiki says he called it a ".256 Mannlicher". Not in this story. When he calls it a 6.5 Mannlicher, one almost wonders if Hemingway wasn't referring to the shorter cased 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, which is also known as the 6.5 Italian, and which H. would have been very familiar with, from his time in Italy in WW I. The Carcano rifle that fires that round is very famous as Oswald's surplus Italian 1940 Carcano rifle, which he used to hit JKF just about where Margo hits Francis. Coincidence, of course, unless Oswald read a lot of Hemingway before he ordered the rifle second-hand from Klein's. Which is not impossible. Anyway, a good rifle for shooting people, but not buffalo. A hole in the plot is how and where Margo ever learns to use it, given her stated distaste for hunting. Perhaps on tin cans. P.S. have you tried fish oil loading for migraines? No side effects, but 5 to 10 grams a day helps a lot of people, though it takes some weeks to work fully. S  B Harris 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and FLCs
Thanks for the Barnsensu! You deserve it at least as much as me. As you probably noticed List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) just got featured, so I nominated List of  National Treasures of Japan (castles). Review comments will turn up here. I also generated an intro for the List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), but it needs to be compressed quite a bit. I'll let you know when I am done with it and hand it over to you to make it perfect (unless you've had enough of national treasuers). bamse (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only sorry I haven't given you the barnstar/barnsensu earlier, but had to spend some time digging to find the correct one. Truly, these articles are a wonderful addition to Wikipedia! I'll watch the newest FL and let me know when you're done with temples. I don't mind continuing with copyediting this series at all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question. WFCforlife asked to have the short table in the statistics section of the castle list converted to prose. How about this: The eight national treasures are distributed over four castles as follows: Himeji Castle has five castle national treasures, Hikone  Castle, Inuyama Castle and Matsumoto Castle each have one national  treasure.  bamse (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The eight national treasures are distributed over four castles as follows: Himeji Castle has five castle national treasures; Hikone  Castle, Inuyama Castle and Matsumoto Castle each have one national  treasure.
 * Added a semicolon before "Hikone". It's a bit confusing though that a single castle has five castle national treasures. Somehow that has to be explained in words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replaced "castle national treasures" with "national treasure structures". Should be clear now. bamse (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the intro to List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) and it is rather longish even though I shortened it a bit. Honestly, I don't really know how and where to shorten it further (maybe I am too involved with the subject). Maybe the early history (most of 2nd paragraph could be removed, since most of the temples mentioned in the text are not a national treasure. Or maybe the detailed description of the various styles could be removed, or... Do you have a suggestion, where to cut? bamse (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be there as soon as I finish what I'm doing (need to get some books back to the library before the fines are too steep!). I've had a quick look and it does look dense, but I'm ready for a break from Hemingway, so will be happy to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad that you are going to help. I think the most important things that should be mentioned somehow are: the four architectural styles (Chinese, wayo, daibutsu, zen), amida halls, tahoto, horyu-ji (oldest and most complete temple), todai-ji (as the most important temple in the nara period). bamse (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted you to know, in case I disappear for a few days, it's because I've lost power from the winter storm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Hope it is not going to happen.bamse (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pick my brain
Feel free to pick my brain regarding Ernest Hemingway - I'll offer you all the advice I can. You might also look at Emily Dickinson, William Shakespeare, Stephen Crane, and Samuel Johnson. These are all good FAs on authors. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the above links. Samuel Johnson and William Shakespeare are both enormous articles. I have to decide whether to keep Hemingway focused and within reason to keep a reader interested, with links to subarticles (yet to be created) or to emulate the organization in the larger articles. I'll have to spend some time reading these and studying the organization. Jane Austen is nicely structured, and as of this morning I was going in that direction...


 * A few questions:
 * The Hemingway article needs a separate notes section for the notes embedded in the text (there before I started editing the article). How is that done?
 * I've thought about adding a short "Posthumous works" (to be linked to a longer subarticle), because Hemingway's posthumous works are not well known, and controversial in the sense that huge chunks were edited out of the manuscripts. Any suggestions about where to place a "Posthumous works" section?
 * That's all for now! I'll be offline for a day or two (catching up with the world) and then back. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean you want two notes sections? One for notes on content and one for references? If you want to create a "Notes" section that focuses on content, you can use this style: and then put  in a section at the end of the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would put the "Posthumous works" after the the "Idaho and suicide" section. Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IBDP page
I like what you've done with the place! You are quite the busy bee. Nice job. I like the larger image for the hexagon. Let me know if you would like for me to help out. I may have some free time in the upcoming weeks. Regards La mome (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another ONY sock?
Just as a follow-up, I've started another thread at Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good thanks. I meant to get over there today and follow up, but keep being interrupted. I see that they're back, so essentially it's impossible to edit the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) copyediting
Hi! I had a look over your recent changes in the sandbox. Good choice cutting what you cut. 1st and 2nd paragraph are fine.
 * In the 3rd paragraph, the sentence: "In the late 7th century Hōryū-ji, temple style began to incorporate ..." needs to be reworded. Temples (in general) were more and more constructed in an indigenous style. This change from the imported Chinese style is already apparent at Hōryū-ji (and more so in later temples).
 * Thanks. That was a mistake. Fixed now.


 * "... in addition to the six temples ..." After the cuts, some of these temples are not mentioned anymore. Maybe remove: "which in addition to the six temples mentioned above included Saidai-ji (constructed in 765)."
 * Good catch. Fixed

That's it for now. Keep up the good work! bamse (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'd like it to sit for a day before I go at it again. I had a look at the lead for List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) which is equally as long. With the exceptions of the areas I've already cut, I don't see much else that can be eliminated. It's simply a lot of material that covers many centuries. Maybe it'll be more clear to me after a break, but that's the best I could do today. Needs another sweep through for wording and tightening, but once you add an image, I think it will be fine. Oh, by the way, the historical periods should have dates to ease the flow. Can either be added now while sitting in my sandbox, or wait until I'm done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good plan. I added dates to the text in your sandbox, removed "Saidai-ji" which is not really relevant here and added a picture (copied from National Treasures of Japan). To compress the text even more (and to avoid red wikilinks), the following sentence could be removed as well: Other early foundations include Yamada-dera (mid-7th century) and Kawara-dera (660s). None of these two temples is mentioned in the treasure table. bamse (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very kind, but ....
...I think my talk page ought to be off-limits to new editors. Let them come to their own conclusions. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. That was stupid. Sorry. Unwatched. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! That was lovely to see! Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been extremely helpful and provided encouragement as well, which deserves recognition. Have you noticed the article is being copyedited? I'm very happy! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here Be Dragons
Thanks for the message. I willl take a look at the article later when I have a little more time. As for the references you asked about, they don't have to be online. Online references are preferred because they are usually easier to verify, but offline resources are perfectly acceptable provided that in theory someone could find the source in a library etc and verify what is says. To that end there is the Cite journal template for use in such cases. Links to Amazon as a source for notability are generally frowned upon because they could be seen as promoting the sale of the book. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't one need to know volume and issue number as well as date written when using the Cite journal template? I can't locate the Publisher's Weekly article on the databases to which I have access. Didn't think linking to Amazon would be allowed, so thanks for clarifying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that - I don't think I have ever used that template! One new point, I have removed the author image link from the book article -- it is a non-free use image and I am pretty sure that the non-free use criteria only permit use of such images on author bio pages. – ukexpat (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just found a database that shows Chicago and MLA style for journal articles without all the parameters (as long as there is an url) which is the problem. Fine that you removed the image. Are the tags staying until I find more? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:SharonKayPenman.png
Hi, I nominated the image for deletion as replaceable. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not with living people, because a free equivalent could be found or created, per WP:NFCC. You can try, for example, to contact her over her website and use an image template of WP:ERP to ask for a free image from her. Hekerui (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan again
Sorry to bother you again with this article. As suggested in the GA-review, I am adding a little text to the short sections in National_Treasures_of_Japan in order to reduce empty space. Could you have a look over it. So far it concerns only National_Treasures_of_Japan and National_Treasures_of_Japan but I am planning to add to the castles section as well.bamse  (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I am done with the castles section. Additions are partially  based on the list article's intro. Since on my screen there is not much  empty space left in the categories section, I stop adding text for the  time being. Let's see what Maunus says. bamse  (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't done much. Will have a look later tonight or in the morning. I was  seeing a lot of white space with my monitor which looks better now. I  did spend some playing around with images this afternoon to see whether  the space could be minimized but it didn't look very good, so I never  saved the change. I like the gallery Maunus created! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus was happy with the changes and has promoted the article to good article status. Thanks for the editing! I am taking a short  wiki-break until mid-next week or so. Thinking about how to organize  intros for mixed-topic national treasure lists such as List of  National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) or bamse (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Maunus likes the new lay-out and that the article passed. Am always happy to copy-edit! I, too, need a wikibreak for a few days. As for the mixed topic introductions, can they be organized by topic with perhaps a slight chronology and/or definition per topic? Don't forget that it's always easy to cut down a lead with too much information. Enjoy your wikibreak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous change to A Farewell to Arms
This change has messed up the page. Tried to revert it but it's more complicated than that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Farewell_to_Arms&diff=next&oldid=345243795 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.233 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (residences)
The castle list got featured, so I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). Thanks. I guess you already know where to find the nomination page ;-) bamse (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might take a quick run at it tomorrow. Went through that article in a bit of a rush! Congrats on the castles - another nice job! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just wondered if you have an idea for explaining the shape of the roof of the Karamon at Sanbō-in found in List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). The present explanation: "karahafu  gables on each gable end" might be confusing (as noticed in the review). Basically the roof is a gabled roof and each of the two gables has the shape of a karahafu gable. bamse (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bamse! I think the sentence doesn't suffer if the end is chopped off like this: 3×2 gate with entrance through the central ken (6.27 m × 2.60 m (20.6 ft × 8.5 ft)) and karahafu gables[ex 5] on each gable end . This is a bit tricky though, but I'd give that a try. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done that, thanks. bamse (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, how are you? Could you take a look at Quicksilver (novel). Though I am not quite done with the plot summary, the article is almost complete and I have been working on it for a while. Do you have any thoughts on it? Thanks for your help and I just checked out True at First Light!Sadads (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sadads! Stephenson is a favorite author of mine, and I have to commend you for tackling Quicksilver, which is far from a simple read! I'm busy with work for a few days, but will post comments to the talk-page as soon as I get some time. I see someone else has begun to consolidate a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, no rush. Sadads (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

True as first light
Those issues are not to bad and a GA review does not have to be as precise as say a FA review. At this point it appears very good and should be reviewed for feedback at the very least, to see if there is anything we have missed. Sadads (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what we have missed. Have a look at the edit history to see who contributed to the article. I can only ask you not to nominate; but as the primary contributor to the article I know it's not complete. Unfortunately this is the type of thing that will make me leave Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A word of advice: threatening to leave Wikipedia is not an argument for anything and makes people unwilling to collaborate. And how much someone contributes is not a strict measure for anything. You can always comment on the talk page or in reviews and lay out your objections, people looking at the article will then take your words into consideration. Hekerui (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you're quite right. Quite stupid on my part. But, in my defense, I was surprised to see an article nominated for review which is only in the beginning stages of being complete. Of course if someone wants to take it to review, I realize that's fine. I'm sorry. I reacted badly - mostly because of real life pressure, and was surprised when I checked in to Wikipedia during a quick work break. Apologies all around. I've struck my comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's been wikistressed before, it happens :) Best Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a disinterested GA reviewer, had I come across this article at GAN I would very likely have quickfailed it as failing criterion 3a. What's there is good, but what's not there is equally important. GAN is overloaded as it is; it's not a peer review process, it's designed to assess whether an article meets the GA criteria or can be be made to meet those criteria within the timeframe of a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's not there is significant. Almost half a century passed between the writing of the book and the publication of the book. Hemingway (for whatever reasons) appears to have become unable to complete the manuscript; apparently ownership of the manuscript was contested after his death and later after the death of his fourth wife Mary (which, in my view, must be presented as clearly and factually as possible using the best sources).  Hemingway's unfinished work is controversial and critics and scholars are split in their opinions; and the question of genre is murky because of the editing done to the manuscript.  Although the article appears fairly good and I'm flattered Sadads considers it worthy of GA, in my view there is still much to be fleshed out and research to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: For future readers, I was in no way offended by his language, actually we do other collaborative stuff as well. Sadads (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words
Or just remove the words. Things like "Once again Penman places the characters against a tightly woven rich tapestry of medieval life, personal conflict, and dramatic characters" are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and the wording leads me to think (apologies if I'm incorrect in the assertion) that they're taken straight from the journal article. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll remove the article altogether. Here's the complete text of the journal article that I paraphrased (and for which I will try to find an online link):
 * In Penman's final volume of her trilogy based on the lives of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (When Christ and His Saints Slept; Time and Chance), the best-selling author concludes the tumultuous love story between these two strong-willed, brilliant rulers. As the novel opens, their four sons are beginning to chafe under the heavy hand of their father, who has crowned the eldest, Hal, as a coregent but gives him little authority or power. Egged on by their mother, the young king and his brothers mount a decade-long crusade of rebellion and treachery against their father and each other as they vie for land, money, and power. The empathetic reader can't help but be both horrified by the machinations of this grievously dysfunctional family and filled with pity for the pain they inflict upon one another. Penman does a remarkable job of depicting passionate, dramatic characters and the perilous times in which they live. For those who like their historical fiction as complex and tightly woven as a medieval tapestry, this book cannot fail to please. Highly recommended. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 6/1/08.]
 * In Penman's final volume of her trilogy based on the lives of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (When Christ and His Saints Slept; Time and Chance), the best-selling author concludes the tumultuous love story between these two strong-willed, brilliant rulers. As the novel opens, their four sons are beginning to chafe under the heavy hand of their father, who has crowned the eldest, Hal, as a coregent but gives him little authority or power. Egged on by their mother, the young king and his brothers mount a decade-long crusade of rebellion and treachery against their father and each other as they vie for land, money, and power. The empathetic reader can't help but be both horrified by the machinations of this grievously dysfunctional family and filled with pity for the pain they inflict upon one another. Penman does a remarkable job of depicting passionate, dramatic characters and the perilous times in which they live. For those who like their historical fiction as complex and tightly woven as a medieval tapestry, this book cannot fail to please. Highly recommended. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 6/1/08.]
 * I've pasted in the entire review, and as you'll note the sentence in the Wikipedia article doesn't exist in the review above. The book in question was a New York Times bestseller, but nonetheless, until I have more time to clean up the article, I'll delete it for now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; if you need any help with cleanup, give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's excellent! Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thanks. And also, thanks for giving me a nudge! Started those articles and then moved on to others which is pretty bad form. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fear
You scared me for a moment. I thought you were Truthseeker666(recently indef'd) do to the similarity of names. However, given your polite attitude present here on this talk page, I do not think that is the case. Happy editing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noted there's a thread at AN/I about someone with a similar name (though I haven't had the heart to read it!) Feel free to perform a CU if you want. It's an unfortunate name which I've considered changing, but haven't done anything about it yet. Thanks for giving me a heads up - guess I'll go read the AN/I thread. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

True at First Light
I have finally gotten around to reviewing this! Apologies for the delay. Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I agree with your points (but it's always nice to have another set of eyes) and had to laugh at the comment about Burwell and Blake because what she writes is so on-point but of course doesn't translate well here. I'll get over there to make the changes as soon as I get the chance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church research
I'm so happy you're planning to read some of these books, too!!! After seeing your comments on Diarmaid McCulloch's History of Christianity I've ordered the book. I'm also reading Bokenkotter; Nancy respects his opinion very much, so it will be good for others of us to have read the book and see if her interpretations and choice of what material to use match with ours. I've also read Duffy's Saints and Sinners: A History of the Papacy through the 11th century. I'm planning right now to concentrate on the pre-1000 pieces of the history for now and then move on to other pieces of the history. We can either split the time difference or work together on the earlier parts. If you'd like, I can put all my notes in a sandbox for you to access (in case you don't want to read Duffy). I also started a section at the top of the article talk page for sources that I think need to be read. That may be a good place for both of us to list sources that we are planning to read for the history section as well. I'm becoming more and more optimistic that we might actually get a good article out of this mess. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I love to research and read and am very interested in medieval history, so I walked out of the library with a huge stack of books, some of which need evaluation before I post them. My library doesn't have Duffy unfortunately, but I'll put in an ILL order. I'd like to work on the section currently titled "Middle Ages" -- from Clovis I to the Renaissance. My background is in literature, but it's impossible to study literature without studying the accompanying social history, and I'm most familiar with the Medieval period through the Reformation/CounterReformation. The Crusades will be tricky, and I actually took a class devoted almost entirely to the Cathars in grad school but given the attitudes on the talkpage didn't want to wade into that yet. I hadn't noted the section at the top of the talkpage for sources - shall I move my post there, or simply add to the list? I'd be happy to work together - and if we each have sandboxes we can access each other's notes. I checked out Bokenkotter for exactly the reason you mentioned above - it's so much easier to have the book at hand and check the relevant section when necessary. When I was attempting to copyedit the Middle Ages section I had the sense that sources were used in a random fashion to support specific points outside of a given context. I'm happy to have the new book about the Medieval World which only arrived in the library today. I'm beginning with that one. Yes, I think there's hope. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My area of expertise is really Texas in the pre-1836 timeframe, but I've always loved the Middle Ages. I got involved in this article because that section was so bad when I first got here, and then I got sucked in.  I posted my Duffy notes at User:Karanacs/Duffy.  I take notes in Notepad, and it doesn't always translate well to wikipedia's formatting.  If you have questions on what I meant, you can leave them on the talk page there, on my talk page, on your talk page - I don't really care.  My local library is not great, but the librarian in charge of ILL knows me by name now :)  Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - The Duffy version used in the article is an older edition. I'm working off the newest edition, and the page numbers are different than what is used in the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. The ISBN needed to be changed and the page numbers throughout. I was going to post to the talkpage, but as you saw, the pagination seemed to be the least of anyone's worries, so then I went into my revert/restore mode. Since you have Duffy at hand, all the page numbers need changing, and the current ISBN added to Duffy's entry in the sources. Many of the sources used are older editions. This is a problem throughout the history section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions again
Hi! A  while ago you mentioned that you'd be interested to bring Jesuit    Missions of the Chiquitos   up to FA. Are you still interested? I contacted User:Johnbod who's been active on Jesuit   reduction  articles recently and he promised to    help. Unfortunately I  only have little time at the moment but am sure  that sooner or later  we  can make it a FA. bamse (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the  work he's been doing. I'm ready to take a break from the topics  I've  been working on, but I do have an article waiting at GAN so I  would have  to work on that when it gets picked up. Certainly I have a  better sense  now than a few months what is required for FA and wouldn't  mind having a  go at the needed copyediting and perhaps some trimming. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good. I'll have a look at the failed candidacy now. Please let me  know what  you think needs to be done to get it to FA. bamse  (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read through the entire article quite some time, but I think the main  problem is you had an oppose on the prose. Now that I've done so much  work on the shorter Japanese articles, I have a good sense of what needs  to be done to the prose. That is work I can start this weekend. I also  think the article might be too long and may need some trimming, but  won't be sure until I get into it and start working on it. Any areas I  come across during the copyedit that I'd consider candidates for  chopping I'll post to the article talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No need to rush though. I also need to read through again. Will look for  content issues when I get time. bamse  (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First I have to deal with the situation in the conversation above which might  require a bit of time. Anyway, happy to get back to the Chiquitos -- it's a nice  article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you already started. Concerning this edit it might be better to swap the order back because both, Moxos and  Chiquitania are "northeast of the cordillera". All other edits looked fine as for content (noticed a sentence: "acceptance... was accepted"  which should be rephrased. bamse  (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was worried about changing the content. I reverted the edit, and fixed the  other. Am done for today and intend to take this somewhat slowly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced one map which created problems in the review. Also went through the failed  candidacy and checked  for outstanding issues which are collected here. Feel free to edit that page. bamse (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm only trimming and tightening the prose. Am trying out wiki Ed as an  editor (everything looks very different!) so please be patient if I make  more than the usual level of mistakes! In a day or two I'll decide  either to continue editing with wiki Ed or change back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was playing around with wiki Ed a bit but don't really use it anymore. Wish you enjoy it more than me. Not much to criticize on your  recent edits. Just a minor point: in  this edit you changed "part of the World  Heritage Site" -> "a World Heritage Site" which is of course still  correct, but could suggest that each of the settlements is a World  Heritage Site. There is however only one WH site. Hope to get around  reading some references some time this week. bamse (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper! Johnbod and me think that the article needs a little bit shuffling around (moving material to Jesuit reductions and possibly adding some more info). In order not to double work, it is maybe a good idea to pause copy-editing. What do you think? bamse (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The organization does need work. I was going to copy into my sandbox and hack away at it, but I guess I'll leave it you and Johnbod. Thanks for letting me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Truthkeeper88! I realized, that I don't have time to do anything about the Jesuit Mission article and need to postpone any contribution to the (distant) future. Sorry for making such a fuss. bamse (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Ernest
No problem, and you're very welcome. Like I said, it's difficult for me to give a truly impartial review because I'm of course familiar with his life and work; to really gauge how successful a bio is, what it may be missing that we see as so obvious, you almost have to find someone who's never heard of the person to read over it. Would you believe I was lucky enough to find such a partner while writing Emily Dickinson? Roger Davies knew nothing about the Belle of Amherst and her quirky poetry, which made for a far more complete article, I think. :) Best of luck, and let me know if you need anything else. María ( habla  con migo ) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent home improvement efforts
Hey, TK! I just wanted to say that I like the new look of your userpage--very nice! I should probably do something similar at some point... Talk to you later, • Cinch<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess it's a sign of settling in when one starts to choose the color scheme! A little scary, maybe. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)
Hi Truthkeeper88,

I recently nominated the TV series article for WP:GAN and I wanted to know if you could help me paraphrase the two quoted paragraphs in the editing section.

Thanx!

ATC. Talk 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back. I've paraphrased the two long quotes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanx!! ATC . Talk 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quicksilver (novel): Could you copy edit?
Hey. Hope everything is good. Sorry I started that excessive conversation on Infoboxes. I didn't realize it would be controversal. You said you had interest in Stephenson, would you be able to copy edit Quicksilver (novel)? It passed GA review, but one FA reviewer is pointing to grammar/clarity of language sort of stuff, suggested I find the experts and I noticed your were part of the Copy Editor's guild. Hope you can help, and good job on True at First Light. Sadads (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help you rework it, but not in the timeframe allotted for an FA review. I agree with Maria's assessments and in fact wished I had posted my previous comments to the talkpage rather than to your user page, because now they are gone. The publication history needs much more explanation: the hardcover first edition was separated into three separate books for the mass market editions which needs a better explanation. I'll keep an eye on the FAC and let's see what happens, but honestly there's a lot to be done. Stephenson deserves a really stellar article in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guessed I jumped the gun, oh well. Hopefully the review will bring forward, for me anyway, more clarity of the issues faced in the Article. First time going through this process, and am getting mixed comments both ways. Thanks much. Sadads (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I recovered the conversation User_talk:Sadads/Archive_Late_2009-2010 bot was cleaning it out but not putting it anywhere. Sadads (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the post. I've moved it to the talkpage. Good luck! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Catlick page
Wasn't singling you out, sorry if you took offense. Wording like that is a pet peeve of mine. I think it's from the science background. If folks want to use them they should qualify with "Who" said it(e.g. "Some historians such as Jones, Smith, and Rogers"). It's something that has plagued that article for a good 4-5 years.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * HI, Mike. I agree with you. Honestly, on Easter I was thinking about this issue and it seems that if a group of mostly amateur writers run into a problem with interpretation such as this then clearly someone has written about it. I found the quotation in Bokkenkotter, added it to the talk page and you're quite right! the difference between "most" and "many" is spectacular. Didn't take offense at you. Take a little offense at the allegation it was done purposefully to push POV. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is, it can be said innocently, sometimes we write the same way we speak. The problem is, a third party can make the accusation of POV pushing.  I honestly don't think that was your intention, or really anybody else's; but it can look that way.  Didn't mean to offend.  If you want to see a real misuse/mistranslation of "many", check out Pro Multis and the debate it has caused.  Appropriate with the article in question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. Quite interesting, actually. I'm rethinking my involvement with this article. In my view, it's an important article for Wikipedia and needs objective editors but don't you all feel like Sisyphus? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's why I have so many edits on that article, but tend to leave for months at a time.  I can't stand the bickering.  I've pretty much agreed and disagreed with every editor on that page, I just won't fight it out with them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's on track to get better. I'm interested in seeing what changes come out of the RfC.  I was never willing to invest the time to do a lot of research before because it was impossible to get anything done; I think with several of us now reading sources and prepared to put up more solid proposals soonish then we have a real chance at making a better article. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with you. I'd intended to work in the 6th century and later area and should not have allowed myself to become pulled into the early history discussion. Am halfway through the 8th century and see quite a bit that needs to be tweaked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

NT temples
Hi Truthkeeper88! Could you have a look at TheRamblingMan's comment (Was the battle when the temples were constructed or were they constructed after the battle?) over at Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)/archive1 and see if it can be made not ambiguous? bamse (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Bamse! For some reason this article wasn't watchlisted so I lost track of it. I think it should read "after which." I'll look in my sandbox and at the article and fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I left a note on the candidacy page that it is done. bamse (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

True at First Light
Hi, just wanted you to know that I am satisfied with True at First Light. I think you pulled together a lot of material nicely and presented a balanced picture. I am passing the article. Good work! <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Aside from learning about this book (and reading the book), I've learned how difficult it is to write about Hemingway, and I've learned not to submit an article to GAN when I'm not feeling well! At any rate, your advice has been very helpful. I like the new organization much better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
By all means keep editing, TK. My concern isn't with the content as such, only with trying to help the dispute be resolved. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've reached a part that needs some discussion in regards to consolidation, so I'll stop now and return to it later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of past reactions by other editors of this article, I continue to feel a certain reluctance to intervene personally. So I present the following remark to you, instead of making edits myself:
 * Iconoclasm, you say, "caused internal conflict in the 8th century between the Byzantine emperors and the papacy." (Why "internal"?  "conflict" on its own is sufficient and less confusing.)   I think thar, to overcome obscurity, you need to restore the indication of which side favoured what.  As it now stands, it is impossible to understand Although the Second Council of Nicaea ruled in favor of iconodules, - Which side were the iconodoules?  and do we really need so obscure a word? - the dispute continued - what dispute? that concerning iconoclasm? - with the creation of the papal states ...
 * I would have other observations also, but they can well wait until the article settles down and I give them more reflection. (For instance, the Cyrillic alphabet, as distinct from the Glagolitic, may have originated in the 10th century, not the 9th - "most likely", according to the Clement of Ohrid article; and I have doubts about the appropriateness of giving first place as an example of a military religious order connected with the original Crusades to the Teutonic Order, which I think came into prominence later, especially when there is no mention whatever of the Knights Hospitaller.) Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Esoglou. I've restored the text with slight tightening. I suspect the iconodoules were there merely to provide an internal link and wouldn't be bothered to see that word gone. See here pp. 81-91  which verifies the text, but I tried to consolidate as much as possible.  Agree also with you comment about the Cyrillic alphabet, and the Teutonic Order. Where are the Knights Hospitallers I wondered? Also the section name is "Middle Ages" but spans the 4th century to the 14th so in my view needs to be renamed.  Will post to the talk page when things calm down. Thanks for the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replace the source to [this] pp. 116-118 and rewritten. Don't hesitate to let me know if it's wrong. Also the ISBNs have to be changed in the sources section as the ones there don't link to the on-line editions but I hesitate to tackle that issue until I've determined how much each source is used in the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your revision of the iconoclasm part was fine. I'm sorry that you found it necessary to revert your work. I thought, but not for long, that NH's intervention on the article's page meant that she was implicitly withdrawing her RfC, and that work could advance on the article, including perhaps the addition of some things she wants in.  Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm saddened to have reverted my edits, but it seemed I've fanned the flames and copyediting is POV pushing, so really I thought it best to revert. I do enjoy working with that period of history (Dark Ages and early Medieval period) and I like to take complicated text and rework into summary style, but it's not really worth the accusations—though, in my view, brevity is always nice for the reader. Thanks for your comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi TK, looking at the revision history of Catholic Church, this plaudit is really yours. Haldraper (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very kind of you. I've only been shoving around text and tightening a bit, so happy to hear it reads better. I've noticed that everyone seems to have disappeared. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Question
I know what you mean about library renewals; I can't tell you the number of times I've checked out A Stephen Crane Encyclopedia; I really should buy it, as it's got me through two FAs now. :) GA reviews aren't ever really archived per se; the transclusion (which lists the GA1 subpage in full) may ultimately be removed from the bottom of the talk page, but the review link will always be available in the article history banner.  I always make a point of addressing the reviewer's comments in full, even after they've stopped watching the page.  You never know when an adamant reviewer will appear at FAC and decides to make sure that everything was taken care of during previous reviews.  Sometimes editors say "I did everything the reviewer said", when that's not the case, so it's much better to have proof in your nomination statement.  In short, keep commenting and responding -- it's a good safeguard, and it may also help you keep track of what has been done and what hasn't.  If you have any other questions, let me know. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maria. I own one biography (which began this entire ill-conceived journey) but have leaned on it as much as I can. Tomorrow I'll have time for the library and will complete the work, or as much as I can. I thought I should be updating, and like having a list of comments to work from, but then realized it was transcluded and so wasn't certain. Now I know! Will holler if I need help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth S. Lynn Hemingway bio
I don't see this one is the biblio. It's not new (1987) but it has some insights I don't find elsewhere, particularly between the life and the particular pieces of fiction. Probably because it's rather snarky and pulls no punches about Hemingway's darker side(s). Not a hatchet job, but very far from hagiography. Do you know the work? S B Harris 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do about Lynn. He's not very respected by the scholars, but he does present a different point of view. I've haven't read the entire book but probably should, and should add some snippets from him. I have added his viewpoint in True at First Light. I'll have to order it from the library. Thanks for reminding me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for EH edits
Thanks again for the edits to Ernest Hemingway! The edit summary made me laugh - indeed I do seem to have forgotten how to use punctuation lately, but worse was the tense problem. Burned out last night before I got to the later parts of the article, and sometimes when I'm adding, I don't really read what I've written until later so as to be able to fix better. Anyway, finally I think this work is almost done, and wanted to thank you, again, for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was talking about EH's punctuation, not yours. You had several semicolons that were entirely appropriate, except EH would never have used one there, but would have broken to two short sentences, forcing the reader to make the implied very close connection between. I don't think he ever used a semicolon in his life. So I thought the article was mimicing EH's style for the sake of illustration. Which was okay, except I needed a new phrase in one of the sentences that ruined the structure. I have found a few colons in EH, but he uses them to indicate a time lapse, perhaps in places where the prudish editor would have blue penciled a sex scene. There's one of these in The Sun Also Rises that may stand for an episode of oral sex (!) between the inpotent Jake and the nymphomaniacal Brett. Or so suggests K.S.Lynn. And he may be right as there is lots of interesting circumstantial evidence: Jake Barnes is named from two (count 'em) two clear lesbian references among EH's circle in Paris. Talk about a guy living the Tantalus myth. But he does it with grace. ;). I've been watching you work on the EH article and haven't done much as I've been waiting for you to "finish", but there are some other connections I'd like to add or change. For example, I notice that gone is fact that EH blew the entire top half of his head off. Which wouldn't be important, except that it's rather a suicide in the EH style: looking Death absolutely in the face and doing it with total abandon (who uses TWO shotgun cartriges at the same time??), and not some wimpy shoot-yourself-in-the-temple or the chest with a pistol thing. So it is characteristic. As also his not giving a damn what Mary would find. Hemingway in Spain two years before treated Mary with typical selfishness, so why should he change as he got crazy? EH could view women as objects, and he certain viewed bodies as objects. There's a reference to Alpine Idyll in the article, but the true "unnatural" part in that story is NOT the delay in getting the body out (that happens at about the right time) but the use of the dead wife as a lantern post in between. This all happens in one understated paragraph (compare Faulkner's A Rose For Emily). This may be one of EH's "why not?" stories, or it may be subliminal statement of his view on women, or it may simply be his comment on death, as in it turning the wife into "a statue" in A Farewell To Arms. The theme of death in EH is treated in two ways which underscore the anxiety and horror by simply never talking about them. In A Natural History of Death there is a deliberately taken lightly humorous tone. And in other stories, people facing death never talk of fear and the narator never mentions fear. Thus the unmentioned becomes the elephant in the room, and it's very effective. The iceberg style sometimes extends to omitting an emotion completely, so long as its clear that it must be there. This causes the reader to look harder for it. Like poor Barnes' feelings about his plight.  S  B Harris 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Family tree
Hi -- I'm going to start on this in the next two or three days, and wanted to check a couple of things with you before I get going. First, I noticed that you don't have any of the in-laws, e.g. Jack's wife or Mariel's husband. Do you want to include them? Also, take a look at this tree and see if you like the colour scheme, with blue for the lines, better than the all black lines. (And check out the weird tree connections for Flann Sinna on that first one; Hemingway is going to be simple by comparison.) Finally, I plan to put all the dates in, including divorce dates and marriage dates, as e.g. "div. 4 Nov 1940". My feeling is that if there's room, it's best to use that date format as it's unambiguous; 4/11/1940 means different things on different sides of the Atlantic. If you'd prefer e.g. "Nov 4, 1940", let me know. Also, I don't have all the dates for all the people on the chart -- e.g. birth date for Elizabeth Richardson, or marriage date for Mariel Hemingway. If you want me to include them, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack was married twice, Gregory at least three times and then he became a she. I thought, to simplify matters, to have EH's parents, siblings, wives, children and their children, with no more. I've updated the section with the missing dates for some of EH's grandchildren and for his first wife, Hadley. I've never done anything like this—if you think I should have all the wives (EH's daughters-in-law) I can add them in though finding the marriage date may pose some difficulty. The blue lines are fine. The date format is also fine. Will you need a source? Thanks so much, can't tell you how much I appreciate this! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no need to add the wives if you don't want them; if you'd rather have the less cluttered picture I think that's fine. I was just making sure.  I'll try to have a draft for you to look at in the next couple of days; if I don't get to it tonight it will probably be some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at File:Ernest Hemingway family tree.svg and see what you think; I still have to do some formatting tweaks, give it a bigger border, and so on, but see what you think. Also please proofread for errors. It's easy to change the font, layout, colours, and so on, so feel free to ask for any changes you like. Mike Christie (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very nice. I've updated three errors I found in the article: father's birthdate, mother's deathdate, and Hadley's divorce date. Also Margot is spelled with a t at the end. Otherwise perfect. Once you're finished with it, I'll delete the section in the article, and link to the image, as Awadewit has done for Jane Austen's biorgraphy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the fixes. I added a blue border around the edge; I can remove that easily enough if you like.  I tweaked the format a little and also bolded Hemingway's name, which I think will help the reader.  Let me know if you want me to remove the bolding, or make any other changes. Mike Christie (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very nice as is. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

One last comment: you might want to add your sources for the biographical data on the family members to the file itself. It's not important for the FA candidacy of Hemingway, since you're not including the picture directly, just linking to it, but it would be good to have the sources with the tree. Good luck with the FA candidacy, when you get there. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wondered about that. I hadn't worked on the section in the article (it was already there when I began to salvage the page) but luckily all the information is in a single source, which I've added to the summary section of the image page. Let me know if I've done it incorrectly. Thanks again for this work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. You're welcome; I enjoy doing these, though I don't always have time.  If you run into another one you need, let me know.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I won't be stupid enough to tackle such a large topic again for a long time, but one never knows! In my view, it's much better having information such as this hard-coded, as it were, in an image, rather than in a separate section in a biography. Hemingway's family history is interesting because of the many wives and the all the suicides, among other things. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Iceberg Theory
-- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Second opinion
Hey, Truthkeeper, so glad to hear you're almost done with Hemingway! You're my hero. I'm in the middle of my own push for FAC with an article of my own, so I'm afraid I don't have much time for Dante. From what I can quickly see of the article, it's really quite limited, isn't it? I'll make a few comments at the review, although I'm afraid I'll be a poor substitute for Awadewit -- aren't we all? :) María ( habla con migo ) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would definitely be a good one for Awadewit. Thanks for taking the time. Also thank you so much for the kind words about Hemingway - not sure what I was thinking when I decided to tackle that article. Have a look at this comment in the Importance section about Hemingway. Iceberg Theory is a DYK today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What a world we live in: in which Hemingway is a minor figure in American literature and Dante wrote allegories, not poems. :) In other news, Iceberg Theory looks great!  I enjoyed reading it while drinking my morning tea. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, hence my very stupid username (one does the stupidest things sometimes!). Writing Iceberg Theory was one of the hardest pieces I've tackled. Not even Hemingway could explain it. The point is: it's unexplainable. But that Hemingway is not important worries me - a lot. I'm in the process of leaving a long comment on the Purgatorio page, but got an edit conflict. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good Heavens, how did we come to the idea that Hemingway is a minor figure in American literature? He's a Nobelist who has a huge impact. If you discount O'Neill due to his different genre, only Faulkner, I think, ranks as high as Hemingway in the 20th century. And one can argue that due to EH's invention of the style we're both discussing, which truly is a new thing, he gets top billing. What did John Updike or Norman Mailer do that compares? S  B Harris 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments along these lines might be helpful on the talkpage of Iceberg Theory to legitimize the article. Someone might decide to delete it as being non-notable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure the article isn't in any danger of being deleted. There are approximately 12,000 Google results for "'iceberg theory' hemingway", and similar searches at JSTOR, EBSCO, and MLA International are chock full of proof as to its academic notability.  That Hemingway is in any way minor is just silly, and one editor's opinion.  No worries! María ( habla  con migo ) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that as a weak joke. The rating of low importance is what made me realize, that what you and I and others know to be true, isn't necessarily evident to all editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Carnival in Bern
Hi Truthkeeper, as you added the following sentence to the lead of the article, isn't there a word missing or one too much of "of by" in "and is unique because it incorporates the city's history of by beginning the carnival with the symbolic freeing of the bear" ? --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

birth, death dates
I don't think AGatha Christie's birth and death date are needed in the first sentence of every book she wrote, so please don't add them. The article are about the books, not about her. I've deleted a few - if you think otherwise, please take it to the Talk page of one of those books! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In my view it's useful to know when an author was born and died. But, I'm happy to stop. Will you mind if I work on some of these articles? Thanks for the message. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And reverted all the edits. (Logging off now!) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you can work on the articles - this is wikipedia, anybody can work on anything! That doesn't mean other people will agree with your edits, of course, but give-and-take is part of the fun (or part of the annoyance, according to some people) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back!
Replied on my talk page, but thought I should go into more detail here! Thanks for your kind welcome back! I'm going to have a go at avoiding contentious articles and disputes, so you may not see *that* much of me now that I'm back ;-)

How are things in IB? Naturally, that's one area I'd ideally like to avoid, if at all possible...!

Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IB is finished. Haven't worked on it for months except for the occasional reversion of anon IP edits. I thought about not bothering you, but was truly surprised to see the page active - I can unwatch if you'd like, now that I know how to find it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unwatch? Not a bit of it - you're always very welcome on my talk page! <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep as is and whenever you disappear the page disappears with you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK of Hadley Richardson
The article looks fine so far, but I think the DYK nomination could benefit from a hook that is ... "hookier" :) Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I thought about that - his first wife, eight years older than him, etc., but when I was working with Mike Christie on the family tree he asked a question about Elizabeth Richardson and I didn't know who he meant. After as much work as I've done on Hemingway, I had no idea she was anything other than Hadley. Anyway, I'll go over and add some alternative hooks. Also need to finish the article - that was a very speedy response! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology National Treasures copyedit
Hi Truthkeeper88! It took a while this time, but I completed one more National Treasure list. Hope you have time to bring it up to featured list quality. The list is this one and as usual the intro needs some copyedits. bamse (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bamse! Good to see you're still at it. This might take a few days - I see the history spans a much longer period this time! Anyway, happy to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you are going to copyedit it. Take your time. Indeed it is a longer period and also the type of materials is more diverse than in the other lists. Please note that the oldest national treasure is from about 4500 BC. There is quite some text before that; if you think it is too much, I could try to shorten it. However I wanted to make clear that there are archaeological finds before that time which are apparently not of sufficient artistic (or historic) value to be a NT. bamse (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph looks as though it could use some trimming, but I've been busy and haven't had the opportunity for a full analysis. If you're still working on the article I'll copy the lead into a sandbox and work there, otherwise I'd prefer to do it mainspace. Which would you prefer me to do? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. bamse (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bernese Fassnacht (Carnival)
Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to "on copyediting"
Hey Truthkeeper, thank you for reaching out. As you have surely determined, I am fairly new to GOCE and still learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia editing. I joined GOCE for a simple reason - copy editing and writing are two facets of my every day job and felt this was a good way to contribute to Wikipedia while honing my skills - and I love doing it. No worries about curtness, a person's tone or intent can be easily misconstrued in email/chat/posts. Sometimes it's very easy to forget this principle and get wrapped up in a discussion that may be completely off-mark from its original meaning. I hope that I have not come off in any sort of bad light, and if so, I am truly sorry, it was never my intent.

I understand your reservations about the backlog drive and your perspective on the purpose of GOCE. My take-away from recent experience is that it is all very subjective, that I need to follow my gut. I am not all that interested in the competition of earning barn stars or any other notoriety. I agree with you on the requests for FAC and GA, short deadlines are not typically effective, especially when I don't normally have the available time. You may have noticed the Quicksilver FAC review had expired before I made any real progress for this reason. That one was a real interesting challenge that can only benefit by further contribution by other editors. My focus is becoming defined by the more comprehensive (or holistic) approach that merges copy editing and content development. I find it very hard to do one while ignoring the other. This is how I can best make contributions to Wikipedia. And believe me, I will be very selective about responding to short deadline requests!

Much appreciated. dtgriffith (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem! As I told you earlier, don't hesitate to ask. When I first got here I pestered one user quite a lot, until I started to learn my way around. You're a good copyeditor and an asset to the project. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Singin' and Swingin'
Hey, TK, I finally got around to addressing the comments you made at FAC. So whaddya think? Is it now ready to resubmit for FAC? I ask because your comments were one of the reasons it didn't pass, so I wanted your opinion before I move forward. Not that it's your fault, though; I got busy and didn't address them in time. Thanks for your review, though--anything to make the article better, doncha know. --Christine (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Christine! I felt bad about that, but I don't think I opposed - I made suggestions (actually I was ready to support but then it closed). I'm tied up for the next few days, but will get to it as soon as I can. Sorry about the delay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Commented on the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might find this amusing (or perhaps disturbing)
Hey, TK! User:EeepEeep keeps trying to put a list of enemies on his talk page and he lists you as one of these so-called "intentionally destructive" editors. Here's a diff:. Later, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a run-in with that editor at The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber - the discussion is on the talkpage. Thanks for letting me know. Can't decide whether it's funny or disturbing. A bit of both, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, at first I thought that it was so ridiculous that it had to be funny. Then this weird feeling hit me when I realized that it's pretty freaky for someone to think that it's okay to publish a list like that.  Either way, I thought you should know.


 * You should also know that he was indef'd a few minutes ago, with talk page-editing privileges revoked--if he wants to come back, he has to go through ArbCom. The blocking admin also deleted the edits that contained his list (they were already reverted, but now they're quite literally gone). Seems entirely appropriate to me! I'll be sure to go check out the discussion you referenced. Regards, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 23:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at his page right now. This was a strange editor, and I stopped editing The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber after his involvement. Thanks so much for letting me know. I thinks it's a bit weird and malicious. I usually have my head stuck in content development, or review, so I don't always know what's going. Good to have friends who are vandal fighters! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, TK! • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yow, I quit editing Macomber, also, after my experience with EeepEeep. Wonder if I made his enemies list. I think it was Gerald Ford who said about Nixon that anybody who has to make a list of their enemies... has too many enemies. :)  S  B Harris 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You were. I was on my way over to your page to tell you, but am retrieving information I don't want to lose. The good news is that Macomber can now be edited, but it is a disturbing situation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi TK, hi CB! I'm sure you've both seen already - and you're both aware of where the discussion ended (i.e. an indef block) - but there's a thread about this on AN. I saw the list early on, but didn't bother reading it. Personally I'm quite impressed that TK made the list - you must be doing something right ;-) Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 10:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the thread at AN - I don't have that watched. I checked AN/I because I thought a discussion should have been posted somewhere. Finding myself on an enemies list is a bit disconcerting, and I'm happy the editor is gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hadley Richardson
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus
It was good piece of work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you - what a nice surprise! I'm not quite finished with the article, but wanted to wait for a few days so I could return to it with fresh eyes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nature fakers and userboxes
Hey, thanks! It was a fun project, and one that I really enjoyed researching; I'm glad you liked reading it. :) Speaking of FAs, I intend to re-read Hemingway within the next several days, but I haven't quite found the time for it yet. When I do, I'll comment on the FAC.  As for userboxes, no worries; I "stole" all of mine from various other user pages, except maybe the polar bear one; I think I actively looked for that at WP:USERBOX. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'm just bored during my lunch break and looking for stuff to do. :) María ( habla con migo ) 17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed a little more. Time for me to grab some food too! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Cropped, auto-white balance, and choice of auto-equalize/auto-color enhance in GIMP. Smallman12q (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His particular images are very easy to clean up because the auto-filters work well in GIMP. You can do future crop/cleanup yourself in GIMP in under a minute for his images. First download GIMP (it's free and open source). 2nd open the image in GIMP. 3rd, crop the image. 4th from the main menu do colors->auto->white balance. 5th from the main menu do colors->auto->equalize. Now save the image as a jpeg at 100% with progressive checked and your done. If you need further help feel free to ask=DSmallman12q (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds easy, but I seem to be image challenged. Have difficulty loading images from my camera to the computer. Miss the good old days of film and blackrooms. That said, these images are worth cleaning up, so I'll give it a try. Again, thanks for the help and the work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society
--Cmagha (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha; wanted to thank you for asking if the Irving Literary Society was an academic paper requiring preservation. The entire AfD was a fiasco; many of us were new to the editing process, and we pretty much botched that effort. There were about six undergraduates involved. They have recovered from the experience. I am a mentor to them; the article is now on my User page, as we rework it. Again, thanks for your concern.
 * Sorry to hear that, but I had a sense that was the case. For the future, a template exists to add to an article talk-page to indicate it's a class assignment. I unwatched the AfD after this response from you. Had you told me that it was a class assignment, I would have been happy to help. If you have questions about editing, let me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway
Thanks for the barnstar and for your early encouragement, giving me confidence to keep going! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome for the help, Truthkeeper88, and thank you for taking the time and energy to successfully bring such an important article through the (sometimes silly) obstacle course that is FAC. Congrats on your first FA, and here's to many more! :) María ( habla  con migo ) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What a great idea! I've been trying to decide what to do next - might consider plucking something off the core article list. Thanks for the barnstar. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All food articles are grossly underrepresented :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help
Really, you seem to be everywhere I go, and help solve lots of mistakes and issues which I raise. Sadads (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What a nice surprise. We seem to read the same books. I've had Beowulf watched for ages with the intention of doing something about it. I'm in the mood to write about dragonslayers today. Very interesting stuff! I have the kennings pages watched as well (they go hand-in-hand with Beowulf) and I think we collided with your new project. Anyway, this stuff needs cleaning up, and I have a bit of time today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what do you do in real life? You have awefully thorough research skills. Sadads (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of it is experience. Don't let the 88 after my name fool you. When I studied Beowulf it was in the original - most of the stuff you took out last night I knew to be correct (although, I only reinstated about a third of it, because the rest was unsalvagable). I'm interested in Anglo-Saxon history love the literature from the period, but mostly am fascinated by the language. I knew that the Names of God in Old English poetry would be easy to source, and thought it better be done rather than having in tagged like this. Also, sometimes something just pops: I'm sick of moderism, and dragons struck my fancy today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC of Archaeology NT
Hi Truthkeeper88! Having more time now, I put the article up at FLC. Comments are going to appear here. bamse (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've added it to the watchlist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms
Metabaronic (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Windup girl
What about the Importance? Isn't a Nebula winner and Hugo nominee significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this: Talk:Across the River and into the Trees - a book written by a Nobel Prize winning author gets a mid class and a stub rating. As I wrote, I have the article watched. Once it's been expanded, I'll swing by again and have a look. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat
I made a whole lot of changes and responded to your comments. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Will have a look as soon as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did some more work based on your comments. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Replied to some comments, requested copyediting help. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Mau Mau
Can I start editing the Mau Mau article now? I can make a pretty decent job of it, I've read a lot about Mau Mau and I'm unemployed at the moment! Scott's given up, I destroyed him on the Discussion page, see for yourself. Sh33pl0re (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:Consensus and WP:AGF. A talk page discussion is not to "destroy" the other party, but to reach an agreement. I'm tied up elsewhere, but will get over there today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Greets again! I'm overhauling the Mau Mau article, and making some room for Scott to expound on his view. Let me know what you think of my revisions; any suggestions welcome. Will be completed over the next few days.Sh33pl0re (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC National Treasures of Japan
Hi! I nominated National Treasures of Japan at WP:FAC. The comment/suggestions page is this one. Let's see what happens... bamse (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. I'm a little worried about the Table of Contents per criteria 2(b) found here. Also, I think there is a policy now against text-squeeze between images. I'll keep an eye on it, and am available if you need help. Lots of luck! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the TOC could be quickly adapted if required. With text-squeeze, do you mean the text between the maps in "Geographical distribution"? That would be a pity, if it turns out to be an issue as it looks quite nicely on my display and I can't think of much more text to add to that section so that it avoids the squeeze. If necessary I could replace the two maps with one map which is the sum (i.e. total number of NT) of the two. bamse (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree the TOC if fixable - I experimented but reverted myself. The maps squeeze the text, but until someone tells you to change, I'd leave them. If necessary consider combining into a single map. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * comments
 * In this edit you changed "export"->"export subsidies" which is not correct. "restrictions...on export" here means that it is (very) difficult for a NT to leave the country even for expositions. bamse (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria clarified the copy-edit issues at the nomination page; concerning what he calls "Lack of clarity" in the sword section, there are in total 122 (swords and sword mountings) national treasure. Of these, 110 are just swords and 12 are mountings. These mountings sometimes include a sword, however they are national treasures for the artistic (or historic?) value of the mounting (not of the included swords). Maybe, to avoid confusion it is possible to rephrase the sentence, so that it is clear that the sum of sword and sword mounting national treasures is 122. bamse (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Fixed. Sorry about that. I was working too fast and thought the subsidies also applied to the exports, but had I been thinking would have remembered they can't be exported. Need to take a break and read the comments on the FAC review, and then will get back to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, read the comments. Won't take a break after all. I'll do what I can, as quickly as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I go to sleep now and will be back tomorrow. bamse (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: Do you prefer US or UK spelling? bamse (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was going to ask you the same. If I'm careful, I'm fine with UK. Looking at the article, I'm thinking it might easier to convert to UK, as the incidences of US were introduced in copyedits and are, I think, less frequent. I'll take a break and let you deal with that situation. I like the new organization. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to use this script for the US->UK conversion, but need to figure out how to use it. Another quick question: User:Nikkimaria had some issues with image stacking in the "categories" section. Do you think it is possible to fix that, or would it be better if I just removed all those images? bamse (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the script. When they work they're great, getting them to work is another question. As for the image stacking, I don't see it, I've made my browser window small, and still don't get it. Maybe alternating the images would be helpful? Otherwise, before you remove, ask if that's their preference. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re new edits: bamse (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this edit: the original law already had measures so I'd go with the old version

I am reading through the whole article now. Comments follow...
 * intro
 * "The Agency for Cultural Affairs provides owners of National Treasures advice on restoration, administration and public display of the properties, laws to protect the environment of structures, and the necessary techniques for restoration of works.". Maybe "advice"->"with advice"? Not sure if: "The AfCA provides owners ... laws..." is a valid sentence. Also not sure if the last part ("and the necessary techniques for restoration of works.") properly relates to the rest (it belongs to "laws to protect..." not to "AfCA provides..."). bamse (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored back to the original. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * history
 * "In 1975 the law was extended to include groups of historic buildings, and were not required to be located in capitals.". Maybe "and"->"which" or something like it? bamse (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * historical and modern residences
 * "...which date earlier than 1867 to the early modern Japan" is not accurate. The meaning should be: "date earlier than 1867, i.e. to early modern Japan or before" (early modern Japan ends in 1867)bamse (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * non-swords
 * There are two sentences starting with "These items...", maybe replace it with "They..." in the second sentence? bamse (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nothing more to critizise. Feel free to leave a note that copy-editing is done. bamse (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to respond. I added comments to the review page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Checked your recent (7) edits and all looks fine. BTW, do you see any -or/-our issues as suggested in the review? I don't. bamse (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I stopped because the amount of work to achieve brilliance might be beyond my current capabilty, although I'll continue to tweak it. I did a browser "find" for "ou" and saw camouflage, and I think something else. It's the best way to find them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hope you don't get discouraged. Isn't "camouflage" the same on either side of the Atlantic? I thought Nikkimaria was referring to the end of words: "-our/or". Since we are converting to UK English we'd have to search for single "o" to be converted to "ou" I suppose. bamse (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Am a little discouraged, but these things happen at FAC. I'm wrong and you're right about the ENGVAR. I can't find anything that hasn't been converted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Smallman12q (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done it myself not so long ago, can't remember which AfD though. <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>propaganda 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, responded there. Lost my mind. Could not face another mess of an article, but of course chose one that people want! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Dragon (Beowulf)
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your articles
Hi Truthkeeper88, you are really doing a great job on the articles you write. Both The Dragon (Beowulf) and Edmund Evans are written very well. I wish I were able to write as you are. Please feel absolutely free to ask me, if you need some help with uploading more images. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind message, and the offer to help with images - definitely not my strength! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology NT
Quick reply to The Rambling Man's comment, impressive! Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It popped up on my watchlist as I was logging off. I thought I'd made a copy/paste error, but it was simply an awkward sentence I overlooked, and easily fixed. Glad to see he's reviewing the list. Btw - hope you don't mind that I chimed in about the other issue, but I think the lists should be consistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant to ask...
...you this question, too. I'm guessing you don't mind too much, but I'm curious. (And I'm trying to avoid anything too serious for the next several days, so may as well catch up on the non-serious stuff...!) <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've thought about changing my username, and even considered using my real name, but plowing through the stuff above reminds me why I haven't. If I did change it, I'd do what you've done and use the initials only, so in that respect TK or TK88 is fine. As to the comment above about GAN, I'll wait for a few weeks and then relist. It's a bit backlogged over there anyway. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Silly question!
I'm always interested, you should know that by now! <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you'd prefer, there's always email... <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec):Just trying to get your attention. Here's what I think: you are very good at what you do (I have Gaza flotilla raid on my watchlist ) and I think you are effective because you aren't an admin. Given the stuff that's been going on at ANI and various other pages in the past few days, I see a lot of hostility toward admins. That's a situation that on some level needs to be resolved at Wikipedia, and I'm not sure this is the right time to jump into the hot water so to speak. Also, although I'm primarily a content contributor I see a lot, and from what I've seen some of the best editors are not admins: Tony1 -copyeditor guru; SandyGeorgia - FAC guru; Malleus - knows how to write an encyclopedia; Parrot of Doom - another good writer; and so on. If you're not entirely comfortable doing this now, and if you want to continue doing the stuff you've always done (quite effectively I might add!) my inclination is to tell you to give a pass for now, and wait a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to completely ignore the above. I'll think about e-mailing as well. Have to log off for a time, but will return in an hour or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Blushes) Thank you very much! To be honest, I'm definitely going to go ahead with the RfA - I think if it's unsuccessful it'll have been a useful experience.


 * It's my view that this hostility between admins and non-admins is only going to get worse unless those admins who clearly go looking for trouble (do you need names?) are reined in. That clearly won't happen though, because the system is basically corrupt. I'd like to see a moratorium on new administrators until that corruption is addressed. I wouldn't oppose TFOWR on that basis, but I'm dubious about the integrity of any RfA candidate in the present climate. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I agree. Rather than waiting for you to bark at someone, I'd prefer to see admins reining in some of the types of problematic behaviour I dealt with last summer but went unchecked because it was limited to one article and a few new editors. Of those, however, most have left Wikipedia. I learned to keep my head down (except to pop up on your page every day or so). What's really sad, is that I think hard about posting to your page, which keeps me from asking questions that might actually help get an article written. That kind of chilling effect is basically wrong, and needs to be fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably true that anyone who posts on my talk page becomes a target for the civility police, but who cares about those wankers? Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue so much, (and honestly I don't care), but what's more important is that your page is a great source for content writers. People come to you to ask questions, for advice and so on, and I've noticed that tapering off a bit. Instead you get the weekly chastising that becomes a huge drama and then someone like Tan is blocked and leaves. So people who could/might use you as a resource maybe tend to stay away. Look at what happened to Edmund Evans - within minutes of posting a question Johnbod was involved and the article is coming along nicely, thanks to his help, and your talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed any "tapering off", and I certainly haven't noticed any "weekly chatising", just a few visits from the usual civility police, who are generally sent away with a flea in their ear. We need to be bold, build what we want, not what a few kiddies who haven't yet realised that the world didn't end in the hippie culture of the 1960s want us to build. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, chastise is probably the wrong word, but look at this: May 20th & May 31. Give it a few more days, and someone else will drop in to poke the bear. Do you think they take bets on who's to be the next person? You are right about building content, and there's plenty to be done in that respect. Just so you know, I don't spend my time spying on you - but I keep my watchlist window open and it's hard to ignore when your page keeps popping up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's likely to keep popping up, because I despise sanctimonious hypocrisy with a passion, but wikipedia is fuelled by it. I may not be to everyone's taste, but I'm a damn sight more honest that most around here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely the reason I do keep your page watched. True honesty is rare and to be cherished. I'll just settle in next to Moni3 chewing on popcorn and watch you slay the dragons. I have a lot of respect for your content work and for your willingness to speak out. It's been my experience that emperors don't like to be told they're not wearing clothes. (Did you write that one too? I ran across The Princess and the Pea in the winter and noticed it was one of yours.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the hostility towards admins is justified. Don't get me wrong - some of it is nonsense. I worked with two editors in dispute; both editors were blocked by the same admin, the second editor cried "admin abuse, bias, obvious bias because admin is X [they're not]" etc. That's obvious nonsense. But some of it justified. Admins should be the same as every other editor, just with a few extra tools. But one of those tools is the power to block users. And other admins. And to make matters worse, there's clearly a belief (one I share, if I'm honest) that "editors-in-good-standing" (by which I mean: the ones we encounter everyday, doing all that work, etc) should get preferential treatment. The community puts up with our eccentricities because we're a net-positive. So Joe IP says "fucking grammar police" and gets blocked. An admin says "fucking grammar police" and we all laugh. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy. Another time an admin says "fucking grammar police" and is blocked, and we all celebrate. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy.

And this debate is played out all over - from civility to inclusionism/deletionism, from copyright to copy-editing.

I have a huge amount of faith in "the community" (all of us, from the IP, through the non-autoconfirmed but newly registered and enthusiastic editor, to the seasoned editor), and I think in the long run we'll solve the problems we have now (and find new problems...!)

However, that does mean that we need to consider how to solve our problems. I don't know what the answer is to hostility towards admins, or "unfair blocks" by "bad admins". I had a coversation recently about RfA in general, and WP:RECALL in particular. Firstly, I'd definitely want to be open to recall - if the community decided that I was fit to have additional tools, I'd want the same community to be able to hold me to account. However, I don't know if this is necessarily the solution (you'll appreciate that my belief in recall is fairly closely tied to my beliefs in general - black cat and all that). I can totally see recall being abused, and getting the balance right between being accountable and creating unnecessary disruption is hard. My argument at WT:RFA was largely that the community fixes the problem organically: if the community decides that recall is good, over time more and more admins get appointed who are recallable. You'll note, though, that that doesn't solve anything today ;-)

Apologies for the essay, you'll appreciate that I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently (you'd think I'd have some answers by now, though, wouldn't you ;-)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, even though I'm still going ahead with the RfA (though you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'm not, given that I still haven't answered any questions, or accepted... must get back to sandbox...!)


 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my long response:

Blocked editors will be hostile, but that's different than some of the other stuff I've watched/read recently. A good example is our nightmare experience last summer. It should not have taken so long for that editor to be indeffed (and maybe now it would happen more quickly), and once blocked the already scary level of hostility and incivility was amplified. Furthermore, I think a comment like this is much more uncivil than the run-of-the-mill "fuck off, leave me alone" stuff that goes on all the time. The first should not be ignored because it's from a sock of a problem editor; the second is harmless. I agree that admins should be regular editors with more tools, but some take it more seriously, and that's where the disconnect is created. You, with your cat-like dispostion (black cat and all), will do well as an admin, but I think it must be very difficult not to choose sides/tribes, so at times, I suspect you'll be torn.

I strongly agree that established editors have to have some leeway. After all, we're building an encyclopedia and it's bloody hard. (I've spent the last few days learning about Victorian printing techniques and then, slowly edit by edit, building an article.) I'm okay at this, but some people are spectacular and should simply be left alone to do what they do best. Writing is hard and lonely work - this is a great writing and learning community, but we have to come to terms with the fact that those who can do the heavy lifting might not want to be interrupted with petty bullshit while they're working - or the flipside is that it's too easy to be sidetracked and pulled into the dramah, easier than writing articles.

WP:RECALL is a good idea in theory, but can be gamed. If someone doesn't like what you've done then they call ask for a recall. What will be necessary is a WP:Rfr (request for recall) and have the community decide.

I actually did think that you hadn't fully decided because I hadn't seen any action on the blue-ink page yet—so I thought it was okay to butt in. Obviously you have my full support. We need people like you, who are willing to work on policy and understand the concept of community (and the concept of herding cats!)

It was all a ploy to get you into your sandbox! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, I really appreciate that! There's still stuff I need to workout in the sandbox (not least the circumstances in which we met, as it were) but it's moving on. Thanks again - I can't tell you how much I appreciate this.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my archives: this might help. Generally, though, I think you handled that situation as well as it could be handled. HelloAnnyong was also very good (and another person I'd support for adminship), so not much to worry about there. Here's a riddle: if I were a cat, I'd definitely not be a ginger cat! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That does help. My issue with my handling was that it all got too much, I ran away (for varying values of "ran away", I'll concede), and things blew up (resulting in blocks and - if I remember correctly - sock puppeting). I wanted to put my worst experience in the RfA: I've been thinking that what I thought was bad may only be not good, and the whole IB thing may be much worse than my rose-tinted goggles remember... (related to that, I was chatting yesterday with an editor who was involved with another, different episode - she had little recollection of the episode in question, and I began to think that it was largely irrelevant - and would probably muddle the waters (it could be seen as a POV issue, which wasn't the point I was trying to make). This issue is more clear-cut - stress, no easy community answer, long-term hassle, etc - all points I want to make in the RfA). Anyway, cheers, and keep it coming! The ginger cat doesn't help, I'm afraid! I'm thinking red state/blue state? Or is it traditional colours? I'm not getting anywhere ;-) Or maybe you're just prejudiced against certain colours?! <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm not terribly keen about the IBDP being scrutinized by the community, but there's really not much to be done about it. Here is the first wikiquette notice filed almost exactly a year ago. The editor who filed it was subsequently subjected to various attempts at outing—from which I learned a valuable lesson btw, and the reason I'm so coy (the answer to the question about cats is here on Wikipedia. The report was closed and then there was incivilty such as this, real true incivility, in my view. Editors like that need to be shown the door, and shown the door quickly. Instead we were all slapped, and from that incident I learned about as much as I needed to know about keeping my head down in this place. Yesterday I de-listed the GAN submission because we really don't want to bring anything out of the woodwork at this point. Good luck. I see I have have an orange bar (have been searching the AN archives), so I have an edit conflict. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ? Aye, that would be me...
 * I think the communal slapping we got was in the interests of impartiality, and I believe those IB editors who remain have nothing to be ashamed in respect of their conduct - we've all learned from it, and moved on. It only becomes an issue if we try and present ourselves as "squeaky clean" - which none of us seem to be willing to do ;-)
 * Apologies for airing our dirty laundry in public! It was for purely selfish motives, too... even if the motive was to show that I'm not above receiving a slapping...
 * Maybe now (or in a week or so...) would be a good time to re-list the GAN? I did see it spin past my watchlist, and remembered thinking that I'd pass it... if it wasn't for my involvement with the article/topic. Also: I have other GA stuff I really need to complete! <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 12:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blimey, "your country"? "Lockerbie bomber"? "Gotten laid lately?"? We really do need to toughen up... <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why "incivility" discussions really annoy me. I hate to see a good editor blocked for alleged incivility, or threatened to be blocked, having spent an entire summer being subjected to the real thing. Everything else is mild by comparison. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway article out of the cryofreezer, yet?
I'd like to make a few changes. For example, I think it very unlikely that he had a skull fracture and CSF leak after his first plane crash-- the one everybody hiked out of and took a boat from. Mary had some broken ribs, but had EH suffered that bad a head wound I think he'd have had far worse problems getting out of the bush. Almost all his significant injuries happened in the second crash, I think. I have the Baker bio on order, but you might check it, as well as ITS source. I think there's been some medical error, here, by somebody. S B Harris 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is. Thanks for asking. I recently bought Reynolds' biography covering that period, and I think you're right, it was the second accident that was more severe. Here's the link to Reynolds, page 273 if you can access it. Am just logging off, but if you don't fix that section, I will. Thanks for reminding me. I completely forgot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FLC of archaeological treasures
Hi! Could you have a quick look at bullet points 2 and 4 of Jujutacular's comments here. The sentence: "Most entries (6) are located in the Tokyo National Museum." is meant to say that out of all the locations mentioned in the table (i.e., in the "present location" column), the Tokyo National Museum is appears most often. Or expressed differently: "There is no location with more archaeological national treasures than the TNM." bamse (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Caught me just in time. Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, one more thing. I am not sure how to deal with his fifth comment ("In the "Usage" bullet points, some end in full stops and some do not.") As far as I can see, they end in full stops only if there is a full sentence. Is this the proper way to put full stops, or how should it be done? bamse (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick check shows the second row, excavation column with a full stop after Hachinohe, Aomori Prefecture - I think that's what he means. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fixed all the full stops in the excavation column after his comment ("Excavation" column of the list, some end in full stops and some do not.). However, have a look at the comment before this one, he specifically mentions the Usage section. I also don't see what grammar is wrong with this sentence: The table's columns (except for Details and Image) are sortable pressing the arrow symbols. Do you? bamse (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a little fix, which is hopefully what he means. As for the full stops, I see what you've done in the bullet points, but maybe better to reword all as full sentences and end all with full stops for consistency. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Making full sentences out of it seems cumbersome, so I asked him for clarification. bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or remove the full stops that are there? Asking for clarification is a good idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of EP
You should add a Fair Use Rationale - here is a link to a picture of Mark Rothko that Tyrenius added today with a copyright and Fair Use explanation. You might use this as an example for the image of Pound and his mother...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just adding the link (forgot to). Which template do I use to display the Fair Use Rationale? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Found it. Let me know it's wrong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Add a Fair Use Rationale using the Rothko as a prototype...Modernist (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the Fair Use Rationale - your copyright tag seems fine...Modernist (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had to add a separate FUR section in the edit box! Now I know what to do - I think. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pound
I removed the infobox, as its 'influenced by' and 'influence on' sects were uncited and listy and specualtive. Any objection if I spin out the "Selected works" BIT to a seperate article with a main: link on this bio page. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thrilled to see all the stuff gone from the infobox. Hemingway has a separate bibliography page linked to from the main article which looks cleaner - so yes, agree. Was sidetracked from Pound for a few days to another article, but also I wanted to think about how to structure Pound. I may have overwritten the early stuff, but his education and early years seem important to the narrative of the later years. Easy to cut back if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Grand. Just beware of the well intented but daft who will try to put back that infobox, because xxxx artile has it. The sins of the many are concensus here, sadly. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That stuff has to go. Almost did it myself a few days ago. Awadewit removed the same subjective stuff from Hemingway, and I've had the infobox battle before on Hemingway book articles. We'll deal with that when it happens, if it happens. Nice and clean as is. I had found an image at the Yale Library of Pound in Provence in the 1920s or 30s - want something before the crazy man mugshot, but somehow I lost the link I stashed, so am combing through pages of images. If I can't find it again, what do you think of this passport picture ?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its good but older than my usual image of Pound. I'd favour. As a small matter, the citations there are extreamly ugly and all over the place; need huge clean up. But thats for later. The analysis section is very underdeveloped; we should focus there for now. Interesting subject to read up on no? Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree the analysis needs work. That's where I came to a screeching halt - had to switch gears from thinking about Pound at university & then in Europe, to Pound and imagism. Imagism and all that needs development, and then all the stuff about the provencal poetry. I have a lot of reading to do. Btw - stumbled across this H.D. collection at the Yale Library in case you're interested. Haven't had a look at it yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations are a mess. I'm not picky about citation styles, but they should be consistent. I can undo the Harvard short notes to simplify. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Stashing these image urls here so I don't lose them again.
 * Pound with gargoyles in Provence in 1923. Not many pictures between the 1920s and the 1945 arrest.
 * Pound in 1972. I think we can use any of these under FUR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general principal, re refs we should toss all web refs. I would leave placement and inclusion of imgs until last. It depends on what text we wrap around them to justify FU. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stumbled across the images when I followed a link from the Olga Rudge page and wanted to capture the urls before I forget. Agree about the web refs. I have a biography & two books about Am. poets to read. Also want to re-read Kenner's book. This will take some time. I have limited access to academic databases for scholarly papers as well. Need some time to read and to let it percolate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 19 hours you have, after that the INTERNET will have its revenge. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny! Off I go to work work work. Logging off now ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sharon Kay Penman.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Kay Penman.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Nov. 1946" Finca Vigia photo date
I wonder if somebody didn't screw up on the date of this photo, which would make Patrick 18.5 years old and Gregory 15. Does that look like a 15 yo boy to you? He looks about 10 or no more than 12. I think this is WW II photo taken by Marty Gellhorn, but can't prove it. It's in the JFK collection, uploaded by you-- do you know anything about it? S B Harris 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to JFK Library image. Click the detail tab to see the date. I agree that it must be wrong. Will simply delete the date from the caption. On another topic, can you access the medical journal with the bi-polar article? I think we should be careful with the wording here. According to the abstract it wasn't definitive and combined with other factors. Interested in your professional opinion on this. Also interested in what you can find about Kay Redfield Jamison. Is she credible or not? My view is that the haemochromatosis combined with head injuries, alcohol, and a propensity for depression may have resulted in bi-polar, but I think we have to be careful at Wikipedia making diagnoses based on google books. To whit, your (very correct) insistence about the plane crashes and the severity of the head traumas. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that I have no answer and doubt that one could be obtained on EH even if he got into a time machine in 1960 and went forward 50 years, to now, for treatment. There are no lab or objective tests for bipolar disorder, even now. The only way to obtain such answers would be to dry him out thoroughly, to see what was "left" after a fairly long sober period. And of course he probably would not cooperate, just as he didn't at the Mayo, doing whatever he had to, and looking as good as he needed to, to be able to get out and drink again (or kill himself). Such is the very nature of severe alcoholism. Perhaps he could have been kept more comfortable with some modern alcohol replacement; there is a terrible fight in the treatment community whether to use these things or not, past the stage where they're needed to stop the DT's. And the psychiatrists fight the other dogs for inpatient days for treatment of people who have substance-dependancy, vs that plus (perhaps) some other mental illness. A trendy thing. For an example, see:. Simple severe long-standing alcoholism is the "Ockam's razor" diagnosis for EH. Alcoholics are all depressed, and have a very high rate of suicide. They all feel good and jolly when drinking, and they all have anhedonia and are mean, depressed, paranoid, and even suicidal when not. They cannot do creative work when drunk, and certainly not when sober, so they get what they can done, in the halfway state, and it's often not very good (though patches can be edited together). Writers, for obvious reasons, survive in this existence, better than people with fixed-hour jobs. All the male US Nobel lit laureates have been lushes to a great extent, though EH was probably the worst. F. Scott Fitzgerald might have won the Nobel, too, if he hadn't succumbed to drink. The cycle between drunk and non-drunk looks a lot like bipolar disease, and you simply cannot tell one from the other in a person who became alcohol-dependent long before he developed mood swings, and who won't stop drinking entirely long enough to see if they persist over long adaption to sobriety. And of course there's a huge chicken-egg relationship between the two problems. As for hemochromatosis, it can cause diabetes, and even some mental problems, but isn't a common cause of either diabetes of mental problems, even in people who certainly have it. It's certainly exacerbated by alcohol, if a person has one of several genes for it. It's entirely possible EH had it, but it wasn't doing much to him. Today there are genetic tests but there was no test in 1960 but a liver biopsy. There was a treatment (iron depletion by blood letting) but it takes months, often years, and I have no record that anybody tried in EH (the biggest reason to treat the disease is so that suffers don't get liver cancer, actually). His mental symptoms are far more likely to have been caused by alcohol and ECT (shock therapy) which today nobody would do on an alcoholic until they'd been dried out (and of course treated with the antidepressants that didn't exist in 1960-- but even absent them, nobody would shock an alcoholic who'd recently been drinking). Again, there's no point in treating ANY mental disease by ANY means in a substance-abuser, until they are sober (meaning many months, even a year or two, without the drug they're dependent on). The reasons are: 1) treatment doesn't work and 2) diagnosis is always confused and unreliable. I suppose my conclusion is that no psychiatrist could differentiate these things today based on what I know of EH's history, so it's pretty certain that while EH was drinking (and he never stopped) it's impossible to imagine that anybody could make a half-way reliable diagnosis in 1960. EH began binge-drinking nearly continuously after finishing Bell Tolls about 1940, as I read it. So you'd have to have a very, very clear bipolar picture before that, to even guess that he might have had it as a separate and early problem from alcohol. And I really don't see much evidence of it in his bios. What do you think? While married to Hadley and Pauline, I have the impression of a man in quite good physical and mental health. And of course he did his best writing then, also. After that, it was fighting the terrible effects of alcohol and its treatment, to his last moment. If I can fault the Mayo, it is in their not recognizing their primary problem. I think they blew it. But then, they hadn't read the bios that we have, had they? And also, alcoholics are wiley, and intelligent and rich alcoholics even wiley-er. The Mayo would have had to have a dedicated "Betty Ford Center" to even have had a chance with EH, and of course they did not. S B Harris 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but your explanation pretty much confirms what I believe. He was functional until the marriage to Mary, which seems to have been the turning point. When I read True at First Light recently, I was struck at how good it was, but also at how much they both drank. Beer in the morning, gin at lunch and on and on even waking up at night to drink. (I also have some thoughts that Mary may not have been the best woman for him for a bunch of reasons.) None of the bios or the scholarly articles mention bi-polar disease, but I can't really think of a time when I wasn't aware that he was an alcoholic. Certainly the Mayo blew it, but Sun Valley had no facilities at all to deal with him—a tiny hospital was opened in 1959 or 1960 with facilities for surgery, but not what he needed. And he was a celebrity in a small town—so I would imagine easy to talk himself out of detox if any of the physicians were to suggest it. At any rate, I appreciate your input. Wikipedia shouldn't really be the place to diagnose illnesses that may or may not have been, so I'm fairly comfortable deleting those claims (it had been placed on another page as well) unless impeccably sourced. The alcoholism is mentioned by all the biographers and I tried to use as many as I could throughout the article. Thanks for the input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. On-line, BTW, a Google search yields many pages available of a book on Hemingway's cats, called, er, Hemingway's Cats. If you google "Hemingway boise" it's the second entry, since the cat with the black and white face on the right you see is Boise (originally Dillinger, presumably due to the mask). This is the cat that followed EH around and ate what he did, fruit and all (I've had a few cats of this sort myself-- they wouldn't eat it in a million year if you weren't). The grey Angora in the middle is Testor (baby) later Princessa, a female originally brought from Florida soon after EH and Marty started housekeeping at the Finca. Boise and Good Will (Willy, the half-Maltese stiped cat on the left) arrived as kittens, and there's a letter of mid-1942 referring to Will as still a kitten. But he's nearly grown in this photo, and so is Boise, although neither have lost their young adult look, yet. There are photos of Gregory with Boise as kitten and Gregory looks maybe a year or two younger than the photo we're looking at. These three cats are the progenitors of most of the menagerie of inbred cats at the Finca (no, none of them polydactal) and a letter of 1943 refers to 11 cats already. So this photo is probably before Boise and Princessa have produced their first litter. I would put the photo above at the end of 1942, not 1946. Making the kids 14 and 11. Of course that helps us not at all on WP, but it's my best guess that The Answer on that point. S  B Harris 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)