User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 7

Bai Juyi or Li Bai
Do you still have a copy of the diary? If yes, could you check which of the two poets it mentions? (Refers to this discussion). bamse (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind. It has been resolved. It is indeed Bai Juyi. bamse (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The spelling is different but it says: "Her Majesty asked me to read from her here and there from the Collected Works of Po-Chü-i." Footnote says he lived from 772 to 846, was a Tang dynasty Chinese poet. This is on page 58 of the Bowring translation (no preview available). I've not seen that spelling before but it's Bai Juyi, I'm certain. I bought the book so if you have other questions ask away. I've stepped away from that page for a little while to regain perspective. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. Po-Chü-i appears (at least according to wikipedia) to be the Wade–Giles transcription of Bai Juyi so everything is fine. No immediate questions at the moment. Still trying to bring the images in order and finding captions etc. bamse (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway, again
Hey, I saw your reply here, but I didn't want to take up more room at the talk page. I think you made the right decision; like I said, it's really up to you as the main contributor, and if you're not comfortable with Harvard, then screw it. If you'd like some help with citation re-formatting, or even copy-editing, just let me know. I removed the old man from my watchlist sometime after the FAC, but he's back on now. What is it with huge projects that just never die, huh? I'm not up to too much lately -- just waiting around GAC with yet another Crane article, and considering taking on a contemporary classic for once -- so let me know if I can help. María ( yllo submarine ) 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Maria, thanks for popping in. Using templates was a bad decision from the beginning but I was new and somewhere picked up the idea the they had to be used! Probably from the citation page which is full of markup but doesn't explicitly, or didn't when I joined, say that templates don't have to be used. The harv templates don't have the flexibility for some of the sources, there are too many of them, I want to bundle sources and rewrite a bit, and they seem to make the screen light up with red errors for some people who've installed a script - so bottom line: time for them to go. KafkaLiz is helping in my sandbox; we've been hopscotching or leapfrogging or something. I'm about halfway done with the war section, I think she's still in the Key West section and then will jump over me. I'm doing a few copyedits as I go along, adding lots of inlines to come back to later, and would be more than happy to have the help. All the sources have been reformatted and I'll copy those in when we're done. I have some time this week but will be cooking so on-and-off busy periods. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use the talk page on the sandbox to touch bases. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on pie duty this year, so I'm fairly free. ;) Sounds good!  I'll keep an eye on the sandbox. María ( yllo  submarine ) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucky you - I've got the whole deal. I'm doing this when I need to sit down and it's basically busy work. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA-related
May (or may not) be of interest. I think we've upset him. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I saw that. Bears keeping an eye on. It's an odd account. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bal des Ardents
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Panyd! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Unfortunately it didn't go well. But thanks for the cookie. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

not sure what your message was
I support you even if you disagree with something I say. You know how I am. The ex permabannee and all. Not a gentle sort like Ceoil. ;)

I felt bad when you made the remark about maybe not being cut out for the place and about the imposition with the tagging and all. I've had great relations with Dianna, but I 100% agree that defacing an article is a nasty thing to do. And there are many places to upgrade, so why screw up strong content or dissuad good writers by distracting them to edit wars.

I don't know the exact answer, but it's a huge problem for the Wiki. I think the most common sense thing is much more use of protection. Segregation. The place needs to evolve to more of a Nupedia/Wiki split. In a tiny way, the small ownership exemption for FAs (in policy) is a step down that path.

I really haven't studied any stats or even concentrated on issue analysis...but my initial hypothesis would be we should semi protect all FA/GAs. Just do it. And liberally full protect (when requested by author or when high vis (Hemingway or a chemical element).) And TFAs. The current policy is ideology, not practicality. I think it can even be argued that we send less negative message by not inviting people to edit when they will very likely make a dumb edit to a well done peice, get reverted, and get pissed off. Also, I think it would help incent more academics and the like.

I realize it is a huge apparent change in ideology...but right now ideology is trumping readers. And I care about the readers. I hope that we can evolve in that direction. And again the small exemption for FAs is a small step. We need more. Perhaps TFAs would be the easiest next one. It's just insane that we invite several minutes of people looking at something defaced (when the whole purppose is show best work) and then that well mean edits are getting rejected as well. I have seen the stats on studies there and it is a slam dunk that TFAs should be full protected.

RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I have the other page watch listed.

-TCO


 * I just saw your message on your user page. Not sure what else I can add. I had written the above and the comment at EH before seeing your front page change.   You are definitely one of my favorites.  (So is Malleus.)  But I kind of call it as I see it.  OS needs explanation for sure as a who is she.  Yeah, the remark was a little pithy.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed that template, totally inappropriate, and absurd in that context...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a template involved somehow? RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what else to call it - the window that alarbus placed and that freaked TK out; - he's put it back only now as only a link - which is what he should've done in the first place if anything...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't freak me out. I'm tired of fighting. I'm tired in general; it's a holiday and I have a life and I've spent my days off trying to make one person happy only to be attacked by others. I'm tired of fighting about the little stuff here. There's not reason for and not worth it. If someone wants to be a bully to get their way I'll fold first.  TCO I'll post my very long comment to you below at some point. I'm disabling my email. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec} It's called a thumbnail; PDFs do that. Alarbus (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No you posted a file to make a point. Point taken. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You hang in there and enjoy the holiday, TK ... we're not all cut out to be disrupters, or point makers, coming and going and shooting blanks at others' fine work when we fancy, and only those who have had to defend Wikipedia's top content know what it takes (and we give up in droves). People who haven't ever written or defended top content find it fun and easy to play games on the internet and shoot from the sidelines.  It's part of the way it is-- those who can't create enjoy destroying.  Try not to let it get to you ... we're not all cut out to be cowards, but you can hold your head high.  TCO's piece of faulty assumptions leading to faulty conclusions will be quoted and cited over and over, because, well, anyone can write and say anything on the internet and get traction.  He'll surely sleep well at night for what will be the consequences, but you know you wrote good articles, even if good work can't be defended on "the project anyone can edit", where anyone can say anything, and make their mark at the expense of others' hard work.  Why do you think they chased out The Fat Man?  It was too hard for all those mediocre admins to realize he was soooo much smarter, funnier, and a better writer than any of them would ever be.  Those who can't create, destroy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I'm not one to try to get editors from departing if they want to depart. I generally dislike bluster involved with the threat of retiring. I just want you to know though how bizarre and stupid this is and that it's coming back to bite you in the ass is tragically unfortunate for you and should have been recognized by TCO before he decided to put this laughably shitty presentation together. My sciencehead wife went bug-eyed trying to figure it out. The worst thing about this dumb fucking PowerPoint is that its author, either being woefully misguided in motive or correctly guided to generate negativity, has creating a document being used to alienate FA writers in an environment where many of them feel absolutely solitary in trying to add quality content where thousands of editors participate every day, either ignoring their concerns or steamrolling right over them. I cannot seem to unravel the different levels of stupidity involved in creating this document.

Just...facepalm...so hard....right through my head this presentation is just...so fucking stupid. If you really want to leave Wikipedia, I don't blame you. Go and be happy not being here. But know that this is a blip that seems overwhelming right now and will be forgotten in a couple weeks, thank God. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not as eloquent as either of the above ladies (ever, but especially not after a night of insomnia ;)), but... well, you know (or can guess) what I think about you leaving. In the meantime, just relax, enjoy your family, and the holiday. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandy, Moni# & Liz: If TCO's report gets more people cracking open sources and reading and writing then I'm all for it. If it's used as a weapon, then I'm not happy about it. Truthfully I've only scanned it - busy week! - but will spend some time reading it today. I'm on the fence here and it's not so much because of TCO but because the report was wielded as a weapon in a stupid fight that began about a color and moved into curly brackets. It's not that I can't defend why I think it's better to use one citation style over another, and god knows I've tried them all, it's the drip drip drip of criticism and trying to hold up a wall on a high volume page. I was happy having Maria and Kafka Liz pitch in to help over there, we were working (making a better product!), and chatting in the back of beyond in my sandbox when I was hit with the "the page is being ruined" shit and then TCO's report used as as, dunno what, evidence (?), that I was ruining that page. I'd reached the I can't take it anymore stage - of course having this happen on a week when I was cooking for a fair number of people didn't help either. Anyway at the moment on the fence. Honestly I'd like to do more pages like Hemingway - I'd like to finish Pound, but he was an antisemite, and Steinbeck, who was a communist, so I what I see up the road is more talkpage crap. In the meantime I'm wedging myself into smaller and smaller and more esoteric subject areas that aren't making me all that happy - so it's time to think about whether to keep doing this. Although I suspect I'll be back. It was another hissy fit.  But thanks for the posts and sorry for not responding earlier - busy yesterday. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bauhaus Dessau!
 has given you the Gropius Bauhaus Dessau! The Bauhaus Dessau promotes Wikilove and hopefully it has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing!
 * Sorry it is so tiny. Modern architecture is not always practical. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Liz! Truthkeeper (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there
Don't let the turkeys get you down. Even if I am one of the turkeys. You have a lot of admirers here.

Yeah the gnome-pushers and edit warriors are a buzzkill.

TCO (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just tacked a long comment onto to the discussion you had w/ Ceoil last night. I'm starting to review your work. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I read it.  Good points.  Need to do some work and my head hurts (eyes).  Will try to concentrate on that vice talk, for next few days.  Not blowing you off and you know that I do like to chat a lot in talk at times.TCO (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw - re buzzkill. It's more than that. For that page alone I probably read about 3000 pages - two years ago. Now, all at once, a few page numbers, a few other errors, are causing a huge problem. I spent hours, and two other editors helped, converting over 200 templates, mentally flipping through the 3000 or so pages I'd read to try to keep myself on track, only to be told I'd ruined the page. And your report was used as evidence. Not only was that an exhausting thing to do (and stupid) when I had some time off, but it just really pushed me over the edge. I still haven't decided whether I'll return here to write - at the moment seem to be enjoying flitting around talk pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Written in response to TCO's report: I've looked at the page view statistics of the FAs I've worked on and, working with very rough numbers here, the page view averages out to about 1600 per day. If I add in two that "got away", it goes up to 2200 (I'll talk about those in a minute). The articles I've improved range from over 10k views a day - Ernest Hemingway - to 11 a day - Edmund Evans. So how have I improved the sum of the world's knowledge in two years? This is a question that's worth asking - because I might just decide to hang it up here and walk. The Hemingway page is a pain to maintain, has the highest daily page views, but honestly there isn't much there that can't be found elsewhere on the net and probably lots less than can be found elsewhere on the net. Edmund Evans has the lowest number of daily page views, only about 11. There's very little available about him on the net, in fact practically nothing. Was he important? Yes, he gave jobs to Randolph Caldecott (as in the Caldecott Award), Walter Crane and Kate Greenaway. He changed, completely, how children's books were presented, printed, marketed, etc. He also developed an early form of a paperback book. In my view the guy is important, but he doesn't get much traffic. Olivia Shakespear was an offshoot of Pound - she is important in her own right. Forgotten Edwardian novelist, patron to many modernists. Nothing about her on the net; not even behind a paywall. Saying that finding sources was hard is an understatement. Then I had three Hemingway pages: a posthumously published novel True at First Light, important because the guy almost died at the time; Indian Camp about one of his first short stories; and The Sun Also Rises - his first novel. These have varying page views and a varying amount of information available about them on the web. Interspersed in that was The Magdalen Reading - a collaborative effort with two other editors. Small page views but important painting with not a lot info that doesn't live in books or behind a paywall. Then I moved onto the 10th century Japanese novelist Murasaki Shikibu - with digging there's stuff available about her on the net, but nothing as comprehensive as in our single page. Not great page views. In the pipeline is another collaboration about a piece of art - important for a variety of reasons, mostly because of its technique. Hardly anything available about it on the net and precious little behind a paywall. It's probably the best page on the subject freely available on the net. Two got away from me: Ezra Pound from which I bailed during the FAC, but to be honest there were some disputes and I let it go. There's plenty available about him on the net so I don't feel that bad about it. A few of us tried a collaboration to bring Vincent van Gogh to FAC - big view stats - but the nastiest dispute I've been involved with on the net drove me away. It's not a big deal because our page is good and there's a lot freely available on the net. I think to some extent all of this should be taken into consideration. I looked at American literature - 1700 views a day. The page is a mess, but again, it's not as though that info can't be found elsewhere. These are only FACs by the way; doesn't include many many pages that have been improved but never reviewed. One last thing: the fighting that comes with the territory here and that comes with having to tend a large page is a huge disincentive in my view. And incivility has nothing to do with using bad language - incivility involves picking a fight over curly brackets and finding fault where there's no fault - just to make a point. None of these have anything to do with the FAC process and everything to do with the culture on Wikipedia. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Truthkeeper, having met you here and having worked with you on more than one occasion, nearly from the beginning of your editing here - I am impressed and sometimes in awe of your ability and your tenacious pursuit of quality and your trying to get things right, even to the point of self-criticism. We aren't publishing volumes; but rather short, succinct illustrated texts. You have created a wide range of information that emanates from an enormous body of literature all of which should make you proud. You have become a courageous and valuable and experienced writer here; with both an accomplished and steadily growing knowledge of this project. I know how focused and intense working here gets to be; and you have provided to many of us - an invaluable colleague, whose focus and drive demands the most from the material and from our efforts. I hope that you decide to continue your excellent work here...Modernist (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Modernist. I wrote the above as a message for TCO and ended up not putting it on his page, so parked it here while I'm thinking. I think you make a good point about succinct illustrated books. The two articles I'm the most proud of (if I'm allowed to admit pride) are Edmund Evans and Murasaki Shikibu. In both of those pages I spent hours finding images in museums and digital libraries with the intention bringing the images from all those diverse sites onto a single page. And with the intention that a person could only look at the pictures and still get a sense of the topic - l guess the sort of thing I did when as a kid I randomly flipped through an encyclopedia and looked at the pictures. The other criteria I set for myself is to make certain I've covered all the literature. For big pages like Hemingway and Pound and van Gogh it's a huge chore. Sometimes I end up reading three or four times as much as I use, simply to be certain I haven't left out something important. Though inevitably I do. With pages like Edumunds and Olivia I pick and pick at the sources until I can bring the little bit that exists together to make a full picture. The bottom line is that a lot of reading is required, a lot of thinking about structure to make the pages succinct as you say, and a lot of thought goes into making the pages as attractive as possible. I also spend time thinking about the topic and whether it's relevant - culturally or historically. What upset me last night was that TCO's analysis was used as a weapon against me - personally. I'm sure that's not an outcome he anticipated, but there you go. Stuff happens. And I was tired of fighting - I couldn't fight Alarbus and TCO's report being used as a weapon. If people aren't willing to acknowledge that we're writing an encyclopedia, that some of us go to the sources and write and need to be left in peace, then this place won't work. I've created very few new pages because I recognize the cycle here is at the improvement stage  and beyond the creation stage - at least for most of the work I do. I'm not here for glory or stars or to rack up points. I'm here because sometimes I like it, I've made some good friends - you and all you guys in the VA group! - and well on some days it's fun. On others it's not. Anyway rambling now, but a lot of this is also directed at TCO. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is this Hugh and why does he have to do the chores? Honestly, you are ruining the Internet with these typos. Ruining it! And after I spent the last five minutes making it perfect. Yomangani talk 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly VarnishedUsul118118)
 * ; the ones he deleted starting here are the best :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy - I glanced at all of that last night and read it again this morning but forgot that the deletions have to be read too. I need to get away from here for a while. Those are funny. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly fond of Ceoil's "excitable leaps of logic", a phrase that typifies the Manic Manifesto, and was seen in TCO's wholly ridiculous SPI of Barking Moon and Mattisse. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * His "excitable leaps of logic" is more expressive than my "serious organization problem" and thanks for posting those. I hadn't taken the time to go through the diffs and I don't think he should have deleted that. I hope you were able to have a decent thanksgiving yesterday, despite wiki.  Truthkeeper (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a lovely Thanksgiving ... didn't have to cook a single thing ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm jealous. I cooked up storm. It's exhausting. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

time length for segmentation
Good comment. I agree that someone's "label" from the 9 months does not brand them for life. I had an asterix on all those charts about the time length, but I will add a chart at the front explaining this issue. People will still be angry, but I think I should do that to clarify.

Ceoil is a great example. In the extreme limit, someone who wrote no FAs in those months would not even be on the list, but that does not make him a non-FAer. I just went with how it shook out though, not who I liked or other knowledge of the people. Wehwalt may be our greatest FAer (don't know...he does both mega-articles and some repetitive stars) and I would have liked it if he came 1st. But he didn't. Similarly, I know Malleus spans the gamut of ability. But that is where he came out. He does do some more trivial articles for amusement (Wife selling). Even for me, I was surprised to find that I had an extra .2 stars I wasn't aware of.

I think the fundamental aspects of the distribition (which is what we should care about more than the list...I just had that since I knew people would be interested, plus to show how a FY11 ladder board would look) would not change much. Some small regression to the mean from self-averaging (makes the cloud tighter). But still, there are pretty clear differences of writing pattern from Garando and Ucucha. And the difference as strategies (in efficiency) is the same. Responding here so you don't think I blew you off, but keeping down the orange bars.

TCO (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about sandboxing all of this so that my comments and yours are all in one place. Basically my feeling is twofold at this point and I haven't read all the way through closely (am taking it in small chunks) -


 * 1. the sample size is too small as I said earlier. I'm not a numbers person but I do know that it's not a good idea ever to assume a conclusion without a complete set of numbers.
 * 2. You might be too close to this yourself. I didn't know about Wehwalt, but again I think it's making an assumption on what you think to be true but might not necessarily be true. If you're totally serious about this you've got to be totally objective. But I already told you that. Don't worry about the orange bars. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. Re content reviews; the better prepared articles have already gone through PR and GA, where they have already been extensively reviewed on content. If an FAC gets bogged down in this area, its usually a fairly bad sign.
 * 4. Re taking on large, vital or important, they are just too much for a single editor to manage. Ironically your presentation tends to denigrade collab. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TCO you'll find that a lot of the FAC's tend to be people with fairly think skin (most but not all), so the categorising is not really a problem for them personally, but it provides a weapon to use against them by others. I think a lot of your observations are fairly astute, as I told you, but you need to present it as a working document, and you need to listen. I would imagine that you spent a long long long time putting it together, and I know you intentions are good, the problem is that it just was not ready yet for publication. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * here. Just gathering bits and pieces for now and trying to put together some thoughts without having them spread all over the place. I think Moni and Johnbod might have some points to add too. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. As I've said, I agree with the broad thrust of much of the analysis, but I think the attempt to quantify & measure these things would need a huge amount of work to do properly, & it's no use pointing fingers at people for doing the "wrong" things, as the PDF often gives the impression of doing. My jaw dropped when I read the table of 150 but I recognise the broad patterns shown. I do think it's a problem that FAC seems now mostly full of very obscure small stuff, but I don't really think it's because reviewing is too hard on well-prepared broader topics. I also think it's gradually lowering the status of FAs. Lack of content reviewing is an issue, but that is partly exactly because the topics are so specialized.   But it all comes down to the overall problem of the lack of editors, and content editors in particular. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically I'm in almost total agreement with what you've written above. My fear is whether this report will be used to hurt individual editors, as on the Hemingway talk page. I don't think it was intended that way & it could have been an isolated incident, but I think it would be helpful to restructure it bit & depersonalize it a bit, i.e. remove the jaw-dropping sections.  Without a doubt our biggest problem is lack of content editors and I'm very uncertain about my role here. If writing FACs brings me under fire to the point of giving up most of a holiday to fix over 200 refs on a highly viewed page and to have that work come to a screeching halt, then I just can't say that I want to keep writing here. I'm very conflicted. I'll  think about the report for a few days - I might let it go and do nothing. I might make suggestions.  Truthkeeper (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would have been better not to name individual editors at most points, & the analysis (which I'm far from entirely understanding) seems pretty dubious methodologically at many points, although most conclusions largely reflect what one had observed. FAC is certainly stressfull, sometimes extremely so, & that's another advantage of doing what I spend most of my time on - either improving poor but mainstream articles, or doing more in-depth work on smaller topics, but not taking them to GA or FA, & doing a couple more in the time saved.  Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO too much is made about the vital article list - many of those articles are not vital and do not need to be or simply should not be pushed to FA. Yes, the EH problem was precipitated by a newbies utter misunderstanding of the project, and finally I also agree with the triviality of most FAs being done these days...Modernist (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't worry about "Vital articles" as such at all, but I do worry about the very large number of larger topical articles, many of which are poor and just not developing, above all in the visual arts - apart from the few ones that people like you & I work on, but there aren't nearly enough of us. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty dispiriting in literature where I seem to be one of the few holding down the fort. I think one of the reasons I get cranky is that I feel there's always so much to do and limited time. And sometimes I turn to more esoteric topics because they're more quiet. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've moved the page from mainspace to your userspace: User:Truthkeeper88/FAC. Goodvac (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that was a big mistake. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
Come now. This should be for the Hemingway sandbox, not you. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Must have been a mistake. I've been making a lot those lately. It's fixed now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A nuts, your back. And there was me rubbing my hand with glee and cacking thinking, well thats one less person to worry about on WP:WBFAN. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really back. I need to be mostly gone for about a month. I popped in to respond to a new editor I thought might be a student who is working on a Hemingway page. And I responded to Liz. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do what you have to, but come back to us - we'll be missing you. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'know, as a battleship or whatever, you ought to Dreadnought. This should be water off a duck's back, if you'll forgive compounding a dreadful pun with a trite cliché. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough already. Do me a favor and read through the entire Lesbian article. You know, for punishment. Basically it says the entire idea of gay identity is built around being subjugated by the prevailing legal and psychological theory of the day, despite how flawed it was. People believed they were criminals and mentally ill because they were told so by doctors and police. Seriously. They committed suicide and shit over that because they could not imagine that the best authorities might be misinformed or simply ignorant. Enough. Someone else's opinion does not define what you do, how well you do it, and what kind of person that makes you. --Moni3 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a report in the works on the under-representation of Cabbage articles at FA. Wikiproject Brassicas is hopping mad about it, I can tell you. Just dropping by to let you know that because you haven't done any work on articles on Greens, you will be classified as Arterial Spray in the report (other categories are Mr Tickle, Hobgoblins, and Mammalian Diving Syndrome but you've no chance of fulfilling the criteria to move). Sorry to have to single you out as a case study, but as an anonymous FA reviewer once said "Missing publication date for cite 3" Disclaimer: Quote selected at random. May not be relevant. Ditto methodology. Yomangani talk 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus I wish I could be Arterial Spray. --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded, with enthusiasim. Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood stains, cheap thrills... but concur. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lulz. Srsly. María ( yllo submarine ) 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we turn the stars red? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

hey
1. I will fix the Pound thing and upload a new pdf.

2. Have not read the long paper you refer to (only the cited 2 page Wikisym paper). I know the bullet you mean though and will add single quotes (it is her view, not mine in that bullet I am trying to show).

3. I only came across her work after having most of mine done. all the page view stat tool pushing. That was all done in response to the Louie study and the FAC talk that we had earlier. I have a footnote saying that, about the timing. (Please don't doubt me as I would swear it, polygraph it and can probably prove it from the computer somehow.) I'm not her clone. I based one slide and cited it, off of the 2 page paper. Later in the deck, there is the eyeball view analysis, and I asked for that just a few days ago (can prove it off emails). My impression, 99%, is that she compiled it at that time.

I'm not her clone. Our views are just very similar. Because we are right. ;-) And all the opinions, scurilous remarks, etc. are from me (she didn't give any input other than the last study that I asked for (and there the interpretation is still mine, she crunched the data). And then the first slide was me compiling out of her published paper. Anyhow, don't AK47 her. We've barely communicated and I am a free agent (probably that no sane person would want to be associated with).

4. I'll go over the rest of your comments as well.

TCO (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pound liaison fixed. Not really sure if I need it, but added single quotes on that one bullet. again, I have not read the one paper you refer to...and am not trying to represent some global survey.  That slide (the data, the comments) are all fair extractions from the 2 page Wikisym proceedings and I stand behind it.  If you want to make some meta criticism (perhaps even find other researchers than Gorbatai) that is great.  Additive.  But I think the work stands as self-contained and can be discussed off of it.  I will look anyone on this site in the eye who thinks I am doing anything sneaky as well.TCO (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is this: two of the articles you looked at I knew well because I was involved in bringing them to FAC and in each I found mistakes. The Olivia Shakespear analysis had a gross factual error - that Olivia slept with her son-in-law Ezra Pound. About The Magdalen Reading you stated there was no content review which is wrong. The FAC is here. engaged on content; three other reviewers, who had engaged on the talk page and who are content experts supported. If I see a 100 percent mistake rate on only the pages I know about in your report, then I think there's a problem. As for Gorbatai, I wanted to understand her research. I don't believe your views are at all similar, but her papers take a bit of time and effort to parse. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course

 * No problems. My objective was to just leave a warning so that the editor does realize that in the future, such words may not be appreciated. But good to see you around. Best regards. Wifione  Message 05:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand is that he's well loved and particularly how he expresses himself. Have a look at his page and read some of his articles. It's not all about swearing you know. And his username is Ceoil, he's not an anonymous editor. That's a bit cold. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will keep that in mind. Thanks again for the reply. Wifione  Message 05:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu Nikki Emaki again
Hello! Could you have another look in the Bowring translation whether the chronology is the same as in here. I am asking since apparently the emaki has the events in different order (which I don't understand yet). For instance you could look out for two scenes: i) Murasaki Shikibu teaching Bai Juyi to Shochi (page 136 in my translation) and ii) Murasaki Shikibu playing koto (around page 133 in my translation) and to see whether they are indeed that far down in the diary. According to the emaki they are closer to the beginning of the diary, shortly after the birth of Atsuhira shinnou (Emperor Go-Ichijo). bamse (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bamse - the teaching Chinese scene is on page 58 of 65; the playing koto scene on page 53 of 65. Interesting that the emaki shows a different sequence. We may need to investigate how the bits of the diary were put together for translation. I've had to leave it because of time and other issues but it's still simmering on the back burner. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking it up. I think it is not a matter of translation since the Japanese text seems to have the same order (i.e. those scenes near the end). Looking at the texts themselves, it seems that they are general statements not fixed to a specific date, so there could be indeed some freedom to shuffle them around. I also asked Binabik155, who wrote the French article on the emaki, maybe he knows more. bamse (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway copyedit
Complete now as far as I'm concerned, that is, I've fixed a bunch of the little glitches that inevitably get into a piece of this length. If I may, though, I'd like to offer a little feedback. As a person with only a general reader's acquaintance with Hemingway, i.e. no specialist knowledge at all, I found the Style and Themes sections not up to the standard of the rest of the article. There were things I felt could have been explained more fully (though obviously length is a consideration), and a couple of places where the flow could be improved. This, I hasten to add, in the context of one of the best WP articles I'm aware of, so it's more my perfectionism than any serious defects. I hope you don't mind (too much) my mentioning it. Best, Awien (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot - can't tell you how much I appreciated seeing you step in there. I agree about the themes and style section. Writing the themes section was hard because so much has to be distilled and it was the first time I'd tried to do something like here. Another editor had recently added to the style section when I was working on the page and I didn't want to take out that material but I don't think I did a particularly good job melding his work with mine. Also at the point I was fighting page size - the page was hard to load and the two sections had to be kept down in length. I think now that I've managed to cut down some of the load time by removing the templates I can add to those sections. Also  I've been extending those sections in the individual pages - see The Sun Also Rises for instance. Anyway, will get to it, just don't know when. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Go-Ichijō and Go-Suzaku years of birth
Hello! FYIO: I don't know how it came about, but somehow the years of birth of these two emperors are wrong in several articles such as in Empress Shōshi and the articles on either emperor. Correct years of birth should be 1008 and 1009 respectively. Will try to fix, but not sure whether I catch all of these occurrences (sometimes these errors also affect other dates such as the age at death, etc). bamse (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding and fixing Shoshi. I'll check Murasaki Shikibu and the diary page and fix if necessary. Don't think I've added these to any other pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No you don't
If you blank your pages again, then you and I are going to have words, lady. Yoman is a former admin but knows people, and I can touch him to do bad things if this happens again. We need you here in other words, and hope you stay. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make Ceoil touch me. Yomangani talk 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Therapy is available. There may even be a class-action lawsuit. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You love it really Yomangani, you dirty bitch. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The civility police will be after you. And the police. Yomangani talk 02:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A few strong hot and bothered uniformed men breaking down my door in the middle of the night is nothing new to me. As you well know. You dirty fecker. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll explain so that it's very clear. These are only a few examples of my last 12 months on wiki. I know this is the internet, thick skinned required, all that - but seriously do I really have to put up with this shit? Can someone give me a good argument to stay? Because this stopped being fun a long time ago. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year with Ruhrfisch I scrubbed pages full of plagiarism and copyvio. For that I was repeatedly called a bitch and various other things to the point that my page is now protected. Which I don't like.
 * Somehow I managed to crank out a few articles that were good enough to pass FA anyway.
 * Last summer when Ceoil asked me to become involved with Vincent van Gogh, the result was a talk page dispute that was posted to an external website where I was called a pre-menopausal neo-nazi nun (apparently the numbers 88 = nazism, news to me) all of which was linked to pornographic images.
 * Somehow I managed to crank out a few more articles that were good enough for FA.
 * When I changed the color on a template it was reverted 5 times, the color called baby poop brown.
 * Because of the template dispute an admin felt she had to review a huge page for errors. I spent my holiday week when I had company fixing something that didn't need to be fixed. And made a mess in the process. And was told I'd ruined the page.
 * Apparently I'm a star chaser to the point that I'm a battleship. When I reviewed TCO's analysis and the accompanying research it was called a gottcha tactic or something like that.
 * For example Yomangani talk 13:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Waving my arms like an overanxious schoolgirl who knows the answer to the question. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hemingway thing was mainly bad timing, but I believe it worked out in the end; like I believe you said, the citation-cleaning and prose fixing would have had to happen at some point. It's much better as a result.  The issue with the article being "ruined" because of it is just ridiculous, especially coming from some drive-by n00b who seemingly works solely on templatey things.  Sticks and stones, etc.  María ( yllo  submarine ) 16:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of this, Truthkeeper, is just that people on the Internets only speak Asshole. It's like a language you have to acquire in order to be able to function on the Internet. Even on Wikipedia, where most folks actually are trying to be productive. Anyone who wants to edit here consistently has to make a choice whether they can communicate--either receive or transmit--messages in Asshole. If you think of it that way, though, maybe it might help make some of the comments less personal: "Ah. You are speaking Asshole. I recognize the vernacular." Too many times no one here pays attention unless you also speak Asshole fluently. Asshole tends to get more attention than everyday English.
 * Honestly, though, some of it comes and goes. There are periods that I just can't understand Asshole or anyone else and I'll do anything to avoid logging on for as long as possible. Because seriously. Assholes.
 * I have more thoughts on this, but I'm not sure how to say them or how they might be received. I think most people who come here do so for a purpose and when they see the way sausage is made (in Assholandia), they get horrified and write something about how Wikipedia is doomed. DOOOMED! I've had experiences similar to yours in my 5+ years here. I think most people have who stick around more than 6 months and accomplish anything. For some reason, having an online coffee klatsch where the focus of discussion is Why Wikipedia Makes Me Want to Stab Myself 6 Times is perceived by a lot of editors as pointless griping. But at the very least, it makes us feel a little less isolated.  --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do what is best for you, but I hope that includes staying around here if at all possible. You give so much to the project (despite being sometimes inundated in what we all know comes out of assholes (thanks Moni)(and sorry)), that I wanted to make sure you knew how much I appreciate you and what you do. Take a break if you need to. Find an obscure article and work on it in a sandbox far from the light of day. Let me know if I can be of help - again do what is best for you, but I hope that means staying here if at all possible. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) PS You can change your user name or I can unprotect here if you want. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Long responses: After about 200 edits (mainspace & sandbox, four editors) to Ernest Hemingway the "citation problems" that Diannaa pointed out and the resulting mess have been cleaned up. Two more sections need to be rewritten but will have to wait. My problem is that when I'm here and writing I tend to hyperconcentrate on the task at hand - researching, synthesizing, and trying to write. I was pulled away from another page, for which I'd snuck behind paywalls to steal articles I'd downloaded (sitting unread on my desktop), happily settled in for a weekend of editing before dealing with a hectic holiday. I don't deal well with interruptions (clearly!), and I don't speak Asshole. I'm not here to spend a lot of time in drama though it seems to find me. I dislike internet drama for the most part and I think communicating on the internet is particularly hard.


 * All of this makes me think this is not the right place for me to be spending my time; it's probably not particularly healthy if it upsets me. And it does, frequently. But thanks to everyone for the messages: Yomangani, I'm stalled on Murasaki Shikibu's diary but hope to return to it at some point when I have time, and yes I know that my username does not = me. Sandy your description made me laugh.


 * Ignoring people like TCO is a little harder for me because I am thinskinned. In general it's hard for me to ignore people who hurt, whether intentionally or not. Moni, you're right about Asshole - and yes, I could at this moment have a lot to say in a coffee klatsch about Why Wikipedia Makes Me Want to Stab Myself 6 Times. The problem is balancing the wanting to stab myself 6 or even 10 times with the calm that comes when I really and truly focus on a task and accomplish something. Though these days accomplishing something is measured by page views, and that makes me want to stab myself another 10 ten times.


 * I had a look at the Core articles for authors - seemed very subjective to me. I had to wonder why Murasaki Shikibu wasn't on the list - a thousand years ago the woman wrote what's considered the first novel and by many is considered one on the best pieces of literature to be written in Japanese. It's rated low or mid-importance. But hey who am I worry myself about such irrelevancies.


 * Thanks Ruhrfisch for the rock - I don't really rock. I just find sources and write. That's all. And make a lot of fuss when I'm frustrated, which is often. No, I won't change my username - but yes, would like my page to be unprotected. Anyway, am taking this day by day.


 * Oh, and Ceoil - I haven't a comeback to the youtube link.


 * One last thing - this behaviour is just pure frustration. It's not meant to garner a lot of "please stay" posts. I am very very massively frustrated. I'll get over it and at some point feel better about this place, maybe. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Long Goodbye

Is this still The Long GoodBye? 'cause it's getting old. I see you've continued your regression of the Hemingway article. FAs are supposed to represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and you've taken your article quite a few steps away from 'our best'. For example, could have offered:



which gives digital object identifier and PubMed links that would allow people access to the source (per WP:V). Even better form would be to use:


 * (am wondering about that page number, though)
 * (am wondering about that page number, though)

This article well on its way to being a well made web page, but you've  towards a paper paradigm. Seen this?


 * wmf:Resolution:Openness (and Openness)

The citation templates you people are so against are about usability ("Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility"). And the "templatey things" I've been doing a lot of are about accessibility (they're mostly navboxes getting brought into compliance with WP:HLIST). You and your friends, above, are working at odds with the above resolution, so you should not be surprised when you find yourselves being criticised — by the WMF's executive director or by a 'drive-by n00b'.

Alarbus (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What language is this? --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll not be baited by your uncivil bad-faith. Alarbus (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, too bad. I thought you were complementing my insights with illustrations. I thought it most helpful. --Moni3 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * trolling with a sysop-bit is quite unimpressive. Alarbus (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most days I forget I'm and admin I use it so rarely, and unless you can point out where I mentioned I'm and admin, such as a threat or promise to block or such, it should not be an issue for you. But good spotting troll-like behavior. You've practiced it yourself quite well in your comment. I give special slow claps for "Is this still The Long GoodBye? 'cause it's getting old" (that actually brought a tear), "you've taken your article quite a few steps away from 'our best'"--so wonderful, so masterful, and "you people". I can only wait for more. Don't fail me, please. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was parody. Apparently not. Yomangani talk 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Things
Blank page mostly again I see, well fine. I'm not espically given to sentimantiality, but I always prefered Paul to John, even in the most dissonant music I listen to I like a bit of a hook or a melodic center; the blending of the two is where you get pay off. Whatever, two bits of unablushed sentimality for you to cheer you up. . Ceoil (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two very nice tunes that I've always liked, thanks. I thought if I whittled down the page slowly, maybe one day it would be gone.  I'm still here, not talking about leaving or going, because obviously not going. Free this weekend, but after that will truly be crazy busy for two weekends, will have to work about 14 days straight or something like that. I thought I'd use this weekend to finish sorting out the Hemingway situation. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope TCO is watching and realises the gun he has given to the ignorant, go with half impressions, thick, portion of the cummunity. Toese with templates and axes to grind are only the start of it. Twice now his gun has been fired at you. In the industry I work in, the claims he made vs the method he used would have him laughed at, pitied and fired. More or less that order, though maybe not with much pity. 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We've heard so much about how templates slow load time - can't really believe I'm doing this again after last year's episode on Ezra when we went in the opposite direction. That said, Alarbus is a developer and I'm interested in his opinion. This is something I'd like to reconcile in my mind. I'm not all English major stupid when it comes to server performance and page load times. As for coming to wiki specifically to write to join a group I didn't even know existed - it's not really worth spending time on. In my mind that's whatever stuff. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi, I mentioned you on ANI. Alarbus (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

...but I was counting on your help with those articles. :( . I even started working on Edward Sapir counting on you to clean it up for me. Please...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I had an eye on Bartolomé de las Casas - it's a nice page and I wouldn't mind getting back to some of that work. But I keep being distracted. I'm hoping things will calm down after the holidays, in about a month. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IF you get blocked then I will fall too, altough its far more likely I'll get blocked. But would it not be romantic, we go down together, like Bonny and Clyde. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Diannaa wants us to be blocked and she's far from uninvolved. If I get blocked for writing and maintaining an FA that's also core or vital or some such shit, then it tells a story. And I am so willing to take my first block over this. Am not willing to spend my Saturday going all over the place gather diffs. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have real doubts that anybody that has an openion thats worth 2p takes Diannaa serious, so lets let it go. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Consolatio
I always think of this sort of thing as the episode of Xena when she's in the women's prison, the scene where she's lifting stones all night to bury a fellow prisoner, and the scene where she's covered with rats. Really, literature articles in general are some of the poorest on WP, and you are one of the few people who devotes consistent and quality time to this important topic area. (So you too are a woman? How did that escape me before? There are so few of us.) I hope you will feel like restoring that lovely Magdalen Reading image soon, whether you do or note. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded re the image, and I'll vouch for Cynwolfe being on the side of content. You can take her at face value. Not that we need to be paranoid or anything or afraid of smiling strangers :) Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Her peace has been destroyed, but I'll put her back at some point because I do love that painting. And yes, I am a woman. The thing that makes me angry to my core is that I don't have a lot of time these days for this place and I am one of the few content contributors to the lit articles. Without constant interruptions and strife I'd accomplish much more. If women have to be Xena to survive Wikipedia, it doesn't say much about Wikipedia. And the other lesson here is that the three worst disputes I've had have been on core or vital articles - which is telling. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Waves hand in recoginition, TCO should try and raise Vincent van Gogh to FAC before condeming from his self appointed platform. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw - my orange bars have gone again. But um, looks like the van der Weyden is back? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper, would you welcome any drive-by feedback from a neutral party? If not, I'll be happy just to send my regards for the holiday season. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds very formal. Yes, of course I welcome feedback. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TK, you know I'm very fond of you, but myself and JNW go back to around '06 so no criptic cmts pls. Its yes sir no sir mr JNW sir time. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm wishing to tread lightly, since my thoughts are unsolicited. Also, I edit wearing a tux.
 * I haven't followed the history of the current dust-up; I've chosen to make less and less time for Wikidramas, which means I edit infrequently. It's a given that you're a valuable contributor. The things that make you mad are surely much the same as those that get under my skin, but the machinations of Wikipedia are no different than they are elsewhere: Interruptions and strife are unavoidable, and working conditions always entail compromised situations; the higher profile the article, the more certain it is that any substantive editing will provoke disputes. These are reasons I've retired, and when I return it's mostly to work in less-traveled fields. I choose to stay away from the van Goghs and the Hemingways for these very reasons--when the process becomes more annoying than rewarding, and necessitates the imposition of willfulness, it's time to redirect one's energies. But if one chooses to wade into the juicy terrain, one had better be well-armed, or better still, exceedingly well composed. I can't do it, myself. So now I'm off to walk the dog. End of lecture, I suppose. Be well. JNW (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good advice. I began working on Hemingway as a very new editor and had no idea that this stuff happens. The miracle is that I managed to finish that page without ever running into a single problem. I had a lot of help along the way - but no strife. I've been moving more and more into esoteric less traveled articles and enjoy that, so like you have found that's the way to survive. This, of course, is the reason our high profile articles will never be brought to FA status, in my view. And I welcome the advice. Do you walk the dog wearing a tux? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've worked on a couple of FAs, and enjoyed the collaborations with Ceoil, Modernist, Johnbod, RiggrMortis, etc., but FA per se is meaningless to me. It's the writing and research that's enjoyable. Don't be ridiculous--I'd never make my dog go out in formal wear. Not until after December 15, anyway. JNW (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checking. I like the research and writing too - the rest has become meaningless. I think we all have to find our way of fitting in here - and that's a process. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a process, and I didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone, ought to seek a resolution similar to mine. I certainly have no wish to dissuade a good writer from editing wherever they choose, just saying we do well to remember that our edits are more likely to be seen and challenged in one article than another. But I've also come to appreciate that the prose can be, and is more likely to be, well phrased in a piece about a rodent than one about a president. Less contentiousness and compromise over content and context. I also have no problem with going to a noticeboard--perhaps I've done so too often--if I discern that another user is up to no good. An honest disagreement is one thing, but if I catch a scent of an agenda or something malicious, well, that's what admins are for. These are observations, but there is one piece of advise I'll drop: it makes little difference where you choose to write, so long as you enjoy writing. As for me, I've decided not to subject the dog to formal wear; it's just too difficult to find spats that fit, and I never learned how to do bow ties. JNW (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate these thoughts. Ironically I was reading this Hemingway interview, when you posted, in which he is very clear that he disliked discussing writing and that to him it came with great difficulty. Writing is a solitary activity, but Wikipedia is a social place, so that creates friction. I'm always conflicted between working on the pages where there are more views and the pages with less. I have the content knowledge to crank out more pages about American authors and I'm one of the few here, apparently, with that content expertise, so I feel I should put it to use. On the other hand, working on the higher profile biographies has brought with it conflict which I don't like, so I'm really at a stage where I'll probably be moving more toward marmot-like pages (marmots are very common in the area where I grew up, strangely). I do very much enjoy writing as a hobby and to me that's the great allure to this place. Finding the balance is sometimes difficult though. The advice about noticeboards is good - I tend to stay away from them and work myself into a state of utter frustration which is counterproductive. Glad btw to hear you have a new pooch - and that he (?) isn't subjected to formal wear. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's the social aspect that's both a draw and an impediment. I can't imagine trying to work on a canvas in my studio while two other painters commenced to repainting passages as soon as I put them down. Calling it madness is too kind. Given my background of working in solitude, I'm a fool to take anything I write here too seriously; it's just good practice, and at best adds something of small value to cyberspace. If you're set on writing about something do it, and add it to articles, perhaps in whole cloth, and walk away without looking back, as much as possible. That way you're writing, contributing, yet leaving it to others to accept or not. Trouble follows when we feel compelled to double back and defend what we've done. And if it's good a surprising thing often occurs here--other contributors may recognize the quality of content and speak on its behalf. Now about the dog: my girlfriend has always had a weakness for rescuing ragged, promising creatures (insert extrapolation here), and this latest one is a darling--we're crazy about him, a frisky terrier mix who's absolutely devoted to us. The little hairball melts me. JNW (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't work offline much, but should start doing that. Sometimes I like to mult-task and flit from page to page, sometimes I don't have a lot of time here so add only bits at a time; my goal is to try to write one good sentence each day. Doesn't often happen these days. Sometimes I find something that really fascinates and if I have time I can dig in and concentrate. Basically I need to find a balance - I savaged my watchlist a few days ago which actually really cuts down the noise and distraction. When I'm really concentrating I completely ignore my watchlist. Your description of the dog melted my heart. I have two cats that I've rescued - well actually their mother decided to have kittens on my back porch. What can you do when animals do that? You gotta love them. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sending along the link to the Hemingway interview, which I just read and enjoyed immensely. One of the things that surprised me was how quick on his feet he was, his answers as succinct and certain in their direction as could be hoped for. Makes me wonder how much of it was answered spontaneously, and how much, if any, was read through, written and rewritten. But he does get to the point about the solitude of the process, and those aspects of the process, which is to say most of it, which result from hard work and are dependent upon constant observation. And I like the iceberg metaphor, because it's human to believe that one must give a detailed account of their observations through their work, but that's not always what art is about, and it can be damn boring (lifting a declarative pose from Hemingway). It takes a very good practitioner to know when and how to cut the dross in order to say what need be said. And the interview is a good example: What I found most interesting was that despite repeated brushing off of certain inquiries, and an awareness that vital elements of the process are better not discussed, he was more informative and interesting than any hundred writers or artists, answering more cooperatively and at greater pains to explain how it all works. JNW (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good interview. Somebody placed it in the external links and I've meant to get around to incorporating some of it into the article. It resonated with me and tied in well with our conversation last night. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's block
If I could block you I would, and myself. Not because I think you deserve it, but as a show of solidarity. To be fair though I think Ceoil did go a wee bit OTT given the childish standards for what's risibly called civility here, so I guess it was inevitable. I doubt he's too concerned about a 24-hour block anyway, just another battle scar. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper I'll hep you out anyday of the week, but here I think you should reconsider. It really was incredibly stupid of Ceoil to go straight from ANI top accuse someone else of stupidity. And editwar to do so. Don't go down with him, just because he supported you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You said in your capping to be nice. Did you happen to see the comment that made Ceoil do that? Would you please block me. Because this time I'll slap a retired tag on my page and scramble my password and never come back. This is just plain wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that comment was made before closing the discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Really really stupid move all around. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus is right as usual. Jesus when Malleus says I went OTT, well thats something and I better start listening... Ceoil (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Putting this here because I don't want to sully your page with it. I've been asked to put you on a leash. That's not my job, and I'd very unwillingly ask a long established editor with stellar content work how to behave, so I do this with a very bad taste in my mouth. I think to keep the heat down, it would be helpful if you and I both toned down a bit. Also, just wanted to make clear in case it isn't here that I didn't take a block because you were blocked - I took a block because I thought (and still think) if one person is blocked, everyone should be, because in my view everyone behaved badly, not only us, as was evident at AN/I in my view.  I realize that I'm deeply angry about having to spend so much time during a very busy time IRL for a clean-up that could have waited. Anyway, up to my eyeballs (which now everyone knows are not working well) in work for the next week or more, but won't be working 24/7 so will be checking in. In the meantime work on Early Netherlandish painting which is very beautiful. When you decide to collect your star for Bouts, I'll collect mine. Take care and best. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To Maunus
When you blocked me I was leaving the following message on Ceoil's page. In my view this is all about the poor treatment of content editors and to Ceoil's credit, he stepped up and defended. I appreciated your post to the AN/I thread - but I have this to say: What TCO and Alarbus have done in the past week were so much much more damaging to Wikipedia than anything Ceoil or I could ever do. All I've ever done is contribute content. I didn't seek adminship, for the most part I kept my head down. When the TCO issue arose I became a fulcrum for it because Alarbus used TCO's analysis as a weapon against me. You cannot expect people not to be upset about that. Furthermore, the issue of civility goes so far beyond swearing - that neither Alarbus of Diannaa have had repercussions shows the deep hypocrisy in the culture here. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked you only because you asked me to as what I consider to be your friend, and I hope very much that you will soon decide to return. I agree with you on all accounts. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper88, since Ceoil's block is over after being shortened do you want yours lifted? Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I want parity. He should not have been blocked and I should not have had to put myself in a situation to be asked to be blocked. I thought if he was blocked for defending me and a page I've worked on that I don't own but get attacked at nonetheless, then I should be the one to take the punishment. This is utterly humiliating and I had a clean block log. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nev - I still have an autoblock IP address message, so can't post beyond here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I've lifted the autoblock (not done that before so it took me a few minutes). Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nev and TK!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey...
...Trying to think of a way to ask you to reconsider that doesn't sound feeble. I can't, so... please reconsider? Kafka Liz (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll take it down. But none of this should have happened. I'd carved out the day today to work on the themes and style section of Hemingway which is not easy research or writing, and woke up to, well, chaos. I am beginning to think it's difficult for women here, but never thought that until about six months ago. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've heard some of the rumblings about this - but a lot of it went on while I was away, so I'm probably not as caught up on the issues as I ought to be. I don't feel myself that I've had any particular trouble here because I'm female (a lot of the editors I have the most difficulty with don't even realize, perhaps because they aren't native English speakers); I always felt that the issues I have come from the fact that I don't like to play politics, and I'm not an admin. For a lot of people here, that means my opinions aren't worth much. Part of that, obviously, is because they don't know me, and that's not their fault. And I'm not saying all admins, or even most of them, are that way. But there is a small and highly discouraging element that do seem to look down on people who are primarily here for content. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The guy who blocked Ceoil is complaining about the drama on his page! Maybe you're right -because I never thought it was a female thing. I think it's what Malleus knows all too well - it's admins vs. content creators. It's easy to hit a block button without reading a thread; it's not easy to parse many chapters in many books, summarize it in some kind of decent prose, and provide tidy citations as you go along. That takes a bit of work. And I do clearly get cranky. But now I have a block log! Truthkeeper (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he broke it, he bought it. Not to say that Ceoil's behavior was entirely exemplary, but he was defending a friend who'd been treated unfairly - and that goes a long, long way in my book. Sometimes I think I waste too much time trying to be diplomatic. What you (and Malleus) say is correct: it is terribly easy just to block first and ask questions afterward - and the blocked person usually pays a far heavier price than the admin does, primarily in terms of lost credibility. It's true that there are exceptions to this, but they seem much more rare.
 * I try to think long and hard before taking issues to AN/I, mostly because I prefer to try to resolve conflict on my own, if I can, or at least through ways that minimize the potential damage to good-faith editors. That said, I also have the sneaking sensation that no one there will listen to me. There's usually some other drama-fest going on there that clearly takes precedence over little things serial harassment or systematic vandalism.
 * I have my own little block log, from a misunderstanding long ago... a funny story, in retrospect. I suppose one could make an issue out of the fact that the wife in that scenario was considered the sock, but to be fair, the other user did have the earlier account. To clarify: I do understand why that all happened, and I don't hold any grudges about it. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we should stop talking about this because it seems to be fanning the flames. I'll disappear back to the quirky Bal des Ardents that I was working on before this entire episode began and leave this century behind. Thanks for stopping by to chat. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been away - looks like I missed quite a ride, sorry about that aggravation...Modernist (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not one of our better days. But now I have a block log and I'm back to article writing instead of talkpage writing - an improvement in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. Still good to talk. I'm working on some stuff offline at the moment - trying to make a piece I've been working on semi-presentable. Unfortunately, it's worse then I thought... but that's what copy-editing skillz are for, at least in theory. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about to pack it in myself. Still not crazy about being here. I'd wanted to try to fit in reviewing Maria's article at GAN, so if it's still there I'll try to do that. And take it a day at a time. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling, and I wasn't even in the thick of things today. Days like these, I try to walk away and engage in one of my other hobbies or - God forbid - real life responsibilities. On a happy note, I got a nice new pen in the mail today, plus several new inks to play with (the other geeky hobby - fountain pens :)). The thing is, though, that working here is what I like best. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really into fountain pens and spent almost decades of my life with an ink stain on my pen finger. Sadly my favorite one has stopped working (and it was a nice one) so now I'm into good mechanical pencils. I like working here too. I like to lose myself here, but it's not always possible. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to discuss this further at some point. I'm going to a local pen club meeting tomorrow (not that I have anything particularly rare or interesting to share), and I have a small but well-loved collection... If it's a pen you love, there are ways it can be fixed - there are folks who specialize in this, and it's not always horrifically expensive. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a Pelikan and the ink has stopped flowing. I'd love to know how to make it work again. I'm done for tonight I think. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll send you a name via email. Rest well. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen or Michinaga?
Hi! Could you check with your translation of the diary whether the guy in light blue is the queen (Empress Shoshi) or Michinaga? In this translation page 95 (That day the Queen saw the new boats which were presented for her inspection.) it says that it is the queen, while in this Japanese version of the diary it says Michinaga ("殿 = feudal lord"). Also, it does not seem to be a queenly task to inspect boats, is it? bamse (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's definitely Michinaga. I read about this image somewhere - is it in "The Housebound Heart" maybe. I'll check my edition to be certain, but will have to get back to you later. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have no doubt it is Michinaga in the image (source for instance: Mason, Penelope E. (2004). "History of Japanese Art"). My question was about the corresponding diary text, since the translation I have access to only mentions the queen/empress inspecting boats and not Michinaga (perhaps a mistake in translation). bamse (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood. Bowring, page 23: On the day of the Imperial visit, His Excellency had the boats poled over to where he could inspect them. They had been specially made for the occasion. They were most impressive; you could almost imagine that the dragon and mythical bird on the prows were alive. Footnote: Bowring: Both these creatures had magical powers that prevented boats and ships from sinking in wind and waves. The fantastical shapes were copied from Chinese examples.
 * That makes a little more sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes indeed more sense. bamse (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Monstrous happenings
Yeesh, I miss a lot when I'm unplugged. Looks like yet more drama is being described above, so I hope all is still relatively well with you? Just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your comments at The Monster's GA review. Thanks again for taking it up, especially with all you have to put up with. María ( yllo submarine ) 14:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've passed it. It's a nice page. I was worried about the image of the book because for one of Hemingway's pages I had to change from a 3d image to a flat image because of copyright. Just a warning, that might come up at FAC. The logic is that the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo of the book, not to the book. There's long thread about this on JMilburn's page that I'll dig up for you later. Not now. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for passing! Boo about the 3d image, though.  I'm not wedded to it, but it does add some interest.  I guess we'll see what happens.  María ( yllo  submarine ) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair warning
You should know that you are being discussed on my talk page. Your welcome to join in. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by the way ...Modernist (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks M for posting. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, just saw the original of this yesterday - I've been away! Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your new userpage message
I know for sure you got one pat on the back recently, because I did it. But since either I can't find it, or it's disappeared in the recent. . . er. . . upheavals, I'll say it again here. Ernest Hemingway is one of the best articles I've read anywhere on Wikipedia, and one of the very best literature articles. WP needs more people who'll do what you do, not fewer. Best, Awien (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that was mean-spirited; I realized it at the time. Your message is in my archives - I don't think I've lost anything, and I appreciate it as well as the one above. My point was that the focus on criticism - (OMG you've made mistakes!) - without a focus on appreciation, which happens frequently, is enough to make editors not write heavily viewed pages. I doubt I'll ever do another one. But thanks so much for the boost, and for quietly pitching in to help. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I absolutely didn't intend any reproach, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way, so no apology was necessary at all. I was just afraid that a little infusion of positivity might have gone unnoticed at the height of the storm and wanted to make sure you heard it.


 * And btw, the first time you said something about being blind, I thought you were speaking metaphorically, and only realised later you meant it literally. So I hope your surgery went well, and that the results are good. Take care, Awien (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - surgery was over a year ago and not entirely successful, so yeah, I have pretty bad vision. And this isn't the best interface. I know you didn't mean reproach - I thought it was a bit childish of me though and was happy that you mentioned it. I checked, and your previous comments are in archives despite all the upheaval. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway class
If it were a class run under the USEP rubric then you'd find it listed here. It looks to me as though all the organization is taking place off-wiki and there's no clue whatsoever to the class. I would treat them as you would any other newbie; if you want to point me at some of the relevant articles I will help by going through and reverting and/or cleaning up. The USEP-run classes are sometimes quite good, but even when they're not they have the advantage that you can locate the professor and communicate with them. Sorry I can't help more; I'll keep digging but I think the best thing to do is just ask the students directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've engaged a few students but with no responses at all. Since every single short story has been hit, and the formats are similar, with essay-like analysis sections, I have to think it's a class. I've left messages with one of the students and linked to Indian Camp asking that she bring that to her professor/instructor's attention so they can look as a class to see how it's done. Not much else I can do. I'm swamped myself at this time of year - I'll just go through and clean after Christmas. Thanks anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a dozen or so of the short stories to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye open. I agree; not much else you can do.  Please let me know if I can help with these at all.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for watching. I've just realized I'll probably have to check for plagiarism, but since they aren't adding sources, haven't a clue where it's all coming from. Sigh. It could be a high school class too, but the timing makes me think college since this is the last week of classes for most colleges. I think I'll just leave there for them to get a grade and next week or so do a mass revert. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cat in the Rain
Hello, this is Sophie. I am editing the Cat in the Rain page for my "Hemingway in Michigan" class at Hillsdale College. All the students in the class were assigned a short story to "improve" the Wiki entry for. We have been using "Indian Camp" as a model for our entries, which our prof recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophieSarahCarr (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for responding. Yes, I've noticed that all the short stories are being worked in which is nice, but you can't really copy from Indian Camp without giving attribution the way I showed you. Does your professor have an account here? I'd very much like to get in touch with him/her? Or can you maybe click the email this user button on the left side of my user page and send me his/her name?


 * Just so you know, new posts go at the bottom of the page. Sign your name my typing four tildes, at the upper left on your keyboard - that automatically puts in your name. Responding on the article talkpage is find too - I've put some comments there. Thanks so much for leaving a message. By the way, you're doing a fine job! Truthkeeper (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor in the rain
No worries; I know you're not an "owner"; you're just defending good work and keeping out bad. I will definitely keep an eye on that article and will try to find out who the instructor is -- Sophie gave some information in her last post so I will try to follow up on that. If you want, go ahead and grab the most recently edited article names off your watchlist and dump them on my talk, and I'll watch them -- I'm a bit busy myself at the moment but will get to them as soon as I can. Please take a break, go in out of the rain, and come back refreshed, whenever you feel like it. Thanks for the "calm" compliment, too; I appreciate it! I often quote Qp10qp, a wonderful editor, who told me when I was concerned about annoying him that as an editor, he was "in the placid category". I try to live up to his example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, the teacher in question appears to be John J. Miller; I've contacted him via his website and asked him to get in touch. The clue was his blog entry on this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll shoot him an email tomorrow. There's a reason I've been doing this Hemingway work but don't want to put it out here. I'd be happy to be in touch with him though. Part of my problem is that real life is very busy - the other part is that somebody wants me to convert almost 200 footnotes to sfn notes. Among other things. I'm trying to work it out, but just am not placid at the moment. I can't remember which the other articles are - and quite frankly Sophie's is the best by far. I doubt I'll be back here until the weekend if by then. Very busy. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifty Grand looks fairly solid. Yomangani talk 11:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This link is a handy way to keep an eye on what's changing. I also just ran a few of the pages through Corenbot to find copyvios and found nothing but mirrors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. The End of Something is a problem and there are others like this but I have to go through to find them - no time at the moment. I think they got the idea once I posted the link to Indian Camp. And thanks to both of you for helping. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki
Just wanted to let you know that Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki is now in article space. It is not a beauty, but I felt that I had messed long enough with it to put it up. I used part of your diary intro (hope that's ok!?) and part of the French wikipedia article. Binabik155 promised to look up the best source out there, which should fix some uncertainties about image placement in the emaki, but said that won't be soon. Also nominated it at DYK. bamse (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a beautiful page. I haven't had time to read it yet, but am looking forward to it. You've put a lot of work into it. I'm stuck on the diary page, but yours has given me some ideas as far as getting unstuck. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue
Good to see you on the articles on my watchlist with a blue username. I understand why you did it, hope you know you have a lot of support. I know also you never listen to my tunes, but here you go anyway lady. Be cool and good morning. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cough, splutter, I've listened to every tune. I just don't give back - dunno why. Sorry about the red - was only meant to be temporary and not a big deal. Have been very busy. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * O good, glad I'm not sending links into the vacume of the internet. Good to hear you are busy, and hope your not too put off about all the stuff over the last few weeks. Its water off a duck back for me, another day another tool shaped editor; I'm very resilliant but worry about ya. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth Ceoil, I often listen to your song links here too (when I have time to keep my head above water). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hemingway class
is over, according to the instructor. I am not an expert but if you can point me at whatever you consider the worst messes I'll see if I can help clean them up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it would be over this week - I didn't have time to send him email. I haven't time at the moment to cull through the pages, but will put up a list when I get back here, later in the day or tonight. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can count me in with Mike. Ceoil (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this and I think we should wait for about a week to give the professor time to read and evaluate. Presumably the "projects" were due during the week, but the prof still has to assign grades. Prob not a good idea for us to change the students' work until that's been done. Also, I have a strong argument for professors becoming wikipedians and learning the ropes here before throwing their students into this place, but that's for another day. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume there is a structure of this kind of thing, teachers using wiki as a tool, but of course its buried under our myriad laws. Only the foundation could give guidance here, through direct contact. To be honest I'm one of thoes impressed by Sue Gardner, I read her as sincear and able, maybe push this up. Ground level interaction with the top is always a good thing (to thoes at the ground, har). I wouldnt do more than mention, remember your very much needed here in content land. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this professor hasn't taken advantage of our support, but I'm not sure. Mike's been in contact - I haven't. A lot is being written in English journals about using wiki as a teaching tool which is all fine and good, but I'd like to see the profs get their feet wet, so to speak, before throwing the students into the deep end. And frankly, there are other ways that wiki is very effective as a teaching tool aside from having the students edit. I think the learning-to-edit learning curve, combined with the need to research a topic the student doesn't know with a deadline, is asking too much. But that's just my opinion. I don't have any intention of doing more than ranting on my page - I mentioned other options and ways to get at this to a few people last year but my point-of-view went over like a lead balloon. Anyway, about done with my work, and will have a look at the those pages - but I don't think having us edit over them right away will be helpful to the prof - unless he knows how to read diffs. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Prob not, but I'm sure his students would be delighted to see you help them ace the test. Decision time. 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tempting, but something like The End of Something (which I tagged & prob only the third time ever I've tagged something on wiki) could do with being reverted to this. but I haven't the energy for rewrites at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike is a good guy and very much trusted, and you can be sure will listen. Very much a content guy, but a solid mediator as well. O and rant away as much as you like. I do that too, its great fun. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know about Mike. That's why I brought it up with him. I owe him an email to be honest, and probably might send one to the professor too - still thinking about that. I don't want to do anything about this at the moment - I'm a little sick to death of all things Hemingway! There are a few other pages I'd like to concentrate on that I've been pulled away from. And a few new ones that I might start. I'd be happy to focus only on content for a while. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the votes of confidence! I appreciate it.  I agree on having the education programs focus on the instructors; I have an op ed piece for the Signpost in preparation that I hope will appear next week (though it hasn't been accepted yet) which is about that topic.  I'd be interested in all y'all's opinions on that if/when it comes out.  Re the class: Miller said he didn't need any help with diffs or history pages so I wouldn't worry about that -- just fix any articles that need fixing.  He knows he can ask if he needs help.  Sounds like he's not currently planning another class but said he would get in touch first next time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd taken most of them off my watchlist and when I peeked at a few today they looked much better, so the fixing probably won't be as bad as I thought. I'll be sending you an email at some point, hope to get to it this weekend, but am still a little busy. I do have some opinions re the educations programs. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the stories that I can find. It's actually only a few. Some I tidied as they were being worked on and others actually are well-done, so not really a lot of work needed. In fact I'm not sure much in the way of reversions will be required; probably only clean-up. I think the messages left on the talk pages of a few of the students helped because then they added sources:
 * Cat in the Rain
 * The End of Something
 * Fifty Grand
 * Fathers and Sons (short story)
 * The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber

Anyway, thanks everyone for offering to help. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the material added to Macomber; two of the sources are only accessible via jstor, so I can't check those. I checked a few phrases against the Baker source via Google Books, and couldn't find any copyvios. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can pull them up. I was just about to send you email - will be coming through fairly soon. Not much was added to Macomber - it's one of the pages I'd worked on. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to check Fifty Grand out in the next day or so. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I've only glanced at it, but that one is impressive for a novice editor. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at it the other day and, aside from a few formatting slips, it was impressive for any editor. It was a bit heavy on the quotations and the plot summary was almost a short story itself, but otherwise very nice. I suspected cut-and-pasting because of all the curly/normal quote mixing but I couldn't find anything from a quick check; it looks like the editor just knew what they were doing. Yomangani talk 11:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice things
Because we can has them. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I wish mine worked; I like to use it for Christmas cards. I just stopped in for a second, but thanks for reminding me - I think I'll go spill some ink and try with it again. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Got some really lovely stuff recently... R&K Alt-Goldgrün. Green, but not Christmas-y. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar but I don't think it's deserved - particularly for a situation that needs to be put to rest at this point. I didn't stay cool because he was blocked for a situation I should have handled with more grace from the get-go. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's advice

 * TK, my read is that over the last few weeks you fought the good fight, and in a number of fouras, but reason and sence are not always in the majority. That has to be accepted and we have to live with it and move on. Those with sliding scales of ethics will always win because they are essentially solipsists, and can shift and bend their position as suits. Whereas you were defending a belief and a convicton. You, me and Manus all ended up in the same places, exhasparated, too close to the fire, and blocked. We need to find perspective, and remember only content matters; there are rotters in every walk of life, and they are all best ignored and forgotten. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's good advice. I became annoyed because of being pulled away from Bal des Ardents which, though small, isn't an easy piece and I was working my way through the sources, trying to understand, and writing as I went along. I knew I'd lose the thread and did, so I was resentful. But I can come back to it later. I have some new sources for other pages and will be devoting myself only to content. I have a little window of time that I want to devote to editing and if anything else comes up I'll just step aside. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you very well at this stage, and I see two problems. Your prinicpaled (and will get eaten alive by the gamers and carrerists on wiki for that) and your bored without a project, a focual article to build. Both these things have applied to me over my years here, but nothing shakes or bothers me, to be honest, the small stuff doesnt matter me. But its different for you, your far more sensitive, and all this effects you, more so than its worth. Neither you or I will ever win with people like Diaaana (or whatever) or Rexx (or whatever), and although you should always say no actually fuck you to these people, dont help them to drag you down, and clearly both want to do that to both of us. Fuck them, game over. Here is something very pretty. Chin up, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm bored without a project and deliberately put off some content knowing I'd be very busy until this week. I really am only here to write - I've never had much interest in all the drama that surrounds. That said, I've made a lot of good friends, met people from all over the world and have expanded my knowledge. Without Bamse I wouldn't have learned about Heian era Japan; without you I wouldn't be immersed in Netherlandish art. And without Modernist I wouldn't know about modernism - and van Gogh. Maunus' work is fascinating too.  I could go on and on. So there's a lot of good, but for me it's a bit of a minefield. Unless it's content related I'm mostly lost and what I have learned in the past month is how much time can be spent not working on content. It's pretty stunning to be honest. Anyway, chin's up, and I'm trying to decide what to tackle next as far as content goes. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See, thats what I like to hear, and it indicates a keen mind. Your hear to give content and to learn. You knew nothing about Netherlandish paintings a year ago, and here you are now with two FAs on the topic, and one of the best passages from the period bang smack up on your user talk. Look at people like Rexx, no content just small man big openion. Keep on going as before girl, you'll find a lot of support. Ceoil (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw - I forgot - pretty tune and oddly I've always wanted to visit Iceland. And yes, the painting above speaks to me on many levels but I didn't even know of it until a year ago. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fall (tune is called Iceland) are my favourite musical group by some distance. I dont have words to say why, but Mark E Smith does things with words that are beyond theirn own meaning, and indivdual forms and couplings of words just go straight to my soul. Mark is very much about finding the fantastic in the ordinary, and thats fantastic in the magic realism sence. Hes a Manc, I know you know what that means, and working class and bitter towards the capital and centers of power. Me too, proudly working class and youve heard me talk about Dublin. I'd like you to listen to the link and see what you make, also this, the two most winterish tunes I know, and of course both are about isolation and lonelyiess, and I get what I get from Ezra Pound in both. I dont expect you to loke them but I'd like you to think about them. Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very wintry day where I am - cold and gray and a fine cold snow spitting in the wind. And I'm in a wintry mood. Thanks & yeah I get them. Definitely. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ye get extreams of weather, we dont. Its always miserable here (we call it "soft"... a euphaism for damp and depressing), ye get heatwaves, hurricanes, ordinary stormes, and the ice and snow. Whats that all about? Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is wikipedia someone will come along and tell me I'm wrong, but I think this continent has the most extreme weather of all. You are protected by the Gulf Stream which causes the softness (I think). We have heat and humidity east of the Mississippi, heat and dryness to the west. Snow, rain, hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornados, windstorms, you name it, we get it. Living in California was interesting - no rain for nine months but fire season (yes, it's a season!) before the rainy season, and the rainy season is like a monsoon with sandbagging against the mudslides. Nothing like having a hill of mud fill your house. Oh and the earthquakes. And then all sunny again. Dunno what it's all about but we do have weather. Mostly I like it. Maybe why so many people write about weather?Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You Are Wrong!    --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You know I normally think Moni is very wise; and hot, but I dont know what the fuck she is on about now (presumably she cant hear us, but she just posted on your talk). Yeah our weather is very static, but we dont have seasons, rainy and cold winters tend to blend into rainy and cold winters. Where is the fun in that? The odd earthquake might provide some excitement, or at least something to talk about. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moni turned the little spit of snow into a full snowfall. Oh, and I left out blizzards. Actually my favorite, but I'm in a minority when it comes to snow. When I lived in California (and sorry to any SoCal types reading) I always thought the lifestyle was because of the weather. You never know when you'll lose your house, so enjoy life to the fullest while it lasts. A few years ago I watched on streaming video as about 5 to 10 friends lost homes in a fire out there. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its weird that she found our email conversation. Thanks be to god we were not giving out about her, and the bitching volume is low today. Do think she's gone? Anyway, weve had 3 bad winters of ice here, you know I had a fairly serious car crash in 2009; did two 360s on a motorway, at high speed. Hit both sides, and went all over the place. Ended up upsidedown. I dont usually like cops, but one of them hugged me and lit my smoke that day and I frankly needed it.Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done the 360s but never on a highway, and never ended upsidedown. The adrenaline rush is fairly intense when something like that happens. I don't mind snow and learned to drive on high winter passes with lots of snow, but ice I despise. May she'll come back. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly you go into shock. Last winter I got stopped by the feds for driving too slow, IN ICE, and I told the fuzz to go fuck his damn self. He said, grand carry on. Lucky for him as I was tooled up. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, shock is a good word for upsidedown on the motorway. You were lucky. And good that you drive very slowly on ice now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No I drive like a deamon possesed normally, but in ice like a granny. Ice is not even funny. Ceoil(talk) 20:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant on ice - somehow can't imagine you driving other than a demon. I'm a fast driver and love to drive. On icy days I try to stay off the roads - ice is evil. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Im a bit of a deamon in most aspects dear, just the way god built me. Its disapointing though that Im now sucking you into an/i bullshit. Its meat and potatoes to me, but you not built for it. You dont need to defend me, I'm rough around the edges, but can look after myself. Your more sensitive, so let me fight my own fights. I know I have your ear but I dont want you dragged down. I seriously appreciate that you always stand up for me, but its having too much of an effect on ya. Your implicit friendship is enough, and you always talk me down. Keep onn doing that, but please stay away from the horse. Its upsetting to see how it effects you. Deal? Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I got pulled in too; my name was on the AN/I thread and then put there a second time. And it all started on a page I tend with the insinuation that I've pulled down FAC standards. So at some point I have to defend myself too. But you're right that it didn't have a good effect on me. I hate that kind of crap, am not here to play those games, and it was a serious timesink at a time when I had little time - which is the understatement of the year. Let's just let it go. Deal? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to flatter myself, but I think in part they went after you to hurt me. We are obvously close, and I have a lot of bridges burned.Fine, thats the way I want it. But its not for you. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's possibly true, but very very wrong if so. I spent my Thanksgiving week (a big deal for me) fixing citations that didn't need fixing (over 200 edits at a time I had company), and I spent last weekend at AN/I (why, can't even remember now), and I spent another afternoon when I should have been working defending myself only to be told by an arb that every article I edit elicits angry responses and blocks - which is not true. You're right that it's not for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that remark came from a well intended but very much over worked arb. I'd guess we have no idea of the stuff they have to put up with and how hard and relentless it comes at them. So I wouldnt be nursing wounds there. But all this is an aside anyway, more inmporant is what you decide to work on when you are back on all cylinders. Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck the comment. I haven't a clue to be honest. I lost the train of thought on Bal des Ardents, I'm stalled on the Murasaki diary page, I have few Hemingway pages in the works but am sick of Hemingway. I've been thinking about wandering back over to children's lit which nobody else does, but my heart's not in. I'm only picking at the van Gogh letters page. I'm thinking about doing some copy editing in the meantime until I'm really feeling the urge to be back. I only crawled out from a mountain of work 24 hours ago, so am not certain about anything yet. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you; your saying you dont really care at the moment. My advice is take a break. Talk to your friends here, but dont even think about content. Breater; stand back for a week or a month with talk page chatter and bitching only. Seperation is a nice tonic and when you come back there will be novelty and a new energy to heat the engins. I'm here since 96, and have hit a few ruts, and a break only ever got me out of it. Also dont let pricks get you down, its the internet its not real life, its almost pretend land. Dont worry about the openions of people you dont respect anyway. Ceoil (talk)
 * I'm also very aware that I've made a fool of myself with all the page blanking and stuff. I suppose I could blame you for that but it wouldn't sit well with me; it's my own thin skin that I need to deal with. I just need to chill for a while. But this is prob the same reason Moni has had a semi retired tag on her page for months and JNW a retired tag. It's not for everybody. Some of struggle sometimes. Even you. I've seen it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake. The real truth is that you had to deal problematic people, which wwould have been fine but I came a long and made it a lot worse. Its not on you. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed this in all the edit conflicts. That's probably a good summary. But that doesn't mean I stop being your friend or you mine. At least I hope that's true. Because if it is, then it really is time to go. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but Ceoil's right. If you're feeling stalled or frustrated... just work on something you enjoy, or on nothing at all. Oh, and if you're doing children's lit, let me know. I love that sort of thing :) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, haven't decided what yet, but I'll let you know if I go in that direction. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oi Liz, I need you on the Netherlandish page! You can consder yourself booked until early summer at least! Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eeek! Caught out by the over-extension police! Well, the offer still stands... for when we get to it. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay. Obviously I haven't a clue what I'm doing. Anyway, gotta go. Nice chatting. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually not totally true. I need to rewrite the style and themes section for Hemingway and write the style and themes section for Pound. I've pulled sources for both but haven't had even the slightest chance to look at them, and those are tricky bits of writing, so will prob wait a week or so before beginning. In the meantime, I'll just flit around. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice; forget it. Worry about christmass. Listen to the Pogues song.The internet will be here still when you get back. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part I enjoy being here. I'd intended to spend the much of today editing. If you think I need a break then tell me so in very clear language that I can understand. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday when I was ready to come back to editing (after a busy time at work), when I had a page I wanted to work on, my orange bar kept lighting up and I wondered "what is this all about". After putting tunes on my page, and a lot of chatting, turns out you think I'm a china doll bought in a china doll shop and too fragile to edit wikipedia, with a grand finale that I should take a break, coupled with the remark above about a two month break. I'm frustrated in great part because some of the stuff you do here but I'm too nice to tell you when it bothers me and you don't show remorse. Telling me to take a break after what happened in the past few weeks, much of what was caused by your behavior, is low in my opinion. I won't be leaving when you tell me - I'll leave when I decide. All this behavior has a ripple effect which is worth thinking about, in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that then your nuts. I was projecting to an extent. Been where you are and how I got away from was through time off. Its a hard thing for me to ask as we bounce and drive each other so well, and I'm not even sure its a solutuion. Its just my experience, take it how you want. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm nuts, that's fine. But you don't know where I'm at. All I know is that you and another editor got into each other's faces and took a lot of collateral damage down with you. I spent an inordinate amount of time mopping up the mess, and what I get from you is this place is too hot for you, take a break. The heat was not caused by me. And I was ready to be back editing - I spent a week grading almost 100 term papers and failing students, had a bad week in other words,  and did not have time to be here, as you usually are not when you're working. For some reason that means I have to leave because I'm too weak or don't know immediately what I'll be working on when I return. What I really wanted to do was help with the Netherlandish page because I've been reading about it and had something in mind for off-wikipedia, but need the background. In lieu of that, I'll decide in my own time. I really think that like most other editors I should be allowed time to flit & not have to crank out FAs, provide sources for other editors, respond to TCO, and hop when someone finds a mistake. You're doing what everyone else is doing - pressuring me to produce. And I have to be collateral damage too. And then leave if I show the slightest sign of frustration. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm offended that you think that, of me like that; and have use a public form to vent. We have been friends for a few years, worked very closely and support each other on a day to day basis. And you second guessing me like this? In public? Im dont let myself be treated like that, by ANYBODY. We are done. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, Im not that offended. Were not really done, but you know me better than to imply such motives. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Woo Hoo
Great to see True at First Light on the main page - congrats! Also glad to see you popping up on my watchlist again, all the best, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG! Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats on that and the star...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks M. Sorry about all the recent stuff - I've been overwhelmed at work and it spilled over here, but almost to the end of it. Thankfully. I'm a little stunned about the TFA, but haven't seen it on my watchlist, so that's good. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One of "my" covered bridge articles was TFA a few days ago and got relatively little vandalism. Maybe the vandals are all out knocking over snowmen and tearing down Christmas / holiday decorations ;0) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's interesting. I hadn't even noticed that it was flagged for TFA and I have been checking in when I have time - must have fallen down on the watchlist or something. "Your" bridge is nice. As much as TFA is sometimes annoying, it is nice to have affirmation for work done. And I hate to admit, but one of the things that keeps bringing me back is wanting to keep improving pages, frustrations notwithstanding. I think the lesson learned is to stay away when real life becomes too busy and work here stalls. Anyway, I hadn't planned to tend a TFA and still have some work to finish, so off now. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. Kudos. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratz on the Hemingway article. Glad to see you're still around!Smallman12q (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Letters of Vincent van Gogh
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is a nice surprise. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

War Horse (film)
Does the horse die at the end? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was Private Ryan saved? In a sense the horse is a MacGuffin or a plot device - though quite a horse. The film is really about the war which was a dreadful war. But the single sentence summary is accurate. I'm sure soon the page will have a terribly long plot section as more people add to it. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of MacGuffins have you visited TV Tropes? Much more fun wiki than here, you dont tend to get hassled by "The Man" as much; it covers magna, to graphic novels, to actual novels to teather, to film, and selects against admininistration orientated no content rent an openion tourists and idiots, on sight. Its well developed to cover all forms of dramatic writing, and can be very acute and acidic, but in a buddy buddy way. Big difference is there is no political class, so its what rather than who you know. Recommended. Ceoil (talk)
 * For a really interesting take on the First World War I like Paul Fussell's book The Great War and Modern Memory - fascinating and really well done. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked is that my wife has heard that in the original story, the horse dies at the end. If the horse dies at the end of the film, she doesn't want to see the film. (You can tell me here, because she doesn't use wikipedia... [although I would infer from your response that the horse survives, just as Private Ryan did.]) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs I dont like or trust you, and you edit history is almost, actually exclusively, that of the classic politiacal gamer, no content, no interest, just openion. I'd have hit you more fully on but got ec'd by RurshFish, whom I respect; I dont respect you one bit; your an internet tought guy who cares about only putting their face around, hence your here now. I give a fuck about people like you. Stay off this talk and go back to pages/boards where you might gain more capital from people more easily impressed. TK is a friend, above this manevouring and above obvious ploys by your likes. Mr most hits ever on AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on edits, I assumed that the user whose talk page this is (which ain't you) had seen the film, so I asked him about the ending. What your little rant has to do with my question is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Finish you pint and go home. Lets be honest, we all know you like a bit of drama, you have not other reason here EXCEPT drama. Some spend evenings watching TV, some putting together articles, and other forming snapshot openions and delighting in them on boards (you being the supream eg, in most thinking peoples openion). Your not invested, really? but some of us are. I have around four FAs with TK, and both of us are under pressure from admin core and  wanna be admin core, from fucking passing give a dam pricks like you,more interested in the fight.  Which woul'd be fine and part of the game, but if you wanna be mr an/i with 30k edits there in two months, why be so willing to start bother here, esp when the Malleus thing is going on. Or is it, a shuck, I like to call for heads and be mr loud, but still be friend to the peeps. Ceoil (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I dont give a damn about you wife, so dont play that here. It has not rellavance. Ceoil (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't know what your rant has to do with my question; besides which, I'm talking to the user here, not necessarily to you, who just popped up here for no apparent reason. Typically, movie plot sections on wikipedia tend to "give away" the ending. That hasn't happened yet with this film which has been in general release for just a day or two. But the user whose talk page this is, appears to have seen the film. If so, I was curious if he could tell me the ending. Because if the horse dies at the end, my wife doesn't want to see it. If the horse survives, I can probably talk her into going to see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have both a short memory and loyalty. And you spend so long here judging others. To a certain extent extent this is entrapyment, and I'm playing with you, but do you have any moral center, or even a remory of what you stand for. Ugg. You triend to have be outmnof here a few times, and there is the small matter of the fat man. Prick. Ceoil (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, this isn't a battle that needs to be fought. Whether the horse is dead or not, walk away from it.  Litho  derm  07:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He tried to have me blocked a few times, and suceeded with the fat man, incidentally one of my fav editorsd on wiki, and one of the few trhat made this crap worthwhile, like we had a voice, but we lost and have been having the shit kicked out of us since, the likes of BB and he could never be questuioned again. I know he is not clever enough to reach or earn that conclusion, and is just a pawn but the msg being sent, is reciebved plain and clear. Things like that dont get forgotten. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no authority to block anyone. If you or me or anyone else gets blocked, it's a group decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for higacking your talk TK! Ach BB I already know you are a good guy, solid sense of humour, a good grasp of irrelevance and you shoot straight, these day dead on and with both guns. I know you have pulled back from AN/I a lot recently, I just think posing there gives creedence to bullshit. FWIT, if you ran for admin, I'd support you, long as you stayed away from rubber necking. Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother to read all of this - or maybe will later. BB - take your wife to see the movie. It has a happy ending - if living through a hellish war can be called happy. It's a very good movie - I thought much better than Private Ryan. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yo
One of of riggrs....Dying Slave‎. Noh his best moment but irony is cool, no? And for sure Riggr is always keenely aware of irony. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry didn't respond last night because something came up and didn't have time to read it. Yeah, definitely ironic. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Emaki with fold
Hello! This relates to this question. The source gives very little information besides the year (1503) but mentions Bowring. By chance, is this an illustration from his book? bamse (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No the Bowring translation of the diary I have doesn't have any illustrations. But where have I read about that image? Have you checked the House-bound Heart? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I know everything about the content of the image (see Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki). But it appears from the year (1503) and from the "fold" in the image, that the image shows a reproduction of the 13th century original emaki. Since I haven't read about any reproduction from 1503, I was wondering whether you had. bamse (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki will soon appear in DYK, but for some reason without an image. bamse (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They do that sometimes, which is a shame with the pages that are image heavy. Anyway, sorry I couldn't help. I'm very stalled on that subject at the moment and have decided to step back from it for a while. You're doing a better job than I am! Truthkeeper (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Best wishes for the holidays, TK! Kafka Liz (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's quite beautiful Liz. Thanks so much. Happy holidays to you too! Truthkeeper (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And many happy returns

 * Thank you for the kind message. Happy holidays, JNW (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lovely winter roses .... Truthkeeper (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And more

 * ... and for the highwayman! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Further hearth feel wishes, keenly felt, but this time with dry and ironic man humour



 * It's a good story; sources are impossible to find. The image is perfect for inspiration. Thank you. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers


Smallman12q (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding &#123;{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Smallman12q (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smallman! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamakura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks bot, but I'm opting out of you. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fairy Tales
It's a case of what counts as a fairy tale - no doubt someone has called everything on the list a fairy tale at some point, but that isn't a criteria that makes sense, in my view, for having them in that particular list. Perhaps we could have a list of "stories that have been called fairy tales by at least one person" as well... Egg Centric 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replied there. We're not talking about someone - we're talking about scholars. And here we rely on sources written by scholars for verification. It's not an issue of what you or I or anyone else believes - it's an issue of what the scholar who wrote the book claims. It's that simple. Also, please answer my questions on the talkpage, which I placed there to avoid having to be pulled away from a piece I'm trying to finish. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Celebrate
All the best...Modernist (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my Modernist, thanks so much for the compliment and the champagne. I'll raise a toast to you and all my friends tonight! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No getting the bot drunk, guys . They're no fun to wake up next to in the morning. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously - the bot took the poem, the highwayman, the roses, the knights - and the champagne! I like my presents and will put them away at the end of the holidays - my fault for forgetting I'd set the bot for 7 days. But really, much too much champagne for the bot! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no one bot needs 6 flutes of champagne. Not in a sitting, anyway. I'm going to keep mine up until Epiphany at least - maybe longer. It's nice having all the wine, flowers, sulky jesters, slutty medieval chicks, etc. Much cheerier than the usual stuff. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just thinking it was a greedy bot! That's what I was thinking, keep it all until Epiphany - it's a bit of fun after a long and not-so-fun December. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)