| Revision as of 12:21, 24 April 2012 editVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits →Not retired, retarded: re Nishidani← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:23, 24 April 2012 edit undoVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits going to find something useful to do - will return another dayNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| <!-- STOP BLANKING THE PAGE!!! --> | |||
| ] | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="200" | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| <!--|] --> | |||
| <!-- ] --> | |||
| |] | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | {{Archive box collapsible| | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| }} | |||
| |} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Bal == | |||
| The chronicles section seems a bit of an anticlimax. Is there nothing more on the "Monk of St Denis"? You say he is contemporary in the lead but that's about it. Presumably neither Froissart nor the monk were present, so something on their sources might be good too. (probably wildly hopeful to expect any of that info to exist though). | |||
| I suppose I should now sign off using your standard talk page footer: | |||
| :Oppurtunist often? ] (]) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ]] 10:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Monk of St. Denis is frustrating; apparently it's more of a title or a post, although during this period the specific monk is identified with lots of digging. Most the sources about the French medieval chroniclers are written in ... French. And my French is not good enough to parse scholarly sources. Froissart may have been there, but that's speculation on my part. I read somewhere that he was part of the court and certainly he's done a nice job chronicling the period (am thinking about tackling him next when I return to editing full time) but can't remember where I read it. I'll dig a little more and see what I can find. All that said, I'm basically done with this. It doesn't need to be reviewed - can just sit here as an interesting piece of history. ] (]) 23:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Smart fecker. ] (]) 00:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're lucky the civility arbcom case is still in the procrastinating/wimping-out phase or I'd probably find that policy dictated that I must demand your blocking for that personal attack. ]] 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Its a statment of fact, or at least the second word is. ] (]) 00:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| ]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 07:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]] | |||
| Hi TK, just a note to thank you for the good wishes and roses a few weeks ago. I've been having some health issues lately. Not quite up to speed yet, or back entirely, but have dipped my toe into editing again. It's actually quite nice to be more semi-detached. Much less stressful. :) Anyway, I hope all is well with you. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 07:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been worried about you, and am happy to see you back. While you were gone I peeked at Ezra a few times and thought about doing something there but it seemed wrong while you were gone and I realized that the writing there now is so much better than what I can bring to it that it seemed best to just leave it. At some point though, I'd still like to address the translations and other issues. Downloaded a few sources about that but haven't got around to reading. I've pulled back a lot recently - a lot going on in real life. ] (]) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your message...] (]) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi to both of you, and you're welcome, Modernist. TK, I've not looked at Ezra for ages. Thanks for saying that about the writing; that's very kind (though not true that it's better than you could bring to it). As I recall it needed some tightening (which was my fault), but that involved decisions about whether bits of it should go in a new article. I did buy a book about his time in the hospital, intending to start a new article about that, so we could do summary-style in the main piece. But I didn't start it, and now I'm not sure I have the energy to think myself back into it, at least not at the moment. I'm glad to hear you're busy; I hope with good things, or at least not bad. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 08:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I feel the same way - haven't the energy to think myself back into it. I bought Moody's biography, so at least I have something, and will probably pick up a few more at some point, but it's a page that be can't done with books on loan. Busy with work and some other real life issues. Having a hard time concentrating, and decided it's not worth spending much time here unless I'm really really writing. But I am happy to see you back. ] (]) 12:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was a difficult article to work on with all the book loans, often inter-library, taking ages to arrive, due back at different times, no extensions. I agree about not wanting to spend time here unless writing. But I can't find anything at the moment I'd want to work on that's out of the way, where I could just get on with it. I seem to have lost both energy and imagination. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm having the same problem to be honest and am hanging by my fingernails. There's no reason to be here without writing, but I don't have anything to sink my teeth into, so it seems senseless. If I don't find something soon I may bag it for a while. ] (]) 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Hang in there and take it slow guys...] (]) 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Perhaps this is a bit too early for you both, but have you considered helping with the articles on ]? The historiography / philosophical attitudes of researchers across continents and centuries is complex, and as a thinker and a poet, Bruno is wonderful. Just an idea! I've been thinking of writing an article on his 6 Italian dialogues, which are all translated into English. -] (]) 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == "Masticating and Communicating" == | |||
| On a variation of the youtube link thing (since I can't hope to match the depth, "taste", or obscurity of C's and KL's choices, among others), here is a light-hearted literary quiz. (Hint: a couple are children's books, a couple are non-fiction.) ] (]) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's hilarious. For some reason I like "The Lorazapam of the Ringworms". I won't time myself until I know all of them - competitive that way. Thanks for stopping in - good to see you around again. Btw - I've decided to do another Hemingway piece. If I add a sentence a day it might be finished in the summer. ] (]) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's good. Is it perhaps the Bigamous Twin-Hebrew Ritual? ] (]) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay, I'm officially hooked. I've done three others, not very good at it, but it's a nice mindless thing to do. This was a very good one - I hadn't a clue for couple of them - Tugboats and Mortgages had me stumped, but I never would have guessed that answer. Thanks for this - a new place to play. And yeah, I think Bigamous Twin-Hebrew Ritual is about right. ] (]) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==More than welcome== | |||
| Absolutely, your input on Dickens would be very much appreciated. Your work on the site is exceptional (love Hemingway). I'm a complete novice, plus English is not my strong point (much more of a math person), so i was contacting various editors who had made great contributions in literary bios. Reading a published Dickens bio will give you even more of a good idea in terms of the balance/weight of various aspects of the article. Could you do me a favor and direct me to the discussion tag (and weight) to place above the allegations section, to show this section is under discussion and is being worked on? Thanks.] (]) 21:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the many problems with the page is that the sourcing is weak. I haven't been able to make my way through the talk page (was looking at it when you pinged here) - but one thing I know for sure is that I'd advise against splitting out any of this into a separate page. I don't know anything about tags; I rarely tag articles. I think the best thing to do is simply to dig in and work through the page - I need to do some reading and pull the sources; will take a little time. Thanks very much for the compliment btw - it's greatly appreciated. ] (]) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ODNB Dickens entry would be helpful per the discussion above. If anyone has access and wouldn't mind sending it may way, it would be helpful. Thanks. ] (]) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Email sent. ] (]) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. ] (]) 12:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tune== | |||
| If you feeing your back is against the wall and things are closing in, this is a nice mixture of sweetness and defiance. . ] (]) 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Re the question in the edit summary about Bals des Ardents , I'm thinking that there's enough disagreement that a FAC review would probably not be a bad idea. I'd like you along with me; you've done a lot there and kept me going. It was just a throwaway page for me, and wouldn't be what it is without your encouragement. I'm also slightly tempted to have a go at Dickens (above) the plea for help having come from your page. Oh and forgot - thanks for the tune. It's oddly appropriate b/c I spent a lot of time last week with Beatles' lyrics - some of them have made their way into poetry anthologies. ] (]) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Main page appearance: Murasaki Shikibu == | |||
| This is a note to let the main editors of ] know that the article will be appearing as ] on February 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at ]. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or his delegate {{user|Dabomb87}}, or start a discussion at ]. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| <div style="float:left;margin:0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">] inspired by the Moon, ] by ], c. 1767]] </div> | |||
| ''']''' (c. 973 – c. 1014 or 1025) was a Japanese novelist, ] and ] at the ] during the ]. She is best known as the author of '']'', written in ] between about 1000 and 1012. In about 1005, Murasaki was invited to serve as a lady-in-waiting to ] at the Imperial court, probably because of her reputation as a writer. She continued to write during her service, adding scenes from court life to her work. After five or six years, she left court and retired with Shōshi to the ] region. Murasaki wrote '']'', a volume of poetry, and ''The Tale of Genji''. Within a decade of its completion, ''Genji'' was distributed throughout the provinces; within a century it was recognized as a classic of ], and had become a subject of scholarly criticism. Early in the 20th century her work was translated; a six-volume English translation was completed in 1933. Scholars continue to recognize the importance of her work, which reflects Heian court society at its peak. (]) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ] (]) 23:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Wo ho! Nice little victory for such a beuatiful page. Well done, proud for ya. ] (]) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! It probably needs a polish, but I won't get to it. It will have to go up as is. ] (]) 22:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Congratulations!..] (]) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks great, and it's a very interesting read, TK. Congrats from me too. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 02:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Me three - congrats! ] ''']''' 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great work, finally an article that is deserving to her, congratulations. ] (]) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Congratulations! ] (]) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to all - it's a page I enjoyed working on - it was fascinating to research. ] (]) 13:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Congratulations from me too. A very nice article and a good read on I subject I know very little about. ] (]) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks Liz - I knew very little myself when I began. That's the wonder of wikipedia - we learn things. ] (]) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Slime coat == | |||
| I think that it is most commonly called a slime coat on fish and eels, though I have also seen slime layer and mucous layer are also used. ] ''']''' 05:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, when I read about the mucus, I blanked. I know it as slime coat. That's much more descriptive. ] (]) 13:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == A beer for you == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | ...to the "end of work" for your untiring zeal to improve the Brothers Grimm article on and on! Carry on! ;) ] (]) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::Thanks! Just beginning over there - there's a lot to be done. ] (]) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==A Project proposal== | |||
| Hi, I write because I have an ] that would focus on news events of the kind that doesn't fall under the ] categories - that is news that are interesting for people who care about something other than sports, distasers or international politics. Currently there is no place on wikipedia to find news of cultural events or events that are primarily of interest for specific minorities or subcultures in the world (including subcommunities interested in academia, music, arts, or literature). The aim of this project would be to get articles that are newsworthy but doesn't fit the current ITN criteria featured on the main page - and to promote awareness of topics outside of the sports-politics-disaster triangle. I was thinking you might be interested.]·] 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Maunus for thinking of me. I'll keep it in mind, but can't think of anything that I edit that would fit into this - new literature, possibly. But I rarely keep up with new books - with only a few exceptions such as the ] series. ] (]) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps news about old books? I've also been toying with the idea of making an entire alternative main page something like ], to highlight other kinds of content than what is suitable for wikipedia's face to the world. We have a lot of really good articles on topics that will never be featured articles or news worthy. I'd like a place where one could go to find those.]·] 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::News about old books is maybe possible. I think I learned my lesson as far as getting involved with FAC stuff during November/December and honestly it's a bit of a miracle that I'm still hanging on. That said, I do agree that there are pages that are good that would be nice to see on the main page, but I'd be more for a scheme of dumping DYK (an awful lot of junk with the occasional gem) in favor of putting GAs on the main page. I've been thinking about submitting more to GA because these days I have less time to spend here, and I have a lot of pages languishing that should at least be reviewed. My view is that most readers don't even know a main page exists - you'd be surprised how often I have to point it out and I'm in a unique position to actually spend time with readers rather than the motley crew who hang out behind the scenes, i.e. the editors. Most readers plug a search term into google and get here that way. I think the review process is good because for the readers, particularly students, it gives a sense of whether a page is reliable or not. If we could get more teachers to understand that a green plus sign means something and a gold star means something else, we might have fewer teachers telling students that wikipedia is a cancer - but it's the first port of call for students. Anyway, you've unleashed a mini-rant here. Sorry about that. ] (]) 01:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Message to Alarbus == | |||
| Alarbus, please stop me, and do as {{u|Risker}} . I really haven't done anything to you to warrant this and it's unpleasant - particularly having you show up at discussions on talk pages , , and not assuming good faith when I've asked nicely for you to stop. A dispute about a color on a navigation template, which in my mind is a silly dispute, has gone on for months and months. More than once you've said you'd like to see Ceoil indef blocked and you've not assumed good faith with Modernist. These are editors whom I consider friends, and with whom in the past I had a strong and collegial collaborative editing and writing relationship. Recently however I've avoided wiki-friends so as not to pull them deeper into this dispute, worked in isolation, and drastically limited interacting with editors while other editors in turn have limited their interactions with me. In my mind wikipedia has become an extremely hostile working environment since December. I'll ask for an interaction ban if this continues. Instead, though, I prefer to see us bury the hatchet and collaborate. We offer different skills here - I have respect for your strengths in referencing and had considered asking you to help with the mess on the ]. I'd prefer to see us work together toward a common goal rather than against each other. ] (]) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hemingway Memorial== | |||
| Thanks for noticing. I'm terrible at computer code -- I'm sure you can do a better job. | |||
| I don't get to the Wood River Valley often, but as I once worked for a dinky little weekly in Hailey, 20 years ago, I know about the Ezra Pound house and I'll keep that in mind. | |||
| Ideally, I think the memorial pic should be larger, so the reader could make out what it says: "Best of all he loved the fall...." As it happens, just now I'm reading ''A Farewell to Arms''. ] (]) 14:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I might be able to boost it a little more on the page - but I clicked the image and the poem is easy to read. So that's good. I've never seen the memorial; the next time I'm out there will have to try to find it. These days I only get to Boise and not up into the mountains. I've been picking at "]" (almost impossible to write about in my view!), and someday I'll move on to ''Farewell''. Feedback and help and always welcome! ] (]) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == You deserve a barnstar, and you just got one! == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Literary Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To celebrate your body of work and the efforts you take to get sources from libraries and also the fines you pay. :) ] (]) 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :This is a very nice surprise. Thanks so much! And it's a reminder to return books to the library - eek. ] (]) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Brothers Grimm - philology== | |||
| I've taken the liberty to rewrite the section a little bit for style and clarity. There was some odd phrasings in there that made it difficult to understand and in a few cases not completely correct. I hope you find my changes acceptable if no please revert them. Best.]·] 01:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Much better - thanks. I'm reading too many sources at one time, and quite honestly a bit lost - hence the odd phrasing. Now it makes sense and I can keep the section. Was about to dump it, but finally found what I needed. Thanks so much! ] (]) 01:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Harbison article== | |||
| Thank you very much for tracking down and sending the pdf, lots to work with there. The symbolism aspect of the netherlandish page is weak to say the least, this will help a lot. Much appreciated. To warn you, Im going to be asking you for guidance there fairly soon, once I get through Brian's pointers. No good deed goes without further imposition, eh? ] (]) 14:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, miss, whats the story with Bals? Had expected you to finish and push a FAC there at this stage. Tell you what, I'll take your Bals and raise you ], a race for the sake of encouraging and pushing each other; both at FAC in a month? Or may we both hang our heads in eternal shame. ] (]) 14:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to take credit for tracking it down but I've had it for a while and forgot about it and some other files in the reshuffle of moving files from a broken laptop to a new laptop. Anyway, happy it's helpful. Impose away regarding the Netherlandish art page. Re Bals - I hit a wall and decided to step back for a while. It's pretty much done - so unless I run into real-life scheduling issues, FAC in a months sounds easy. That said, I'm thinking about putting up the ] too because not a lot more to be done there either - but I need to step away from that as well for a bit to regain perspective. ] (]) 15:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I hear you re perspective, its a real problem to not see wood form trees. Thats when you need the voices of friends, and I'll take a look, though so far Ive been reading the daughter articles mostly. Here is some incrediable layered music; listen to how it builds amd wraps, and such amazing resolution. Very physical- these thing hit like a bullet when hearing recordings, but really have to be heard first hand to appreciate. Hence the low rez M vid. . ] (]) 15:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The people walking in I'd love to choke. Had an argument with a comedy club owner last night about hecklers, he wanted to throw them out on the basis that the act looses the chance to use material, I was saying its part of the game, any act worth their salt can deal quickly enough, and no surprise the heckers were funnier that the opening act the were expelled from. But people that walk into a classicl performance late; should be shot. ] (]) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the tunes. Very beautiful - but yeah, very uncool for the people who are walking in late. Of the two I think I prefer the Polish one. Seeing wood from trees gets to be a problem for me when I'm totally immersed. Then I have to disengage. Bal des Ardents had a PR which was helpful and will prob do the same for the Grimms. Feedback is always useful. ] (]) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::"very uncool for the people who are walking in late" might have been phrased as "the people who are walking in late are very uncool ." ;) It does sum up why wiki is doomed and why we have to spend so much time agoninising over CIV ways to talk to the thick. ] (]) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the rephrasing. Certainly walking late into a performance is very un-CIV. And we all know wiki is doomed - it's only a question of time. Why we spend our time here is mystery I'd rather not dwell on. Speaking of which - expect to beaten soundly re the race. In fact expect to see Bal des ardents at FAC much sooner than a month. So start working hard to keep up with me! ] (]) 22:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You sad deluded fool. Think you can out run me. Lucky for you that my vengful days are behind me, and you've not been smited. How you like me now, bitches. ] (]) 23:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, I do think I can outrun you. I don't think it - I know it. So there. ] (]) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well then, missy. Enjoy your block; I have more admin sleepers than than Jamaica got Mango Kangols. You will be baited, then blocked. And over infoboxes. An irony is that I'll use my main Ceoil a/c to seemingly defened you, but in actuality make it so much worse than you could imagine. It'll be medieval, its only fair to warn ya. Thats my only guarentee. I'm all out of pity. ] (]) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm shaking in my boots, mister. Scared witless. Medieval? Huh - just you try. Meanwhile, I'm working away, winning a race. So there times two. ] (]) 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh noes! As a last resort. Bet you didnt expect that. ] (]) 00:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, I didn't expect that! Very funny though - I've never seen that one. But no burning, so much too tame ... ] (]) 00:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Im a metrosexual these days, I wear deodriant, am in touch with my feelings and no longer burn my enemies. Relax. ] (]) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Oh dear! I'm sorry to hear that mister metrosexual. Is there a cure? ] (]) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::A descreet blow to to the head is recommended. ] (]) 01:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well there you go - start pounding your head against something and you'll be back to normal in no time. ] (]) 01:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You promise? ] (]) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Yep, I promise. Give it a try and report back. If it doesn't work we'll have to think of a different cure. ] (]) 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Marching Men == | |||
| Howdy, you ] Sherwood Anderson's ] a while ago and I was wondering if you had a moment to look it over again? I've done quite a bit of work on it since last September and think that, pending any copyediting snafus, it is ready for GA review - but I could definitely use another pair of eyeballs to make sure. Let me know if you're able. If not, maybe you can recommend someone? Thanks! Cheers,--] (]) 08:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, thanks for asking. I've scanned it quickly and it looks much improved - happy to see work being done on Anderson's work. I'll try to have a thorough read through soonish and post comments to the talk page. Off the top of my head I'm thinking the section about the writing of the book looks a little skimpy but that could be because of lack of sources. ] (]) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. Take your time. Re. the writing of the book section, the most credible source (that I know of) on the book's inspiration and writing process is the intro to Ray Lewis White's 1972 edition of the book, which I used. I can check some biographies and add another sentence or two, but I think there just isn't much more there. I am going to be picking up a book on Anderson's early (pre-''Windy McPherson's Sons'') writing and that might have more stuff. If so, will add it promptly. --] (]) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah it's hard with a book like that. What I was wondering about was who published it first - it says Lane in the lead, but says Huebsch so that might be worth digging for a bit. Anyway, probably won't get to this until the end of the week, unfortunately. ] (]) 22:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was definitely Lane that published it first. Huebsch didn't start publishing Anderson until ''Winesburg, Ohio'' which Lane turned down. However, what your source may be referring to are different editions of ''Marching Men'', ''Windy McPherson's Son'' and the others which Huebsch did publish to capitalize on Anderson's new-found fame after ''Winesburg, Ohio'' and ''Poor White'' did well. See , , and showing a sale of several Anderson first editions including MM. Could find more sources, but I'm away from home without my books. Looking forward to your review (again, no rush). In the meantime, maybe I'll create stubs for some of Anderson's other books. His template looks very sad. --] (]) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hate to bother you again so soon, but would you mind taking a look at the reworked plot summary of '']''? I've incorporated important things from major and other characters in there completely, removing the latter sections. I've also expanded the Development History section as you suggested (though I decided to keep the publication history at the bottom because I think it makes sense to have it there after the lit crit section). Thanks! Your opinion is greatly appreciated. <sub>p.s. - I think its ready for GAN now, though I'll be happy to go through one more go-round if you have further suggestions</sub> Cheers,--] (]) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I noticed you were working on it. Taking a break now but will try to get to it later. Otherwise, tomorrow. ] (]) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Check it out== | |||
| Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jack Merridew ...] (]) 14:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks M. I don't know that acct and so wouldn't have known. Not sure really what to say. ] (]) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about good riddance...] (]) 19:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I said everything I had to say above . ] (]) 19:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Early== | |||
| Im haveing real difficulty in deciding whether or not to used the painters full names all the way through or just surnames. Many are linked a few times, but Im unsure if many are familiar to most people that I could Link the full name at the first mention, and thereafter the unlinked surname. What do you think? ] (]) 16:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Full name (linked) at the first mention in the body and last name (unlinked) thereafter. Perhaps full-name in the lead, but I need to think about that. Adding; I'd consider making an exception for ] because David is just confusing, imo. ] (]) 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Grand thanks. Will do and agree re David. The Grimm page is excellent, by the way, really well done. I see a lot of fantastic work on wiki in the last few weeks, a trend away from small articles, its almost exciting again. Kudos. ] (]) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been reading the Netherlandish page and very impressed with what I'm seeing so far - less than half way through though. Thanks re the Grimm page - that was a sprint and it needed more than I realized but I'm pleased with the result. It is exciting seeing what's going on - Ealgdyth's page is amazing and so is what Johnbod's taken on. As you say, almost exciting again. ] (]) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ha ha, it does work like that dont it though; a flurry of content, then months of tidying up ;) ] (]) 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Im removing the qualifier "almost". Its damn fine. ] (]) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is exciting. But we have excellent content contributors here, spring has sprung, and kudos to Cas for getting the ball rolling on the Core Contest. It's produced some good pages and a lot of auxiliary pages will benefit too - so all around a good thing. ] (]) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<grudgingly>I suppose Cas has his uses, other than educating me on music. ] (]) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I give him credit for that. When it comes to music I wouldn't even begin to venture there w/ you - though was surprised you didn't know about Joan Baez, so maybe I could have pulled those out a long time ago. But, nah ... ] (]) 20:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Eh, Cas, Modernist and Mickgold often put me to shame. Esp Modernist. ] (]) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Question re Early - I looked up ''gendre'' - it means "son-in-law". That's not a typo is it? ] (]) 20:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I presume your taking the piss; gendre as in Goth, punk or elctro, you know I cant spell, and thats a word I always struggled with. That with angle (the ones with wings) and incidntly. ] (]) 20:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not because it's actually a French word that makes sense in the context. I didn't want to change it if it's supposed to be like that. Huge apologies!!!! ] (]) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry. ] (]) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was joking, come on. Usually my spelling got me a 2/20 at school and a clip round the ear, never before, amazingly, an apology. Your grand TK, you assumed good faith in my ability when it wasnt deserved. Lesson learned, eh? Dont over estimate me in future or you'll be the sorry gal. ;) ] (]) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I guess it would help if I read some of the sources. But, yeah, it made sense in the context, that's why I asked. I don't think it needs quotation marks though. I might have another look, but first need a break I think. ] (]) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And fwiw - your phrasing outshines mine by a mile, so yeah, I do tend to overestimate a little. Will watch that, though. ] (]) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == About the article Lieder aus "Des Knaben Wunderhorn" == | |||
| Good evening Truthkeeper88, I discovered today, the first item Des Knaben Wunderhorn, since I have been following your work on the Brothers Grimm, which this article is linked. It occurred to me that the main products of the songs from Des Knaben Wunderhorn article, a German track names. Now makes me question whether this is the English Misplaced Pages sense of the thing, or just plain ignorance or disinterest. | |||
| I would suggest, because I am a born German, should be something close to work together and translate the article into English names. Unfortunately, my English is not so good, I had only 3 years of English in school. The article needs some revision in any case, maybe there are still others that it make things better, for thou hast enough already with the Brothers Grimm to work "saddled". Many greetings from Germany and a great weekend! Btw. awesome work for your extraordinary contributions to the Brothers Grimms article, he looks very well now. ] (]) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the comments. I had not looked at the article until today and saw it needed work. I added a little from a source I have. I will look at to see what the article is like on de wikipedia and maybe translate from there. I can read German, but unlike your English, terrible at writing in German. Vielen dank for posting here and yes, I think the Grimms look better now too! ] (]) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hallo nochmal Truthkeeper, ja mein Englisch lässt wirklich zu wünschen übrig, entschuldige bitte. Ich habe hier daheim sogar ein englisches Wörterbuch, falls ich mal gar nicht weiter weiß. Der Name des Artikels (Lieder aus "Des Knaben Wunderhorn"), müßte meiner Kenntnisse entsprechend übersetzt lauten '''"Songs from Des Knaben Wunderhorn"'''. Falls man es komplett ins englische übersetzen will, würde ich vermuten das es bereits im Artikel steht, allerdings frage ich mich warum es dann nicht als Artikelname verwendet wird. Vielleicht sollte man ihn verschieben. Ich hoffe das du mein deutsch besser übersetzen kannst. Gruß aus Deutschland. ] (]) 22:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, thank you. I understand now. I think the title is correct, although you are correct that the the translation is not a literal translation. In the book linked here (hopefully you can see it) - the scholar calls the book in German ''Des Knaben Wonderhorn'' and in English ''The Boys' Magic Horn'' - without the word "lieder" or "songs". I did not make the article or name it, but I think it is best to follow the sources - even if it seems that the translation is somewhat different. Also, I know an editor here who speaks German I believe, so I might ask that he join us to make it easier. ] (]) 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hello/Hallo. I am that editor. Not sure which article is discussed here. Are we discussing the title of ] or of ]? If the latter, I believe ] here has a special meaning beyond just "song" and should not be translated to English. Please let me know if I can be of any help with the article. PS: gestochen=engraved is correct. ] (]) 06:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hi Bamse, we're discussing ]. You're correct that "lied" has a meaning more than song, I think. Also thanks for the translation of gestochen. I'll add that to the caption. ] (]) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not sure what is being asked here, but we should generally have the German first & translations after. I'd like to change the translation of the title from ''The Youth's Magic Horn'' to ''The Boy's Magic Horn'' - Knabe (same root as "knave") is I think always a boy, and though the main German word for "boy" is "junge" (lit. youth), a youth in English means a teenager, usually in the context of criminal reporting (so a "knave"). Not sure if "knabe" can work like "mankind" and cover girls too. Confusing. Translations of the titles of individual pieces set by Mahler are found easily enough I expect on track listings, but there are a lot. ] (]) 13:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know ''knabe'' as boy. At least in a colloquial sense, but certainly I think "youth" is wrong - to me a "junge" is also a boy, but the German I know is based on a dialect and extremely colloquial and idiomatic. To be honest, got sidetracked on another page (and am still looking for sources in lit anthologies for the Romanticism page) so haven't looked into at all. I only stumbled on those pages yesterday so whatever you think needs to be done is fine. I have to be out for most of the day. ] (]) 13:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes as far as I can see, "Knabe" is in this context just an oldfashioned word for Junge/boy. Also checked with ] which tells me that "Knabe" is today still used in Switzerland and Austria (both of which often use some oldfashioned words from a Germany German perspective) and also used in official language (though I never heard it in this context). In colloquial use, "Knabe" can also refer to a "Bursche" or "Kerl" (bloke). The origin is Junge/Diener (boy/servant). Does this help? ] (]) 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Looks like it's been changed from "youth" to "boy". My German is really a Swiss dialect, so to me "Knabe" makes sense. Big difference between the dialects and ''Hochdeutsch'' which is the reason I can't really write in German. Anyway, thanks for following this. I need to do a little more work over there. ] (]) 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == saturday night rounds == | |||
| Have you seen '']''? I was reminded of wikipedians a number of times (perhaps not Woody Allen's intention?). Allusions to the ], and for a moment I thought the main character was going to say that he'd read an excellent Misplaced Pages article on ] <small>(which is about the most substantial thing I've done here, is why I say that)</small> as the source of his deep biographical knowledge... ] (]) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's funny - I thought exactly the same thing when I saw it - well not exactly Rodin, but you know what I mean. Yes, I have seen it, and it's all very Woody Allenish, but good. The Montparnasse crowd is fairly well done - I particularly liked Scott and Zelda (well Zelda who seemed to be having lots of fun!). Nice to have you stop by, btw. ] (]) 03:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Riggr is becoming the Ian Curtis of wiki. Enigmatic, windswept. Midnight in Paris was a rare return to form, and a lot of fun.] (]) 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Hi Truthkeeper, I've opened a peer review for '']'' at ]. ] suggested that I ask you to have a look, as you "know stuff". Admittedly writing articles on Indonesian novels can be difficult, so I'm looking for as much feedback as I can get. Would you be interested in giving this a look? Thanks. ] (]) 13:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Crisco, sorry I've been a little tied up in real life but am happy to give it a peer review. Hopefully I can get to it this weekend. ] (]) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''tender compassion''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you, not only for your admirable articles such as ], but for showing your self in a great user name and the meditative Magdalen picture, for asking a ] and for . --] (]) 12:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thank you Gerda - that's very sweet of you! ] (]) 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == BdA == | |||
| I noticed you asked someone to look over BdA. Then I edited some (and originally I came to say "do change it back if it's worse"). Then I seemed to remember another topic that reminded me of you, so then I looked at your contribs again. (But I didn't get reminded.) Then I noticed you asked more than one person, so I'll leave it be. But I did correct a typo: "calamitious". First I had to check a dictionary, because it sounds like it really should be an alternate older version of "calamitous". However, in any event such concerns would be superceded by the fact that it's part of a title. Therefore I checked the references, and saw that it was "calamitous". | |||
| Nobody was burned in the writing of this short story. ] (]) 03:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it can be worse and the reviewer wants prose polishing - please carry on if you're interested. To be honest, I was going to ask you too last night, but was tired and decided to limit my asking to one person a day. Asking isn't something I do well. And thanks for the fixes you have made. ] (]) 11:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been through the article and it looks fine to me now. The only thing I'd consider would be to separate the notes from the citations, but obviously that's not part of the FA criteria, so feel free to ignore the suggestion. ] ] 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd forgotten that I pushed a lot into notes, so in this case it's a good suggestion. Thanks so much for the copyedits - this page has had a lot of attention, which is one of the reasons that I think FAC is beneficial. ] (]) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you think it's right to say so definitively in the lead that the fire was accidental, given the later suggestion that Orléans actually threw a torch at one of the dancers? ] ] 00:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I had a quick look at the main sources and at the history of the page. I think you're right. I don't know how to re-word it though - can you have a go at it? I've reworded that section countless times - it's either two boring sentences or they're combined and too much stuffed into them. ] (]) 00:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've recast it; but please don't hesitate to fix if it's awkward. We do know that the fire was caused by a torch - we don't know for sure whether it was accidental. ] (]) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've had a little go at it, see what you think. ] ] 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah, it's good. Thanks. ] (]) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: One comment I had related to the section "Chronicles". This starts out describing... chronicles, and then talks about illustrations. I'm not sure if a subheader is warranted. I found the descriptions of the miniatures quite repetitive. If they don't differ on the event, do we need to describe the scene each time?: "king peeking out from under the duchess' skirts"; "duchess covers the king with her skirt"; "king is seen cowering beneath the duchess' skirts". ] (]) 01:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Trimmed away. Until recently there was very little in the section but then I found more images and information about the chronicles. So it's not necessary. I think at one point it had a different header. ] (]) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've come from the future* to rewrite the past by editing in the present, only to see that you've gone elsewhere after my refusal to even answer you (which I suppose explains why there was so little to fiddle with). I have managed to add 1K though by peppering the text with annoying inline queries and returning the fabulous "unbeknown" to its rightful position. ]] 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<small><sub>*Though not viewed using your feeble linear perception of time</sub></small> | |||
| ::::::::Happy to see you out of your time machine and back to the past? future? Anyway, thanks. I did note the "unbeknown" was back - seems so wrong not to be "unbeknownst". I must say you're in fine form with the edit summaries - so much so that I haven't bothered to look at the inlines (maybe because I've been at work?) but will get to them later. Btw - I like inlines. ] (]) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ]? Seems unlikely - it's a long way from Le Mans. It would have been quicker just to go back to Paris. ]] 00:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's what comes when I read as scavenger. In fact, after he recovered but before he returned to Paris, Charles went on a pilgrimage of thanks to Laon to Notre Dame de Liesse. I'm not clear whether he was taken to a different Notre Dame de Liesse when he fell ill. Should I remove it b/c it's not clear? This is the problem with this page - I'm never sure what to leave in and what to take out. ] (]) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :She's too muddy - in one section she says he went to the cathedral, in the other she says he was returned to Le Mans. Returning to Le Mans is the most logical so I've fixed it. ] (]) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::That does seem most likely - it's what I'd do with a comatose king if I happened across one outside Le Mans. The side trip to Aisne sounds like it should be added though - it's a roundabout return to Paris by a king who feels up to a pilgrimage, where at the moment it sounds like a careful progression towards Paris with Charles being pretty delicate. ]] 01:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::He went to Le Mans, then the slow return to Paris, and then late in September/early October to Laon and then back to Paris. They did move around a lot didn't they? ] (]) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's fine then. Glad he was feeling up to facing the Périphérique. ]] 01:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Kept them moving and away from the filth in the castles I suppose. Anyway, I have to stop - work tomorrow. Am still working on the Monk's dates - that was a good catch. ] (]) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the Monk - I don't know if you can see this , but she writes that the Monk wrote (literary present & past, ha!) about 10 years after the event. The footnote for her sources is here , assuming you can see it. I don't know how to reconcile this because it doesn't make sense. All the sources I've read have him writing from 1415 to 1422, but many of the sources are in French so I'm sure I've missed something important. Or someone has made a mistake. Should I just leave it out? ] (]) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't find an online edition of the Chronicles that she refers to there to view Bernard Guenée's intro, but he refers to it himself and later in that paper (p378) says "...but when, without doubt around 1400, the historian discusses 1392...". (I haven't read the whole thing - it's mostly dry stuff about letters) The source you cite for the c. 1415 and 1422 (Curry, 100) doesn't appear to have that information anywhere, and a 1422 completion date would have him writing after he was dead. Guenée says he stopped writing in 1420 ("when his strength failed him"). I think you should try to get hold of Guenée's intro if you can - everybody seems to use it as ''the'' reference work for Pintoin (it's called "Michel Pintoin: Sa Vie, Son Oeuvre") - you might have better luck finding it than I have so far. ]] 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I looked last night & the pages are blanked on g-books. I'll order it from a university library - I agree that does seem to be ''the'' source. I'll fix the source - should be Crane, not Curry. ] (]) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is Curry, but it's at the bottom of page 99, in the heading. ] (]) 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So it is. She doesn't give any clue as to why she's assigned those dates though, and presumably that's a publishing date range rather than a writing range. Guenée's the man. ]] 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree. Searching, searching, searching .... ] (]) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yesterday I write a rather long message that I mean for the talk page of BdA about the literary present tense. I find that the article's tenses are not consistent (to me) as they stand now, in presumably syntactically similar sentence formations that describe what writers do or say or did or said (and I go on to blame Yomangani). However, I decide not to post it because it seems like it is more trouble than it is worth. Yet now I feel like I waste my time if I don't post it somewhere, so it's in invisible ink below. By the way, my imitation of the literary present does not mean to make fun of beginning English speakers! (Even as Yomangani makes fun of my preference(?) for "Froissart writes...". The cycle of hatred must stop!) ] (]) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- invisible ink! you can make it visible by holding up to an ultraviolet candle and removing the comment marks! | |||
| (Not sure I want to go here, but it's composed now!) Perhaps the more literally present among us could explain which of the following ought to be in the past, and which in the ]. TK recently changed most of the chroniclers to the past tense presumably based on Yomangani's er, comments (perhaps missing a few instances, but I think my question goes beyond those instances). I've done a short web review using Google, which is always conclusive, and am not satisfied with the do what-when instructions found there. The present article has the following: | |||
| # Writing about the incident in the 17th century, ] '''explains''' that... | |||
| # ... whereas a contemporary chronicle '''states''' that he "threw" the torch at one of the dancers | |||
| # The Monk '''wrote''' of the event in... | |||
| # Froissart '''states''' that... | |||
| # Froissart '''blames''' Orléans for the tragedy... | |||
| # Froissart '''wrote''' in his Chronicles that Charles' uncles... | |||
| # Froissart '''stated''' that "The King, who proceeded... | |||
| # the historian Barbara Tuchman '''writes''' that... | |||
| # Veenstra '''writes''' in ''Magic and Divination at the Courts of Burgundy and France'' that the Bal des Ardents '''reveals'''... | |||
| I suppose if #1, #2, #6, and #7 were consistent then there would be a mostly common logic, if you accept the approach questioned in #8. Number 2, however, seems fine to me, so what's wrong with "states" the logically similar #7? I thanked you for your time. ~~~~ | |||
| end of invisible ink --> | |||
| :::::::Thanks for the exhaustive and invisible analysis. I think I'm very much to blame for this - I did change based on Yomangani's comment, but was working quickly and missed quite a few places. I'll analyze what you've written quite thoroughly and make an exhaustive determination whether literary present tense should be reinstated. My sense is that it should and it's easily done. Also thanks for stopping by. ] (]) 04:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I think everyone contributed, and it's not really much of a problem, but probably at least the chroniclers should get a consistent tense. Or maybe there is a case for the way it is now, when the phrases are viewed ''in situ''. Anyway, nice article. Good work... ] (]) 05:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Riggr Mortis only likes the literary present because he ]s it. Who's he to come to your talk page page spouting off about what should and should not be in the article and blaming people when he's the one who has been ] and ]ing to impose his ] ] views? When he has as many ] as some of the visitors (no names) then he can start his ]. By the way, my imitation of a troll does not mean to make fun of of the real troll visitors to your page. ]] 10:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!--more invisible ink: What I wasn't too keen on was such things as "A notes that B writes that C did D" when A was noting a couple of years ago but B & C had been dead for six centuries and C had done D way before B had written about it. However, it all gets a bit involved, so literary present tense is probably best all round. Which is why I changed it back Riggr, you hate-monger. --> | |||
| ::::::::::Having slept on it and thought about nothing else since, I've decided that you're both right. Using the literary present tense for 15th century chronicles is stretching it to a breaking point; therefore points number 1, 2, 6, 7 have been made consistent. If it's current (A notes) it's in the present; otherwise, past (B wrote). I'd sandboxed two sections and fixed the tenses there but forgot to swing through the other sections, thereby creating the gap in logic. ] (]) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Oh dear! I seem to have missed the boat on the FAC. I just made one small change--I noted that the post the Duke of Berry was stripped of by the Marmousets was that of governor of Languedoc, which is backed up by Knecht. I found it a little confusing since the only post of his that's mentioned had been the regency, which of course he'd been discharged from. I hope you don't mind. You've done a nice job explaining the contemporary perspectives on the disaster, and the article well deserves its status. ] (]) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, that's more clear. Thanks. There's been a lot of collaboration and the FAC went quite quickly, which was nice. ] (]) 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| (Hi Riggr !!!!) Could you review vis-a-vis your favorite sockmaster? ] (]) 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not anyone I recognize off the top of my head. If it were only lit pages I might consider ILT, and I should have look at the Salinger edits to be sure, but not entirely her style. ] (]) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks for checking! Subsequent posts from Sans changed my mind on that one, but you're the expert. ] (]) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I keep stumbling across ILT pages in the work I've done with fairy tales, so to me they're fairly obvious now. Still a lot of work to be done in that area, unfortunately. Have a look at the contributors for ] for instance. I only stumbled across that one a few days ago and haven't even had time to check it or add to the CCI. ] (]) 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow… that's kind of pathetic. ] 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Saying "HI!" to Sandy via an unexpected corridor! ] (]) 03:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Truthkeeper, as I noted ] I'm not quite sure what should be merged into the themes section and what could stay in the characters section. Perhaps it's really obvious and I'm just too close to the article, but could you give a couple ideas? Thanks ] (]) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for pinging me - I did miss that comment. I think you should have a look at a few novel FAs - some off the top of my head are '']'', '']'', '']'', or for a less-well-known book have a look at '']''. All these pages have well-developed themes sections (essentially the point of writing a novel) to the point that subsections are necessary - with the exception of '']''. I haven't read ''Bellenggu'' but from what I can glean, the main theme is the tension caused by the desire for tradition vs. the modern ("Tradition and modern" or something like that). To me it looks like most of that material is in the section about the characters - Tono is traditional, Tini is not, Yah is and this drives the three-way plot development between the characters. Another theme maybe, seems to be marriage: Tono marries a woman who doesn't have the qualities he wants, the woman who does is shunned by the community. They all break up. Something like that. Again, all of this interpretation is lost in the characters section. I can't really tell you how to do it; in my case I follow the sources, organize points in a logical manner and add bit by bit. I'm slowly working on "]" (a story with a single character) and trying to build the themes section, so you can see there how it comes together slowly - that's an extremely difficult piece to write about because nobody understands it. I don't know if this helps, but it's the best advice I have. ] (]) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I guess I could give that a shot later; it's not a big rush, as I have to wait for another article to go through FAC first. A second question: as noted by Balfas, in the pages before the novel proper there are quotes from journalists and literary critics at the time, complete with the name of the papers/journals the reviews were initially published in. Would I be allowed to quote those for the "reception" section? ] (]) 01:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes, of course. I believe all the pages I've mentioned above do that. A word of warning, fwiw, I don't know how quickly you work, but I find the themes sections the most difficult to build. There's a reason few editors write about novels - it can be hard. Also, standards for literature pages typically are a bit higher than for other pages - the thought is that because the page is about literature it must be exceptionally well-written. Just something to keep in mind. To be honest I think it needs a little work before it goes to FAC, but that's just my opinion. I hadn't been around there since November until recently submitting a page, but I don't really have a sense of what the reviews are like these days. ] (]) 01:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Prosewise, I was thinking of asking Malleus (nicely) to have a look at it if he finds his muse again. Considering my ] sat there for two months, I think there's plenty of time. Thanks for everything! ] (]) 01:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Malleus hasn't lost his muse - not at all. But some advice: it's nice to try to polish the piece as much as you can before asking for prose help. I spend an immense amount of time polishing. Have a look at the number of edits I make to pages that get through FAC - personally I think it's a bit obscene, but unless I'm collaborating, I really work the page alone as much as I can. When I know it's as good as I can get it, but also know it's maybe not good enough, I ask for help. ] (]) 03:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*Perhaps I misspoke (mistyped?) in my effort to avoid the... mess... that is how the community views him and the recent block fiasco. I'll try and keep that in mind as well, thanks. ] (]) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*:Which "community" would that be? The community of arseholes that runs this place? ] ] 05:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*How you're idolised and/or greatly respected by some and considered the "scourge of Misplaced Pages" by others. Personally, I think you're a great asset to the encyclopedia (and I heartily disagree with ]; Misplaced Pages does need some editors). ] (]) 05:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Side note: Another question: Any idea why the ISBN for ''Belenggu'' ( 978-979-523-048-8 in my edition) is coming up as an error? I can photograph the page with it and send to a reviewer if necessary. ] (]) 05:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:Because the correct ISBN is 978-979-523-046-5? ] ] 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::Odd how they're so close, but I don't think so. My book is the 21st printing, while that's for the 17th... or does the number not change with subsequent printings, only subsequent editions or revisions? shows several hits with the current ISBN (9795230488). If the number doesn't change with printings, perhaps Dian Rakyat made a typo in one of their earlier printings and have since kept making it? ] (]) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So far as I know, the ISBN doesn't change for print runs, only for new editions/versions. But the current ISBN is clearly wrong, as you can see by trying it . I think it's safe to say that if isbn.org say it's wrong then it's wrong. ] ] 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::PS, that ISBN converter I linked to above shows that the correct 10-digit ISBN is 979-523-04'''6'''-8. ] ] 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Which is yet another, different, printing. *confused* A one digit typo is more believable than a two digit typo, though. ] (]) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Alright, changed to the ten digit number above. They did make a typo on the inside page; the ISBN on the back cover is 979-523-04'''6'''-8. That was... confusing. ] (]) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Not retired, retarded == | |||
| Thanks for those kind words, TK. I retired in protest after the best editor in my major field here was banned when endless hairsplitting reports on ostensibly technical infringements got him a 6 month rap. I said I'd wear his punishment as well, with a solidarity strike, but well, after 2 months, saw some things needed to be done, and came back, though the banner remains since I won't edit as much as I usually do. | |||
| I went to the Dickens page because Tom Reedy was asked if he could work towards bringing it to FA levels, as he had with the ]. Tom dropped me a note asking if I could look at it as well since he was temporarily extremely busy with other things, and that's why I ran through the page like a dose of salts, to set it up for him and anyone else prepared for the long haul, just as I had with the SAQ article. | |||
| So I haven't actually retired. Certainly, now I've worked over CD I'm quite happy to keep a hand in. As to sources. I have and have read, over 3 months, 2 decades ago, the Penguin edition of all of his novels, which have excellent intros, and I have a dozen solid works on Victoriana and Dickens in my stacks as well. I dropped into the EP page and did some edits a few months ago when SVirgin began editing it, since she always pushes the pace of articles along something magical, and one feels, in helping out, that we're getting somewhere, rather than just mucking about with itsy bitsy edits, or coping with edit wars which is the major nuisance and disincentive for serious editors here. I have a large library on EP, (an uncle of my wife once interviewed him) but haven't interfered there that much since it was in good hands. If you need any help there, drop me a note. | |||
| I think several of us could certainly put our names down to really get CD into shape. It's a pity that this is his bicentenary, and wiki can't manage to produce an FA article for him when so many youngsters on the net will be checking his page. So, if you can spare the time, it would be much appreciated. Cheers ] (]) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I had a discussion about becoming involved so I've been hovering, but couldn't deal with the edit-warring frankly. Now that's calmed down, I'd be happy to help. I do have lots of Dickens floating around my own stacks so will pull those and look at the intros, I picked up yesterday and floating around somewhere is the 22 page ODNB entry. I'm waiting for the peer review to come back on Pound and am also running into a really busy period workwise, but also would love to help on Dickens. I agree that it should be in nice shape for his bicentenary - so yeah, will make time to spare. ] (]) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||