User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 53

So it's a very large article on a business consultancy, which is not a topic that attracts a lot of interest around here. There's been a good half-dozen editors involved in the page at one point or another, but each tends to maintain interest only for a single section. Sphilbrick just reviewed the Publishing section, but said he was all peetered out on it after that for the time being.

I've made some cleanup requests here regarding some poorly-sourced or redundant information. It looks like an intimidating request, but since it's just deleting it's actually fairly easy. I was wondering if you had the time/interest to take a look. All that's left after that is the Notable Works section and we should be able to completely disperse the "Issues" section (formerly Criticisms) and get to a point of polishing and GAN prepping after having been poking at this article for over a year now. CorporateM (Talk) 14:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not for the next two weeks, most likely. My family is in town for the first time in two years, so I am going to be busy until they return to Canada. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Aww, Canada, the country every American loves to idolize. I've been hammering away at this article/client for about two years now; I think I can wait two weeks ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Great. Ping me if I seem to have forgotten. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

!Ping! ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Crisco. I wanted to see if you were still going to do something (delete, merge, etc.) with the "Awards and industry rankings" section before I move on to the next item. Also, user:My2011 has re-inserted (see here) some of the material that I do not believe is supported by the sources, important, etc. I pinged them on their Talk page a couple weeks ago to try to start a discussion to no avail. CorporateM (Talk) 20:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oops. Done, I think. As for the readded paragraph: you may need to get more discussion, if possible, so that it doesn't end up readded and readded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will keep waiting to see if My2011 responds. He/she hasn't been active, so I think they are just busy. If you don't mind my continuing to bother you, there is also the matter of the Lead on the Yelp page (see discussion here). I can ask someone else to take a look, but since you have already poked at it, I thought I would see if you wanted to merge it or if we should get more input, etc. I want to go pester the GA reviewer once it's done ;-)

• I wouldn't mind, but I'd like the formatting to already be taken care of before I do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it's the Lead, there are no references to format. CorporateM (Talk) 12:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bold, links, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Oh ok, got it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there -- I'm the Wiki editor CorporateM is talking about above :-D. He's right, I don't check that often anymore, but will work with him directly on the compensation section of the article -- I figure since I added it back I should be the one to see it through. Please ping me on my talk page if you need anything, I'll try to check a bit more often. My[2011] (talk) | 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I also just noticed this edit removing sourced material. It seems like the issue could be resolved with some minor copyediting like: "A 2011 Harvard study by Michael Luca found that there was no significant statistical correlation between being a Yelp advertiser and having more favorable reviews.^[1]" to clarify that it is the findings of the study and not necessarily a statement of fact. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think the objection is that there was no academic paper resulting from said study, rather than the wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have started a discussion on Talk with more information, context and links. The available secondary sources are bountiful, so I really can't imagine why it would be a good thing to remove sourced content, but I think I figured out what the IP was thinking. CorporateM (Talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Crisco. Sorry for bugging you so much. user:Coretheapple re-implemented the Harvard study on the Yelp page and I'm talking with user:My2011 on their Talk page about the McKinsey & Company page. He/she seems to be busy IRL, so that may take a while. What I wanted to bother you about again was the Lead on the Yelp page, which now has wiki-code for bolding and wiki-links. The GA reviewer user:Erachima put the GA review on hold and I think this is the only thing left to address his first wave of feedback. Naturally the Request Edit won't be answered within the same type of timeline of a GA review. It's way beyond what is appropriate for me to edit myself. CorporateM (Talk) 14:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done. I checked it quickly the other day, but I must have missed that you'd used a no-wiki tag and thus there were no blue links showing up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I pinged you again on the Yelp page and wanted to check-in on the in-progress Request Edit on the McKinsey page. I promise to leave you alone after - it's just a lot of stuff that we got started that I'm trying to close-out. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see what's missing in the #Some cleanup section of M&C. We already discussed the Vault.com ref, and the other one seems to have been implemented. I didn't receive the Yelp ping, but I've implemented most things now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize the Awards section was removed and the other issues I need to wait for My2011 for. I'll move on to the next section, but I'll see if I can find someone else since I've been bothering you so much ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's okay if you want to ping me (just make sure to sign so Echo picks it up!) Actually, I thought of your history of public relations article yesterday... September Morn, which I'm expanding, was magnificently manipulated by one of the early PR people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I really enjoyed writing that article. I got to do it in virtual isolation and quiet, without all the COI stuff or drama and the available source material was far more vast and superior in quality than anything obtainable for most companies, spanning multiple books written by credible historians. I minored in PR in college and I also learned that the story is a bit more complex than they teach in school.

Anyways, I posted more stuff on the McKinsey Talk page, if you're up for it, but if you're busy or whatnot I can ask someone else. The Notable Works section I put together will need more work eventually, but it's a start. CorporateM (Talk) 02:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[6] Is this really a photo? The really early photography can look so very drawingish... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks to be a photograph to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Will add it to my list, then. Trying to beref up Confederaste Generals, as they're so poorly covered. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I need an image of him for his article. He said I may use this - per e-mail, but I have my doubts. HereHafspajen (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• According to this, the university claims copyright over everything on the site unless noted otherwise. If they claim copyright over the image, they may have to be the ones who need to release the image. Could you copy the exact text of his statement to me, so that (if possible) I can provide better feedback? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, ... Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just copy it from the email and use the "email this user" link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any second thoughts asking him yourself? He said he will be glad to help with any information. But these picture things - well, I am not the one to figure those out. If the pic is not free he has to provide maybe a new one - and how, don't know. Someone has to tell him how to load up or provide one with some copyright to it... I might have overwhelmed him a bit by now. He is a great guy and clearly notable. But I mixed up Descartes and Pascal, so he probably thinks by now I am not quite to trust. Or crazy .... Hafspajen (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I could drop him a line tomorrow. Tonight I want to get you two Camille Pissarros. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Great!!! And probably you are the one who say - picture is OK, that will have the pondus required - I might be good on certain other things but pic licence is not my area... Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Camille Pissarro gallery for Haffy

• 
  Le grand noyer à l'Hermitage, 1875
• 
  Le jardin de Maubuisson, Pontoise, la mère Bellette, 1882
• 
  Falaises aux Petites-Dalles, 1883
• 
  Enfant tenant une pomme, undated
• 
  View of Rouen, 1884
• 
  Two Young Peasant Women, 1881–82
• 
  Jalais Hill, Pontoise, 1867
• 
  Study of a Washerwoman, 1880
• 
  Hay Harvest at Éragny, 1901
• 
  The Public Garden at Pontoise, 1874
• 
  A Cowherd at Valhermeil, Auvers-sur-Oise, 1874
• 
  Still Life with Apples and Pitcher, 1872
• 
  Pissarro A Washerwoman at Éragny, 1893
• 
  Barges at Pontoise, 1876
• 
  Côte des Grouettes, near Pontoise, c. 1878

• Still under construction, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done for the night. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks great. Take the middle one, - Le jardin de Maubuisson. Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(benevolent and peaceful talk page watcher): Hafs and Crisco, Camille Pissarro is my absolute favorite. I also like the garden scene from 1882. This makes me want to seek solace in my museum of art, since I am on retreat from Wikipedia tomorrow. Thing is, my museum is not only dark on Mondays but Tuesdays as well. The bane of state government funding. Thanks both. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 21:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with both of you; the garden is absolutely beautiful, and the resolution's pretty nice too. Haffy, if you put it in the article (I haven't a clue what you're all doing there) we can nom it later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, there's a whole bunch more etchings out there. Might even be some paintings on other sites... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• For instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Very good, Crisco! well done, great scans. Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're in luck (see new image). Off to bed now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• WOOOOOW! GREEAAT! Hope my luck will continue... Hay Harvest at Éragny - it's a pretty crapy article. (Wish it was a real Crisco-article...) Managed to move in almost all paintings - but I had to rewamp the article a bit...

Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't think I'll be able to go that far yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hope 15's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Bharata Natyam Performance DS.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, Just a quick update to let you know

• I'll be over later today! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly help with the featured picture section? I'm not feeling that well, but it needs done tonight. Ed said he'd do FA and FL. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• We ended up edit conflicting. Blast. If you want, Adam, I can do the rest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind, it would be a great help. Tell Ed when you're done - I think there's some Scottish referendum thing he wants to get out before the vote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • K. I've got about an hour before work. That should be enough — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to September Morn may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 'September Morn'' to Armenian art collector and philanthropist [[Calouste Gulbenkian]] for $30,000;{{efn|The MET gives 1931 {{harv|MET, September Morn}} while a 1935 ''Montreal Gazette'' article

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt - Joseph and Potiphar's wife.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Great set. I did a little tweak on the image layout. Please revert the change if it is not okay.--Godot13 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your great work on improving the Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Chillum! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help, but Suzanne Delve is quoted in the Salt Lake article as stating she also modelled for Dagnan-Bouveret (his name is mis-spelt). This would seem to confirm it was the "popular actress"? That is becoming a very interesting article!

• Thanks for the link. She looks quite different with her hair down, I must say! I don't think we need to go into further detail on her (in fact, I think there's too much, since there's at least one more person who claimed to have been the model), but that's certainly circumstantial evidence for that actress being the model here (and thus either lying her ass off, owing to age considerations, or the French Wikipedia being wrong). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Aah, female actresses are allowed to fib about their age though. I do think it might cast sufficient doubt to justify removing the line about "she would have been 13 when she first posed"?

SagaciousPhil - Chat

11:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorely tempted, but to avoid an edit war with you-know-who I'd want to have more concrete evidence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My own inclination is to remove it as I feel it adds undue emphasis to suggest the model's age, which isn't specified in that newspaper article. I'll leave it be meantime though ...

SagaciousPhil - Chat

11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Trust me, I want to do that too. I just think fleshing out the rest of the article is of a bit higher priority. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's the big deal. In Scandinavia everybody, whole families go to sauna together naked, and nobody is freaking out over it. Same thing for bathing. The human body is a natural thing. Unless you have a dirty fantasy. Hafspajen (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the current crusade or the 1913 one? Different reasons there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think Coat is just pushing his narrow POV a bit hard, and it seems clear that most of us are not so easily shocked or offended. I suppose there is the genuine question of whether we should make decisions that avoid offending minorities over satisfying the majority though. But then there is the counter-argument that you're actually offending the majority when you allow minorities to dictate things... I'm not sure that it really matters whether one is part of a minority or not though, in most cases, I think they should just 'get over it'. :-) It is interesting how acceptance of nudity varies so much though. I was one in an urban park in Munich and saw a man with three teenage girls (I would guess aged 12, 14 and 16) swimming and playing in the river naked. Nobody batted an eyelid. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. When I've gone to Taman Sari, for instance, there are 8 or 9 year old boys playing together in the water, completely nude. Nobody but the foreign tourists bats an eye. I'm curious if it's a predominantly Anglosphere phenomenon, going this far to avoid anything being considered "child pornography". I mean, the Aussies banned photos of breasts smaller than a B-cup to avoid the possibility, and we've had our own issues with the British Virgin Killer case. In this particular case, I don't see a single source supporting a claim that this is indecent. Even the Brauer abstract seems to be leaning towards this being an acceptable depiction of a minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The restrictions on controversial media in Australia appalls me. We don't even have a legal X-rated classification. It's R-rated (soft porn, essentially - no genitals allowed) or it's illegal. I found that out first hand when as as teenagers, my brother and I decided to play a prank on our parents and convinced our cable-tv provider that we were the account holders in order to get 'the porn channel' unscrambled. ;-) We were sorely disappointed by the Mills & Boon style 'romantic seduction' style content and by that age had already seen worse on the internet. Anyway, I digress. ;-) I'm not arguing strongly in favour of porn per-se, but most Western countries at least tolerate it. We're very illiberal when it comes to these things. It's frustrating though, because like the US, many of us are pretty open minded but the voice that screams loudest (Christian lobby groups, conservatives, etc) tends to get its way. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not even an X-rated classification? Wow. At least, with this painting, we won't have to worry about a subpar article attached to it... people will, hopefully, be able to judge it as it is, and not for illustrating a stub. I tire of opposition to POTDs because the articles are short, though fortunately that's not as common now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

  

I personally think it is not genuine. Why isn't this File:Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal) - The Bucintoro at the Molo on Ascension Day - Google Art Project ( AGPvVoUXqRRYw).jpg categorized ? Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The painting's not genuine, or...? The bot on Commons must have made a mistake. I've fixed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, very nice isn't it? Canal was a good painter. Etto. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. Almost photorealistic at thumbnail.` — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you restore whatever article was deleted to my user space? I'll see if I can do anything. I have reason to believe it was once an article. Actually if you can find anything deleted in the database can you check to see the date it was created. If not pre Feb 2002 don't worry, the article history would have to restored anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I expanded Double-hulled tanker, early April 2001, not bad!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good find! I don't see any deleted articles at Paul Innella; are you sure of the spelling? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so, but it might have been a red link and not created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Always a possibility. Oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:William I of the Netherlands.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, the Toledo Blade photo is copyright not renewed. No renewals for back issues at copyright.gov, but the Milwaukee Journal story is from 1971 and not renewed wouldn't apply here. The photo has to be from before his death in 1937, but I see no credit to whoever took it in the news story.

So I've started going through hits at Newspapers.com to see if there's another copy of the photo that was printed earlier and would be able to go for copyright not renewed. While looking, I've seen a lot of interesting information about the painter and this painting. He was an invalid for the last few years of his life and died in a room where the only painting on the wall was a reproduction of September Morn he himself had painted. The painting made its way to Russia and was at one time thought to have been destroyed. Chabas asked the press in 1933 to help him find the original painting as it had been lost for some time. During and after WWI, there were scads of good quality copies all over the globe, with many being passed off as originals. Chabas was offered "the original" during a visit to Argentina. It was a good quality copy with a copy of the original letter Chabas had written re: the painting. He also said that the painting which was making the rounds in the US and causing the commotion was not his original work as it had never been to the US at the time. Found an old news story that said a man came home with a copy of the painting; his wife objected to the tune where she called the police and he was run in. :) There's quite a bit of good news material here about many different aspects. We hope (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me start clipping & tacking the news stories on the September Morn talk page. ;) We hope (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me! :) I wish we could have found out who took the photo of Chabas beside the painting. It probably stems from his exhibition of it in 1912, because the painting was out of his hands for most of the remainder of his life, really. While trying to source it, I checked both LOC and BnF but there was nothing at either. Sort of love it, though, that the promotions for the repros and replicas were really aimed toward men--and then coming home with one could get you charged with disorderly conduct if your wife was upset with it. :) We hope (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I liked the Milwaukee Journal photo printed in 1971, but nothing turned up as to who took it originally. If you want to use anything from the 1937 Salt Lake Tribune, I just checked renewals for periodicals for years 1964 and 1965; the paper didn't renew, so anything there would be PD. We hope (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There were also some actresses getting publicity by claiming to be the September Morn model :) We hope (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

^[1]

• Excellent, added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I clipped the story. They've managed to really misspell Chabas' name; it gives you some quotes from the trial you might want and that Jackson was happy enough with his acquittal, he offered to give a copy of a litho of the painting to all jury members. We hope (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

^[1]

I think the "S" is also a misprint and they do mean Oliver Dennett Grover. We hope (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Left you a couple more stories on the talk page last night. Am just thinking--most to all of the cherubs pictured in famous religious art aren't wearing clothes and AFAIK, nobody's ever (publicly anyway) said they should be covered. We hope (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Am going to investigate the copyright on this, though I believe it's before 1923; she died in 1936. It's interesting because even artists perceived as "respectable" such as Grace Drayton, were cashing in on the wave. Will upload this after I do some checking. We hope (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, File:Grace Drayton September Morn 1912.jpg Drayton did more than this re: September Morn. This is a painted bisque figurine; I archived the auction and the front, signature and bottom mark photos (click the pic to see them). I went through original artwork registrations from 1912-1918; she did not register the figure. The figure was done by the German porcelain company Schafer and Vater, as the seller indicates. They were noted for their comic treatment of subjects and their jasperware. This would have to been produced before 1917, as anti-German sentiment came in after WWI began in the US. The factory was out of business by the end of WWII. I have one of their pieces--many times they didn't mark them. Have an old time "chia pet" type figure where you plant grass seed in it and water the figure's tongue. The grass grows to produce "hair" for it. There are a lot of repros of their work now and you have to examine the item carefully to be sure it's original. The repros generally can't seem to exactly duplicate the original comic text found on some and the coloration on the repros tends to be too vivid. We hope (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Recently another 2013 Dar es Salaam building collapse-related picture was promoted to FP status, File:Suleiman Kova and media, 2013 DSM Building Collapse.jpg. Maybe they should ran together on the same day. What do you think? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd rather not, for two reasons: 1, we don't want to diminish the impact/value of the individual images, and 2) they have EV for fairly different reasons, and thus can support two blurbs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Got another coin, United States Sesquicentennial coinage. If you would like to do the DYK, I would suggest noting the Coolidge is the only US president to appear on an American coin in his lifetime. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Great User:Wehwalt! I think we'd need to duplicate the reference for DYK, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FPC. My hat is off to you! Sca (talk

• It's been... an interesting nomination, I'll admit. But not half as interesting as this painting's history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Michelangelo, lunetta, Uzziah - Jotham - Ahaz 03.jpg Another "purveyor of smut" at the Sistine Chapel. :) We hope (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. Sigh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail art critic. Op-ed by the yard, seasoned with a blow-by-blow account of my wonderful personal life. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• To be quite honest, the nomination is part entertaining and part irritating to me. We all have to eventually put up with stuff like this whenever we're on here. Though I feel like it may come from the same source in this case. GamerPro64 21:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've already started filtering out comments from certain people. On a somewhat related note, apparently removing a 72-word quote from a single play that's inserted into the running text is considered censorship. And the only reason to remove a cut-and-paste quote which is an entire abstract would be censorship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

[Moved from

I wouldn't know; the User:WP 1.0 bot does something along those lines, but it won't be able to recognize if an article has the FL star but is categorized as "List-class" on the talk page. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Assessment you can find a list of all 14,088 list-class articles (just click on the number), but that would be really tedious to go through. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

I would suggest, however, pinging one or more of the FL delegates on their talk page; they probably would have a better idea if something like that exists or not. As you can see, no one really pay that much attention to this particular talk page anymore, even the FL delegates themselves. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok moved here because of suggestion. [7], [8] and [9] are just a few examples of FL's rated list. Could a bot go through Category:List-Class articles and spit-out a list of pages that have FL as the current status in Template:Article history? -- NickGibson3900 ^Talk 23:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:CatScan? — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Very artsy, but not very useful in describing the breed. Dang. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• That poodle one is rather cute. Worthless for the article, but well shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh, look's like Hamlet's dad to me .. How about this one...

• The painting has a chance, but not this photograph of it. Too noisy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Poodle is back in article ... got reverted. If you belive is worthless for the article, will you remove it? Even if it is well shot - looks weird and it is back. Hafspajen (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, the Moennitarri warrior image is featured already (in a restoration by me and Crisco). On the subject of mail coaches: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/highsm.24953/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.03502/ might be a good choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rather like that mural. Shame it doesn't seem to have been adjusted for lens distortion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crisco- How many more reviews for this should I be looking for? My hope was to finish this before putting the image set up, but I can move ahead with the FP nom anyway. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The first spider above is cool...-Godot13 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think we'd expect another support (I count two). If you want to go ahead with the FPC nom, that wouldn't affect this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• FPC nom is up. All images have been cleaned, state names cleaned. Title page took me (no joke) 15+ hours just to clean the lettering.--Godot13 (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't surprise me, somehow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• FYI- got a third support on the FLC. Unrelated, the Suriname paper currency book arrived today.-Godot13 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Great. Will drop by FLC today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

German Joe reccomended that I contacted you to see if you were available to do a media check at the Sleeping Dogs FAC.[10] URDNEXT (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You changed the timestamp to make sure Crisco notices your thread? Come on. GamerPro64 21:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I had several cases where I messaged people and they only responded days later because they didn't get notified. URDNEXT (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it got to you, @

GamerPro64. I didn't mean to annoy anyone. URDNEXT (talk

) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's rather hard to miss the yellow banners... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Crisco. Can we just forget the timestamp? URDNEXT (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We're able to get the yellow banners back? Because I kinda don't mind bringing it back. GamerPro64 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• GamerPro64, there's a script/gadget available. See User:Ignatzmice/Orange Bar documentation. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 23:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be helpful too]. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but why do I get the feeling Gamer is trolling me? URDNEXT (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding what, the date stamp or the yellow bar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yellow bar. URDNEXT (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• You haven't been here long enough to understand how useful it was, and how much some people (myself included) hated to see it go. The scripts/gadgets I linked to help, particularly the second one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, now I get it. And sorry for saying that Gamer. By the way Crisco, can you do the media check at the FAC, please? URDNEXT (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Already done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs? URDNEXT (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw it just now. Thanks for that! Hopefully we'll be able to adress all of your concerns in a couple of minutes. URDNEXT (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to ignore the fact that you accused me of doing something that could result in having six years on this site go to waste. At Crisco, thanks for letting me know about the gadget. Turned it on as soon as I knew where it was. GamerPro64 00:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad to be of service. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for stepping in, Crisco. I didn't really feel well yesterday and URDNEXT needed a quick review - your help is appreciated as always. GermanJoe (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Jean Béraud's Paris scenes
• 
  La Lettre (774 × 1,000 pixels... or 774 × 1,000 pixels all of them)
• 
  Personnages
• 
  Au Bistro
• 
  La Partie De Billard
• 
  Sortant De La Madeleine, Paris
• 
  Home, Driver

Sorry to interrupt, but these are some of the most beatiful paintings I've ever seen! URDNEXT (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, Haffy, these are some great paintings. But is the yellow tint original, or is it from the camera settings being too warm? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You don't intrerupt anything. Veird that the guy, Jean Béraud is so little known, actually. Weird that his article was so bad too, before I revamped a little... Hope Crisco will be able to upload some better files so we (you?) can nominate some of them ...(ansvered URDNEXT) Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, I don't know. Could be, found the guy for two hours ago. Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The article looked like this like three hours ago -> not much. Hafspajen (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Haffy, do you want any of these?
  • Parisienne un jour de pluie, place de la Concorde 1890s (my favourite)
  • Portrait of the Artist's Nephew (undated; this would have to be uploaded without heeding the URAA)
  • The Elevation of the Host (undated, but probably 1890s)
  • Christ (1900–06) — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Want the girl. And the host, maybe, just because is time-typical (not a good picture, but it can be added to some religin related articles... Hafspajen (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

		The Indonesian Films Barnstar
		For your work on Indonesian films, and because that's such a perfect barnstar logo, I award you this custom barnstar. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Adam! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Does these types of pages OK? :) Jee 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nope, per
  Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE we can MFD it. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 16:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please. We've a difficulty to delete those pictures because they are in use. Jee 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&diff=626538671&oldid=626533798

• Looks to be in the correct place now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, any thoughts on the image licensing (the date the photo was originally taken is clearly wrong), and on the article's COI tag? Is the latter a topic for

According to a post just made on Talk:Betty Go-Belmonte, the photo has just been nominated for deletion from Commons because of the date discrepancy. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Orange tag is a big enough issue for DYK to worry about. I've commented there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

On 23 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pah Wongso Tersangka, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, after playing a detective, the social worker LV Wijnhamer became a suspect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pah Wongso Tersangka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the picture I got for the article? URDNEXT (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I did. Give me a second; I've just woken up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot it's morning in Indonesia. Here in the California it's 5 pm. URDNEXT (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You're killing me ;-)

I'll try to put something together tonight, but it's already 2 a.m. so if you don't hear from me, it's because I'm sleeping!

One thing I should mention is that McKinsey has a policy of not discussing their client situations. Supporters say it gives them "mystique" while detractors say they are "secretive" - to them it's just an issue of confidentiality much like you'd expect from lawyers or doctors. So it is even more awkward than usual to contribute content on the subject of their clients on their behalf, but that is the nature of the beast. CorporateM (Talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• My thought is that, rather than do the work twice (you're aiming for GAC, aren't you?) we might as well get it done with in one go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How's this? I found that AT&T and Swissair both belong. I'm not sure the Fortune list was actually all that great. I didn't find much sourcing on most of those and AT&T was a negative example, not a positive one (they did previously do a re-structuring that was considered successful, which may be what it was referring to). The book has a chapter called "Are they worth it or not" with a section for "yes" with good examples and a section for "no" with negative examples, but I'm not sure if they were actually the most significant projects, or were just used as examples. Most of the early works seem to be beamingly positive, than it transitions to more balanced in the 70s/80s and more critical in the '90s. I didn't find anything significant from the 2000s, even in the book that was just recently published. The draft probably has too much of a negative lean now, but as the book says, McKinsey does not share their successes, so only the controversial ones become public knowledge through lawsuits/investigations. So fair or not, it seems representative of the literature. I would suggest a title like "Consulting projects" might be more descriptive than "Work" CorporateM (Talk) 20:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks fairly reasonable. Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We should be able to do away with the "Criticism of management advice" section, its contents being redundant with the new Consulting Projects section and the section title being obviously POV. I am culling through the article now top-down fixing URLs, formatting citation dates, copyediting, and checking for completeness against a 20 page profile on them as GAN prep. Getting closer! It's also on my list afterwards to write a Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try and do this tomorrow. Off to bed now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, regarding the series of bankruptcies (Kmart, Enron, Swissiar and Global Crossing), page 20 of the book I am using to check the article for comprehensiveness is very very similar to what I put together and names the same clients, so I think we hit that right-on. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done with the vetting/polishing of the History and Structure sections. If you do have time to take a look at my comments there on Talk, just a yes/no would be fine for the non-controversial stuff and I'll make the edits, as it would become very tedious for me to explain exactly where to put each item. If you stick it out over the next week, we could have it almost GAN-ready within a week, probably with a couple dangling items. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been busy! Already this has scrolled way up on your Talk page. I just thought I would see if you wanted to keep hammering out the GAN-ready polishing or if you were all pooped out on it for now. We could circle back next week if you want a break or I can see if someone else is willing if you've had enough. Just checking in. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Still keen, just got RL work to do (a paper for a conference next month). I should be able to go to the talk page later today, or tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So my mollusc is now a featured picture! (Yay!). Can I also get him in the queue for POTD?? Let me know if so. Thank you! KDS4444^Talk 00:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. When were you thinking? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, any old time is good. Sometime in early October maybe? The third? Fourth? Fifth?KDS4444^Talk 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• How's the 14th? (My first open day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I love it. Sign me up! KDS4444^Talk 00:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Grand. If you want to write the blurb in a (slightly) more technical manner than the nomination blurb, feel free. Template:POTD/2014-10-14. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:US Navy 120209-N-XD935-302 Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Shane Tuck, assigned to the Expeditionary Combat Camera Underwater Photo Team, c.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as soon as I finish making replacements for the Lauren Bacall list. ;) We hope (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can get a larger version of this cover together, it wasn't renewed. Checked years 1974 & 1975-no renewals for the title in periodicals at UPenn-if would help, since we can use that to replace the publicity photo with no "background". ;) We hope (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your link is forbidden, according to the server. I just found 2 others-one color and one B&W: File:Lauren Bacall Gary Cooper Bright Leaf.jpg and File:Lauren Bacall 1945.jpg. It's too bad Lantern doesn't have the magazine in question online. I think it will be, given enough time, as these scans come from US copyright. They're the originals submitted for copyright. Maybe one of these will work out. We hope (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Will get your clippings and then need to clear out the "trailer park" at Commons. :) We hope (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

^[1]

^[2]

We hope (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Crisco 1492. You have new messages at Template talk:POTD/2014-10-12.
Message added 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from

Do you see the really weird thing about this image? If you don't, look at the top a bit more.

What's going on here? Should I fix that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll download it and have a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It looks to me as if the title has been added by a different and unskilled hand (perhaps a restrike or reprint from the original plate)- the title should have been engraved in reverse on the plate. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• The original may be by Johann Andreas Bergmüller- the engraving looks pretty crude compared with the lettering at the base, so maybe it's been re-cut by the person who added the title. The lower left corner's got a bit awry. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• The question is: Do I fix it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Still download. Slowly. Ever so slowly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• (as far as I can see) it's a part of the original print. I've only had a brief look at one Bergmuller print, at low resolution- it didn't look as crude in its engraving as this one, so I wouldn't fix it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I checked "Collection des Prospects" and there seem to be two different Bergmüllers associated with it, J. Georg (1688-1762) and J. Baptist (1724-1785). Ohhh… A view of the British naval assualt on Saint Eustatius that took place February, 1781 during the American War of Independence. The title is engraved backwards because the works were intended to be shown on a wall or screen using a "magic lantern", an optical device that projected the image by means of candles and mirrors. A type of print are also known as a "Vue d'Optique.…f***- it's here. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I should probably offer a mirror-image version as well, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've come across this sort of thing before- just forgot about it. I think it's a re-use of a pre-existing print, therefore a mirror-image version would be topographically incorrect. It isn't a "magic lantern' that's used though, but a type of Opaque projector- again can't remember the name, but it's a large lens on a swivelling wooden frame. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: It's a Zograscope- by a good coincidence I came across one for sale just now and was able to find the name. Not a projection, but the image is reversed.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I might need an ALT for a pic I am nominating - because of the frame... Will you help, me please? I think Simonetta Vespucci needs some careful cropping... Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. Just send me a link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the one with FRAME ->File:Piero di Cosimo - Portrait de femme dit de Simonetta Vespucci - Google Art Project.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the above? Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like that one'll pass without a crop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Crisco 1492. You have new messages at Talk:Bernese Mountain Dog.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HM; the File:Othello.jpg - on commons is a dog, quite nice pic too... Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Moved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

AH, Othello... thanks, I think we make that into lead pic. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not one dog pic you feel you could put a C on? Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Have been busy, sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Put Your Critics in a Small Box and Throw the Box Away Barn Star
	Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't work too well for
  these guys... — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 05:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Damn! Ended up editing it. Review section looks a bit paltry, compared with Bram Dijkstra's. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• And that, Xanthomelanousprog (Xan?), is why we have Template:Over-quotation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Trims some, adds one, runs away laughing. (Well, it's probably just as valid a review as the rest) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Aha! One and the same… Hafs had the same "coincidence"- I didn't notice it till Hafs pointed it out, and it really bothered Hafs (and me). Spoofing? I can't see how it could be done, but the previous example was weird. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is possible, and has been done before (Jimbo's talk page had a thread started by an IP from... North Korea). No comment as to whether or not this is happening now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(

SagaciousPhil - Chat

10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• A dummy account might be safest, I guess. But anywho, I'll just let it be for now. Probably should work on my paper for the seminar next month (maybe not a keynote, but my name's in the brochure so...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hafs has deleted the bit, but I think it's okay to say that the IP logged in from Warrington. If it was Coat (and it seems now that's possible), that was harrassment- and in the thread Coat was replying to the IP as if it was another person. And again in this case. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Not deleted, archived. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. If questionable things keep happening, we can take it to a more proper venue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the IP's essentially admitted to being Coat, by the looks of it. So the talk page discussion is just more of his/her POV pushing. And yes, its harassment. Drmies, I really would appreciate your neutral eyes on this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not heard back from the Met yet- I asked someone to go look for the painting, so they're either so entranced by its beauty that they haven't come back yet, or got lost in the basement, or can't be arsed :) I did ask very nicely, and I hope someone from the Met appreciates how much you've added to the articles. (the coat hidden in the bushes he mentioned in another post? - that would certainly add to the questioning ambiance noted by another editor here)- hmmmm… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've just started ignoring most of that snark. Less stressful that way. If we can get even email verification that yes, the painting has been significantly yellowed with age, that would be useful to cite in the article. And they should be happy we've got a good article on the subject; a TFA would probably increase their ticket sales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just posted something to the FP page. I'm inclined to think the yellowing is a white balance issue, and not varnish or nicotine/tar. Did Coat really look for a "coat" hidden in the bushes? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No idea, but I see what you did there (finally). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you still need someone to see the painting in person (if publicly available) I could go to the museum tomorrow...--Godot13 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that'ld be good (if it's not too much of a time soak for you). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• If possible, that would be grand. Poor MET's probably wondering why this painting's become so popular all of a sudden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The MET online database says it is NOT on view...--Godot13 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right then. No worries. If they don't reply to Xanthomelanoussprog (seriously, what can I abbreviate that as?), I'll email someone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I can still try to find a way in (perhaps via Smithsonian?) but it wouldn't happen quickly... (How about "Xprog"?) -- Godot13 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are sure about that... but I think we should try the email route first. Prof. Brauer replied favourably... maybe the MET will too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I'm located in the UK. I expect you've seen this one? I've got an inkling this is the original model. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's quite possible. He did say that she modeled for him until she was 28, so it's not unthinkable that she's in more than one of his paintings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just in case you're wondering- the link's safe (you have to search the phrase) I only looked at one page (honest, guv, some Czech sculptor) but someone appears to be cataloguing the whole industry of which Chabas may have been a small part. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Witchard book, or...? I was looking into it, but she cites Dijkstra for all of the Chabas discussion, so I need to find that book to get the context in which his quote is set. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ask

The Little Nemo comic strip - don't you think that it should be placed among illustrations instead of paintings? Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, which is where the other comics FP is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK Queue 4

Just noticed that in the DYK Queue #4, there are two things that claim to be pictured, namely actress Le Bon and the flag of Gabon (they rhyme!). Personally I prefer the Gabon image as more elucidating. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like the one claim has been removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Assignat

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:FRA-A73-République Française-400 livres (1792) 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Armbrust, I think Godot didn't receive a creator (scanner) notification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Now this one, I would be delighted to see as the POTD. Here's hoping! Awien (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, it's a beautiful note, and Godot13 kindly scanned it for us from the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian. Can't say I know much about French currency, but when I came across this while working on card money it was... well, we zinged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's because he didn't nominate the image. If you check his talk page, than you can notice that every notification for banknotes uses the {{PromotedFPC}} template. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that's quite right, Armbrust. When I scanned the notes in my current nomination, each one was at least an hour's work (more, generally). Godot not only had greater transport issues, but he also had to negotiate with the Smithsonian for permission to access their collection. The scanning process itself was probably more difficult too (you don't handle 200 year old banknotes with bare hands...). I think that's more than enough for an FPCCreate template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Armbrust-I inquired (by email after the nomination was made) as to whether it would qualify for WikiCup points given the nominating scenario. I was told by one of the judges that since I did all the work on the image it would qualify regardless of the nominator. I use this only as a comparative example. While I don't need a creator notification, it certainly would help keep the numbers straight...--Godot13 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, given that there seems to be some lack of clarity on this I will not be claiming points.--Godot13 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Damn! Sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, no worries! I'm glad you got to put it up and get it through...--Godot13 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Hope it doesn't / hasn't caused trouble though... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh no, no trouble. I had posed the question via email to one of the judges who had no issue with it. But if there is no acknowledgement on my talk page (per above) I don't want to potentially create more of a stir than what already exists regarding FP points and the WikiCup. That's all.--Godot13 (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also (tangential) since Adam never identified the images he thinks needs more work or those which he may work on (coats of arms), I've started doing a second cleaning of any with a moderate or greater amount of the white threads he pointed out...--Godot13 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh boy. Sounds like fun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• For periodic relief I may pull out a fingernail or two...--Godot13 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know, Jersey Shores may be more distracting. No comment on the pain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• [majestic titan]
  19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• The ed17 ...and the voice from on high has spoken...--Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Use this or this

Use this or this at Joshua Reynolds Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)?

• File:Self-portrait c.1747-9 by Joshua Reynolds (2).jpg looks a bit better IMHO, but it needs a link to the source. Probably to the NPG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/State Arms of the Union (set)

Thank you for your support of this FP nominated set. Based on some feedback received from a reviewer, yesterday I started another round of light cleaning of the images to remove thread-like white fibers that could be found in the brown and black ink areas of the images. I do not expect to edit each image but have already completed 33 of 46. If for any reason the touch ups are not completed by the end of the nomination (approximately 24 hours), I will suspend the nomination. Thanks again for your support. --Godot13 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Form-letter notice... ;-)

• *shock* That's some considerable work right there. My S stands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

POTD-related querry

{{POTD/2014-11-29}} and {{POTD/2014-11-30}} seems to similar, and are now scheduled on two consecutive days. What do you think? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't get that far yet, but thanks for the heads up. I had scheduled the -29 a while back (in March, actually), but since the -30 has a round anniversary, I think it should get priority. I'll move the 29 forward to ... what's unscheduled next? The 19th? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• The 19th is currently unscheduled. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, something like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion (or information)

Hello Crisco, i have a question about a deleted image. Can admins undelete images aswell or is this only possible for articles? I am looking for source (and maybe history) information on

Otto I. However, some source information was probably lost - atleast it is missing in the Commons version File:Otto the Great.jpg - the uploader is inactive. The current "source" (NNDB) is only an aggregation website under copyright. If possible, it would be great if you could provide the "original" source information of the old en-Wiki image (or restore the image temporarily?). GermanJoe (talk

) 13:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• The entirety of that page is simply "The Magdeburger Reiter: a tinted sandstone equestrian monument, c. 1240, traditionally intended as a portrait of Otto I (detail), Magdeburg. From [11]" and a clearly incorrect PD-100 tag. The image itself may be from the early 20th century, but short of a better source there's not much we can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Time to look for a replacement image, i guess - although i like this one. I surfed the Internet back to 2005, but couldn't find a proper source for this one. Thank you for checking this, Crisco. GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Or, we can see if a German/European Wikipedian would have a chance to take an image. Jastrow comes to mind (she's done a lot of statue photography) but she's based out of France. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Alter Markt (Magdeburg-Altstadt).Magdeburger Reiter.ajb.jpg is of the same statue, and is already on Commons. Could use an edit, but that's simple. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately i live in another part of Germany, or i'd take one myself :). The angle with the pillar looks odd (atleast for a biography article). I'll keep looking into this and similar ones, thanks. The statue is semi-popular in Germany, so should have a few photos available. GermanJoe (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Flickr, definitely. I don't speak the language or I'd search there. I've added the edit I made if you want to use it as a temporary measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just for fun (i doubt this leads anywhere): it's possible, that the B/W photo was taken by de:Sigurd Curman, a Swedish art historian and restaurator, who travelled in Germany (and throughout Europe) in the early 20th century. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, he did take at least one image of the statue in 1902. Flickr — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Gambar

Pak, apakah ini bisa masuk Wikipedia? Malam. --Akbar ini dari Kalbar 15:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yang melukis siapa? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September Morn

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Paul Chabas September Morn The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Final word count: 10,656. That's longer than the article on Barack Obama, though still 2k short of George W. Bush's article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Especially on the article. In a basement in a large museum somewhere in a great city, two porters are struggling with a canvas shrouded in a white sheet. "Why are we taking this to the city dump?" one of them asks… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Considering how none of us appear to have gotten a reply, you might be correct about that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• God bless our preservation of art. GamerPro64 04:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• God bless preservation of our sanity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• GamerPro64, this idea of “Art” redeeming pornography is a holdover of a centuries-old hypocrisy. It was all right for the wealthy upper classes to have their pornography, their Venuses, their writhing tortured saints, their muscle-bound hunks wrestling, because it was Art. It wasn’t all right for the lower orders to be corrupted by dirty pictures that didn’t have "artistic merit". Today’s consensus is that on the whole people can have whatever porn they like, except that we draw the line when it involves underage children, Art or not. Awien (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ugh, I never like it when people address me by my full username. Makes it sound like I'm in trouble. But I will reply to you, @Awien:, that while we're talking about children, your post-nomination for the picture was in of itself childish. If you think that it was a bad decision for the image to become a Featured Picture, why not take it up for Review? If I had the same opinion as yours in this case, I would do so. But since I didn't even Support or Oppose in the candidacy, I will instead continue to do what you seemed to have missed in my comment: making snark. I wasn't focusing on the painting being art, which it is but explaining why it is is a discussion for another time. Nor was I talking about its content. I was mocking the fact that the painting itself must have terrible preservations. I don't care if this painting was of an underage child. Frankly being on the internet and seeing inappropriate fan art of underage characters from my childhood disillusioned me. I will again point out that we're not calling out stuff like Child Bride in terms of image use. Why the heck are we still making a stink about a century old drawing? GamerPro64 20:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Blimey... I saw this thread and started to wade through the FPC to see what all the fuss was about. I lost the will to live after a few minutes — all that fuss over a painting? And not a pornographic one at that? A photo may have some justification for the furore, but daubs of oil on canvas? Good grief! Great pic, and kudos to Crisco for having the stamina for seeing it through to the end! - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I found it fascinating that individuals with some purported levels of intelligence describe this work of art as "repugnant". I think videos of people being decapitated as repugnant, or images of children burnt to death as repugnant. This is not similar. Some people really need some perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion has highlighted my concern is that we (as in, English-speaking humanity) have become so concerned with paedophilia, and fear promoting it so much, that at times we (again, no specific names, just a general we) act as if all forms of nudity of children are perverse. Cases like parents being charged with child pornography for taking images of their bathing and breastfeeding children, or a whole country's government saying "any naked pictures of children can get you arrested" give me concern, because it is very close to what individuals like Anthony Comstock argued back in the early 20th century: nudity is equal to obscenity, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Under such rulings, our article on breastfeeding is child pornography, something I doubt most people would agree with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

• Featured content: Oil paintings galore

• In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

• Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

• Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

• WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

• Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick check...

Hi Crisco-

I was going to bring

this live. It's short and I'll keep working on it but I wondered if you saw any glaring flaws. Is it long enough for a DYK? (based on nb 3 and nb 4). Thanks--Godot13 (talk

) 04:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 3k of text? Certainly long enough. You've got some redirects and dab pages. All I can see is John Q. Adams, William Harrison, James Polk, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, and Chester Arthur. The two dabs (the first two) must be fixed, the others are optional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, will fix later and get it live sometime today.--Godot13 (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @
      [majestic titan]
      07:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @The ed17: I certainly appreciate any input, but I'm not quite sure what you're referring to...--Godot13 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, late night here. U.S. vs US -- one has periods, the other does not. :-)
          [majestic titan]
          07:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Got it... Will fix tomorrow. Thanks for the tweaking you did by the way.--Godot13 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Four Award include post-GA DYK?

I have closed this discussion. --Pine^✉ 07:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK queue problems

Crisco, in

WT:DYK#Florence Pernel hook, the nominator has discovered a problem with the lead hook, and it needs to be pulled from Queue 2

(and a new one substituted, probably from a convenient prep).

There's also a problem with Queue 3: Victuallers promoted it from Prep 1 but also left the set there. As a result, the second and third words, "the soprano", were deleted from the Prep 1 version but not the Queue 3 version. Can you please edit it there?

In the meantime, I'm going to clear Prep 1 and advance the next prep, so that we don't have two queues with the same hooks in them. Thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OOPs sorry, thanks for your calm correction. Victuallers (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, Vic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Him?

File:Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg? Hafspajen (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... I don't think we have much of a chance with that, not without a greater resolution. Also, that's not his incomplete one; that's been filled in by Rembrandt Peale. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• O "inept" editor- I feel like kicking something… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's why I've been applying
  WP:DENY for the past week or so. I have no problem with people indicating issues with prose / w.e. (and I do thank Awien for her comments), but once someone like that yellowjacket decides to imply I'm a pedo or what have you, they shut my ears to their buzzing forever. I'd rather be out writing articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But Crisco, I know you like grown upp women - it is just so obvious. There are some editors that I prefer not to name though that have some tendecies - but -no, no - not you. That is just so - untrue. Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• That Lincoln image is a nice one. BTW, Hafs, did I show you Beauty Revealed yet? Very ... unique... self-portrait (NSFW or spouses/children). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, THAT WAS NICE. Truly lovely. Hafspajen (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

now what have I done with that guy with the lightning... Hafspajen (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I love that print. Shame I can't find anything of higher resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ben... didn't go so well. We'd need an article on the painting first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Cccc. Well, it is an allegory - of course. You don't really think it is this what really happened. I think it is interestig because it combines the old style allegoric paintings with a portrait. It is rather charming. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, and the propagandic value of such a painting is second to none... but, oh well. I think the painting's probably notable enough for its own article, and if that happens then there is little question of its EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

]

Museum of Bad Art? don't think so. On the contrary. Hafspajen (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• My thoughts too. But we've seen the power amateur art critics hold. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

? File:Medienhafen Neuer Zollhof B.jpg? m? Hafspajen (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Looks a little posterized, or something. K, gotta go. Supper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Beethoven.jpg. Hafspajen (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is sleeping time in Indonesia. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-beerstraaten-the-castle-of-muiden-in-winter This is NICE. Hafspajen (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(stalker) Franklin's kite experiment always loosely reminds me of the currency vignette...--Godot13 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nice vignette. That Beerstraaten looks really nice. Will have to look further into it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was this thing about her breasts. Hafspajen (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Award

	The 147th Wikipedia:Featured picture Award
	Congratulation on your 147th Wikipedia:Featured picture, and all the great work you put into the project! Hafspajen (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Haffy — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Current issue of the rupiah

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:1000 rupiah bill, 2000 series (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:2000 rupiah bill, 2009 series (2014 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:5000 rupiah bill, 2001 series (2009 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:10000 rupiah bill, 2010 revision (2014 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:20000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:50000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:100000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sweet!--Godot13 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

?

File:Korovin moonlit night.JPG, you don't happen to have a better scan on this+ looks ... foggy somehow. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strangely, the Museum doesn't include that painting in their collection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin question

Is it true that admins have the magical power to restore deleted pages? If it is, do you think you could restore Shizuoka? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's just a disambiguation page.

[majestic titan]

23:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there were two reasons: a) we wanted to see if it was, indeed, a disambiguation page, or a redirect; b) the page has been moved back and forth a number of times, and I wanted to have that history restored as evidence in future disputes. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's restored!

[majestic titan]

23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I guess we do have magic powers ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, could we get the talk page restored, too? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alakazam! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Captain MarvelShazam! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Did someone say
    Alakazam? GamerPro64
    01:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• • That may have been what I was going for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

this?

• Hmm... that Billy cody image looks like it was taken from an Archive.org source (compare with the image of Chabas I took; similar texture). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. File:Zavedeni slovanske liturgie na velke morave.jpg ... Hafspajen (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when are you in the category violence against women? Catfight

Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence

and User talk:Crisco 1492? Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Erm... oops? (Fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for United States Sesquicentennial coinage

On 1 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United States Sesquicentennial coinage, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that, with the issue of United States Sesquicentennial coinage (half-dollar pictured), Calvin Coolidge became the only living American President to feature on U.S. coinage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States Sesquicentennial coinage. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492/Archive_53&oldid=1153331619"

• Toggle limited content width