User talk:Hillbillyholiday/Archive 3

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Fancy that relaxing winter break over in the US this season? I hear it's ""particularly bracing" over in Michigan this year, and even down in Arizona. Treat yourself - available for only £37,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately, you may have to wait a while for your return trip: [1][reply]

Ah, this time of year it'd be quicker and cheaper to just take your clothes off on Skeggy beach... Hey, I've got

£££s on extortionate sex-lines, simply phone up the Samaritans and threaten to kill yourself unless they talk dirty. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

(© Viz, 1986)

Ah yes, I was looking forward to some deep structural analysis of this issue. And it certainly looks like I got it. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't come round here with that seductive Frog-in-your-throat banter, monsieur. I've told you before, this lady's not for turning. No, no, no!--Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Having just run that through our machine... I C.... This lady's not for Turing. (Allegedly) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, zut alors. Hoist by my own pet toad yet again. I submit! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

At last! Some decent music: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Torture Never Stops. Indeed. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Indeed. A personal favourite, and a close second after possibly the best rock guitar solo ever: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help? The arguments for deletion are now beyond ludicrous. The Sun is clearly a valid source and does reference McTernan's track record. There are now TWO sources, both expressly stated as acceptable under Wiki rules. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting developments,

WP:BLPSOURCES

policy.

...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

A blunt instrument admittedly, but it helps keep a lot of nonsense out. The Scotsman would appear to be kosher, but they are only reporting the betting incident, and not commenting themselves on McTernan's prophetic skills as your recently added text implies (...identifying McTernan's track record as the trigger for the wager).

I still think a whole section on all this is undue. ...predicting Hillary Clinton would win the US Presidential election in 2016? Didn't most pundits? (Mr Campbell notwithstanding)

It seems we have two connected issues now: the bet, which I would hold off mentioning until the matter is resolved one way or the other, and his purported fallibilty, which together with the bet may merit two or three sentences if a) an independent source examines his "prognostical reliabilty" in detail, or b) multiple sources mention it in passing (a catchy nickname perhaps? Mystic Mug? Nostradumbass? I'm sure you could do better).

Like I say, you're getting warmer IMO, but a cautious approach is best with BLPs, so I can't support your latest additions. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not right. The Scotsman also comments on McTernan's prediction history as the reason for the incident - even more strongly than the Sun did, in fact, saying "Campbell suggested whichever candidate McTernan backed would inevitably lose". What could that possibly be a reference to other than the fact that McTernan is always wrong? And how can users possibly understand or verify that without the explanation and references in my text? It makes a nonsense of Wiki's demand for sources.

(Furthermore, the Scottish Sun has reported the facts perfectly accurately and hypocritical prejudice shouldn't disqualify it as a source. Every newspaper in the land is biased politically and the Scottish Sun's article on this matter is not unsourced or questionable. The facts it reports are verifiable and correct.)

As for undue, where someone's sole employment is on the basis of their political analysis and their political analysis is empirically and demonstrably almost always wrong, how can that not be significant and noteworthy? Even so, the bits that keep being removed DO comprise just three sentences (count them) in a much longer entry, so it's hardly excessive. I could accept the middle paragraph being left out if people wanted to be really anal (because apparently there's a finite amount of space on the internet or something), but the first one is completely necessary for the section to make sense.

And finally, this debate involves just a couple of people on the opposing side. I've tried at ENORMOUS length to be constructive, making arguments and constantly editing the entry in accordance with complaints, yet have been repeatedly and arbitrarily banned for edit warring, with all sorts of unfounded/untrue allegations made. The others, based on no consensus whatever, reflexively delete things within seconds, without even having noticed that they were substantially different to previous versions, yet get away scot-free simply because two of them back each other up. Every time I address a complaint the goalposts get shifted. Why can't it just be settled once and for all with a vote to arrive at a definitive decision? Anna Lertreader (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotsman did not comment on McTernan's prediction history as the reason for the incident, they said "Campbell suggested whichever candidate McTernan backed would inevitably lose". Nowhere do they imply that "McTernan is always wrong".

The Scottish Sun shouldn't be used full stop. It is one of the few firm policies here not to accept stuff like this from a tabloid in a BLP. Policies can change, however; you can take it up at the

Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

.

Leaving the undue part aside for now, you say there are "just a couple of people on the opposing side". Some of their edits have restored some of the material, but in my opinion there aren't the requisite sources to merit any inclusion yet. Compared to some here, I take a relatively hard line on BLPs, but think many others would agree in this case. I agree that it should be "settled once and for all", but in cases of disagreement over contentious/negative material it is best to leave it all out until a firm consensus emerges: this is not a newspaper, there is no deadline. To that end, I'm going to remove all betting/prediction stuff for now (if it hasn't been already), and pose a question at the BLP Noticeboard. I am also going to ask that the article is protected for a time until this is sorted out, to prevent further "editwarring". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, let's recap how this has gone.

(1) The original section is just a list of accurate facts with sources. Nobody disputes their accuracy, but this isn't good enough because it's "selective", even though in four months nobody's provided a single example of an accurate prediction that's been left out. It's demanded that I provide evidence of people actually discussing McTernan's record of inaccuracy. I get banned.

(2) So I show literally hundreds of people using the ironic hashtage "McTernanPredicts". This isn't good enough because they're just a bunch of Twitter users. Fair enough. It's demanded that I provide someone notable discussing it. But before I can, I get banned again.

(3) So I show a very popular and notable (evidenced by its own Wiki entry) political website repeatedly discussing it at length. This isn't good enough because it's not neutral - even though Wiki EXPLICITLY doesn't require sources to be neutral as long as their facts are accurate - and because it's "just a blog", even though Wiki has no prohibition against blogs as a source. It's demanded that I find a source in the "proper" media. But before I can, I get banned AGAIN.

(4) So I show the country's biggest newspaper writing a story that's founded entirely and explicitly in McTernan's track record and his reaction to someone mocking him for it. But that's not good enough, because everyone's snooty about it being a tabloid, even though in this case there's nothing contentious whatsoever in the story. It's demanded that I find a nicer, less popular newspaper.

(5) So I show a "respectable" broadsheet newspaper doing the exact same thing. But that's not good enough because now - all of a sudden, unraised by anyone in the previous four months - it's apparently "undue", even though it's just three sentences and McTernan's main employment for the past decade (and therefore the only reason he merits a Wiki entry at all) has been as a political analyst and it's about his history of horribly wrong political analysis and couldn't possibly be any more relevant. Even then I'm willing to give up one of the three sentences, but the whole lot gets deleted once more and rather than my getting banned yet again, the entry gets locked, just to mix things up a bit.

And if I somehow compressed the entire section down to the length of a tweet, all impeccably sourced with references in 15 different newspapers (it's now also been covered in the Herald, incidentally), no doubt it'd fall foul of WP:THURSDAYS, which says you're not allowed to edit Wiki on Thursdays because Arthur Dent could never get the hang of them in The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. And I'd get banned.

Every time I satisfy one complaint, up pops a new one out of nowhere like an unwinnable game of Wiki Whack-A-Mole. When will it end? Why is it so forbidden to point out that a political analyst has a proven, factual and remarked-upon track record of terrible political analysis? He's actually just a bog-standard former SpAd of no particular demonstrated significance. His amazing capacity for wrongness is in fact by far the most notable thing about him. Anna Lertreader (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been getting mixed messages, such can be the nature of the place, but I have been clear all along that an independent source that deals with his fallibility is needed. The Scotsman and Herald may be good enough sources when it comes to mentioning the bet, but not to paint McTernan as "consistently wrong". I didn't think the bet worth mentioning until it is settled in court, but others may disagree; it has clearly generated some coverage. As I say, we are not a newspaper, we are supposed to be very cautious about labelling people as incompetent, and not resort to adding random press reports to biographies as soon as they are published, we need to establish significance, notabiltiy, due-weight, etc.

As an aside, I somewhat sympathize with your treatment, I get that it must be frustrating, you and I may both know that McTernan is a rubbish ananlyst, but we still need a suitable source to say so. You need to understand that BLPSOURCES is an important policy that is intended to stop this place becoming any more of an online defamation service than it already is. I don't like blocks as a rule, but it will likely happen to you again if you don't step back a little. Really, I've already spent more time on this than any sane person should, I think I've said all I can on the subject. Good luck. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking a specific question. This relates both to my Lockerbie research and my musicology interests, specifically the operas of Benjamin Britten. If a Wikipedia editor is in possession of original primary documentation relating to a subject, which isn't in the public domain at the moment, can this be referred to if the editor themselves makes the documentation accessible on their own server?

In relation to Britten, my mother worked with him and he wrote a couple of parts for her, and the music cabinet at home has some interesting documentation relating to the early stages of production of a couple of works, showing how Britten altered and re-imagined some aspects as he worked with his original casts. In relation to the Lockerbie case, I have a whole bunch of primary documentation - witness statements, forensic reports and so on - that absolutely settle a lot of those he said/she said disputes that get going when the literature is full of commentators telling different stories about the same event. It could get down to, what is your source for that? and the answer being, the statement John Bedford gave to the Metropolitan police on 9th January 1989.

These things are not private or confidential. In the case of the Britten stuff, it's just minor historical-interest detail that's unlikely to make it into the public domain any other way. In the case of the Lockerbie stuff it's all material that was introduced or referred to in court. Other people have made some of the stuff public as it suited their own area of research, but a lot of the items I refer to haven't had that treatment. There's no reason I couldn't give it to them though.

Another thing I thought of doing was photographing the relevant pages of hard-copy books with relevant material in them. An image of a page or two of a book, uploaded for bona-fide reasons of research or commentary, is permissible under copyright law. (I'm thinking particularly of the page in David Johnston's 1989 book where he reports Pan Am stating clearly that the plane left Heathrow on time.) This surely beats simply referencing a hard-copy book that readers are unlikely to be able to consult for themselves to see if the reference is actually real!

So, is it permissible to upload primary documentation to my own server space and then link to it there to support something I'm saying on Wikipedia? Do you know? Morag Kerr (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Featured Article

, so there probably will have been several editors spending a long time getting the article in shape and they may be resistant to change; I would recommend bringing it up on the talkpage first.

Uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia is probably out. I know there are execptions, but I think you have to prove that the material is simply unavailable anywhere else (because contributions here are released under the

Good Article! Again, probably best to mention the changes/additions you want made on the relevant talkpage first. Bear in mind I'm not an administrator here (though there may be some watching this page who want to chip in?), and copyright/use of primary sources can be a grey area, so I'm hesitant to make pronouncements on any of these questions. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

A problem with primary documentation as described above is that it lacks an authoritative publisher; it would be preferable if the letters/papers etc. were on display on the website of a museum/university etc., and as HBH states, a secondary source would usually be required as well, to help prevent

original interpretation. On the matter of making images of pages of books, this might not be necessary anyway, if the book is already on googlebooks - if a few keywords are googled then the appropriate page might be accessible, complete with copyable url to be inserted as a ref in an article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm toying with the idea of revamping the main Pan Am 103 article in its entirety while leaving the current version untouched, then asking for comment on the new version before uploading it to the main page. It would be a fair bit of work but I think people coming to Wikipedia as their first destination when starting to find out about the case deserve better than what's there at the moment. Morag Kerr (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, there's many an article that needs a total revamp. It can be a challenge, but sometimes it's easier than wading through pre-existing material. All these issues can be thrashed out the talkpage as and when. I trust whatever you do will be an improvement on Haselnut's efforts over at Wikispooks, which, somewhat amazingly, comes up seventh when I google "Pan Am 103". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just ignore the Haselnut. At least when he's making his wiki pages he's not harrassing me in person. Charles Norrie had a spell of emailing me at work and threatening to "report me to my employer for breach of my civil service contract by working for the CIA". I'm not in the civil service! He was miffed that his attempts to get his own personal conspiracy theory on to Wikipedia were constantly deleted as being "not notable". He decided that this was proof he was right and the CIA were trying to suppress the information. He's as mad as a box of frogs.

In fact there's chunks of the present Pan Am 103 page that are perfectly fine and can be preserved. But there's so much that's out of date and superseded, and so much that's missing, I don't think it can be fixed just by tinkering. Of course that's only one page and there are at least four more that I know about (the investigation, the trial, "alternative theories" and Megrahi's biography page), but one thing at a time. It's a judgement call what material should be on which page, but I think a main page with the solid facts about the flight and what actually happened is the first thing that's needed. The existence of the other pages is a plus because it means that not everything has to be included on one page.

The time of the plane's departure is an interesting example of the problems. You can find any number of accounts of Lockerbie that declare that the plane was delayed leaving Heathrow and that's why it blew up so early in its journey - if it had been on time it would have exploded way out over the Atlantic. That's a mistake, caused by an early BBC report that confused the gate departure time with the time the wheels left the runway. The plane was on time. But it stuck, and anyone wanting to "prove" the plane was late could find any number of acceptable references that say so. The 1989 Johnston book, the evidence of the Heathrow aire traffic controller at Camp Zeist, and of course my own book, are the only sources that give the correct information. I don't want to reference my own book any more than absolutely necessary. The Johnston book (which sadly isn't on Google Books) will do, except what do you do if someone wades in citing a couple of dozen newspaper articles (and BBC News) that say the plane was late so why are we preferring that one source? I think a short section on the plane's departure that covers that aspect will sort it out, but it's an example of the sort of issues that arise.

I'm encouraged by the state of the Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox pages. I was mostly an observer of that unedifying squabble - or rather, trench warfare - and I've seen the two entrenched camps fighting the bit out over what evidence is important and even what the Court of Cassation actually said in the end. And yet the Wiki pages are excellent. Clear, informative and accurate. Miracles are possible!

I'll maybe start tinkering over Christmas. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB]Ah ha, you are SV AICMFP!

I think contemporary newspapers reports can be considered primary sources? If subsequent souces repeat misinformation that can be a problem, but you say there are two books which have it right – we can use them instead, maybe add a footnote explaining the discrepancies, even a hidden note within the text. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

I wondered where I had seen this before. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Arty Bears. Hadn't heard of this lot before. Vocals a trifle "difficult" to my ears, and that's coming from a Raincoats fan, but some nice medievalesque flourishes. So, what's the problem with these uploads, Sfan00 IMG? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

When you put in the artwork template, it didn't save fully, I'd suggest re-adding the information in the main-edit field. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked, It's that {{

artwork}} here might not be the same as the onw on Commons, which you may have used. I'd sugggest using {{information}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah okay. My first attempt at batch uploading, I'm afraid. Still not quite sure what that entails, Sfan, but if you could correct one as an example, say this one, I'll go change the rest. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Thanks, Sfan. I'll do the others. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

I'd suggest putting something in the description field, for the benefit of users on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar is an acquired taste, I guess. But Winter Songs is wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am listening to Winter Songs now, but may have to wash my ears out with some soapy water. Here's something unrelated, but it never fails to put a smile on my face... --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Great stuff. Trust you are familiar with The Bhundus. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure! There are hundreds of obscure afro-funk (and cumbia) LPs available to download from globalgroovers.com Well worth a rummage; I'll get round to putting some of it up on youtube one day. How about Ebo Taylor (not that obscure these days), one funky mofo, or Mulatu Astatke for strangely moody afrojazz? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

All quite irrestibly beautiful, I'd say. Not familiar so with Taylor as I am with Fela. Thanks for the tip. Wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That Ebo one is a firm fave at casa Billy. Oumou? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, superb. Quite a reasonable article too. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going to put all 22 up here or on Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses thirteen, that's probably enough for now. I don't tend to cruise the Commonses too much, I might get round to it. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

When you next indulge in a spot of cruising, be mindful of the wildlife... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straight banger, mate! Anyone got any mandy? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Mandy Nice-Flavours? And what happened to chins/skins/gins? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha more like Mandy crazy-ravers --Chillbillyholiday (Sometimes this)

Stinking? Pah! I've been through that phase! Now I am a sanctimonious dance sensation! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better a complete bellen than a right no-hofer? Apparently, our Nobby feels "infinitely sad". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. Aw, poor Franz, time to "Get hof your Haflinger und drink your Milch." --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

That's one of those tricks that I still don't understand. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There should be a – icon displayed just below the edit window, next to the "Insert" box, above were it says "Edit Summary (Briefly describe your changes)". Alternatively you can use {{ndash}} or – --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sentences and inline citations, and that hour book can become DYK, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, more or less given up on the DYK process, but will add a bit more to that article at some point and maybe try create a tres chic navbox like what those frenchies have got. I see they've got Pseudo-Jacquemart too, which I might have a crack at once my slightly over-ambtitious project is finished. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

O Moon!! Unbelievable!! So beautiful!! - I can take care of the DYK process, know it from my first article on (when my mentor who rescued it after deletion had nominated it without telling me). The "some point" would have to be within the next two days, but I can see what I can do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's awfully kind, I'll go find the page numbers. The marvellous book on the Duke de Berry and the Limbourgs (retail $118!) is one of hundreds free to download from the Met's store. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Thanks for the page numbers, and another! We are now "long enough". Do we know a bit more about the Ave Maria, because I think that's most attractive in stamp size? More from me tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking tres belle thanks to you and Martin. Hmm, I found this, but it doesn't add much: "Au f. 52, 17 lettres historiées formant les mots AVE MARIA GRACIA PLE(NA), sur fond d'or." "Historized letters"? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Letters that tell stories? - moar: [4], 2 pages pictured, and many comparisons, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[24 hours later] Just realized it's

Historiated initial! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Oh, I see. I'm not sure I can handle reading another pdf, have downloaded about fifty-odd today already! We could always pad it out with some background though? "The reading from Luke, taken from the first chapter, describes the Annunciation to the Virgin, revealing that she shall bear the son of God and ends with the familiar words of the archangel Gabriel's greeting: "Hail Mary, full of grace" (Ave Maria, gracia plena). This, then, was the reading for the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25)." [Husband, p.106] However, here he is referring to the Belle Heures but I guess it would be ok to add as a caption? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

A fascinating thesis. This Margaret of Bavaria, I assume? Some BL mentions hereMartinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll bow out [full of] gracefully at this point, and leave it in youse two's capable hands. Cheers. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

We have time, because 24 November is the date DYK check gives as start of 5* expansion. I won't have much time until next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since my last visit, haven't teh rulez been changed? I hear that these days all articles have to be scrutinized by the all-seeing

extensive EEngification, before being passed. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

The all-seeing rambler comes in only once approved and in prep. Eeng is good for hooks, we can ask when we collected the material to draw from. Fear not, this week had a DYK almost every day, it's easy, today my little contribution to Asia month. One even collected 10k+ hits, - a first for me, - my Bach cantatas usually stay in the 3-digit-range. Mention sin against religion ... - any scandal here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got close to 10k once, and with a German-related scandal, too!

As far as scandal here goes, it looks like Slim Pickens, I'm afraid. The only angle I can think of is the sibling rivalry. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk Of course, the real reason I've stopped doing DYKs is because I don't want anyone to suss that I've just been copy-pasting swathes of Britannica for years.

Back to petites heures

I still don't have time to closely examine the above which looks promising. the Dutch version has moar pics!! For DYK - coming next - I still like Ave Maria best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image that got me hooked on the book would be appropriate, and thank you for nominating it. The lack of further info on Ave Maria is a shame; I've yet to come across any earlier examples of figurative writing as opposed to the usual single intials, the nearest so far being Giovannino de Grassi [it]'s alphabet from a model book, which is a tad later I think. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Thanks for digging. What do you think of transforming the gallery to paragraphs of text, as Martin suggested in an edit summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do like having interesting picture captions, but I'm not too fussed either way. I see someone beat me to Pseudo-Jacquemart, and made a better job of it than I would've! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

My friend LouisAlain, Precious four years and a day ;) - What I meant was to have each picture with its text in a paragraph, instead of the gallery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waking up

So, after investing in a glorious book, the fascinating image doesn't belong? Which article do we have to expand next, to show it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, what can I say? I'm a proper dimlo as we say round my way. This is the correct book, only on fr.wiki as yet, Heures de Charles d'Angoulême. Beautiful, beautiful pictures already on wikicommons I'll make a start on it soon as a penance. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

This French blogpiece or article is entirely devoted to the mysterious Ave. Not sure as to its "reliabilty". The painting is by Robinet Testard, infuenced by German printmakers Master E. S. and Master of 1464, and it is seemingly unique among all books of hours. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Thank you for digging. I believe it's unique, will keep watching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creature with the horse body is nothing biblical that I'd recall, - could it be a legend? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even I know there aren't any Centaurs in the Bible! (Unless you count the se'irim.) Was intrigued by the Hairy Mary-lookalike. Our friend Gratien the blogger has a page about it, examining the antecedents and whatnot, though there appear to be more questions than answers, like "why is Death killing the Cenatur?" It would seem academia is as baffled as us. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Well, who knows exactly the animals created ;) - Sorry, French isn't my language, tell LouisAlain that there's a good one to read, - and this book to translate! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+ there's much more on fr:Robinet Testard than we have, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed and already added Testard to my ever-increasing list of articles that need a sort out. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all (like Britons don't say). Is it the

I can't believe we've found someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Welcome aboard LouisAlan! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew when he translated all Bach cantatas to French, all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise! Thanks LouisAlan, I look forward to seeing the Heures de Charles d'Angoulême. I'll see what I can add, though all the good sources seem to be French. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

 Done; a few details will be added tomorrow. Two things I don't know: What is a dimlo? Should the title be left in italic? LouisAlain (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful. You don't hang about LoiusAlain! That table looks much better for the images. Where does "dimlo" appear? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Blimey that was fast! I would leave it italicized as most others here seem to be. It's rather wonderfully written. Almost too good: when you see such eloquence here it is usually plagiarized, and if not, it's often deemed "unencyclopedic" in tone!

"Dimlo" just started being said by the "lower classes" about ten years ago (mainly in the South?) I had no idea of the etymology, but apparently it has a Romany origin: "dinlo" = "idiot". It's quite an insult, similar in strength to "dickhead". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Yes, there is no way that rich saucy French verbosity will survive long over here (my guess). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Shucks. I spent ages scanning the French and Spanish articles for dimlo too.[reply]

Hahaha! It's not something my mum would ever say. I've found that, at least amongst the working class round here, "dickhead" is far stronger than "cunt". When I was a binman, two of my colleagues who had been quite amiably calling each other "stupid fucking cunt" all day, nearly came to blows over an ill-advised use of "dickhead". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Far too many Bloody Delilahs round these parts, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Excellent! I combined a few short paragraphs, and dropped uses of "we" and "our". Should we translate the French page titles, - leaving French, but supplying English also? - For DYK, we need inline citations ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the page titles, although they are descriptions (and not official titles AFAIK) and probably should be in English, I'd leave them. Maybe the use of French will arouse a reader's curiosity, maybe more people click on a link when they don't quite know what they are going to get! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Heures de Charles d'Angoulême, inline citations please ;) - excellent script in initials below, - you will have to wait one more day for my musical greetings, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

𝕮𝖍𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖘 𝕲𝖊𝖗𝖉𝖆. Next year, a shorter message. Inlines may be a tad tricky but I think I can incorporate some of the material from Matthews (hopefully without ruining the Gallic charm) and add something to the lede. Alternaltively, I could ask my sugar daddy to buy me the Moleiro facsimile with its extensive commentaries...cheapest I've come across only €5,200. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Cheers accepted with pleasure, - no citations in lede as long as they are in the body. Cite me the hook, please! - Have war and witch trial on the main page, peace to follow 25 December, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Nollaig shona duit
	Thanks for your input at Vincent van Gogh over the year, and especially for all your work on illuminated manuscripts. Its been a pleasure working with and following you. Onwards. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers and backatcha. Hoping that my recent work qualifies me for membership of the exclusive "cartel centered around the foul-mouthed and alcoholic Irish visual arts editor Ceoil (essentially a plagiarist)". Happy hillbillyholidays! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

I have reviewed your application...sadly at this time, NO. Insufficiently foul-mouthed. Ceoil (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Demiurge, you are a right cuntybaws" wasn't good enough? Damn. Guess it's time to up the fucks a tad, am lagging far behind. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk (fave)

"Surprised El Chapo aint tried to snipe you." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cute - 'tis the season - how about sourcing the book above now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillybill. I've been to Glasgow. Who the fuck are you <punt>. ps - please stop hijacking conversations GA. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this article might interest you. It's not currently clear from the article why it has that name. It currently resides in New York. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The book was presented to the Augustinian Priory of Redford, now Worksop, by Philip, the canon of Lincoln Cathedral, in 1187." Seems clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Except that the "Augustinian Priory of Redford" didn't ever exist? And why the link to the entire town of Worksop? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I love bestiary art and the associated tales. You often see that elephant/serpent one which depicts Pliny's somewhat dubious account:

"But it is India that produces the largest [elephant], as well as the dragon, which is perpetually at war with the elephant, and is itself of so enormous a size, as easily to envelope the elephants with its folds, and encircle them in its coils. The contest is equally fatal to both; the elephant, vanquished, falls to the earth, and by its weight, crushes the dragon which is entwined around it." (Plin. Nat. 8.11)

Not too worried about improving our bestiary articles though as The Medieval Bestiary has it all covered – including the Worksop one with all the pictures. They say Augustinian Priory of Radford if that helps. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Ah yes, I now see that page 6 of the Catalogue description of the bestiary says: "This donation is recorded in the note on f.1v: "Anno Mo. Co. Lxxxviio ab incarnatione domini In uigilia sancti Mathei apostoli Philippus apolostolorm Can(on)icus Lincolniensis ecclesie donauit deo et ecclesie S. Marie et S. Cuthberti de Radeford ad edificationem fratrum ipsius ecclesie imperpetuum unum optimum psalterium glosatum." which I think means something (very roughly) like: "In the year of Our Lord 1197, on the eve of the feast of St. Matthew, the Apostle Philip, the Canon of the Church of Lincoln, gave to God and the church of St. Mary and the St. Cuthbert of Retford, to the building up of the brethren of the church, one of the best ever glossed psalters." So yes, it's the Priory Church of Saint Mary and Saint Cuthbert. I've adjusted the name accordingly. I guess ecclesiatically Retford, only 9 miles away, was much more important than Worksop in those days. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you John, and best wishes to you too. 22 December 2015? Recycling your Christmas cards? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the template framework! Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hillbillyholiday,
Enjoy the

Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers, Gareth. Happy holidays and all the best for 2017, too.

Oh, the solstice again, I forgot – really gotta make it to Stonehenge next time, a lot less hectic than the summer one by all accounts. (Ideally Newgrange but that's something of a lottery.) Perhaps a convenient venue for a wiki meet-up, I picture you slightly druidical. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Season's Greetings, Hillbillyholiday! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Happy holidays and best wishes for the new year, MarnetteD. Roast peacock all round! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

• Thank you
  HBH. I'm sure our Rob would be proud of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Our Rob or Ross even? Chests, nuts, roasting on an open fire... --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star...

Cheers. Lovely sentiments from Elvis there. As for the other video, I can only congratulate the director for his bold juxtaposition of soporific, bucolic imagery with Pennywise the clown and what looks like a pair of crackheads. Nice to see Fred, The Wolverhampton Ring Road Tramp in the mix as well. Merry Christmas! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Ooh, well spotted !! **blush**... me and Cyriak are just bezzies, you know. lol. Martin Herzog 123 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hillbillyholiday,
I'm

white powdery stuff,
and I'm here to remind you that the season of crazy dancing is upon us,
so grab your partner by the, er, twig,
and get moving! (but not too fast or bits might fly off...)
Charlie | Delta Echo

(All the best HBH, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

All the best to you too, Cloudy! So when you gonna link your email address? You're missing out on a whole world of bitching, outing and co-ordinated hijinx. The girl with the curious hair, eh? --Tiara Palmer-Tomkinson

Worra bitch!! Don't trust her, Paley. It's prolly a low-down scam, just so she can get hold of your credit card. Big Liz 123 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Big Liz 123, I was just getting excited about Tiara's stitch 'n bitch sessions, and you've gone and put a real

dampener on things. You're starting to sound just like your notorious brother..(LOL) Charlie

Takes me back to my time in Anchorage with Stevie Wonder.. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Holiday Greetings! HBH

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Stan. Hope you are enjoying yourself this Christmas and very best wishes for the New Year. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Best Wishes

Hillbillyholiday,

I wish you the best this holiday season.

May the new year bring you nearer to your dreams.

BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings, BHG. I don't believe we've met, but have seen your name around. Am thinking of starting an article on this unusual statuette some time in the New Year if it's your scene? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

I've seen your name around also, and enjoyed comments that you've made.

My strength is American architecture. Lately, I've been working on American paintings and sculpture, but don't know anything about ancient Roman sculpture. It is a striking piece. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know anything about anything, but have never let that hold me back here. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Dot +Illuminati +Careless BBC Whisper

She has a lot to answer for, it seems. Now that it has been unequivovcally proven beyond all possible doubt that George's death was predicted by the cassette from Heather Trott played by Dot Cotton on national UK TV, in EastEnders, just hours before: he died. Also 5 times 3 is 15. He is playing you for fools!! Need I say more??? D. Icke 123 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC) also, his lyrics have Illuminati symbolism!![reply]

OMFG!!! Heather clearly references his toilet-related arrest here AND NOTE THE TIME: 9 o'clock!!!, yes, the exact time what he died and ALSO the GREEK for nine is ennea, so she'd better watch out too!!! Scary stuff!!!! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

My friend Billy.

Calluna vulgaris again, there. [reply

]

Pseudo-Jacquemart

Hi, I reverted to a previous version because a cite error was introduced somewhere after this edit and I can't figure out what happened nor do I have the energy. I got edit conflicted a few times trying to add the BL records, dunno if that's the problem. Anyway, your revert reintroduced the cite error, but I'll let you all figure it out. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 22:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't have a clue what happened there, nor how to fix it bar a quick bodge-job. I didn't even realise we were editing at the same time until I went to add a ref for the f.19 Anunciation and saw one already there! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

I was only fiddling and copyediting a bit, because I have a number of books about these manuscripts and thought about developing it a little, but I didn't realize it was a DYK nom. I've removed my inline comments. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fiddling. I didn't realize it was a DYK nom either, I try to avoid the process as much as possible. In the hope of drawing attention to these lesser known works and artists, have been thinking about developing a navbox like the French one here but maybe it'd be better to have one that encompasses the whole subject of illuminated manuscripts?

p.s. If you hadn't come across it already, there's a very well-received new book out by Christopher de Hamel: Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts I've asked my library for a copy, but there's a five week wait. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

DYK for Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry

On 29 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry (page pictured) show the "rupture in style" that occurred in French illumination at the end of the fourteenth century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

success! - go defend the image for tomorrow, questioned on DYKTALK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done! That's high for an MS. Do add to the stats (lk above) Johnbod (talk)

A nice surprise. I've added a new image to Pseudo-Jacquemart in case they feel the need to pull the calendar.

Citing the text in Heures de Charles d'Angoulême has been problematic: the fr.wp article was written by someone who almost certainly works for M. Moleiro Editor. He must be using the commentaries which accompany their facsimile – I haven't been able to verify – but I rather suspect it's a copy-paste job. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, John. Hope you've had a good Christmas and all the best for 2017, should be interesting.

Six hours in: already the longest I've gone withoot a ciggy in twenty years, would rip the arms off a toddler for a smoke right now. Luckily have

something nice to get me through. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Nice choice! Back in the 70s I was a big fan of Shane Fentanyl. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Haha. --I feel like Buddyholiday

WOW!!

Just a note to say I bumped into your Seasons' Greetings tapestry. Lovely work! I've not met you before in my editing here (sadly, I am limited to that, and prior to becoming ill, spent half of my time recruiting photos from photographers explaining Creative Commons licensing). I am hoping I just met a friend in you?

Happy New Year! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice to meet you, Leah, and thank you for your kind words. Sorry to hear of your illness, I do hope you get better soon. Kudos for braving the

wiley, windy moors, that's a great selection of photos you've uploaded -- I especially like Percy! All the best for 2017. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Dating the Great Wave

Re: this—nobody knows exactly when the series began, and many sources state it began perhaps in 1829 (which appears to be the earliest date it could have, given that's the year the use of Prussian Blue became affordable for publishers to use). Perhaps another couple of sources thrown in and a c. 1830 date would be best? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was just replying to an old post of yours on the talkpage. Yes, I know. The previous source was Giants of Japan: The Lives of Japan's Most Influential Men and Women which I replaced with Calza's Hokusai, which despite having some problems (notably the incredibly frustrating layout), is a whole lot better. He says 1830–32 is most probable, but additional sources and a note would be good. Do you have any of Matthi Ferrer's books? Anyway, c. 1830 sounds good to me.

While you're here, I'm working on Large Flowers atm if you have anything to add? I particularly need something concrete about its relative lack of popularity in Japan upon publication and extra sources to explain the influence on Western art besides Monet. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the

Mrs Atlee and Miss Lockwood were intrigued!" Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. We'll have to work this hairy Great Wave tribute into the article somehow. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk